HSSE Online 8(1) 44-55
Developing Formative Assessment Designs
on Evidence for A-Level History
Celine Oon
Curriculum Planning and Development Division, Ministry of Education
(Singapore)
Bertrand Tan
Curriculum Planning and Development Division, Ministry of Education
(Singapore)
Abstract out at the A-Levels also involve getting
students to discuss or write essays in
Pre-University History teachers often use response to past year history examination
A-Level History examination questions and questions. While these tasks provide
general formative assessment strategies teachers with some sense of how students
(e.g. questioning and student reflection) as are able to manage question items in the A-
formative assessments. Such approaches to Level History examination, how much do
formative assessment provide limited these essays or Source-based Case Study
information about students’ understanding (SBCS) assignments tell teachers about
of historical concepts and skills to inform students’ understanding of historical
teaching and learning. This article outlines concepts and skills? i Furthermore, how
the process of developing a formative helpful are these assignments in informing
assessment that assesses students’ the next steps of instruction?
understanding of historical evidence. It
uses ideas from the Stanford History Generally, many pre-University history
Education Group’s Historical Assessments teachers recognize the value of formative
of Thinking and the affordances of the assessment in supporting teaching and
Singapore Student Learning Space to learning. Knowing where students ‘are at’
expand the range of formative assessment at significant junctures of the learning
tools available to teachers. The use of short process can help teachers decide what to do
assessments designed to make students’ to close students’ learning gaps (Wiliam,
thinking visible provides teachers with 2011). However, in the absence of
valuable and timely information on students’ formative assessments that can be quickly
learning to inform their teaching for deeper implemented and targeted to elicit
historical understanding. information on students’ knowledge of
historical concepts and skills, teachers often
Introduction end up using summative assessment for
formative purposes.
Identifying students’ learning gaps is
often a challenge for Pre-University History Yet, to meet formative assessment
teachers. Besides generic formative objectives, dealing mainly with A-Level
assessment strategies such as teacher History examination questions may have
questioning, think-pair-share and student limited utility. The first issue is that lengthy
reflection, formative assessments carried essays make it difficult for teachers to
June 2019 44
HSSE Online 8(1) 44-55
quickly identify particular skills or concepts article outlines the assessment development
that need further attention (Breakstone, approach, resources used and observations
2014). The second issue relates closely to on this process of assessment design.
the purpose of the assessment. Specifically,
A-Level History examination questions Adapting History Assessments of
require students to synthesize component Thinking (HATs) to the Local Context
skills in the course of answering them. Yet,
a student’s response to A-Level History The process of developing a specific
examination questions offers little or formative assessment approach did not
limited information on precisely where the begin from scratch. Instead, it built on the
student’s strengths and weaknesses lie and significant work of the Stanford History
do not serve as an effective compass Education Group (SHEG), which has
pointing teachers towards appropriate developed a series of formative assessment
instructional interventions. As put forth by tools on historical thinking. These
the National Research Council (NRC) in assessments, known as History
Knowing What Students Know: The Science Assessments of Thinking (HATs), were
and Design of Educational Assessment, designed to assess students’ abilities in
“…the more purposes a single assessment evaluating evidence. The HATs that were
aims to serve, the more each purpose will adapted for this formative assessment
be compromised” (National Research design focused on students’ use of evidence,
Council [NRC], 2001: 2). including contextualization and
corroboration. ii
Assessments designed specifically for
formative use and targeting disciplinary From the outset, two modifications were
learning outcomes in the A-Level History made to the original HATs. iii HATs
Syllabus could yield more useful typically require students to exhibit their
information to impact teaching and learning, understanding of evidence through
compared to the use of summative historical knowledge. As the selected HATs
assessment tasks. Effective formative were designed for a topic that was not in the
assessment tasks need to be (a) short, (b) A-Level History Syllabus, adapting the
carefully constructed to specific historical assessment involved melding syllabus
learning outcomes and (c) designed to make content with the HAT’s design features. In
relevant student thinking visible addition, the construct of close reading was
(Breakstone, 2014). These assessments incorporated into the assessment as teachers
broaden the range of tools teachers can use had indicated that this was a challenge for
to elicit information on students’ learning. some students.
