Formative assessment and feedback (FA) has been identified as one of the evidence-based teaching strategies that “really works in special and inclusive education” (Mitchell & Sutherland, 2020). For example, the meta-synthesis by Gersten et al. (2009) on instructional components provided evidence that explicit instruction and ongoing feedback significantly improve the mathematical performance of students with learning disabilities. Hughes et al. (2017) also demonstrate that explicit instruction, characterised by modelling, guided practice, and feedback, is highly effective for these students. Although Hattie's (2009) meta-synthesis of 800 meta-analyses, which showed a 0.90 effect size for formative evaluation, did not focus specifically on students with additional educational needs, it is likely applicable to them as well. Besides these review studies, Florian and Beaton (2018) highlighted the importance of FA, particularly listening to pupils' self-assessments and using this feedback to inform teaching practices, can enhance student engagement and learning outcomes.

Despite the growing evidence of FA's effectiveness in inclusive education (IE), there is no consensus on what the concept of FA means and what it encompasses in practice (Bennett, 2011). FA is often compared to summative assessment, which provides a cumulative score or quantitative insight into student learning performance against some standards, typically collected at the end of a study module or time segment (Dixson & Worrell, 2016). In contrast, FA is often defined as a cyclical process with a diagnostic value, aimed at using assessment results to adapt teaching to meet student learning needs and support their learning (Bennett, 2011, pp. 6–7). In this sense, FA is an assessment for learning as well as assessment of learning (Mitchell & Sutherland, 2020, p. 127).

Common activities or components of FA include explicitly communicating learning goals and success criteria, designing classroom discussions and tasks to gather evidence of learning, providing constructive feedback, encouraging self-assessment, and enabling peer assessment (Bennett, 2011, p. 8). According to Mitchell & Sutherland (2020, pp. 129–130), feedback should be timely, explicit, focused on strategy use, and include scaffolding segmented into manageable units to avoid cognitive overload. Feedback should highlight what the learner did well and how to improve, rather than focusing on deficiencies, to avoid social evaluative threats. If these conditions are not met, feedback may negatively impact attainment and would not be considered "formative."

Having said that, in many research publications FA is narrowly interpreted, focusing solely on the assessment or feedback process or isolated activities, rather than defined as a transformation of the entire “spirit” of the didactics and teaching and learning practice (Marshall & Drummond, 2006). While the core of FA may be teachers' assessment and feedback, if other significant components of FA (e.g., adapted instruction, scaffolding, self and peer assessment) are not provided with a purpose of promoting student autonomy (Marshall & Drummond, 2006) and social engagement (Florian & Beaton, 2018), it raises questions about whether it can still be considered FA. This complex definition of FA aligns more closely with the concept of IE, which is defined as meeting both the academic and social needs of all students (Nilholm & Göransson, 2017, p. 441).

Research questions and objectives

In analysing the most cited journal articles focusing on FA and related concepts (such as assessment for learning, formative feedback, and formative evaluation) published over the past 20 years, this study centres on the three research questions:

1. What is meant by FA?
2. What does FA include in teaching practice?
3. How is FA related to IE?

Hence, the research objective is to explore the definitions, components, and practical applications of FA, as well as its connections to IE.

