What do we mean when we talk about teacher professional development in formative assessment? A systematic review

IF 2.6 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Alexa von Hagen , Alejandra Balbi , Micaela Bonilla , Camila Arbildi
{"title":"What do we mean when we talk about teacher professional development in formative assessment? A systematic review","authors":"Alexa von Hagen ,&nbsp;Alejandra Balbi ,&nbsp;Micaela Bonilla ,&nbsp;Camila Arbildi","doi":"10.1016/j.ijer.2025.102586","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Although educational systems worldwide recognize Formative Assessment (FA) practices as a cornerstone of high-quality instruction, it remains unclear what characteristics professional development programs need to impact teachers’ FA practices and students’ learning outcomes. This systematic review aimed to fill this gap by systematically identifying, describing and analyzing the available evidence. To be included, studies had to a) focus on primary or secondary teachers, b) report on a professional development program targeted at improving FA practices, c) measure teachers’ FA practices and d) represent an interventional study.</div><div>We identified 23 eligible reports including quantitative and qualitative studies and extracted data on teacher and professional development program characteristics, outcomes and impact evidence. Our findings revealed that 69.56 % of professional development programs emphasized providing feedback to students, while less than 8.70 % included implementing rubrics, progress monitoring and integrating formative with summative assessments as learning outcomes. Evidence on the impact of professional development programs on teachers’ FA practices was very heterogeneous, consisting of only four studies with an intervention-control group design and 15 single group comparisons with diverse measurements including declarative, procedural and self-knowledge outcomes. Overarching topics in the qualitative evidence pointed to sources of support, difficulties, and knowledge transfer experienced by teachers in professional development programs on FA. Only six of the studies measured the impact of professional development programs on students’ learning in addition to teachers’ FA practices and almost exclusively focused on academic rather than socio-emotional outcomes.</div><div>Overall, the evidence base is highly heterogeneous, showcasing the variety of approaches scholars have chosen to design, implement and measure the impact of professional development programs on FA. This heterogeneity underscores the complexity of the topic and offers insights into different components that need to be considered in future research, while representing a valuable guide for stakeholders aiming for evidence-based approaches for professional development programs on FA.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48076,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Educational Research","volume":"131 ","pages":"Article 102586"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Educational Research","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883035525000606","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Although educational systems worldwide recognize Formative Assessment (FA) practices as a cornerstone of high-quality instruction, it remains unclear what characteristics professional development programs need to impact teachers’ FA practices and students’ learning outcomes. This systematic review aimed to fill this gap by systematically identifying, describing and analyzing the available evidence. To be included, studies had to a) focus on primary or secondary teachers, b) report on a professional development program targeted at improving FA practices, c) measure teachers’ FA practices and d) represent an interventional study.
We identified 23 eligible reports including quantitative and qualitative studies and extracted data on teacher and professional development program characteristics, outcomes and impact evidence. Our findings revealed that 69.56 % of professional development programs emphasized providing feedback to students, while less than 8.70 % included implementing rubrics, progress monitoring and integrating formative with summative assessments as learning outcomes. Evidence on the impact of professional development programs on teachers’ FA practices was very heterogeneous, consisting of only four studies with an intervention-control group design and 15 single group comparisons with diverse measurements including declarative, procedural and self-knowledge outcomes. Overarching topics in the qualitative evidence pointed to sources of support, difficulties, and knowledge transfer experienced by teachers in professional development programs on FA. Only six of the studies measured the impact of professional development programs on students’ learning in addition to teachers’ FA practices and almost exclusively focused on academic rather than socio-emotional outcomes.
Overall, the evidence base is highly heterogeneous, showcasing the variety of approaches scholars have chosen to design, implement and measure the impact of professional development programs on FA. This heterogeneity underscores the complexity of the topic and offers insights into different components that need to be considered in future research, while representing a valuable guide for stakeholders aiming for evidence-based approaches for professional development programs on FA.
我们在形成性评估中谈论教师专业发展是什么意思?系统回顾
尽管全世界的教育系统都承认形成性评价(FA)实践是高质量教学的基石,但专业发展项目需要具备哪些特征才能影响教师的形成性评价实践和学生的学习成果,目前仍不清楚。本系统综述旨在通过系统地识别、描述和分析现有证据来填补这一空白。我们确定了 23 份符合条件的报告,包括定量和定性研究,并提取了有关教师和专业发展项目特征、成果和影响证据的数据。我们的研究结果显示,69.56%的专业发展项目强调向学生提供反馈,而只有不到8.70%的项目将实施评分标准、进度监控和整合形成性评估与终结性评估作为学习成果。关于专业发展项目对教师 FA 实践的影响的证据非常不统一,只有 4 项研究采用了干预-对照组设计,15 项研究采用了单组比较,测量方法多种多样,包括陈述性、程序性和自知性成果。定性研究的主要议题是教师在 FA 专业发展项目中获得的支持、遇到的困难和知识传授。只有六项研究衡量了专业发展项目对学生学习的影响,以及教师的 FA 实践,而且几乎全部集中在学术成果而不是社会情感成果上。总体而言,证据基础是高度异质性的,展示了学者们在设计、实施和衡量专业发展项目对 FA 的影响时所选择的各种方法。这种异质性凸显了这一主题的复杂性,为未来研究需要考虑的不同组成部分提供了启示,同时也为旨在为 FA 专业发展计划提供循证方法的利益相关者提供了宝贵的指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International Journal of Educational Research
International Journal of Educational Research EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
3.10%
发文量
141
审稿时长
21 days
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Educational Research publishes regular papers and special issues on specific topics of interest to international audiences of educational researchers. Examples of recent Special Issues published in the journal illustrate the breadth of topics that have be included in the journal: Students Perspectives on Learning Environments, Social, Motivational and Emotional Aspects of Learning Disabilities, Epistemological Beliefs and Domain, Analyzing Mathematics Classroom Cultures and Practices, and Music Education: A site for collaborative creativity.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信