Educational assessment is used as a metric evaluating learners subject knowledge to ensure required standards are achieved assuring quality of education (OECD/CERI, 2008). Aligned with international educational standards, the assessment process can be broadly categorized into two distinct types: formative and summative. Evaluation of learners during the educational process is known as formative assessment (FA), emphasising on continuous monitoring of the learners progression. In contrast, summative assessment (SA) primarily accentuates on learners progress achieved at the end of the educational period (Scriven, 1967).

A growing amount of research underlines the importance of effectively balancing FA and SA to improve educational outcomes (Sambell et al., 2012). Taras (2005) proposed that FA used as a feedback tool after the SA. Conversely, Siweya and Letsoalo (2014) propose using FA to gauge learners’ readiness for subsequent SA, positioning FA as a tool that shapes instruction and learner readiness. Building on this perspective, FA can assist teachers with identification of gaps in learners knowledge, using it as an evidence to providing essential feedback by adapting teaching strategies and stimulate students to self-regulate their learning (Black & Wiliam, 2009; Popham, 2008; Zhai et al., 2021). This is a crucial in the development of lifelong learning skills, critical thinking and learner autonomy (European Commission,2018).

Numerous works have corroborated the positive impact of FA in supporting students learning and achievement. Li (2006) reported that positive impact of FA on the development of learners PISA reading skills, demonstrating FA potential to support international benchmarks of student achievement. Gikandi et al.’s (2011) presented that FA can facilitate content comprehension and intellectual engagement of students. von Aufschnaiter & Alonzo (2018) reported that FA can allow teachers to recognize individual student subject conceptual level. This global perspective of educational reform positions FA as a crucial agenda in propelling pedagogical innovation (Birenbaum et al., 2015).

Despite its broad appeal, the impact of its implementation can vary and be dependent on student population (Bennett, 2011). To be a part of this ongoing international discourse and inform best practices, this study is centred on the impact of FA in a regional city school in Kazakhstan based on framework with global standards that seek to bolster students conceptual understanding of the subject.

This study conceptualizes FA as a dynamic, cyclical process that encourages active interaction among teachers, students, and content (Ruiz-Primo and Furtak, 2007). To explore the benefits of FA, this research will examine its impact on students’ conceptual understanding of a selected Physics topic. Though Physics will serve as the focal point, the findings could yield valuable insights for other disciplines as well, particularly those within STEAM fields. Studies examining the influence of FA on improving learners physics conceptual understanding are limited (Gonzales, 2011). Ivanjek (2021) investigated approached taken to teaching and learning in advancing physics conceptual comprehension. However, misconception persists as learners are inclined to learn the formula without grasping underlying concepts. Also, FA and SA tend to not be conceptually based, instead emphasis is given to procedural solving exercises or directly application of formula (Ndihokubwayo et al., 2020).

Against this backdrop, this study emphasizes cultivating conceptual understanding through FA, focusing on foundational theory to strengthen students’ concepts and subsequent enhancement of their SA performance.

Research Question: How can the implementation of FA practices in physics instruction improve students conceptual understanding and subsequently enhance their performance on SA?

Objectives:

1. To establish feedback mechanisms that can foster self-regulated learning.
2. To examine how FA-driven improvements in students’ conceptual understanding translate into higher SA outcomes.

This study employed multi-phase investigation to evaluate FA influence on students fundamental subject knowledge translating into improved SA performance. The approach of taken from Bell and Cowie (2001), emphasising that both students and teachers should play an active role in FA. The participants of this study are from grade 12 physics group comprising 14 students. The first phase involved the literature analysis of the FA and the role it had on conceptual learning. Insights from this examination helped in determining the part FA can play in the development of students intellectual abilities resulting in improving quality of education. The second phase involved the formulation of FA with a theoretical framework with a focus on essential concepts from a targeted topic “Electromagnetic Oscillations and Waves” in Physics. Post-FA, a structured peer assessment was employed where the students were provided with model solutions. This was done to advocate clear understanding of the criteria, reinforce conceptual ideas and critical thinking. The third phase encompassed students estimating marks allocated to each question based on critical words provided in the model solution. This exercise was aimed at the significance of conceptual clarity and strategic formulation of the response. Also, this reflective practice gave students better understanding of the examiners review process. The fourth stage involved teachers feedback on the accuracy of marks distribution and model solution discussion to better illustrate how marks are allocated. The FA are then rechecked by the teacher to maintain consistency to identify and rectify and discrepancies. Then, the students were administered SA after an appropriate interval to evaluate the post-intervention conceptual comprehension. This is solely marked by the teacher, ensuring objective measure to the learning process. The final stage included the data collection of FA and SA for the analysis of the student performance and indication. This will provide the teachers insights on how FA assisted in development of underlying theoretical components of the Physics topic. It should be noted that throughout the study all ethical considerations were upheld including informed consent and confidentiality. Ethical considerations, such as informed consent and confidentiality, were upheld throughout the study, ensuring that all research activities complied with institutional and ethical guidelines. This preliminary study is part of a larger research effort that will include a control group and assess group levels before the study. Future research will address inconsistencies and strengthen the correlation between FA with structured feedback and SA.

