Formative assessment prac¬tices in lower secondary school to promote students’ learning. First ex¬ploratory analyzes of a quasi-experimental design

Journal title CADMO
Author/s Elisa Guasconi, Andrea Ciani, Ira Vannini
Publishing Year 2021 Issue 2021/1 Language Italian
Pages 25 P. 21-45 File size 319 KB
DOI 10.3280/CAD2021-001003
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

The article presents the results of a three-year research project aimed at investigating the effectiveness of formative assessment practices in classroom on middle school students’ reading and mathematical abilities. In line with the debate on formative assessment, practices and indicators of the skills to be measured were identified: they derived from the recent most acknowledged construct. A quasi-experimental research design was planned: a group of lower secondary school teachers of the same class experimented with formative as¬sessment practices with their students while supported with in-service training activities followed by the researchers. Pupils of the parallel classes belonging to the same institution constituted the control group. A measurement of math and comprehension abilities was conducted at the beginning and the end of the experimentation through standardized tests; students’ perceptions of the teach¬ing-learning process were collected through administering a questionnaire. Data show significant differences between the two groups’ learning achieve¬ments, especially in math abilities. The most comprehensive interpretation of these results leads us to consider the explorative feature of the study: indeed, several factors have affected the internal validity of the experimentation. At the same time, the research’s design limits offer a relevant opportunity to reflect on the need to find a more precise definition of the hypothesis for future studies.

Keywords: successful teaching, formative assessment practices, students’ achievements, lower secondary school, quasi-experimental research design.

