Formative Assessment: A Critical Review
Bennett, R. E. · 2011
grade Bcritiqueindependentnot-applicable
Sample
Documentary critique
Population
N/A (analysis of the FA evidence base).
Design
Traces the 0.4-0.7 figure to its (non-existent) source and audits the underlying reviews.
Key findings
The definitive deflation of the formative-assessment headline claim. Also makes the deeper point: 'formative assessment' is defined so variously (instrument vs process vs PD) that the program claim is unfalsifiable until the construct is specified.
Genetic confound
N/A.
Replication notes
Widely accepted; no rebuttal has ever produced a computed source for 0.4-0.7.
DOI / URL
10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678
Effects
| Outcome | Metric | Value | Measure | Timing | Vs | Horizon | Class |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of the 0.4-0.7 claim | verdict | no computed source exists; underlying reviews confuse association with causation; 57/86 articles in a key source review were 30+ years old | unknown | n/a | none | not-applicable | domain-skill |
Cited by
- Feedback and formative assessmentmixedconf: highgc: low