By Bruce Vaughn

To put it bluntly, teachers should be more open-minded in approaching lessons. Some teachers refuse to admit that learning is as much accident as by design. The effort that is put into creating perfectly formed lessons, while important, does little to drive learning. In my experience learning happened for my students, not as a result of the flawless design of my lesson, but as a result of the reflective experiences that I created for my students. To put it simply through much trial and error I discovered that learning only occurred on the far side of reflection (Schoemaker, Brilliant Mistakes 2011). This statement from Schoemaker made me realize that I was attempting to activate student learning through activity instead of thinking. And that this wasn't effective, it was student reflection that I was after not student learning. 

With this realization I set out to create a different type of learner. A contemplative learner. This type of learner, in my estimation, was highly aware of their current state of learning, had a high reflective stamina, was willing to accept critical feedback, and had a growth mindset. This was the learner I wanted to create. So I made a list of of criteria that would show me if my students were becoming contemplative learners and if my students could become contemplative learners then the learning would take care of itself.

A contemplative learner will display the following qualities:

• They show evidence of serious questioning.  
• They demonstrate self-awareness and honesty.  
• They identify examples to support their speculation.    
• They demonstrate strong reflective mechanics.
• They have an ability to synthesize differing ideas and show the relationships between concepts, prior and new knowledge.

 
But I realized that this was only half the battle, defining the qualities of a contemplative learner. The other half was to actually create these learners. To do that I had to be highly aware of the reflective experiences that I was giving the students. Remember Schoemaker says that learning only occurs on the far side of a reflective experience. So with that I realized I could control the learning by managing the type of reflective experience in which I was asking my students to engage. Below is a list of reflective experiences that I used to help create these contemplative learners.

1. Logistical Reflection: What was the assignment? When was it due? Did I get it turned in on time?
2. Completion Reflection: Do I understand the parts of the assignment and how they connect? Did my response completely cover all parts of the assignment? Do I see where this fits in with what we are studying? 
3. Connection Reflection: How was this assignment similar to other assignments? (In this course or others). Do I see connections in content, product or process? Are there ways to adapt it to other assignments? Where could I use this (content, product or process) my life?
4. Practical Reflection: Were the strategies, skills and procedures I used effective for this assignment? Do I see any patterns in how I approached my work - such as following an outline, keeping to deadlines? What were the results of the approach I used - was it efficient, or could I have eliminated or reorganized steps?
5. Scientific Reflection: What are we learning and is it important? Did I do an effective job of communicating my learning to others? What have I learned about my strengths and my areas in need of improvement? How am I progressing as a learner?
6. Personal Reflection:  What suggestions from my teacher or my peer’s can I used to improve my learning? How can I adapt this content or skill to make a difference in my life?
7. Active Reflection: How can I best use my strengths to improve? What steps should I take or resources should I use to meet my challenges? 

Below is a chart that helps define these types of reflection further:

After using this approach for several years as I built contemplative learners I observed my students become self-reliant, self-motivated, and self-reflective learners...and that made and still makes me smile.

By Bruce Vaughn

Rick Stiggins is undoubtedly one of the most prolific and articulate assessment experts. I have learned so much from the work he and his colleagues have shared over the years. One of the most enduring principles that this work articulates that I simply could not agree with more is the idea that students must be kept at the center of the assessment process. As such, in Classroom Assessment for Student Learning (Stiggins, Arter, Chappuis, & Chappuis, 2004), Stiggins and colleagues suggest the following:

. . . if we want to use assessment as a tool for learning, students need to
•      Know where they’re going
•      Know where they are now
•      Know how to close the gap  (p. 34)

I have found that when these items are presented as questions students can use to self-reflect (What am I supposed to learn? Where am I now in my learning? What do I need to do to close the gap?), the resulting pedagogical realizations are much more powerful. I have seen impressive results with teachers who provide students the opportunity to reflect on their knowledge in this way in each lesson. At the same time, I have unfortunately also seen these questions manipulated into a testing experience for which the purpose is not growth and learning but rather an identification of results and indicators of achievement.
By creating a new perspective and a focus on proficiency, teachers can begin to shift the focus from testing and measurement to growth and learning, thereby providing students with the metacognitive experience that is essential to the learning process. To be very clear, I do not believe that anything is wrong with the principles that assessment experts have articulated; in fact, we believe that they are essential to the learning process. However, our experience has been that we can enhance this metacognitive experience for students when we focus their attention on proficiency. To that end, I offer the following questions that students should ask and be able to answer every day in class.

•     Why am I not where I am supposed to be?
•     What thinking led me to where I currently am?
•     Knowing this, how am I going to get from where I am now to where I need to be?

When we engage students with a classroom experience and metacognitive dialogue regarding proficiency, we significantly expedite their process of learning. By beginning with “Why am I not where I am supposed to be?” proficiency is driven to the center of the instructional exchanges between teacher and student. The main advantage to this centralized positioning of proficiency is that it requires the teacher to communicate more effectively and students to reflect more efficiently. The dual perspective of this first question is also powerful in that it requires students not only to know what proficient is but also to reflect with an eye on their own proficiency.

