Assessment for Learning – A Foundation for the LPM
Introduction
Assessment plays a crucial role in education because it tells us whether students are truly learning what we intend to teach. Think of it as the bridge between teaching and learning. Traditional assessments often focus on ranking students or certifying their proficiency, but they don’t always help students improve because they mainly provide grades without much guidance (Wiliam, 2017). I have written about this in some detail in several previous posts, including The Learning Progression Model, Assessment 3.0, and Going Gradeless vs. Traditional Grading.
However, this summer I came across Assessment for Learning (AfL). I had heard the term before, but did not realize that it represented a well-documented approach to teaching and learning. Sifting through the research, I ended up reading over a dozen articles (all listed in the reference section, if you want to read it yourself.)
In this post, I want to explore not just what AfL is, but how it provides a solid pedagogical foundation for the Learning Progression Model (LPM). Like LPM, AfL is not simply a method to better meet the needs of all learners, but provides the flexibility and individuality that teachers want and the accountability that administrators need.
What is Assessment for Learning?
Assessment for Learning (AfL) is a teaching approach that shifts the focus from simply measuring learning to actively supporting it (Wiliam, 2011). Unlike traditional assessments, which emphasize grades, AfL prioritizes giving students detailed feedback that helps them understand their progress and shows teachers how to adjust their strategies to meet students’ needs (Schellekens et al., 2021).
The central idea is that assessment should provide ongoing feedback to students and teachers, helping students understand their learning progress and guiding teachers in adjusting their teaching strategies to better meet students’ needs (Taras, 2010; Wiliam, 2017b).
Core Components of Assessment for Learning
According to Dylan Wiliam (2011), AfL involves several key elements:
- Learning Goals and Success Criteria: Teachers need to clearly communicate what students are expected to learn and why it matters. Students need to understand what they are expected to learn, why it is important, and what they will be able to do as a result (Marzano, 2007). Teachers must also provide lessons and support to ensure students fully comprehend these objectives (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Schellekens, 2021; Wiliam, 2017b).
- Formative Assessment: Engaging in regular practice means that students take frequent, low-stakes, formative assessments. Both formal and informal, these assessments are conducted during the learning process to gauge the students’ understanding, improving both student learning and motivation (Black, 1998; Wiliam, 2011). These assessments monitor student learning and provide ongoing feedback to both instructors and students, helping improve both teaching and learning (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Wiliam, 2017b).
- Feedback: Descriptive feedback is one of the most effective interventions for promoting student learning by helping learners set goals, monitor progress, and reflect upon outcomes (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). After collecting assessment data, teachers should provide feedback that is abundant, ongoing, specific, actionable, and timely, providing the students with the information they need to improve (Hattie, 2008; Wolterinck et al., 2022a). True learning is demonstrated when students can show improved performance on similar or subsequent assignments (Taras, 2002).
- Student Engagement: AfL encourages students to take an active role in their learning. As stated earlier, they can only do these if they understand the success criteria well. Peer reviews, goal setting, conferencing, interactive dialog, and peer collaboration all enhance learning outcomes and motivation by directly assessing their own and their peers’ work (Schellekens et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2024; Wolterinck et al., 2022b). When students are involved, they’re more motivated and better able to understand and apply what they’re learning.
- Closing the Learning Gap: Teachers use the information from assessments to plan future lessons and tailor instruction to each student’s needs, ensuring that every student gets the support they need to succeed (Wiliam, 2011). Differentiating instruction based on student needs requires teachers to know each student well; it also requires patience and positive views of diversity (Lim, 2024; Zhang, 2022). This process involves planning each unit with continuous improvement in mind (Wiliam, 2017b).
The process seems self-perpetuating, not only creating a positive feedback loop but an upward spiral of progress.
Why AfL Matters
AfL creates a positive feedback loop, continually improving both teaching and learning. Research shows that when AfL is done right, it significantly boosts student achievement and engagement (Lim, 2024; Mahlambi, 2024; Wang et al., 2023; Wolterinck et al., 2022b; Zhang, 2022). AfL is a continuous process that spirals throughout a course, where students, teachers, and peers seek, reflect upon, and respond to information from dialogue, demonstration, and observation, enhancing ongoing learning (Schellekens, 2021).
AfL lays out the parameters for embedding assessment into the teaching and learning process but does not address grading or reporting issues. Given the importance of feedback, the issue of traditional grades (which are a kind of evaluative feedback) may significantly impact the effectiveness of AfL. This raises an important question: What is the influence of traditional grading on the implementation of AfL? Understanding this relationship may be central to maximizing the potential benefits of AfL in educational settings.
