Implementing Formative Assessment Into School Practice: A Matter of Structuring the Intervention?

IF 3.1 1区教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Journal of Teacher Education Pub Date : 2025-07-10 DOI:10.1177/00224871251350680

Larissa Aust, Jeanne-Celine Linker, Luise Eichholz, Jana Schiffer, Marcus Nührenbörger, Christoph Selter, Elmar Souvignier

{"title":"Implementing Formative Assessment Into School Practice: A Matter of Structuring the Intervention?","authors":"Larissa Aust, Jeanne-Celine Linker, Luise Eichholz, Jana Schiffer, Marcus Nührenbörger, Christoph Selter, Elmar Souvignier","doi":"10.1177/00224871251350680","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Only limited evidence exists on how to best make the effective yet broad concept of formative assessment (FA) accessible to teachers. Thus, this study investigated the effects of two differently structured FA approaches (curriculum-embedded assessment [CE] vs. planned-for-interaction assessment [PI]) on implementation outcomes over time. A total of N = 118 mathematics teachers participated in a six-session professional development program offered over one school year and implemented one of the two approaches in their classrooms. Implementation success was assessed via teachers’ self-reports. Hierarchical linear models for repeated measurement revealed higher ratings for CE for the initial phase of implementation. Over time, differences between the approaches decreased for feasibility and cooperation, but remained quite constant in terms of acceptability, fidelity and perceived learning outcome. The approaches did not significantly differ regarding sustainability. Thus, for implementing FA, it seems worthwhile to provide teachers with clear guidelines and an explicit structure.","PeriodicalId":17162,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Teacher Education","volume":"69 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Teacher Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00224871251350680","RegionNum":1,"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

Only limited evidence exists on how to best make the effective yet broad concept of formative assessment (FA) accessible to teachers. Thus, this study investigated the effects of two differently structured FA approaches (curriculum-embedded assessment [CE] vs. planned-for-interaction assessment [PI]) on implementation outcomes over time. A total of N = 118 mathematics teachers participated in a six-session professional development program offered over one school year and implemented one of the two approaches in their classrooms. Implementation success was assessed via teachers’ self-reports. Hierarchical linear models for repeated measurement revealed higher ratings for CE for the initial phase of implementation. Over time, differences between the approaches decreased for feasibility and cooperation, but remained quite constant in terms of acceptability, fidelity and perceived learning outcome. The approaches did not significantly differ regarding sustainability. Thus, for implementing FA, it seems worthwhile to provide teachers with clear guidelines and an explicit structure.

查看原文本刊更多论文

在学校实践中实施形成性评估：构建干预的问题？

只有有限的证据表明，如何最好地使教师获得有效而广泛的形成性评估（FA）概念。因此，本研究调查了两种不同结构的FA方法（课程嵌入评估[CE]与计划互动评估[PI]）对实施结果的影响。共有118名数学教师参加了一学年为期6次的专业发展计划，并在课堂上实施了两种方法中的一种。通过教师自我报告评估实施的成功程度。重复测量的层次线性模型显示，在实施的初始阶段，CE的评级更高。随着时间的推移，方法之间的差异在可行性和合作性方面有所减少，但在可接受性、保真度和感知学习结果方面保持相当稳定。两种方法在可持续性方面没有显著差异。因此，为教师提供清晰的指导方针和明确的结构似乎是值得的。

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

Journal of Teacher Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-

CiteScore

8.90

自引率

7.70%

发文量

期刊介绍： The mission of the Journal of Teacher Education, the flagship journal of AACTE, is to serve as a research forum for a diverse group of scholars who are invested in the preparation and continued support of teachers and who can have a significant voice in discussions and decision-making around issues of teacher education. One of the fundamental goals of the journal is the use of evidence from rigorous investigation to identify and address the increasingly complex issues confronting teacher education at the national and global levels. These issues include but are not limited to preparing teachers to effectively address the needs of marginalized youth, their families and communities; program design and impact; selection, recruitment and retention of teachers from underrepresented groups; local and national policy; accountability; and routes to certification. JTE does not publish book reviews, program evaluations or articles solely describing programs, program components, courses or personal experiences. In addition, JTE does not accept manuscripts that are solely about the development or validation of an instrument unless the use of that instrument yields data providing new insights into issues of relevance to teacher education (MSU, February 2016).