Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Stichwort – Formatives Assessment

Keyword—Formative assessment

  • Schwerpunkt
  • Published:
Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Formatives Assessment gilt als eines der wirksamsten Rahmenkonzepte zur Förderung schulischen Lernens. Es bezeichnet die lernbegleitende Beurteilung von Schülerleistung mit dem Ziel, diagnostische Informationen zu nutzen, um Unterricht und Lernen zu verbessern. Grundlegende Merkmale von formativem Assessment sind die Klärung von Lernzielen, die Diagnose der individuellen Leistung sowie eine darauf basierende Rückmeldung und Förderung. Die Gestaltung von formativem Assessment reicht von spontanem on-the-fly-Assessment bis hin zu im Voraus geplantem, formalisiertem und curricular eingebettetem Assessment. Studien untermauern die lernförderliche Wirkung von formativem Assessment, wobei diese von der konkreten Gestaltung abhängt. Obwohl politische, wissenschaftliche und schulische Entwicklungen zur Implementation von formativem Assessment beitragen, ist die Umsetzung nach wie vor herausfordernd. Im vorliegenden Beitrag wird der aktuelle Forschungsstand dargelegt, indem eine begriffliche Bestimmung und Charakterisierung des Konstrukts vorgenommen wird, empirische Befunde zur Wirksamkeit präsentiert sowie implementationsrelevante Entwicklungen und Herausforderungen beschrieben werden.

Abstract

Formative assessment is considered one of the most effective frameworks to foster learning. It is defined as assessment of student performance aimed at providing diagnostic information to improve teaching and learning. Basic characteristics of formative assessment are the clarification of learning goals, the diagnosis of individual performance, as well as the provision of feedback and individual differentiation based on the diagnostic information. The design of formative assessment varies from spontaneous on-the-fly assessment to planned and formalized curricular-embedded assessment. Studies support the positive effect of formative assessment on learning with its impact varying depending on the concrete implementation. Although there are developments in politics, science, and schools contributing to the implementation of formative assessment, transfer into practice remains challenging. The present paper describes the current state of research by defining and characterizing the construct, presenting empirical results on its efficacy, and by addressing developments and challenges associated with its implementation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1

Notes

  1. Es wird deutlich, dass die Klassifikation formativen Assessments eng orientiert ist an der Unterscheidung von Diagnosemöglichkeiten (z. B. Beobachtung vs. Testung). Sie geht darüber hinaus aber auch, zumindest in Teilen, mit verschiedenen Ausprägung weiterer Merkmale formativen Assessments einher (z. B. spontane mündliche vs. schriftliche Rückmeldung).

  2. Angelo und Cross (1993) postulieren beispielsweise folgende Schritte bei der Implementation formativen Assessments: drei Schritte der Planung ([1] Auswahl einer Klasse in der das Assessment durchgeführt wird, [2] Fokussierung eines spezifischen Lerngegenstandes bzw. Lernziels, [3] Auswahl einer Assessmenttechnik); drei Schritte der Durchführung ([4] Durchführung der Unterrichtsstunde, die sich auf den Lerngegenstand bezieht, [5] Durchführung des Assessments, [6] Analyse der Daten) und drei Phasen der Reaktion ([7] Interpretation der Ergebnisse und Ableitung von Fördermaßnahmen, [8] Rückmeldung der Ergebnisse an die Schülerinnen und Schüler, [9] Evaluation des Assessmentprojekts).