  1. Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Ruddock, G.J., O’ Sullivan, C.Y., Preuschoff, C. (2009), TIMSS 2011. Assessement Framework. Boston College: TIMSS AND PIRLS International Study Centre Lynch School of Education, International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, --
  2. Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Ruddok, G.J., O’ Sullivan, C.Y., Arora, A., Erberber, E. (2005), TIMSS 2007. Assessement Framework. Boston College: TIMSS AND PIRLS International Study Centre Lynch School of Education, International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievemet, --
  3. Richardson, V., Placier, P. (2002), Teacher change. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. Washington (DC): American Educational Research Association, pp. 905-947.
  4. Santagata, R. (2011), From Teacher Noticing to a Framework for Analyzing and Improving Classroom Lessons. In M. Sherin, R. Phillip, V. Jacobs (Ed.), Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes. New York: Taylor and Francis, pp. 152-168.
  5. Scierri, I.D.M., Batini, F. (2018), “La valutazione per favorire l’apprendimento: il caso di un corso di studi universitario”, LLL, 31 (14), pp. 110-123.
  6. Scriven M. (1966), The methodology of evaluation. Social Science Education Consortium, Purdue University: Lafayette.
  7. Short, D.J., Echevarria, J. (1999), The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol: A Tool for Teacher-Research Collaboration and Professional Development. Santa Cruz (CA): Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence.
  8. Skaalvik, E.M., Skaalvik, S. (2007), “Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout”, Journal of Educational Psychology, 99 (3), pp. 611-625.
  9. Stiggins, R. (2005), “From formative assessment to assessment FOR learning: A path to success in standards-based schools”, Phi Delta Kappan, 87 (4), pp. 324-328.
  10. Stiggins, R., Chappuis, J. (2006), “What a difference a word makes. Assessment FOR learning rather than assessment OF learning helps students succeed”, Journal of Staff Development, 27 (1), pp. 10-15.
  11. Thum, Y.M, Tarasawa, B., Hegedus A. Yun, X., Bowe, B. (2015), A Case-study of Formative Assessment Practice and its Impact on Learning in Meridian School District. Portland: Northwest Evaluation Association.
  12. Trinchero, R. (2019), Dieci falsi miti e dieci regole per insegnare bene. Roma: Carocci.
  13. Vannini, I. (2019), Valutare per apprendere e progettare. In E. Nigris, B. Balconi, L. Zecca, Dalla progettazione alla valutazione didattica. Milano-Torino: Pearson, pp. 250-276. Vertecchi, B. (1976), Valutazione formativa. Torino: Loescher.
  14. Vertecchi, B. (2003), Manuale della valutazione. Analisi degli apprendimenti e dei contesti. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  15. Weeden, P., Winter, T., Broadfoot, P. (2002), Valutazione per l’apprendimento nella scuola. Trento: Erickson.
  16. Wiliam, D. (2011), “What is assessment for learning?”, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37 (1), pp. 3-14.
  17. Wiliam, D., Lehay S. (2012), From teachers to schools: scaling up professional development for formative assessment. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and Learning. SAGE Publications, pp. 49-72.
  18. Wylie, E.C. (Eds.) (2008), Tight but Loose: Scaling Up Teacher Professional Development in Diverse Contexts. Princeton (NJ): Educational Testing Service.
  19. Wylie, E.C., Lyon, C.J., Goe, L. (2009), Teacher Professional development Focused on Formative Assessment: Changing Teachers Changing Schools. Princeton (NJ): Educational Testing Service.
  20. Dunn, K.E., Mulvenon S.W. (2009), “A Critical Review of Research on Formative Assessments: The Limited Scientific Evidence of the Impact of Formative Assessments in Education”, Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 14 (7), pp. 1-11. Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D. (1986), “Effects of Systematic Formative Evaluation. A Meta-Analysis”, Exceptional Children, 53 (3), pp. 199-208.
  21. Garet, M.S., Porter, A.C., Desimone, L., Birman, B.F., Yoon, K.S. (2001), “What Makes Professional Development Effective? Results from a National Sample of Teachers”, American Educational Research Journal, 38 (4), pp. 915-945.
  22. Greenstein, L. (2016), La valutazione formativa. Torino: UTET Università.
  23. Gregoire, M. (2003), “Is it a challenge or a threat? A dualprocess model of teachers’ cognition and appraisal process during conceptual change”, Educational Psychology Review, 15, pp. 147-179.
  24. Guskey, T.R, Yoon, K.S. (2009), “What Works in Professional Development?”, Phi Delta Kappan International, 90 (7), pp. 495-500.
  25. Guskey, T.R. (2002), “Professional Development and Teacher Change”, Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8 (3/4), pp. 381-391.
  26. Guskey, T.R., Gates, S. (1985), A synthesis of Research on Group-Based Mastery Learning Programs, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 69th Chicago, March 31st-April 4th.
  27. Hattie, J. (2009), Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievements. London & New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
  28. Hattie, J., Timperley, H. (2007), “The power of feedback”, Review of Educational Research, 77 (1), pp. 81-112.
  29. INVALSI (2013), Indagini IEA 2011 PIRLS e TIMSS: i risultati degli studenti italiani in lettura, matematica e scienze--
  30. INVALSI (2019), Rapporto Prove Invalsi 2019, --
  31. Lumbelli, L. (1979), Una proposta metodologica: l’approccio fenomenologico-sperimentale. In O. Andreani, Processi di insegnamento-apprendimento. Firenze: La Nuova Italia, pp. 23-38.
  32. Lumbelli, L. (1980), La ricerca esplorativa in pedagogia. Ricerche pedagogiche. In AA.VV., Educazione e qualità della vita. Atti del convegno di Pedagogia di Parma. Parma, pp. 59-77.
  33. Lumbelli, L. (1984), Qualità e quantità nella ricerca empirica in pedagogia. In E. Becchi, B. Vertecchi (Ed.), Manuale critico della sperimentazione e della ricerca educativa. Milano: FrancoAngeli, pp. 101-133.
  34. Lumbelli, L. (2006), Costruzione dell’ipotesi e astrazione nella Pedagogia sperimentale. In A. Bondioli (Ed.), Fare ricerca in pedagogia. Saggi per Egle Becchi. Milano: FrancoAngeli, pp. 25-60.
  35. MIUR (4 dicembre 2020), Valutazione periodica e finale degli apprendimenti delle alunne e degli alunni delle classi della scuola primaria, --
  36. MIUR (4 settembre 2012), Indicazioni nazionali per il curricolo della scuola dell’infanzia e del primo ciclo d’istruzione, Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Kennedy, M.A., Trong, K.L., Sainsbury M. (2009), PIRLS 2011 Assessment Framework. Boston College: TIMSS AND PIRLS International Study Centre Lynch School of Education, International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, --
  37. Wiliam, D., Thompson, M. (2008), Tight but Loose: A Conceptual Framework for Scaling Up School Reforms. In E.C. Wylie (Ed.), Tight but Loose: Scaling Up Teacher Professional Development in Diverse Contexts. Princeton (NJ): Educational Testing Service (ETS).
  38. Airasian, P.W. (1971), The Role of Evaluation in Mastery Learning. In J.H. Block (Ed.), Mastery Learning. Theory and Practice. Austin: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc, pp. 77-88.
  39. Asquini, G. (2019), La ricerca. Formazione. Temi, esperienze e prospettive. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  40. Assessment Reform Group (2002), Assessment for Learning: 10 Principles. Research-based principles to guide classroom practice Assessment for Learnin, -- testo disponibile alla pagina, consultata il 15/5/2021.
  41. Avanzi, L., Miglioretti, M., Velasco, V., Balducci, C., Vecchio, L., Fraccaroli, F., Skaalvik, E.M. (2013), “Cross-validation of the norwegian teacher’s self-efficacy scale (NTSES)”, Teaching and Teacher Education, 31, pp. 69-78.
  42. Bartolucci, M., Batini, F., Scierri, I.D.M. (2018), “Promoting educational success and countering early school leaving. Effects of authentic learning tasks in upper secondary education”, RicercAzione, 10 (2), pp. 209-227.
  43. Batini F., Guerra M. (2020), “Gli effetti della valutazione formativa sull’apprendimento nella scuola primaria”, Pedagogia più didattica, 6 (2), pp. 78-93.
  44. Bennett R.E. (2011), “Formative assessment: a critical review”, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practices, 18 (1), pp. 5-25.
  45. Black, P., Wiliam, D. (1998a), “Assessment and classroom learning”, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practices, 5 (1), pp. 7-74.
  46. Black, P., Wiliam, D. (1998b), “Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment”, Phi Delta Kappan, 80 (2), pp. 139-148.
  47. Black, P., Wiliam, D. (2009), “Developing the theory of formative assessment”, Educational Assessment, Evaluation & Accountability, 21 (1), pp. 5-31.
  48. Bloom, S.B. (1971), Mastery Learning. In J.H. Block (Ed.), Mastery Learning. Theory and Practice. Austin: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc, pp. 47-63.
  49. Campbell, D.T, Stanley, J.C (1963), Experimental and Quasi Experimental Design for Research on Teaching. Boston: Hougthon Mifflin Company.
  50. Ciani, A., Vannini, I. (2017), “Equità e didattica. Validazione di scale sulle convinzioni di insegnamento democratico”, Cadmo, 2, pp. 5-32.
  51. Cizek, J.G. (2010), An introduction to formative assessment. History, characteristics, and challenges. In H.L. Andrade, J.G. Cizek (Ed.), Handbook of formative assessment. New York: Routledge, pp. 106-124.

Elisa Guasconi, Andrea Ciani, Ira Vannini, Pratiche di formative assessment nella scuola secondaria di primo grado per promuovere gli apprendimenti degli studenti. Prime analisi esplorative di un disegno quasi-sperimentale in "CADMO" 1/2021, pp 21-45, DOI: 10.3280/CAD2021-001003