AfL and the Learning Progression Model
Interestingly, AfL shares many similarities with the Learning Progression Model (LPM), an approach I co-developed in 2015. The LPM is a grading system that emphasizes improvement over time, encourages risk-taking, and fosters positive teacher-student relationships. It provides a flexible framework that guides students through the development of specific skills, applicable across all content areas and course levels.
The main components of the LPM include:
- Learning Progressions and Target Levels: These align with AfL’s focus on clearly communicated learning goals and success criteria.
- Ample Practice: This corresponds to the regular formative assessments in AfL.
- Descriptive Feedback: Just like in AfL, LPM emphasizes the importance of quality feedback that helps students grow.
- Reflective Practices: These involve active student involvement (peer and self assessment) and help teachers adjust instruction based on assessment results.
The literature validates the Learning Progression Model, which employs a five-step approach similar to AfL (see the figure above). The incorporation of clear communication of goals and scoring criteria, ample practice, descriptive feedback, and reflective practices for both students and teachers means that I have been using AfL without realizing it.
Both Assessment for Learning and the Learning Progression Model both offer powerful tools for creating more equitable and effective learning environments. By focusing on continuous feedback, student involvement, and tailored instruction, these approaches help all students reach their full potential.
Conclusion
Both Assessment for Learning and the Learning Progression Model are approaches to teaching and learning that use feedback from formative assessments to involve students in improving their own learning outcomes. The approaches require educators to identify where the learner is now, determine where they are going, and then design an approach to get them there. I still have more research to do, as this initial inquiry has raised as many questions as it has answered. I will continue to report my findings as they coalesce.
If you’re an educator interested in improving your assessment practices, consider exploring LPM. It’s not just about giving grades—it’s about empowering your students to take charge of their learning and supporting them every step of the way.
Please consider buying or recommending my latest book, The Learning Progression Model, available on Amazon in paperback, hardcover, ebook, or (coming soon) audiobook.
References
Black, P. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7-74. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-144.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. 10.3102/003465430298487.
Hattie, J. (2008). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. Taylor & Francis.
Lim, Y. (2024). Classroom heterogeneity and assessment for learning: Evidence from 47 countries using TALIS 2018. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 83, 101375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2024.101375
Mahlambi, S. B. (2023). Mathematics teachers’ use of assessment for learning to promote classroom diversity of learners. Pythagoras, 44(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.4102/pythagoras.v44i1.708
Marzano, R. J. (2007). The Art and Science of Teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective instruction. ASCD.
Naramore, E. (2024). The Learning Progression Model: Transforming assessment to support student success. Reimagined Schools.
Padmanabha, C.H. (2021). Assessment for learning, assessment of learning, assessment as learning: A conceptual framework. I-Manager’s Journal on Educational Psychology, 14(4), 14-21. doi:https://doi.org/10.26634/jpsy.14.4.17681
Schellekens, L. H., Bok, H.G.J., de Jong, L.H., van der Schaaf, M.F., Kremer, W.D.J., & van der Vleuten, C.P.M. (2021). Assessment for learning: A scoping review. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 71, 101094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101094
Taras, M. (2002). Using assessment for learning and learning from assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(6), 501-509. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293022000020273
Taras, M. (2010). Assessment for learning: Assessing the theory and evidence. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 3015-3022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.457
Wang, B., Peng, Y., & Cao, Z. (2024). How Chinese undergraduate students’ perceptions of assessment for learning influence their responsibility for first-year mathematics courses. Mathematics, 12(2), 274. https://doi.org/10.3390/math12020274
Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.001
Wiliam, D. (2017a). Assessment: The bridge between teaching and learning. ATA Magazine, Summer 2017, 28-32.
Wiliam, D. (2017b). Embedded formative assessment (2nd ed.). Solution Tree Press.
Wiliam, D., & Thompson, M. (2017). Integrating assessment with learning: What will it take to make it work? In The future of assessment (pp. 53-82). Routledge.
Wolterinck, C., Poortman, C., Schildkamp, K., & Visscher, A. (2022). Assessment for learning: Developing the required teacher competencies. European Journal of Teacher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2022.2124912
Wolterinck, C., Poortman, C., Schildkamp, K., & Visscher, A. (2022). Assessment for learning: Key stakeholder voices. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-022-09336-5
Zhang, X. (2022). The role of teacher patience in the implementation of assessment for learning (AfL): Vignettes from a writing classroom. Humanities & Social Sciences Communications, 9(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01398-9
