[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-583670-105":59,"doc-detail-583670-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","pathways-for-analyzing-and-responding-to-student-work-for-formative-assessment-working-paper-october-2019","Pathways for Analyzing and Responding to Student Work for Formative Assessment - Working Paper October 2019","","This study examined how teachers interpreted and responded to student work during formative assessment, focusing on how their underlying goals for student learning shaped sensemaking and instructional action. The research used semi-structured interviews with 32 K–5 teachers trained through the Ongoing Assessment Project (OGAP) to apply learning progressions when analyzing evidence from student work. Findings showed achievement- and learning-oriented interpretations produced different evidence foci and response differentiation, alongside hybrid approaches that shifted across decision points.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/pathways-for-analyzing-and-responding-to-student-work-for-formative-assessment-working-paper-october-2019/583670/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/pathways-for-analyzing-and-responding-to-student-work-for-formative-assessment-working-paper-october-2019/583670.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Jacob","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-29","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":24},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What does the study examine about formative assessment?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"It explores how teachers interpret and respond to student work during formative assessment, emphasizing the influence of teachers’ underlying goals for student learning.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How was the research conducted?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"The study interviewed 32 K–5 teachers who had been trained by the Ongoing Assessment Project (OGAP) to use learning progressions for analyzing evidence in student work.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What key differences did the study find among teachers’ approaches?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"Teachers with an achievement orientation tended to focus on performance goals and binary judgments, while learning-oriented teachers emphasized student strategies to understand development, including more differentiated instructional responses; hybrid approaches emerged between these extremes.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},583670,1792189305,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":24,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},962084931830,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_a8503ba1806abce46bf441b54a3ca4cd","University of Pennsylvania  \nScholarlyCommons  \n\n| CPRE Working Papers | Consortium for Policy Research in Education\u003Cbr>(CPRE) |\n| --- | --- |\n| 7-26-2019\u003Cbr>Pathways for Analyzing and Responding to Student Work for Formative Assessment: The Role of Teachers’ Goals for Student Learning\u003Cbr>Caroline Brayer Ebby\u003Cbr>University of Pennsylvania, [cbe@gse.upenn.edu](cbe@gse.upenn.edu)\u003Cbr>Janine Remillard\u003Cbr>University of Pennsylvania, [janiner@gse.upenn.edu](janiner@gse.upenn.edu)\u003Cbr>[Jordan H. D](Jordan H. D)'[Olier](Olier)\u003Cbr>University of Pennsylvania\u003Cbr>Follow this and additional works at: [https://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_workingpapers](https://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_workingpapers)\u003Cbr> Part of the Curriculum and Instruction Commons, and the Science and Mathematics Education Commons |  |\n\nRecommended Citation  \nEbby, Caroline Brayer; Remillard, Janine; and D'Olier, Jordan H.. (2019) . Pathways for Analyzing and Responding to Student Work for Formative Assessment: The Role of Teachers’ Goals for Student Learning. CPRE Working Papers.  \nRetrieved from [https://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_workingpapers/22](https://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_workingpapers/22)  \nThis paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. [https://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_workingpapers/22](https://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_workingpapers/22)[ ](https://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_workingpapers/22)For more information, please contact [repository@pobox.upenn.edu](repository@pobox.upenn.edu).  \nPathways for Analyzing and Responding to Student Work for Formative Assessment: The Role of Teachers’ Goals for Student Learning  \nAbstract  \nThis study explored how teachers interpreted and responded to their own student work during the process of formative assessment. The study involved a purposefully selected sample of 32 teachers in grades K-5 who had been trained by the Ongoing Assessment Project (OGAP) to use learning progressions to analyze and respond to evidence in student work. Since formative assessment is fundamentally an interpretive process, involving continually eliciting and interpreting evidence of student thinking from student work in order to inform teaching and learning (Black & Wiliam, 2009), the study analyzed data collected through semi-structured interviews.  \nThe study found variations in the way teachers make sense of their student work for formative assessment that were related to their underlying goals for student learning. Teachers with an achievement orientation tended to focus on performance goals: giving formative assessment items to gauge student performance on problems that reflected what had recently been taught and focused on singular or multiple components of performance to make a binary judgment (i.e. students who “get it or don’t get it”) . Teachers with a learning orientation gave items to learn more about what students were able to do on different types of problems and focused on student strategies as an indicator of underlying understanding and development. These orientations also had implications for the instructional response teachers developed; as teachers looked beyond surface features of student work and binary distinctions, they developed more differentiated responses that built on students’ knowledge and their ability to develop more sophisticated understanding. In between these two extremes, we found three categories of hybrid approaches to formative assessment, demonstrating a push-and-pull between achievement and learning orientations at different decision points during the steps of the formative assessment process. Those decision points – the teachers’ purpose in giving an item, the evidence focused on, the interpretive framework used to analyze the evidence, and the focus of the instructional responses – offer multiple footholds in the formative assessment process where teachers can begin to try out new approaches that reflect a shift in orientation to student learning.  \nThe study shows that using formative assessment is not simp","cbCaieHQYQOnp5NH","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaieHQYQOnp5NH","pdf",6490962,52,"English","# Abstract\n# Keywords\n# Suggested Citation\n# Access and Attribution","[{\"question\":\"What does the study examine about formative assessment?\",\"answer\":\"It explores how teachers interpret and respond to student work during formative assessment, emphasizing the influence of teachers’ underlying goals for student learning.\"},{\"question\":\"How was the research conducted?\",\"answer\":\"The study interviewed 32 K–5 teachers who had been trained by the Ongoing Assessment Project (OGAP) to use learning progressions for analyzing evidence in student work.\"},{\"question\":\"What key differences did the study find among teachers’ approaches?\",\"answer\":\"Teachers with an achievement orientation tended to focus on performance goals and binary judgments, while learning-oriented teachers emphasized student strategies to understand development, including more differentiated instructional responses; hybrid approaches emerged between these extremes.\"}]","Pathways for Analyzing and Responding to Student Work for Formative Assessment - Working Paper October 2019 | PDF",1792048027,131]