The formative assessment in Primary Education: potentialities and constrains
Author(s):
Leonor Santos (presenting / submitting) Jorge Pinto
Conference:
ECER 2016
Format:
Paper

Session Information

09 SES 12 B, Formative and Summative Assessments

Paper Session

Time:
2016-08-26
09:00-10:30
Room:
NM-F103a
Chair:
Josef Basl

Contribution

The context of this study involves the first four years of compulsory education referred in Portugal as the 1st cycle of basic education, covering children between 6 and 9 years old. We will name this cycle as primary education for clarification purposes. In this cycle, learning outcomes are defined for disciplinary areas (Mathematics, Portuguese language, Study of the environment and Expressions) which all together constitute a referential learning target for the primary education. At the end of this 4-year cycle there is an external national exam, which according to the grade obtained allows students to access, or not, the next study cycle. It can be said that primary education includes the first years of formal education.

It is accepted that formative assessment is crucial and requires learners to be in the center of the assessment (Colbert & Cumming, 2014). Formative assessment understood as a process that intentionally seeks to support students in their learning has been recognized by various stakeholders of the educational system as a very important practice in terms of teaching and learning (OECD, 2013). If the support to this idea seems to be relatively peaceful, the practice is far from being a reality (Santiago, Donaldson, Looney, & Nusche, 2012). There are several reasons in general pointed out to justify this lack of formative assessment practice in primary education: the educational policy, the extension of the programs, the characteristics of the students, namely because they are too young, immature and, as they are in initiation phase, they have difficulties thinking about their own work or their difficulties. So, it is necessary to understand whether if it is possible to develop formative assessment practices in primary education and how students are able to recognize them as useful for their own learning. These are the objectives for this study.

The formative assessment term is not consensual and allows different interpretations. In the literature, this term can enclose several conceptions: from the idea that all assessment made in class is formative to the idea that only the assessment that uses information to overcome difficulties is formative (Bennett, 2011). These different ideas also lead to different practices. In our study, formative assessment is understood as a process, involving teachers and students, thus allowing to support and to guide students in their learning process (Black & William, 2006).

In this sense, to carry out its purpose, formative assessment must be based on five key strategies: to clarify students of what is intended in terms of learning; to introduce situations that can provide evidences of learning; to provide appropriate feedback; to use peers as a resource to each other and engage students in overcoming work of their learning (William, 2007). In addition and for this to be achieved it is required that the teachers has a clear intention (Santos & Pinto, 2011) to integrate planning between instruction and assessment (Bennett, 2011).

This conception involves a conceptualization of learning as an activity process (Vygostky, 1987), emphasizing the importance of the clarification of what is to be learned through the assessment criteria and the instruments in terms of their ability to provide evidence of learning (eg. portfolio) and the importance of feedback in guiding students in their learning process.

Method

This study is a meta-analysis from four studies developed in primary school in mathematics: Castanheira, 2015; Gomes, 2016; Peres, 2012; Pimentel, 2013. Castanheira and Pimentel developed a portfolio in mathematics with 19 students from the 2nd grade (seven years old) and 24 students from the 4th grade (nine years old), respectively. The students had to select a limit number of relevant tasks and to write a reflection for each one. These selected tasks could be improved. A guide for the elaboration of the portfolio and a regular feedback were the support strategies used by these two teachers. Gomes considered a group of 26 students from the 2nd grade. She used nine quizzes for a period of three months in a formative perspective. Three phases were considered for each quiz: students answered to the quiz, the teacher provided feedback and students reworked their first answers. Finally, Peres worked with a 20 students from the 1st grade (six years old). She developed and used assessment criteria in solving problems for a period of four months. Students solved eight problems. A first version of assessment criteria was proposed by the students after the first problem. Progressively, these criteria were improved by students that used them every time they were solving a problem. This strategy was completed by oral interactions with the teacher upon request of the student. These studies were developed in different schools and in two Portuguese regions (Lisbon and Setúbal). Nevertheless, all of them followed an interpretative methodological approach (Cohen, Lawrence, & Morrison, 2007), studding all classes in general and three or four case studies of students in a more deep way. Data collection took into account the observation of classes, interviews with the selected students and documental analysis of the students' productions, as well as the feedback given, when applied. For the meta-analysis it was considered three dimensions of analysis that considered the relation between formative assessment strategy and (i); the learning opportunities created; (ii) the mathematics learning occurred; and (iii) the emerged challenges.

