King’s Research Portal
DOI:
10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
Document Version
Early version, also known as pre-print
Link to publication record in King's Research Portal
Citation for published version (APA):
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment,
Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
Citing this paper
Please note that where the full-text provided on King's Research Portal is the Author Accepted Manuscript or Post-Print version this may
differ from the final Published version. If citing, it is advised that you check and use the publisher's definitive version for pagination,
volume/issue, and date of publication details. And where the final published version is provided on the Research Portal, if citing you are
again advised to check the publisher's website for any subsequent corrections.
General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the Research Portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright
owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognize and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.
•Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the Research Portal for the purpose of private study or research.
•You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain
•You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the Research Portal
Take down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact librarypure@kcl.ac.uk providing details, and we will remove access to
the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Download date: 09. Aug. 2022
Revise of 3
rd
November 08
Developing the theory of formative assessment
Paul Black, King’s College London,
and
Dylan Wiliam, Institute of Education, University of London
To appear in Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability (formerly the Journal of
Personnel Evaluation in Education), 1(1) (2009).
Abstract
Whilst many definitions of formative assessment have been offered, there is no
clear rationale to define and delimit it within broader theories of pedagogy. This
paper aims to offer such a rationale, within a framework which can also unify the
diverse set of practices which have been described as formative. The analysis is
used to relate formative assessment both to other pedagogic initiatives, notably
cognitive acceleration and dynamic assessment, and to some of the existing
literature on models of self-regulated learning and on classroom discourse. This
framework should indicate potentially fruitful lines for further enquiry, whilst at
the same time opening up new ways of helping teachers to implement formative
practices more effectively.
1. Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to develop the theory of formative assessment beyond the stage
reached in our earlier writing, drawing on a variety of sources in the literature that have
addressed this issue, whether directly or obliquely. Our earliest work on formative assessment
(Black & Wiliam 1998a; 1998b) did not start from any pre-defined theoretical base but
instead drew together a wide range of research findings relevant to the notion of formative
assessment. Work with teachers to explore the practical applications of lessons distilled
therefrom (Black et al., 2002; 2003) led to a set of advisory practices that were presented on a
pragmatic basis, with a nascent but only vaguely outlined underlying unity. So our first aim
in this paper is to provide a unifying basis for the diverse practices which are said to be
formative.
Subsequently, (Black & Wiliam, 2006) we explored the changes that occurred in the
classrooms of teachers developing formative assessment, and proposed a theoretical frame for
the study of such classrooms. However, this theoretical frame was grounded in the data
1
Revise of 3
rd
November 08
collected from classroom observations and interviews with teachers, and no systematic
attempt was made to connect these data to work on such topics as classroom practice, or the
regulation of learning. Other recent work has focused on aspects of implementation, notably
on effecting change with communities of teachers (Wiliam, 2007) and on problems of
superficial adoption (Black, 2007), whilst both the book by Black et al. (2003) and the studies
of the project on “Learning how to learn” (James et al., 2007) have discussed the learning
practice underlying formative practices
In the conclusion of our 2006 article, we raised the wider issue of the role of formative
assessment:
Thus, whilst we cannot argue that development of formative assessment is the only way, or even
the best way, to open up a broader range of desirable changes in classroom learning, we can see
that it may be peculiarly effective, in part because the quality of interactive feedback is a critical
feature in determining the quality of learning activity, and is therefore a central feature of
pedagogy. (p.100)
This introduces our second aim in this paper, which is to locate formative interactions within
more comprehensive theories of pedagogy.
Perrenoud (1998), commenting on our 1998 review, further emphasised the need to place any
treatment in a broader context of studies of formative assessment:
This [feedback] no longer seems to me, however, to be the central issue. It would seem more
important to concentrate on the theoretical models of learning and its regulation and their
implementation. These constitute the real systems of thought and action, in which feedback is only
one element. (p. 86)
This expanded the agenda, for the issues that it raised require that a wider range of theories be
considered, so that the concept of formative interaction may be enriched and contextualised
in the light of relevant theories. This task of linking our analysis to other theoretical writing
about learning interactions will be our third aim.
2
Revise of 3
rd
November 08
Finally, the argument must return to its starting point in the classroom practices of formative
assessment, so we shall consider, as a fourth aim, how our findings, and any further
theoretical reflection, might suggests ways to extend and/or improve those practices.
Our analysis will be exploratory rather than definitive: its main value might be to guide
development of further enquiries, so our fifth aim will be to offer suggestion about such
enquiries.
In what follows, we shall first set out in section 2 a summary of recent work that addresses
our first aim. Then in section 3 we shall suggest a general model of teacher-learner
interactions that will set the scene for consideration, in section 4, of how teachers might
interpret the responses of learners. The next step is to consider how teachers might frame and
steer their feedback to any responses. This is discussed at two levels. In section 5 we discuss
the strategic level, i.e. how the formulation of feedback is guided by the teacher’s broader
pedagogical orientation. In section 6 we then discuss the tactical level, looking at the fine-
grain of types of response and the lessons learned from studies of classroom discourse.
There is not a one-to-one match between these sections and our five aims. We shall examine
within each section how it contributes to particular aims. This will be the basis for section 7
which will present our overview of the extent to which our treatment has met our aims.
2 A unifying basis
The purpose of this section is to draw together ideas developed in several earlier publications
in order to serve our first aim of helping to provide a unifying basis for the diverse practices
that are said to be formative.
Early work on formative assessment centred on five main types of activity, suggested by
evidence of their potential effectiveness, and developed with and by teachers in normal
classroom work (Wiliam, 2000, Black et al., 2003; Wiliam, 2007):
Sharing success criteria with learners
Classroom questioning
Comment-only marking
3
Revise of 3
rd
November 08
Peer- and self-assessment
Formative use of summative tests
However, whilst each of these five broad headings appeared to be connected to the central
idea of formative assessment, precisely how they are so connected was not clearly articulated.
Furthermore, the lack of a theoretical foundation raised questions about whether these five
collectively exhaust the domain of formative assessment practice.
In order to provide a better theoretical grounding for formative assessment, Wiliam and
Thompson (2007) drew on Ramaprasad’s (1983) three key processes in learning and teaching:
Establishing where the learners are in their learning
Establishing where they are going
Establishing what needs to be done to get them there
Traditionally, the teacher has been regarded as responsible for each of these three, but it is
also necessary to take account of the role that the learners themselves, and their peers, play in
them. The teacher is responsible for designing and implementing an effective learning
environment, and the learner is responsible for the learning within that environment.
Furthermore, since the responsibility for learning rests with both the teacher and the learner, it
is incumbent on each to do all they can to mitigate the impact of any failures of the other (in
the language of partnership law, teachers and learners are jointly and severally liable!).
Crossing the three processes with the different agents (teacher, peer, learner) suggests the
framework shown in figure 1 (from Wiliam & Thompson, 2007), indicating that formative
assessment can be conceptualized as consisting of five key strategies:
1. clarifying and sharing learning intentions and criteria for success
1
;
2. engineering effective classroom discussions and other learning tasks that elicit
evidence of student understanding;
1
The importance of “success criteria” and “learning intentions” was emphasised by Clarke
(2001).
4