We adopted the SMART (Systematic Mapping and Analysis of Research Topographies) approach, as developed and described by Nilholm and Göransson (2017). This methodology is designed to identify the most significant research within a given field. For our study, we analysed journal articles retrieved from two leading scientific databases, Web of Science and Scopus. To determine the high impact of a journal article, we compared their citation counts, a standard bibliometric method that quantitatively indicates a publication's influence within the academic community. The primary inclusion criterion was topical relevance. Journal article titles needed to include specific word combinations identified from a preliminary literature review: formative assessment, formative feedback, formative evaluation, formative teach*, and assessment for learning. When comparing searches in Scopus and Web of Science, Scopus included a greater number of articles, while all the most cited articles in Web of Science were also present in Scopus. Therefore, to explore a wider range of articles, we focused on Scopus. Searches were conducted in January 2025, covering publications from 2005–2024. Articles with at least 100 citations in Scopus were included. To address the bias towards older articles, papers published after 2019 required only 50 citations in Scopus. We focused exclusively on studies relevant to primary and lower-secondary education (ISCED 1 + 2), excluding those addressing other educational levels or unrelated topics. This search and selection process resulted in 42 identified articles. As an initial step, we extracted background information (authors, year of publication, and journal name) and categorised the articles into three types: theoretical, empirical, and review. We developed our analysis framework by identifying key evaluative features, such as categorising definitions of FA, components of FA, and relevance for IE. Each team member analysed a portion of the texts using a collaboratively developed coding scheme, with findings compiled in a shared database. This enabled both quantitative categorisation and qualitative interpretation, allowing us to identify emerging themes and deepen our understanding of FA’s role in inclusive teaching. To ensure validity, we employed iterative, team-based reflection and inductive coding grounded in the data.

What is meant by FA? We identified four types of FA definitions: 1) Minimalist Academic-Centric, which includes a minimal number of FA components (primarily eliciting evidence and providing feedback), and focuses exclusively on academic achievements; 2) Minimalist Dual, which includes only a minimal number of FA components, but focuses on both academic achievements and social and emotional learning (SEL); 3) Complex Academic-Centric, which covers more complex instructional areas by including an extended number of FA components, but focuses exclusively on academic achievements; 4) Comprehensive, which also includes an extended number of FA components, but focuses on both academic and SEL achievements and promotion of student autonomy. Among the 42 articles, 22 used Minimalist Academic-Centric, 2 used Minimalist Dual, 16 used Complex Academic-Centric, and 2 used Comprehensive definition. What does FA include in teaching practice? Our analysis revealed nine key components of formative assessment. The most commonly referenced were formative feedback (40 mentions), evidence gathering (36), and self-assessment (27), highlighting a strong focus on feedback mechanisms and student self-regulation. These were followed by the explicit learning goals (25), articulation of success criteria (24), peer assessment (23), and requiring independent practice (18). Least frequently mentioned were adaptive instructional practices (17) and the review of prior learning (5), suggesting these elements receive comparatively less attention in the literature. How is FA related to IE? Theoretical frameworks of FA highlight its potential to promote equity by narrowing the achievement gap and building critical skills such as self-efficacy and self-regulation. These models often reference specific student groups, including low-achieving students (7), students from minority backgrounds (4), socio-economically disadvantaged students (4), and students with disabilities (only 1). In two empirical studies, diversity was present in the research sample (English language learners and cultural diversity); however, the research did not focus on this population.

Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 18(1), 5–25. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678 Dixson, D. D., & Worrell, F. C. (2016). Formative and Summative Assessment in the Classroom. Theory into Practice, 55(2), 153–159. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1148989 Florian, L., & Beaton, M. (2018). Inclusive pedagogy in action: Getting it right for every child. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(8), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1412513 Gersten, R., Chard, D. J., Jayanthi, M., Baker, S. K., Morphy, P., & Flojo, J. (2009). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of instructional components. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1202–1242. APA PsycInfo. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309334431 Hattie, John. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge. Hughes, C. A., Morris, J. R., Therrien, W. J., & Benson, S. K. (2017). Explicit Instruction: Historical and Contemporary Contexts. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 32(3), 140–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12142 Marshall, B., & Drummond, M. J. (2006). How teachers engage with assessment for learning: Lessons from the classroom. Research Papers in Education, 21(2), 133–149. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520600615638 Mitchell, D., & Sutherland, D. (2020). What really works in special and inclusive education: Using evidence-based teaching strategies (3rd ed.). Routledge. Nilholm, C., & Göransson, K. (2017). What is meant by inclusion? An analysis of European and North American journal articles with high impact. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 32(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2017.1295638 Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 3–14. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.001