Literatur

  • Aleven, V., Roll, I., McLaren, B., & Koedinger, K. (2010). Automated, unobtrusive, action-by-action assessment of self-regulation during learning with an intelligent tutoring system. Educational Psychologist, 45(4), 224–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2010.517740.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrade, H. L. (2010). Summing up and moving forward: Key challenges and future directions for research and development in formative assessment. In H. L. Andrade & G. J. Cizek (Hrsg.), Handbook of formative assessment (S. 344–351). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrade, H. L., & Cizek, G. J. (Hrsg.). (2010). Handbook of formative assessment. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers (2. Aufl.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, E. E., & Yun, J. T. (2012). Mathematics curricula and formative assessments: Toward an error-based approach to formative data use in mathematics. Santa Barbara: University of California Educational Evaluation Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bastian, J., Combe, A., & Langer, R. (2003). Feedbackmethoden. Erprobte Konzepte, evaluierte Erfahrungen. Weinheim: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauch, W. (2010). Kompetenzorientierter Unterricht – Akzente setzen, die Chancen nutzen. Das Marburger Pilotprojekt „Kompetenzorientiert unterrichten“ 2008–2010. Schulpädagogik heute, 1(1), 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beatty, I. D., & Gerace, J. W. (2009). Technology-enhanced formative assessment: A research-based pedagogy for teaching science with classroom response technology. Journal of Scientific Educational Technology, 18, 146–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9140-4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, R. E. (2002). Inexorable and inevitable: The continuing story of technology and assessment. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 1(1), 2–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergan, J. R., Sladeczek, I. E., Schwarz, R. D., & Smith, A. N. (1991). Effects of a measurement and planning system on kindergartners’ cognitive development and educational programming. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 683–714.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernholt, S., Rönnebeck, S., Ropohl, M., Köller, O., & Parchmann, I. (2013). Report on current state of the art in formative and summative assessment in IBE in STM: Report from the FP7 project ASSIST-ME (Deliverable 2.4). Kiel: Leibniz-Institut für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften und Mathematik.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, and Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S. (1969). Some theoretical issues relating to educational evaluation. In R. W. Tyler (Hrsg.), Educational evaluation: new roles, new means: the 63rd yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (part II) (Bd. 69(2), S. 26–50). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broadfoot, P. M., Daugherty, R., Gardner, J., Gipps, C. V., Harlen, W., & James, M. (1999). Assessment for learning: beyond the black box. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broadfoot, P. M., Daugherty, R., Gardner, J., Harlen, W., James, M., & Stobart, G. (2002). Assessment for learning: 10 principles. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brookhart, S. M. (2010). Mixing it up: combining sources of classroom achievement information for formative and summative purpose. In H. L. Andrade & G. J. Cizek (Hrsg.), Handbook of formative assessment (S. 279–296). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brookhart, S. M., Moss, C. M., & Long, B. A. (2008). Formative assessment that empowers. Educational Leadership, 66(3), 52–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bürgermeister, A., Klimczak, M., Klieme, E., Rakoczy, K., Blum, W., Leiß, D., et al. (2011). Leistungsbeurteilung im Mathematikunterricht – Eine Darstellung des Projekts „Nutzung und Auswirkungen der Kompetenzmessung in mathematischen Lehr-Lernprozessen“. Schulpädagogik – heute, 2(3), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: a theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543065003245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, L., & Chen, T.-L. (2012). Use of Twitter for formative evaluation: Reflections on trainer and trainees’ experiences. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43, 49–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cizek, G. J. (2010). An introduction to formative assessment: History, characteristics and challenges. In H. L. Andrade & G. J. Cizek (Hrsg.), Handbook of formative assessment (S. 3–17). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, I. (2012). Formative assessment: Assessment is for self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 24, 205–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9191-6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowie, B., & Bell, B. (1999). A model of formative assessment in science education. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 6(1), 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695949993026.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1964). Evaluation for course improvement. In R. W. Heath (Hrsg.), New Curricula (S. 231–248). New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crooks, T. J. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational Research, 58, 438–481. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543058004438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Decristan, J., Hondrich, A. L., Büttner, G., Hertel, S., Klieme, E., Kunter, M., & Hardy, I. (2015). Impact of additional guidance in science education on primary students’ conceptual understanding. Journal of Educational Research, 108, 358–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/002206712014.899957.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dervan, P. (2014). Increasing in-class student engagement using Socrative (an online student response system). The All Ireland Journal of Teaching & Learning in Higher Education, 6, 1801–1803.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, K. E., & Mulvenon, S. W. (2009). A critical review of research on formative assessment: The limited scientific evidence of the impact of formative assessment in education. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 14(7), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Espin, C. A., Wayman, M. M., Deno, S. L., McMaster, K. L., & de Rooij, M. (2017). Data-based decision-making: Developing a method for capturing teachers’ understanding of CBM graphs. Learning disabilities, 32(1), 8–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faber, J. M., Luyten, H., & Visscher, A. J. (2017). The effects of a digital formative assessment tool on mathematics achievement and student motivation: Results of a randomized experiment. Computers & Education, 76, 83–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fontana, D., & Fernandes, M. (1994). Improvements in mathematics performance as a consequence of self-assessment in Portuguese primary school pupils. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 407–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Förster, N., & Souvignier, E. (2014). Learning progress assessment and goal setting: Effects on reading achievement, reading motivation and reading self-concept. Learning and Instruction, 32, 91–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, L. S. (2017). Curriculum-based measurement as the emerging alternative: three decades later. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32, 5–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53(3), 199–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gikandi, J., Morrow, D., & Davis, N. