Black and William [1] define formative assessment (FA) practice in a classroom as “the extent that evidence about student achievement is elicited, interpreted, and used by teachers, learners, or their peers, to make decisions about the next steps in instruction that are likely to be better, or better founded, than the decisions they would have taken in the absence of the evidence that was elicited”.      FA should be planned and practiced systematically, that is, it should be integral to teaching and learning process [3]. Different research studies have highlighted fundamental strategies of effective FA practices:

1. Learning intentions and criteria for success should be clarified and shared with student and attention should be focused on students’ process of learning and on their progress toward those goals [4];
2. A range of divergent  assessment techniques are proposed, together with realistic, challenging problems and tasks that elicit evidence of student learning and understanding [5];
3. Timely feedback, with a focus on the task at hand instead of marks or grades, should be provided in order to monitor learners’ progressive development, helping them become more aware of where they are going, where their learning currently is and what they can do to move forward [7];
4. Teachers should engineer effective classroom discussions, fostering a classroom culture that encourages interaction and an active involvement of students in the learning process [6];
5. Self-assessment and peer-assessment should be encouraged to activate students as both instructional resources for one another and owners of their own learning [8].

In order to develop effective systems for formative assessment supporting adaptive and/or differentiated instruction, teachers need diagnostically useful and actionable information, not just classification data such as numeric test scores [9]. Technology has potential to support FA as it can make available to teachers pools of assessment tasks and items that they can embed within lessons and units; it can enable the assessment of those aspects of cognition and performance that are complex and dynamic, through technology-based systems characterised by rich, complex, authentic contexts; interactive, dynamic responses; individualised feedback and coaching and diagnostic progress reporting [10]. The potential for learning in science is sometimes underestimated in activities that are usually offered in the classroom and which are often not problematised (or artificially problematised). Students are often relegated to the position of solving routine tasks and deprived of significant interaction with information and time for discussion and cognitive conflict. A significant part of scientific literacy requires an understanding of evidence and its underlying ideas [11].  Technology can offer opportunities for creating communal knowledge. Offering a technological environment taking into account the epistemological aspects of manipulated objects with a deep respect for scientific knowledge as well as students' potentialities is the main focus of this research. One goal was to design learning situations in which an adapted material environment offers tools (including technological tools) for experimenting with objects (mathematical or scientific) to anchor experience in a dimension where the scientific knowledge will be pushed to the front. Technology can enable sending and sharing of information, processing and analysis of information and an interactive environment for learning. These three aspects of the functionality of technology were explored in this research in connection with FA strategies. 

[1] Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5-31. P.9 [2] OECD/CERI (2008). Assessment for learning. The case of formative assessment. OECD/CERI International Conference “Learning in the 21st Century: Research, Innovation and Policy” [3] Swan, M. (2005). Standards Unit. Improving learning in mathematics: challenges and strategies. Produced by the Department for Education and Skills Standards Unit. [4] Herman, J. L., Osmundson, E., Ayalya, C., Schneider, S., & Timms, M. (2005). The nature and impact of teachers’ formative assessment practices. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Montreal, Quebec, Canada. [5] ] Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5-31. [6] Looney, J. (2010). Making it Happen: Formative Assessment and Educational Technologies. Thinking Deeper Research Paper n.1, part 3. Promethean Education Strategy Group. [7] Swan, M. (2005). Standards Unit. Improving learning in mathematics: challenges and strategies. Produced by the Department for Education and Skills Standards Unit. [8] Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5-31. [9] Foshayla, W.R., & Bellman, A. (2012). A Developmental Model for Adaptive and Differentiated Instruction Using Classroom Networking Technology. 2nd International Conference on Future Computers in Education. Lecture Notes in Information Technology, Vols. 23-24 (pp.90-95). [10] Quellmalz, E. S. (2013). Technology to Support Next-Generation Classroom Formative Assessment for Learning. Available at: http://www.wested.org/resources/technology-to-support-next-generation-classroom-formative-assessment-for-learning/ [11] Gott, r., & Duggan, S. (2007). A framework for practical work in science and scienctific literacy through argumentation. Research in Science and technological Education. 25(3). 271-291.