With this objective in mind, we Aligning the Assessment Construct with
embarked on a small-scale project to the Assessment Design
develop formative assessments that would
help A-level history teachers identify Modifying the HATs made it necessary
strengths and gaps in students’ to verify if the formative assessment design
understanding of historical concepts and was successful in eliciting information on
skills (see Appendix A). The project students’ understanding of evidence. This
focused on assessing students’ alignment between the assessment
understanding of evidence – a historical construct and the assessment design was
concept fundamental to understanding how achieved through (a) a strong understanding
historical knowledge is constructed. This of the assessment construct (in this case, the
June 2019 45
HSSE Online 8(1) 44-55
concept of evidence), (b) the observable understanding and misunderstandings of
behaviors expected from students who hold historical concepts.
strong understandings of the assessment
construct and (c) the corresponding The MCQs developed as part of the
assessment items that could generate those formative assessment design recognized
behaviors (NRC, 2001; Seixas, et al., that the outcomes of historical thinking are
2015). iv The relationship between these not definite. Students are tasked to weigh
three components contribute to the validity the strengths of various options, and to
of the assessment in eliciting relevant select the option that was the “best” in the
information on students’ understanding of list of possible choices. Each MCQ item
evidence, and anchored the assessment choice was also designed to reflect the
development process. strength of the respondent’s understanding
about evidence. For example, for Question
Incorporating Multiple Choice Questions 2 (see Figure 1), both the first and third
into Formative Assessment options were designed to be reasonable
responses to the question. However, the
Another adaptation to the HATs third option is a stronger explanation
concerned the incorporation of Multiple- compared to the first because it reflected a
Choice Questions (MCQ) in the formative more sophisticated understanding of the
assessment. HATs do not contain MCQs nature of historical evidence and an
because the question type does not provide awareness of historians’ treatment of
opportunities for students to make thinking sources. The first option, in contrast,
visible (Breakstone, 2014). MCQs, in suggests that sources can have a fixed
assuming definitive answers, appear to run property of being political and does not
contrary to the nature of history which recognize the historian’s role in analyzing
allows for different interpretations sources as evidence. The MCQ choices did
depending on how the historical issue and not simply involve identifying the correct
evidence are assessed (Breakstone, 2014; option in a midst of wrong answers. Instead,
VanSledright, 2015). However, well- they reflect a range of responses, from
designed MCQs can provide teachers with most-to-least defensible v.
quick information on students’
Figure 1: MCQ Options for Question 2 of the Formative Assessment
June 2019 46
HSSE Online 8(1) 44-55
Framing each MCQ item choice to evidence on students’ understanding of the
reflect understandings or misconceptions historian’s role in analyzing sources as
about evidence enables the provision of evidence. The option selected by students
specific feedback for each option selected could reveal that they have a good
by the student. For example, a student who understanding of how historians use
chooses the option “The Korean War sources to construct history (Option 3). It
happened a long time ago and we cannot go could also reflect their misconceptions
back in time” likely has misconceptions about evidence, including confusion
about evidence and its relationship with the between history and the past (Option 2) or
past. The student would subsequently perceiving that the role of the historian is
receive feedback clarifying how analyzing largely to read sources at face value (Option
sources allow us to make sense of the past 1). To correct these misconceptions,
even though we were not present when the students could be instructed on how
Korean War took place. Developing these historians approach sources as evidence or
MCQs on the Singapore Students’ Learning be involved in conducting authentic
Space (SLS) platform has the added historical inquiries to deepen their
advantage of giving students such targeted appreciation of historical methods and
feedback immediately through the processes (Nokes, 2011).
automated feedback function. In addition to
feedback on their answer choice, students Use of Short-Answer Questions as
will also be shown the “best option” and an Formative Assessment
explanation of why it may reflect a stronger
understanding of historical evidence. This While MCQs provide quick indications
mechanism promotes metacognition as of students’ understanding, short-answer
students reflect on the given feedback and questions make students’ thinking in
perform self-correction. analyzing evidence visible. Compared to
long essays, short-answer questions can be
Students’ responses to the MCQs will more targeted in assessing students’
also inform teaching. Students who were understanding of historical concepts and
unable to identify the best answer in skills because it removes the cognitive load
Question 1 (see Appendix A) probably of conceptualizing and sustaining an
ignored evidence from the source excerpt argument. The short-answer questions
and the context of the American public’s adapted from the HAT example (on
disillusionment with an adventurous “Edison and the Kansas Housewife”)
foreign policy. This learning gap could be further managed the cognitive demand of
addressed by students observing the process the formative assessment through its design.
