Mechanisms underlying effects of formative assessment on student achievement: A proposed framework to ignite future research

Journal title CADMO
Author/s Torulf Palm, Catarina Andersson, Björn Palmberg, Mikael Winberg
Publishing Year 2024 Issue 2023/2 Language English
Pages 12 P. 9-20 File size 202 KB
DOI 10.3280/CAD2023-002002
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.

Research has shown that formative assessment can have large positive effects on student achievement, but the effects vary substantially and are not always positive. In addition, the underlying mechanisms responsible for the learning effects are not well understood. We present a framework developed to support research efforts to identify these mechanisms. The framework includes formative assessment processes as well as students’ learning processes, defines and exemplifies the term mechanisms in relevant contexts, indicates possible mechanisms, and identifies aspects that require further research to characterise and explain the mechanisms through which formative assessment affects student achievement. Finally, we exemplify how the framework may be used to design studies capable of providing the robust evidence required for drawing conclusions about the mechanisms.

Keywords: Formative assessment, Assessment for learning, Framework, Mechanisms, Mathematics.

  1. Baird, J., Hopfenbeck, T., Newton, P., Stobart, G., Steen-Utheim, A. (2014), State of the Field Review: Assessment and Learning. Report for the Norwegian Knowledge Centre for Education, Case Number 13/4697, -- available at http://forskning-
  2. Bandura, A. (1977), “Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral
  3. Change”, Psychological Review, 84 (2), pp. 191-215.
  4. Bennett, R. (2011), “Formative Assessment: A Critical Review”, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18, pp. 5-25.
  5. Boesen, J., Helenius, O., Bergqvist, E., Bergqvist, T., Lithner, J., Palm, T., Palmberg,
  6. B. (2014), “Developing Mathematical Competence: From the Intended to the
  7. Enacted Curriculu ”, Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 33, pp. 72-87.
  8. Dindyal, J., Schack, E.O., Choy, B.H., Sherin, M.G. (2021), “Exploring the Terrains of
  9. Mathematics Teacher Noticing”, ZDM-Mathematics Education, 53 (1), pp. 1-16.
  10. Double, K.S., McGrane, J.A., Hopfenbeck, T.N. (2020), “The Impact of Peer Assessment on Academic Performance: A Meta-Analysis of Control Group Studies”, Educational Psychology Review, 32, pp. 481-509.
  11. Ellis, A., Özgür, Z., Reiten, L. (2018), “Teacher Moves for Supporting Student Reasoning”, Mathematics Education Research Journal, 31 (2), pp. 107-132.
  12. Gu, P.Y. (2021), “An Argument-Based Framework for Validating Formative Assessment in the Classroom”, Frontiers in Education, 6, 605999.
  13. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Granier, H., Bogard Givvin, K., Hollingsworth, H., Jacobs, J., Miu-Ying Chui, A., Wearne, D., Smith, M., Kersting, N., Manaster, A., Tseng, E., Etterbeek, W., Manaster, C., Gonzales, P., Stigler, J. (2003), Teaching Mathematics in Seven Countries: Results from the Timss 1999 Video Study. Washington, DC: DIaNe Publishing.
  14. Hofverberg, A., Winberg, M., Palmberg, B., Andersson, C., Palm, T. (2022), “Relationships between Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction, Regulations, and Behavioral Engagement in Mathematics”, Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 829958. Jonsson, B., Norqvist, M., Liljekvist, Y., Lithner, J. (2014), “Learning Mathematics through Algorithmic and Creative Reasoning”, The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 36 (36), pp. 20-32.
  15. Leighton, J. P. (2019), “Students’ Interpretation of Formative Assessment Feedback: Three Claims for Why We Know So Little About Something So Important”, Journal of Educational Measurement, 56 (4), pp. 793-814.
  16. Lithner, J. (2008), “A Research Framework for Creative and Imitative Reasoning”, Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67 (3), pp. 255-276.
  17. Lui, A.M., Andrade, H.L. (2022), “The Next Black Box of Formative Assessment: A Model of the Internal Mechanisms of Feedback Processing”, Frontiers in Education, 7, 751548.
  18. Mouratidis, A., Lens, W., Vansteenkiste, M. (2010), “How You Provide Corrective Feedback Makes a Difference: The Motivating Role of Communicating in an Autonomy-Supporting Way”, Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 32 (5), pp. 619-637.
  19. Palm, T., Andersson, C., Boström, E., Vingsle, C. (2017), “A Review of the Impact of Formative Assessment on Student Achievement in Mathematics”, Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education, 22 (3), pp. 25-50.
  20. Sanchez, C.E., Atkinson, K.M., Koenka, A.C., Moshontz, H., Cooper, H. (2017), “Self-Grading and Peer-Grading for Formative and Summative Assessments in 3rd through 12th Grade Classrooms: A Meta-Analysis”, Journal of Educational Psychology, 109 (8), pp. 1049-1066.
  21. Shaughnessy, M., DeFino, R., Pfaff, E., Blunk, M. (2020), “I Think I Made a Mistake: How Do Prospective Teachers Elicit the Thinking of a Student Who Has Made a Mistake?”, Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 24 (4), pp. 335-359.
  22. Star, J.R., Verschaffel, L. (2016), Providing Support for Student Learning: Recommendations from Cognitive Science for the Teaching of Mathematics. In J. Cai, Compendium for Research in Mathematics Education, Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Inc., pp. 292-307.
  23. Stillesjö, S., Karlsson Wirebring, L., Andersson, M., Granberg, C., Lithner, J., Jonsson, B., Nyberg, L., Wiklund-Hörnqvist, C. (2021), “Active Math and Grammar Learning Engages Overlapping Brain Networks”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – PNAS, 118 (46), pp. 1-3.
  24. Van der Kleij, F.M., Lipnevich, A.A. (2021), “Student Perceptions of Assessment Feedback: A Critical Scoping Review and Call for Research”, Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 33 (2), pp. 345-373.
  25. Weiner, B. (2000), “Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Theories of Motivation from an Attributional Perspective”, Educational Psychology Review, 92 (4), pp. 548-573. Winberg, M., Palm, T. (2021), “Antecedents and Relative Importance of Student Motivation for Science and Mathematics Achievement in Timss”, Frontiers in Education, 6, 575926.
  26. Winstone, N.E., Nash, R.A., Parker, M., Rowntree, J. (2017), “Supporting Learners’ Agentic Engagement with Feedback: A Systematic Review and a Taxonomy of Recipience Processes”, Educational Psychologist, 52 (1), pp. 17-37.
  27. Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., Hattie, J. (2020), “The Power of Feedback Revisited: A Meta-Analysis of Educational Feedback Research”, Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 3087.
  28. Yeh, S. S. (2009), “Class Size Reduction or Rapid Formative Assessment?: A Comparison of CostEffectiveness”, Educational Research Review, 4 (1), pp. 7-15.

Torulf Palm, Catarina Andersson, Björn Palmberg, Mikael Winberg, Mechanisms underlying effects of formative assessment on student achievement: A proposed framework to ignite future research in "CADMO" 2/2023, pp 9-20, DOI: 10.3280/CAD2023-002002