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2333–2351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grob, R., Beerenwinkel, A., Haselhofer, M., Holmeier, M., Stübi, C., Tsivitanidou, O., & Labudde, P. (2014). Description of the ASSIST-ME assessment methods and competences (Deliverable 4.7). Basel: University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harks, B. (2013). Kompetenzdiagnostik und Rückmeldung – zwei Komponenten formativen Assessments. Frankfurt a. M.: Goethe-Universität. Unveröffentlichte Dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harlen, W. (2008). Editor’s introduction. In W. Harlen (Hrsg.), Student Assessment and Testing (S. xix–xlvi). London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasselhorn, M., Decristan, J., & Klieme, E. (2018). Individuelle Förderung. In O. Köller, M. Hasselhorn, F. W. Hesse, K. Maaz, J. Schrader, H. Solga, C. K. Spieß, & K. Zimmer (Hrsg.), Das Bildungswesen in Deutschland: Bestand und Potenziale. Bad Heilbrunn: UTB/Klinkhardt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helmke, A., & Lenske, G. (2013). Unterrichtsdiagnostik als Voraussetzung für Unterrichtsentwicklung. Beiträge zur Lehrerbildung, 31(2), 214–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heritage, M. (2007). Formative assessment: What do teachers need to know and do? Phi Delta Kappan, 89, 140–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, K. M., Harris, N. A., & Kuehn, L. L. (1994). Placing assessment into the hands of young children: a study of student-generated criteria and self-assessment. Educational Assessment, 2, 309–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, M., Cowie, B., Gilmore, A., & Smith, L. F. (2010). Preparing assessment-capable teachers: What should preservice teachers know and be able to do? Assessment Matters, 2, 43–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosenfeld, I., & Zimmer-Müller, M. (2009). Was VERA Lehrern sagen kann. Über Sinn und Interpretation von Vergleichsarbeiten in der Grundschule. Schule im Blickpunkt, 5, 8–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ikemoto, G. S., & Marsh, J. A. (2007). Cutting through the data decision mantra: Different conception of data-driven decision making. In P. A. Moss (Hrsg.), Evidence and decision making (S. 105–131). Malden: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingenkamp, K. (1985). Lehrbuch der Pädagogischen Diagnostik. Weinheim: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, M. (2006). Assessment, teaching and theories of learning. In J. Gardner (Hrsg.), Assessment and Learning (S. 47–60). London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, M., & Pedder, D. (2006). Professional learning as a condition for assessment for learning. In J. Gardner (Hrsg.), Assessment and Learning (S. 27–25). London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2011). Formative assessment: A meta-analysis and a call for research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30, 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2011.00220.x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2015). Erratum. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 34(2), 55. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12075.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klecker, B. M. (2003). The impact of formative feedback on student learning in an online classroom. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 34, 161–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klieme, E., & Warwas, J. (2011). Konzepte der individuellen Förderung. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 57(6), 805–818.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klieme, E., Bürgermeister, A., Harks, B., Blum, W., Leiß, D., & Rakoczy, K. (2010). Leistungsbeurteilung und Kompetenzmodellierung im Mathematikunterricht. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 56, 64–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–284. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.119.2.254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koedinger, K. R., & Aleven, V. (2007). Exploring the assistance dilemma in experiments with cognitive tutors. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 239–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koeppen, K., Hartig, J., Klieme, E., & Leutner, D. (2008). Current issues in competence modeling and assessment. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 216, 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.216.2.61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Köller, O. (2005). Formative assessment in classrooms: a review of the empirical German literature. In OECD (Hrsg.), Formative assessment: Improving learning in secondary classrooms (S. 265–279). Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kultusministerkonferenz (2004). Standards für die Lehrerbildung: Bildungswissenschaften. Beschluss der Kulusminiterkonferenz vom 16.12.2004. http://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/veroeffentlichungen_beschluesse/2004/2004_12_16-Standards-Lehrerbildung.pdf. Zugegriffen: 11. Juni 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leahy, S., Lyon, C., Thompson, M., & Wiliam, D. (2005). Classroom assessment: Minute-by-minute and day-by-day. Educational Leadership, 63(3), 19–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, R. H., & Seeber, S. (2005). Accelerated Mathematics in grades 4–6. Summary of a quasi-experimental study in Northrhine-Westphalia, Germany. http://research.renlearn.com/research/pdfs/192.pdf. Zugegriffen: 11. Juni 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Q. (2008). Preservice teachers’ learning experiences of constructing e‑portfolios online. The Internet and Higher Education, 11, 194–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma, W., Adesope, O. O., Nesbit, J. C., & Liu, Q. (2014). Intelligent tutoring systems and learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(4), 901–918. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maier, U. (2010a). Formative Assessment – Ein erfolgversprechendes Konzept zur Reform von Unterricht und Leistungsmessung? Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 13(2), 293–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-010-0124-9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maier, U. (2010b). Vergleichsarbeiten im Spannungsfeld zwischen formativer und summativer Leistungsmessung. Die Deutsche Schule, 102(1), 60–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maier, U. (2011). Formative Leistungsdiagnostik in der Sekundarstufe I – Befunde einer quantitativen Lehrerbefragung zu Nutzung und Korrelaten verschiedener Typen formativer Diagnosemethoden in Gymnasien. Empirische Pädagogik, 25(1), 25–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maier, U., Hofmann, F., & Zeitler, S. (2012). Formative Leistungsdiagnostik. Grundlagen und Praxisbeispiele. München: Oldenburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maier, U., Wolf, N., & Randler, C. (2016). Effects of a computer-assisted formative assessment intervention based on multiple-tier diagnostic items and different feedback types. Computers & Education, 75, 85–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandinach, E. B. (2012). A perfect time for data use: Using data-driven decision making to inform practice. Educational Psychologist, 47, 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.667064.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, T., & Yan, Z. (2017). Diverse delivery methods and strong psychological benefits: A review of online formative assessment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(6), 562–574. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12200.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMillan, J. (2010). The practical implications of educational aims and contexts for formative assessment. In H. L. Andrade & G. J. Cizek (Hrsg.), Handbook of formative assessment (S. 41–58). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Natriello, G. (1987). The impact of evaluation processes on students. Educational Psychologist, 22(2), 155–175. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2202_4.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2005). Formative assessment: Improving learning in secondary classrooms. http://www.oecd.org/publications/Policybriefs. Zugegriffen: 11. Juni 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2008). Assessment for learning: The case for formative assessment learning in the 21st century: Research, innovation and policy. http://www.oecd.org/publications/Policybriefs. Zugegriffen: 11. Juni 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panadero, E., Brown, G. T. L., & Strijobs, J.-W. (2016). The future of student self-assessment: A review of known unknown and potential directions. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 803–830.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing what students know. The science and design of educational assessment. Washington: National Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poggio, A., Poggio, J., & Glasnapp, D. (2007). The utility and impact of online computerized formative and early warning asessments on student performance. Vortrag gehalten auf der Tagung des National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago.

