Formative assessment could be defined as the set of activities carried on by teachers and students in order to collect information useful to the implementation of the teaching and learning process. The key idea of formative assessment is that the collected material should be used in a way which is functional to learning. Rather than focusing on the indication of what has been learned, formative assessment will help drawing (like a video-sequence) the stage of learning, to identify and to provide information to fill the gap between the current state of the learner and the objectives to be achieved, and to anticipate future steps (Bennett & Gitomer, 2009).

In spite of the documented advantages especially connected to students’ learning improvement (Hattie & Temperley, 2007; Black & William, 1998), this practice concretely appears to be less frequent than it may be supposed to be (Erickson, 2007). Empirical evidence justifies such assumption by calling on several different reasons: mostly, the predominance of summative assessment and the unsystematic use of formative assessment during the teaching process (Matters, 2006; Louden et al., 2005; Stiggins & Conklin, 1992). Despite the recognition of the need for formative assessment and its many benefits, researchers pointed out that formative assessment is not well understood or used much by teachers (Bennett, 2009; Black & Wiliam, 1998).

Within the last few years of the 21st century, the renewed interest in formative assessment has been matched with curricular reforms as well as the development of cognitive psychology (Clarke, 2001; Perkins & Blythe, 1994; Bruner, 1996). A lot has been written and said about formative assessment, but the efforts to identify the effects connected to its didactic implementation are still derisory. It too often seems that teaching and learning work on parallel lines: teachers can not define exactly what students know and at which point of their learning progression they are. Teachers do not always appear to act in the manner indicated and supported by educational research and often demonstrate a very limited knowledge of assessment as a subject (Boyle & Charles, 2010; Gearhart & Osmundson, 2008; Gearhart et al., 2006; Matters, 2006; Christie et al., 1991).

In Italy, although slowly, it now begins to appear a renewed interest for assessment practices, brought in the class (Pastore, Salamida, 2013; Giovannini & Boni, 2010; Fele & Paoletti, 2003). Enquiries and studies still appear at an initial stage in this regard, in part depending on the lack of a widespread evaluative culture in Italian school system (Castoldi, 2012), in part depending on the flattening, often transmitted by the same Italian educational research, on the structural dimension of assessment which has therefore enforced an extreme evaluative “poverty”, both in practices and in theoretical conceptions.

To obtain benefit from formative assessment new development should focus on conceptualising well-specified approaches built around process and methodology rooted within specific content domains. It is important to understand how formative assessment is intended and consequently implemented in a specific educative system.

What do teachers know and think about assessment? Which aims do they persecute through it? How does assessment influence their didactic practice? To which strategies do they resort in order to collect reliable data? Which difficulties do they meet in assessing? Do they know the strategies and techniques for promoting students’ learning through assessment? Starting from these considerations the study has investigated the following aspects: What do Italian teachers think about assessment in general, and about formative assessment, in particular? Do they know and do they distinguish, both at a theoretical and at an operative level, formative from summative assessment?

Bennett, R. E., & Gitomer, D. H. (2009). Transforming K-12 assessment: Integrating accountability testing, formative assessment and professional support. In C. Wyatt-Smith, J. J. Cumming (Eds.), Educational assessment in the 21st century (pp. 43-62). Dordrecht: Springer. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box. London: Kings College. Boyle, B., & Charles, M. (2010). Defining ongoing assessment: The effective method for supporting teaching and learning in early years and primary education. School Leadership and Management Journal, 30(2), 285-300. Castoldi, M. (2012). Valutare a scuola. Roma: Carocci. Clarke, S. (2001). Unlocking formative assessment: Practical strategies for enhancing pupils’ learning in the primary classroom. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Erickson, F. (2007). Some thoughts on “proximal” formative assessment of student learning. Yearbook of the National Society for Study of Education, 106(1), 186-216. Fele, G., & Paoletti, I. (2003). L’interazione in classe. Bologna: il Mulino. Gearhart, M., & Osmundson, E. (2008). Assessment portfolios as opportunities for teacher learning (CRESST Report 736). Los Angeles, CA: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST). Gearhart, M., Nagashima, S., Pfotenhauer, J., Clark, S., Schwab, C., Vendlinski, T., et al. (2006). Developing expertise with classroom assessment in K–12 science: Learning to interpret student work. Educational Assessment, 11, 237-263. Giovannini, M. L., & Boni, M. (2010). Verso la valutazione a sostegno dell’apprendimento. Uno studio esplorativo nella scuola primaria. Journal of Educational, Cultural and psychological studies, 1, 161-178. Hattie, J., & Temperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. Louden, W., Rohl, M., Gore, J., McIntosh, A., Greaves, D., Wright, R. et al. (2005). Prepared to teach: An investigation into the preparation of teachers to teach literacy and numeracy. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Matters, G. (2006). Assessment approaches in Queensland senior science syllabuses. A report to Queensland Studies Autority. Brisbane: ACER. Pastore, S., & Salamida, D. (2013). Oltre il mito educativo? Formative assessment e pratica didattica. Milano: FrancoAngeli. Perkins, D., & Blythe, T. (1994). Putting understanding up front. Educational Leadership, 51(5), 4-7. Stiggins, R. J., & Conklin N. F. (1992). In teachers’ hands: Investigating the practices of classroom assessment. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.