of “close reading” of sources. Teachers The questions provided short descriptions
could also engage students in groups to of sources for corroboration with the main
clarify, summarize, answer questions source instead of source excerpts (see
and/or make predictions from sources Figure 2). This was intended to free up
(Nokes, 2011). students’ cognitive resources to assess
evidence rather than expend effort reading
Similarly, Question 2 seeks to gather and inferring from additional excerpts.
June 2019 47
HSSE Online 8(1) 44-55
Figure 2: Managing Cognitive Load by Providing Key Information about Sources for
Corroboration with Truman’s Radio Address (Main Source)
The short-answer questions provide Each short-answer question requires a
students with a short description of three response of less than 100 words. Yet, they
sources (see Figure 3). Students are asked allow teachers to make several observations
to assess the utility of each source in on students’ understanding of evidence and
providing more certainty about the reasons ability to corroborate sources. Students’
for US involvement in the Korean conflict answers may demonstrate their
indicated by Truman’s radio address (the unfamiliarity with the use of corroboration
main source), and to explain why. The to analyze sources and construct knowledge
questions ascertain if students are able to in history. The answers could also indicate
compare information provided by two limited background knowledge, preventing
sources, identify their similarities and students from identifying similarities
assess the extent to which one source is able between the sources. To address these
to support the conclusions drawn from the learning gaps, students could revise how
other source. For example, a strong historians approach sources as evidence,
response to Question 3 (Figure 2) would observe the thinking process of
recognize that Acheson’s speech was not corroboration or engage in authentic
useful for corroboration with Truman’s inquiries.
radio address. This is because the speech
did not directly address the situation in The choice of the three sources and their
Korea. Furthermore, the speech was made descriptions influence the strength of
before North Korea’s invasion of South evidence that teachers can obtain from the
Korea in June 1950, which influenced US short-answer question. For example, NSC-
foreign policy towards Korea and shaped 68 was listed as a possible source for
Truman’s radio address. corroboration because of the document’s
significance on US actions in the Korean
June 2019 48
HSSE Online 8(1) 44-55
War. In contrast, a description like “US focus to draw similarities with Truman’s
National Security Documents from the late radio address. Such descriptions are likely
1940s to 1950s” would be too vague and to generate responses based on common
does not provide students with sufficient sense and not historical understanding.
Figure 3: Sources featured in the short-answer questions for students to corroborate to
Truman’s radio address
A. US National Security Council Planning Document 68 (NSC-68)
B. Classified Soviet sources detailing interactions between Kim and Stalin prior to
June 1950
C. US Secretary of State Acheson’s Jan 1950 speech outlining US commitment to
Taiwan and Japan
The formative assessment that was use to develop similar formative
developed comprised both MCQs and short assessments on evidence for other topics.
answer questions. Both question types were These assessments should feature the
included for a specific purpose in eliciting following:
students’ understanding of evidence.
MCQs provide quick indicators of students’ a) A meaningful inquiry question;
understanding, while short-answer b) A rich source that allows students to
questions provide opportunities to observe make inferences, and presents a tension
students’ thinking. The affordances of SLS between the rhetoric of its creator and
provide teachers with access to the answers historical context;
of specific students and aggregated data of c) MCQs that ask students to comprehend
students’ answers. The latter can reflect the source and make judgments on its
variations in students’ understanding within usefulness; and
a class or cohort. Teachers could also use d) Short answer questions that require
the MCQ responses to identify which students to assess the usefulness of
students’ short-answer responses they want other sources in relation to the main
to focus on. source and explain their analysis.