  • Preiser, S. (2000). Feedback nach Referaten als hochschuldidaktisches Instrument. In G. Krampen (Hrsg.), Psychologiedidaktik und Evaluation II (S. 187–202). Bonn: Deutscher Psychologen Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rakoczy, K., Klieme, E., Leiß, D., & Blum, W. (2017). Formative assessment in mathematics instruction: Theoretical considerations and empirical results of the Co2CA project. In D. Leutner, J. Fleischer, J. Grünkorn, & E. Klieme (Hrsg.), Competence assessment in education (S. 447–468). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramaprasad, A. (1983). On the definition of feedback. Behavioural Science, 28(1), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830280103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Furtak, E. M. (2006). Informal formative assessment and scientific inquiry: Exploring teachers’ practices and student learning. Educational Assessment, 11(3/4), 205–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2006.9652991.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Furtak, E. M. (2007). Exploring teachers’ informal formative assessment practives and students’ understanding of scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science and Teaching, 44(1), 57–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russel, M. (2010). Technology-aided formative assessment and learning: New developments and applications. In H. L. Andrade & G. J. Cizek (Hrsg.), Handbook of formative assessment (S. 125–138). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117714.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez, C. E., Atkinson, K. M., Koenka, A. C., Moshontz, H., & Cooper, H. (2017). Self-grading and peer-grading for formative and summative assessments in 3rd through 12th grade classrooms: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(8), 1049–1066.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schütze, B., Rakoczy, K., Klieme, E., Besser, M., & Leiss, D. (2017). Training effects on teachers’ feedback practice: the mediating function of feedback knowledge and the moderating role of self-efficacy. ZDM Mathematics Education, 49(3), 475–489.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagne, & M. Scriven (Hrsg.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation (S. 38–83). Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shavelson, R. J. (2008). Guest editor’s introduction. Applied Measurement in Education, 21(4), 293–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shavelson, R. J., Young, D. B., Ayala, C. C., Brandon, P. R., Furtak, E. M., & Ruiz-Primo, M. A. (2008). On the impact of curriculum-embedded formative assessment on learning: A collaboration between curriculum and assessment developers. Applied Measurement in Education, 21(4), 295–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957340802347647.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X029007004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795.