The second question, “What thinking led me to where I currently am?” forces students to dive deeper into the first question by reflecting and asking themselves to make claims about what misunderstandings they may have had related to their answer from question one. For example, let’s say a proficiency-based target stated, “I can consistently recognize vocabulary in a familiar context.” If a teacher were to have students look at this target and ask themselves, “What thinking led me to where I currently am?” a proficiency-based mindset would emerge. Students now would be able to reflect on and observe what thinking patterns might have led them astray.

The third question, “How am I going to get from where I am now to where I need to be?” addresses the universal cure to any problem: action. But what is different is that in our new essential question hierarchy, the student has now engaged this third question with proficiency in mind. In the original set of questions, students answer the question, “What do I need to do to close the gap?” But with this new proficiency-based question, student action is now directly related to the target. When a proficiency-based target such as the one above is used with the question, “How am I going to get from where I am now to where I need to be?” the resulting student actions become self-prescriptive and far more effective. By shaping essential questions in this manner, proficiency is placed at the core of any instruction and places importance on reflection practices in the classroom. These questions are crucial to effective instruction and creating a culture of learning in our classrooms.

By Bruce Vaughn
With all the interpretations of formative assessment out there it can get confusing. While there is no one correct definition of what formative assessment is I have found that after reviewing an exhaustive list of formative assessment resources an effective way to define quality formative assessment practice can be summed up in four terms:

1. Intangible – A process, not a product
2. Instantaneous – quick (low) reaction time to assessment feedback by the student
3. Inseparable – Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment are all same thing, sewn together by a learning target
4. Individualized – Student uses own thinking as a learning tool

 
Intangible
Formative Assessment is a Process
The understanding that teaching, assessment, and reflection are not a product but a process is essential to implementing assessment. We must understand that assessment is all around us, happening in real time. It is the real-time nature of assessment that allows us to view it as a process, instead of product. The intangible aspect is means assessment is not outcomes-based, meaning only searching for right answers.

Outcomes-based evidence collection is too shallow of a purpose for assessment. Assessment must be seen as reflective interaction with someone's expectation. (Gobble, Onuscheck, Reibel, Twadell 2016) and attempt to expose thinking patterns, logic and rationalization, and emerging ideas. This means that any evidence can be used to determine whether someone's is at your expectation. Thus assessment is not a thing you give students it is the process you enter into with them to determine if they are meeting the desired state of competency.

Instantaneous
Formative Assessment results, and feedback, are reviewed and reapplied in a timely manner
The understanding that teaching and learning are instantaneous begs the question, “why do we take so long to teach something to a student?” Teachers view learning as an incremental and scaffolded accumulation of knowledge or skill and pay little attention to the notion that learning is not of linear time and space, but rather a function of non – linear proficiency development. In order to deepen their understanding of instantaneous teacher must pay attention to reaction time to feedback.
Quality assessment is based primarily on reaction time to feedback. If a student takes an assessment and does nothing with the results or feedback produced from the assessment in a proper amount of time then may never take hold. Learning is only as effective as:

1. The level of which a student accepts (trusts) the feedback from a teacher
2. The time it takes for a student to apply teacher feedback

If a student doesn't trust or accept the feedback from a teacher then learning stops right there. Why would I listen to you? is the question that a student may ask himself or herself if they simply don't value the feedback from the teacher.

However if a student does accept the feedback but a teacher doesn't ask the student to do anything with it (reapply it) in the appropriate amount of time then learning will not take hold either. The feedback will simply fade into the background and become organized the "Not sure why we did this?" file.

It is essential that teachers pay attention to the instantaneous nature of effective assessment. By placing feedback accountability to react in a timely manner to my critique of their current state of proficiency on the student we increase reflection as a learning tool and students begin to rely on and trust their own thinking during the lesson.
 
Inseparable
Formative Assessment is Instruction.
From the work with proficiency based assessment I can say confidently that curriculum, assessment, instruction, and feedback all occupy the same learning space. They are not separate entities. They are so closely intertwined that they appear to me as the same element. Think about it this way, When I have an expectation of you (curriculum) I outline that expectation to you, then you interact with said expectation (assessment) through demonstration, dialogue or reflection. And as you interact with the expectation I clarify and contextualize any evidence that is being produced by your interaction with the expectation (instruction) in order to give you proper perspective of self.  Lastly you adjust your thinking or performance as you react to my now more clarified expectation (feedback).
 
It is important to remember that curriculum, assessment, instruction, and reflection are not separate. Together they create the 'soup' that allows teachers to truly realize assessment as a process.
 
Individualized
Formative Assessment Builds Efficacy
When students begin to show autonomy in learning lessons become far less 'cookie cutter' and become more dynamic ultimately making learning more individualized for the student. Not because the teacher individualized it but because the student starts to see the knowledge through their own learning lens (emerging thinking about their own proficiency levels).  When students are asked to constantly create and review their own proficiency levels they build the skill of efficacy. 

Efficacy is defined in the dictionary as "one's ability to independently achieve or satisfy a desired state or expectation".  As a colleague of mine put it "Assessments are events that attempt to lessen the student's reliance on me (the teacher)." This all important skill is at the heart of formative assessment. As we build and implement formative assessment we must consider that the goal of these types of assessments are to hold students accountable to be more trusting and reliant on their own thinking.


The structure of the four Is were  influenced and adapted from a presentation in 2013 entitled "Perspectives on Business innovation" by a professor at Northwestern University named Mohan Sawhney.