Method library › Curriculum Assessment

Formative Assessment Technique Selector

strong evidence · ⏱ 2 minutes · Curriculum Assessment

Select the right formative assessment technique for a specific learning moment, purpose, and age group. Use when choosing how to check understanding during, between, or after lessons.

What it does

Selects the most appropriate formative assessment technique for a specific learning moment — during instruction, after guided practice, at the end of a lesson, or between lessons — and provides a complete implementation guide including how to interpret the responses and what to do next based on what the data shows. Unlike generic lists of formative assessment ideas, this skill matches the technique to the specific moment, purpose, and practical constraints. A technique that works brilliantly at the end of a lesson (exit ticket) is useless during a teacher explanation; a technique that works for checking factual recall (mini-whiteboards) is inappropriate for checking deep understanding (which requires explanation, not single answers). AI is specifically valuable here because selecting the right technique requires matching the assessment purpose (what am I checking?), the timing (when in the lesson?), the response format (do I need quick data from everyone, or deep data from a few?), and the practical constraints (class size, resources, time).

The evidence behind it

Black & Wiliam (1998) established formative assessment as one of the highest-leverage interventions in education (effect size 0.4–0.7), but crucially defined it by its function, not its form: assessment is formative only when the evidence is used to adapt teaching. Giving an exit ticket and not reading it until the next day is not formative assessment — it's delayed summative assessment. Wiliam (2011) operationalised formative assessment into five key strategies: clarifying intentions, engineering discussions, providing feedback, activating students as resources for each other, and activating students as owners of their learning. Leahy et al. (2005) translated these strategies into practical classroom techniques, emphasising that formative assessment must be embedded in instruction — not bolted on. Heritage (2010) distinguished between planned formative assessment (designed into the lesson in advance) and interactive formative assessment (responsive, in-the-moment), arguing that both are necessary but serve different purposes. Wiliam & Leahy (2015) provided comprehensive implementation guidance, emphasising that the best techniques collect evidence from ALL students, not just volunteers.

Sources

Black & Wiliam (1998) — Assessment and Classroom Learning
Wiliam (2011) — Embedded Formative Assessment
Leahy et al. (2005) — Classroom Assessment: minute by minute, day by day
Heritage (2010) — Formative Assessment: making it happen in the classroom
Wiliam & Leahy (2015) — Embedding Formative Assessment: practical techniques for K–12 classrooms

How to use it in your lesson

For the best results with EvidenceLesson, give it:

learning_moment — When in the lesson/sequence the assessment happens — e.g. during teacher explanation, after guided practice, end of lesson, between lessons, start of next lesson
what_to_assess — The specific understanding, skill, or knowledge to check
student_level — Age/year group
class_size (optional) — Number of students — affects technique practicality
subject_area (optional) — The curriculum subject
student_profiles (optional) — From context engine: EAL students, confidence levels, specific needs
available_resources (optional) — Mini-whiteboards, technology, exit ticket slips, etc.

Known limitations

Quick formative assessment techniques (whiteboards, finger voting) are best suited for checking procedural knowledge and factual recall. Deeper understanding — why the formula works, when to use it, how it connects to other concepts — requires more time-intensive assessment methods (explanation tasks, extended problems, discussion). This skill recommends the right technique for the moment, but some learning objectives require assessment methods that cannot be completed in 2 minutes.

The response interpretation thresholds (80%, 50–80%, below 50%) are guidelines, not rules. A class that is 78% correct may be ready to proceed if the 22% who got it wrong all made the same correctable error. A class that is 82% correct may need to pause if the errors suggest a deep misconception. The teacher's professional judgement must interpret the data in context.

Formative assessment only works if the teacher is prepared to adapt. The technique provides data, but the value is in the response. A teacher who checks whiteboards, sees 60% correct, and proceeds anyway because they need to "get through the lesson" has conducted a formative check but not formative assessment. The willingness to adapt the lesson in response to data is the essential ingredient that no technique can provide.