The research conducted was to assess the impact of FA on students performance in SA via the development of their subject conceptual understanding. Both the FA and SA questions were designed to align with the same learning objectives (LO) outlined below. LO1: Describe sources of electromagnetic oscillations LO2: Understand modulation and distinguish between AM and FM LO3: Know and describe advantages of AM and FM transmissions LO4: Understand information carriers LO5: Describe the use and role of satellites in communication LO6: Know the merits of geostationary and polar orbiting satellites LO7: Know frequencies and wavelengths in communication channels LO8: Know types and characteristics of electromagnetic waves The findings illustrated that the FA results of students averaged around 40%. However, with the feedback mechanism employed, the students' SA results increased substantially to 80%. FA supported students' self-regulated learning by identifying gaps and providing targeted feedback for improvement. It also helped the teacher identify students' weak areas, enabling them to tailor feedback effectively. FA-driven gains and SA performance improved across objectives, reaching up to about 70%. LO3, LO5 and LO8 showed an increase in the average score in SA by more than 50%, while LO4 and LO7 showed substantial score improvement by about 70%. Conversely, LO1, LO2, and LO6 showed the smallest gains, with increases of less than 25%. Overall, positive correlation is seen between FA and SA on students performance, attributed to iterative feedback encouraging students to take ownership of their learning process and enhanced knowledge retention. This study effectively answers the established research questions showing that well-structured FA with feedback mechanism fosters self-regulated learning and drives significant improvements. It underscores the pivotal role of FA as a pedagogical tool, not only advancing students academic performance but also equipping them with lifelong learning skills.

Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5–25. Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2001). The characteristics of formative assessment in science education. Science Education, 85(5), 536–553. Birenbaum, M., DeLuca, C., Earl, L., Heritage, M., Klenowski, V., Looney, A., et al. (2015). International trends in the implementation of assessment for learning: Implications for policy and practice. Policy Futures in Education, 13, 117–140. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31. European Commission. (2018). Council recommendation of 22 May 2018 on key competences for lifelong learning (2018/C 189/01). Official Journal of the European Union. Gikandi, J., Morrow, D., & Davis, N. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2333–2351. Gonzales, A. (2011). Assessment of conceptual understanding of atomic structure, covalent bonding, and bond energy (All Theses, 1109). Clemson University. Ivanjek, L. (2021). An investigation of conceptual understanding of atomic spectra among university students (Doctoral thesis). University of Zagreb. Li, H. (2016). How is formative assessment related to students’ reading achievement? Findings from PISA 2009. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 23(4), 473–494. Ndihokubwayo, K., Uwamahoro, J., Ndayambaje, I., & Ralph, M. (2020). Light phenomena conceptual assessment: An inventory tool for teachers. Physics Education, 55(3). OECD/CERI. (2008). Assessment for learning: Formative assessment. OECD Publishing. Popham, W. J. (2008). Transformative assessment. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Furtak, E. M. (2007). Exploring teachers’ informal formative assessment practices and students’ understanding in the context of scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 57–84. Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. Tyler, R. Gagné, & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives on curriculum evaluation (Vol. 1, pp. 39–83). Rand McNally. Siweya, H. J., & Letsoalo, P. (2014). Formative assessment by first-year chemistry students as a predictor of success in summative assessment at a South African university. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(4), 541–549. Taras, M. (2005). Assessment – summative and formative – some theoretical reflections. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(4), 466–478. Zhai, X., Shi, L., & Nehm, R. H. (2021). A meta-analysis of machine learning-based science assessments: Factors impacting machine-human score agreements. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30(3), 361–379.