A Model of Formative Assessment on Conclusion
Historical Evidence
This article reflects a modest attempt to
Teachers can implement this formative develop formative assessment tools for the
assessment design in the course of teaching Pre-University History classroom. It aims
the Korean War, and when developing to help teachers make more accurate
students’ understanding of historical inferences about students’ learning gaps
evidence and skills. The assessment also and make better use of limited curriculum
provides a design model that teachers can time. The assessment allows teachers to
June 2019 49
HSSE Online 8(1) 44-55
observe students’ understanding of Hour Test. In Ercikan, Kadriye & Seixas,
evidence and ability in analyzing sources Peter (Eds.) New directions in assessing
more quickly and more clearly compared to historical thinking (pp. 102-106). New
an SBCS or essay question. The use of such York, NY: Routledge.
versions of formative assessment in the
history classroom will allow teachers to Seixas, P. C., & Morton, T. (2013). The
make evidence-based decisions on whether big six historical thinking concepts.
they should focus on historical concepts, Toronto: Nelson Education.
argumentative writing or other related
aspects in their next lessons. The evidence Stanford History Education Group.
could also offer indications as to whether (n.d., a). Edison and the Kansas Housewife.
students have reached an expected level of Retrieved from
conceptual understanding. Teachers can https://sheg.stanford.edu/history-
then proceed more confidently to the next assessments/edison-and-kansas-housewife
topic, and consider how to build on students’
prior knowledge. Equally important is the Stanford History Education Group.
value of such assessments in reminding (n.d., b). Opposition to the Philippine-
teachers of the core learning outcomes of a American War. Retrieved from
curriculum that focuses on developing https://sheg.stanford.edu/history-
historical understanding. assessments/opposition-philippine-
american-war
References
Story, R., & Boller, P. F. (1984). A more
Breakstone, J. (2014). Try, Try, Try perfect union: Documents in U.S. history
Again: The Process of Designing New (Vol. 2). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin
History Assessments. Theory & Research Company.
in Social Education, 42(4), 453-485.
doi:10.1080/00933104.2014.965860. VanSledright, B. (2015). Assessing for
Learning in the History Classroom. In
National Research Council. (2001). Ercikan, Kadriye & Seixas, Peter (Eds.)
Knowing What Students Know: The Science New directions in assessing historical
and Design of Educational Assessment. thinking (pp. 75-88). New York, NY:
Washington, DC: The National Academies Routledge.
Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10019.
Wiliam, D. (2018). Embedded formative
Nokes, J. (2011). Recognizing and assessment. Bloomington, IN: Solution
Addressing the Barriers to Adolescents' Tree Press.
"Reading Like Historians". The History
Teacher, 44(3), 379-404. Retrieved from Wineburg, S. (1991). Historical problem
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41303991 solving: a study of the cognitive processes
used in the evaluation of documentary and
Seixas, P., Gibson, L., & Ercikan, K. pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational
(2015). A Design Process for Assessing Psychology, 83, 73–87
Historical Thinking: The Case of a One-
June 2019 50
HSSE Online 8(1) 44-55
i
The A-Level History curriculum seeks to develop students’ historical understanding. Historical concepts and
skills are central to this. The teaching and learning syllabus can be found at
https://www.moe.gov.sg/docs/default-source/document/education/syllabuses/humanities/files/2016-history-
syllabus-(pre-university)-h2.pdf
ii
Evaluating sources as evidence involves the processes of sourcing, contextualization and corroboration as
explained in Wineburg (1991).
iii
Our assessments adapted the following HATs: “Edison and Kansas Housewife” (Stanford History Education
Group [SHEG], n.d.a) and “Opposition to the Philippine-American War” (SHEG, n.d.b).
iv
In developing the formative assessment, Sexias and Morton’s The Big Six Historical Thinking Concepts
(2012) was used as the primary reference to define the concept of historical evidence and identify the behaviors
exhibited by students with different levels of conceptual understanding.
v
Our MCQ design took reference from VanSledright’s (2015) exploration of weighted MCQs. However, we made
an important distinction. While his assessment was intended for summative purposes and incorporated a scoring
element, our focus was on formative assessment. We designed the MCQs to provide teachers and students with
feedback on students’ learning and did not incorporate a framework of scoring.
June 2019 51
