So sánh phương pháp

	Formative Assessment	Response to Intervention
Lĩnh vực	Education	Education
Họ	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Năm ra đời	1998	2006
Người khởi xướng	Scriven (term); Bloom; Black & Wiliam (modern synthesis)	Special education / school psychology field (Deno; Fuchs & Fuchs; Vaughn)
Loại	Instructional process using evidence of learning to adapt teaching and feedback	Tiered framework for screening, intervention, and learning-disability identification
Công trình gốc	Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74.	Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93–99.
Tên gọi khác	Assessment for Learning, Classroom Formative Assessment, Feedback-Based Assessment, Embedded Formative Assessment	RTI, RtI, Multi-Tiered System of Supports, MTSS
Liên quan	4	4
Tóm tắt	Formative assessment, or assessment for learning, is the practice of gathering evidence of student understanding during instruction and using it immediately to adjust teaching and to give feedback that moves learning forward. Unlike summative assessment, which measures learning after the fact for grading or accountability, formative assessment is woven into the teaching cycle. Synthesized influentially by Black and Wiliam, it is defined not by the type of instrument but by whether the resulting evidence actually changes subsequent instruction and learning.	Response to intervention (RTI) is a multi-tiered framework for preventing academic failure and identifying students with learning disabilities by their responsiveness to high-quality instruction. All students are screened and taught with evidence-based core instruction; those who fall behind receive progressively more intensive intervention while their progress is closely monitored. Students who fail to respond even to intensive, well-implemented intervention are flagged as needing further evaluation. RTI reframes disability identification from a static test discrepancy to a dynamic question of who does not respond to good teaching.