Teachers who use assessment for formative rather than summative purposes are more effective in promoting student learning outcomes (Chen et al., 2017; Kyriakides et al., 2020). Teachers appear to acknowledge the benefit of formative assessment. However, their assessment practice remains mainly summative oriented (Suurtamm & Koch, 2014; Wiliam, 2017). This can partly be attributed to the fact that teachers do not receive sufficient training in classroom assessment (DeLuca & Klinger, 2010). Teacher Professional Development (TPD) programs intended to improve assessment practice have so far provided mixed results regarding their impact on teachers’ assessment skills (Chen et al., 2017), whereas many studies do not provide any empirical evidence on the impact of student assessment TPD programs on student learning outcomes (Christoforidou & Kyriakides, 2021). In this context, this study aims to explore the impact of a TPD course in formative assessment on improving teachers’ assessment skills and through that on promoting student learning outcomes in mathematics (cognitive and meta-cognitive).

During the first phase of the study, a framework that enables the determination and measurement of classroom assessment skills was developed. This framework examines assessment looking at three main aspects. First, skills associated with the main phases of the assessment process are considered (Gardner et al., 2010; Wiliam et al., 2004): (i) appropriate assessment instruments are used to collect valid and reliable data; (ii) appropriate procedures in administering these instruments are followed; (iii) data emerging from assessment are recorded in an efficient way and without losing important information; (iv) assessment results are analysed, interpreted, and used in ways that can promote student learning; and (v) assessment results are reported to all intended users to help them take decisions on how to improve student learning outcomes. The second aspect of this framework has to do with the fact that assessment skills are defined and measured in relation to teachers’ ability to use the main assessment techniques. Specifically, the framework looks at assessment techniques by considering two important decisions affecting assessment technique selection: a) the mode of response and b) who performs the assessment. Finally, the third aspect of the framework refers to the five measurement dimensions suggested in the Dynamic Model of Educational Effectiveness (Kyriakides et al., 2020): frequency, focus, stage, quality and differentiation. These dimensions allow us to better describe the functioning of each characteristic of an effective teacher (Scheerens, 2016).

Based on the theoretical framework and its dimensions, a questionnaire measuring teachers’ skills in assessment was developed. A study provided support to the validity of the instrument. It was also found that assessment skills can be grouped into three stages of assessment behaviour. These stages were used to make decisions in relation to the content and design of the TPD course which was based on the main assumptions of the DA. First, the DA considers the importance of identifying specific needs and priorities for improvement of each teacher/group of teachers. Second, it is acknowledged that teachers should be actively involved in their professional development to better understand how and why the factors addressed have an impact on student learning. Third, the DA supports that the Advisory and Research Team has should support teachers in their efforts to develop and implement their action plans. Fourth, monitoring the implementation of teacher action plans in classroom settings is considered essential. This implies that teachers should continuously develop and improve their action plans based on the information collected through formative evaluation.

At the beginning of school year 2019-20, 62 secondary school teachers who taught mathematics in Grades 7, 8 and 9 in Nicosia (Cyprus) agreed to participate. These teachers were randomly split into the experimental (n=31) and the control group (n=31). Randomization was done at the school level to avoid any spillover effect. Students of Grades 7, 8 and 9 of the teacher sample participated in the study. All students of two classrooms per teacher were randomly selected. Our student sample was 2588 students from 124 classrooms. Teachers of the experimental group were invited to participate in a TPD course with a focus on student assessment. Teachers of the control group did not attend any TPD course. However, they were provided the opportunity to participate in the TPD course during the next school year. Data on teacher skills and student achievement were collected at the beginning and at the end of the TPD course. The instruments used were: (1) a teacher questionnaire, (2) a battery of curriculum-based written tests in mathematics (measuring cognitive skills), and (3) a battery of tests measuring metacognitive skills in mathematics. To measure the impact of the TPD course on improving teachers’ assessment skills the Extended Logistic Model of Rasch was used to analyse the data emerged from the teacher questionnaire. Data emerged from each measurement period. Then, the Mann Whitney analysis was used to search for any differences between the control and experimental group in terms of teachers’ assessment skills at the beginning and at the end of the intervention. To measure the impact of the TPD course on improving students’ cognitive learning outcomes, multilevel regression analysis was conducted to find out whether teachers employing the DA were more effective than the teachers of the control group in terms of promoting their students’ learning outcomes in mathematics. In addition, to search for the impact of the intervention on improving students’ metacognitive learning outcomes, three separate multilevel regression analyses, one for each scale measuring regulation of cognition (i.e., Prediction, Planning, Evaluation), were also conducted.

The Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test revealed that the mean scores of teachers’ assessment skills were higher at the end of the intervention compared to their scores at the beginning of the intervention (Z=4.80, p<0.001). On the other hand, no statistically significant improvement in the skills of the control group was identified (Z=1.21, p=0.23). The Mann Whitney test did not reveal any statistically significant difference between the control and the experimental group in terms of the stage that each teacher was found to be situated at the beginning of the intervention (Z= -0.57, p=0.57). A statistically significant difference at the end of the intervention (Z=2.53, p=0.011) was found. It was observed that none of the teachers of the control group managed to move from the stage he/she was found to be situated at the beginning of the intervention to a more demanding stage. A stepwise progression was observed in the experimental group since 13 out of 31 teachers managed to move at the next more demanding stage. Moreover, the results of all four multilevel analyses revealed that the DA had a statistically significant effect on student achievement in mathematics (in both cognitive and meta-cognitive learning outcomes). The DA considers the importance of designing a course according to the specific needs and priorities for improvement of each group of teachers, unlike most ‘one size fits all’ professional development approaches. This argument has received some support since it was found that teachers’ assessment skills can be grouped into three stages. This study also reveals that teachers can improve and ultimately progress to the next developmental stage of assessment skills, by undertaking appropriate trainings. Finally, this study has shown the impact of the TPD course based on DA on both cognitive and metacognitive learning outcomes. Finally, implications for research, policy and practice are discussed.

Chen, F., Lui, A. M., Andrade, H., Valle, C., & Mir, H. (2017). Criteria-referenced formative assessment in the arts. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 29(3), 297-314. Christoforidou, M., & Kyriakides, L. (2021). Developing teacher assessment skills: The impact of the dynamic approach to teacher professional development. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 70, 101051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101051 DeLuca, C., & Klinger, D. A. (2010). Assessment literacy development: Identifying gaps in teacher candidates’ learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17(4), 419-438. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2010.516643 Gardner, J., Wynne, H., Hayward L., & Stobart, G. (2010). Developing Teacher Assessment. McGraw-Hill/Open University Press. Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B.P.M., Panayiotou, A., & Charalambous, E. (2020). Quality and Equity in Education: Revisiting Theory and Research on Educational Effectiveness and Improvement. Routledge. Scheerens, J. (2016). Educational effectiveness and ineffectiveness: A critical review of the knowledge base. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-7459-8 Suurtamm, C., & Koch, M. J. (2014). Navigating dilemmas in transforming assessment practices: experiences of mathematics teachers in Ontario, Canada. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 26(3), 263-287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-014-9195-0 Wiliam, D. (2017). Assessment for learning: meeting the challenge of implementation, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 25(6), 686–689. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2017.1401526 Wiliam, D., Lee, C., Harrison, C., & Black, P. J. (2004). Teachers developing assessment for learning: Impact on student achievement. Assessment in Education: Principles Policy and Practice, 11(1), 49-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594042000208994