Expected Outcomes

In these studies each formative assessment strategy occurred from an intentional option of the teacher and transpires in the daily life of the classroom (Wiliam, 2007) valuing this setting (McMillan, 2013). These teachers shared a common perspective about what is formative assessment and its importance in the learning process. Whatever the formative strategy used, students felt that the teacher’s feedback and the assessment criteria allowed them to confront what they have done with what was expected of them, helping them to be conscious of possible gaps and consequent difficulties and, in several cases, to ask the teacher to help them. The consciousness of this gap is the first step for learning (Sadler, 1989). Moreover, this consciousness helps students to understand what is or not important to learn (Wiliam, 2007). In the case of Peres’ study, working with assessment criteria helped students to understand the meaning of a problem. As the quizzes focus essentially in mathematics knowledge, they contributed unquestionably for their learning. The fact that students had to select tasks for their portfolio requires them to reflect once more about what they have done. Progressively, students, whatever the study, revealed to be more autonomous. These results confirm the idea that formative assessment is possible in early years and contributes for learning (Santos & Pinto, 2011). Nevertheless, developing a pedagogical approach that highlights assessment as an important support for learning is a complex task. Teachers have to change their usual practices. To develop formative assessment is not to add something to what is usually done, it is to do differently (Santos & Pinto, 2014). Moreover, the assessment culture is still strongly influenced by an accountability perspective implemented by summative assessment (NCTM, 2014; Santiago et al, 2012), making difficult these changes.

References

Bennett, R. (2011). Formative assessment: a critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5-25. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2006).Developing a theory of formative assessment. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp.81-100). London: Sage. Castanheira, S. (2015). O portefólio como instrumento de avaliação reguladora: um estudo no 1.º ciclo na área da Matemática. (Relatório de Mestrado, Instituto Politécnico de Setúbal) Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. London: Routledge. Colbert, P. & Cumming, J. (2014). Enabling all students to learn through assessment. In C. Wyatt-Smith, V. Klenowski, & P. Colbert (Eds.), Designing Assessment for Quality Learning (pp, 211- 231). Australian Catholic University: Springer. Gomes, S. (2016). Práticas de questões-aula numa perspetiva de avaliação formativa em Matemática. (Relatório de Mestrado, Instituto Politécnico de Setúbal) McMillan, J. (2013). Why we need research on classroom assessment. In J. McMillan (Ed.), SAGE handbook of research on classroom assessment (pp. 3-16). London: SAGE Publications, Inc. NCTM (2014). Principles to actions. Ensuring mathematical success for all. Reston, VA: NCTM. OECD (2013). Synergies for better learning. An international perspective on evaluation and assessment. OECD Reviews of evaluation and assessment in education. Paris: OECD Publishing. Pimentel, I. (2013). O contributo do portefólio para as aprendizagens dos alunos no 1.º ciclo do ensino básico. (Relatório de Mestrado, Instituto Politécnico de Setúbal) Peres, A. (2012). O contributo dos critérios de avaliação no desenvolvimento da capacidade de resolução de problemas, em alunos do 1.º ciclo do Ensino Básico. (Dissertação de Mestrado, Universidade de Lisboa) Santiago, P.; Donaldson, G.; Looney, A., & Nusche, D. (2012). OECD Reviews of evaluation and assessment in education: Portugal 2012. OECD Publishing. Santos, L. & Pinto, J. (2011). Is assessment for learning possible in early school years? Procedia social behavioral sciences, 12, 283-289. (doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.02.037) Santos, L. & Pinto, J. (2014). Des politiques éducatives a la salle de classe. 26éme Colloque de l’ADMEE Europe. Cultures et politiques de l’évaluation en éducation et en formation. Marrakech, 15-17 janvier, 2014. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119-144. Vygostky, L. (1987). Thinking and speech. New York: Plenum. Wiliam, D. (2007). Keeping learning on track. In F. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 1053-1098). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

Author Information

Leonor Santos (presenting / submitting)
Instituto de Educação, Universidade de Lisboa
Lisbon
Escola Superior de Educação de Setubal-IPS
Lisboa

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.