    Google Scholar 

  • Souvignier, E., Förster, N., & Salaschek, M. (2014a). Quop: Ein Ansatz internetbasierter Lernverlaufsdiagnostik mit Testkonzepten für Lesen und Mathematik. In M. Hasselhorn, W. Schneider, & U. Trautwein (Hrsg.), Lernverlaufsdiagnostik (S. 239–256). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Souvignier, E., Förster, N., & Schulte, E. (2014b). Wirksamkeit formativen Assessments – Evaluation des Ansatzes der Lernverlaufsdiagnostik. In M. Hasselhorn, W. Schneider, & U. Trautwein (Hrsg.), Lernverlaufsdiagnostik (S. 221–238). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staman, L., Timmermanns, A. C., & Visscher, A. J. (2017). Effects of a data-based decision making intervention on student achievement. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 55, 58–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stecker, P. M. (2017). Reflections on teachers’ data-based decision making. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 32, 71–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stecker, P. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Using Curriculum-Based Measurement to Improve Student Achievement: Review of Research. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 795–819.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Cooper, H. (2014). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on college students’ academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 331–347. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034752.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiggins, R. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment for learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(10), 758–765.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strandberg, M. (2013). Homework – is there a connection with classroom assessment? A review from Sweden. Educational Research, 55(4), 325–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2013.844936.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strathmann, A. M., & Klauer, K. J. (2012). LVD-M 2–4. Lernverlaufsdiagnostik-Mathematik für zweite bis vierte Klassen. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strijbos, J.-W., & Sluijsmans, D. (2010). Unravelling peer assessment: Methodological, functional, and conceptual developments. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 265–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. J. (2010). Peers as a source of formative assessment. In H. L. Andrade & G. J. Cizek (Hrsg.), Handbook of formative assessment (S. 61–74). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • VanLehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46(4), 197–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/-00461520.2011.611369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Velan, G. M., Rakesh, K. K., Mark, D., & Wakefield, D. (2002). Web-based self-assessments in pathology with questionmark perception. Pathology, 34, 282–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313020220131372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Visible Learning Lab (2010). Educator manual. E‑asTTle fitness for national standards. http://e-asttle.tki.org.nz/User-manuals. Zugegriffen: 11. Juni 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vonderwell, S. (1998). Assessing online learning and teaching: Adapting the minute paper. TechTrends, 48, 29–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walter, J. (2010). LDL. Lernfortschrittsdiagnostik Lesen (LDL). Ein curriculumbasiertes Verfahren. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walter, J. (2013). VSL. Verlaufsdiagnostik sinnerfassenden Lesens. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiliam, D. (2010). An integrative summary of the research literature and implications for a new theory of formative assessment. In H. L. Andrade & G. J. Cizek (Hrsg.), Handbook of formative assessment (S. 18–40). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiliam, D., & Thompson, M. (2008). Integrating assessment with learning: What will it take to make it work? In C. A. Dwyer (Hrsg.), The future of assessment: Shaping teaching and learning (S. 53–82). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, F. (1991). Schüler lernen Selbstbewertung. Ein Weg zur Veränderung der Leistungsbeurteilung und des Lernens. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wylie, E. C., Gullickson, A. R., Cummings, K. E., Egelson, P. E., Noakes, L. A., & Norman, K. M. (2012). Improving formative assessment practice to empower student learning. Thousand Oakes: Corwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ysseldyke, J. E., & Bolt, D. M. (2007). Effect of technology-enhanced continuous progress monitoring on math achievement. School Psychology Review, 36, 453–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeuch, N., Förster, N., & Souvignier, E. (2017). Assessing teachers’ competencies to read and interpret graphs from learning progress assessment. Results from tests and interviews. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 32, 61–70.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Psychologie in Bildung und Erziehung, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, 48149, Fliednerstraße 21, Deutschland

    Birgit Schütze &  Elmar Souvignier

  2. Abteilung Bildung und Entwicklung, Deutsches Institut für Internationale Pädagogische Forschung, Schloßstraße 29, 60486, Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland

    Marcus Hasselhorn

Authors
  1. Birgit Schütze
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elmar Souvignier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marcus Hasselhorn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Birgit Schütze.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schütze, B., Souvignier, E. & Hasselhorn, M. Stichwort – Formatives Assessment. Z Erziehungswiss 21, 697–715 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-018-0838-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-018-0838-7

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation