Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Interplay of formative assessment and instructional quality—interactive effects on students’ mathematics achievement

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Learning Environments Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Formative assessment is considered to be a promising teaching practice for promoting teaching and learning processes. The implementation of teaching practices into instruction involves intervening with a learning environment that is characterised by certain features of instructional quality. Our study aims to contribute to the understanding of formative assessment by analysing the interplay between a formative assessment intervention and aspects of general instructional quality. In a quasi-experimental study design, 15 teachers participated in a control group (n = 361 students) and 20 teachers in the intervention classes (n = 498 students) implemented a curriculum-embedded formative assessment tool in their ninth-grade mathematics classes. No effects were found for the intervention on the assessed aspects of general instructional quality (process-oriented instruction, teacher–student relationship, effective use of instructional time). However, multilevel regression analyses revealed an interaction effect between the intervention and process-orientation and the effective use of instruction time. Our findings suggest that implementing formative assessment tools do not seem to suffice regarding changes in general instructional quality, but that an intervention with detailed material and guidelines can counterbalance effects of instructional quality, fostering students’ achievement in classes with lower degrees of process orientation and a less effective use of instructional time.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The project was supported by grants from the German Research Foundation (DFG, KL 1057/10-3, BL 275/16-3 and LE 2619/1-3); principal researchers: E. Klieme, K. Rakoczy (both Frankfurt), W. Blum (Kassel) and D. Leiss (Lüneburg).

References

  • Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., et al. (2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besser, M., Blum, W., & Klimczak, M. (2013). Formative assessment in every-day teaching of mathematical modelling: implementation of written and oral feedback to competency-oriented tasks. In G. A. Stillman, G. Kaiser, W. Blum & J. P. Brown (Eds.), Teaching mathematical modelling: connecting to research and practice (pp. 469–478). Springer: New York.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Besser, M., Leiss, D., Klieme, E., Blum, W., Rakoczy, K., & Schütze, B. (2016). The influence of mathematics teacher professional development on pedagogical content knowledge, on beliefs about teaching and learning, and on the quality of teaching. Manuscript in preparation.

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Inside the black box. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blomberg, G., Sherin, M. G., Renkl, A., Glogger, I., & Seidel, T. (2014). Understanding video as a tool for teacher education: Investigating instructional strategies to promote reflection. Instructional Science, 42(3), 443–463. doi:10.1007/s11251-013-9281-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S., Hasting, J. T., & Madaus, G. F. (1971). Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloomhoj, M., & Jensen, T. H. (2007). What’s all the fuss about competencies? Experiences with using a competence perspective on mathematics education to develop the teaching of mathematical modelling. In W. Blum, P. L. Galbraith, H.-W. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education: The 14th ICMI study (Vol. 10, pp. 45–56). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Borko, H., Jacobs, J., Eiteljorg, E., & Pittman, M. E. (2008). Video as a tool for fostering productive discussions in mathematics professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 417–436. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cizek, G. J. (2010). An introduction to formative assessment: History, characteristics, and challenges. In H. L. Andrade & G. J. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 3–17). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clausen, M. (2002). Unterrichtsqualität: Eine frage der perspektive? [Teaching quality: A matter of perspective?]. Münster, Berlin: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23, 13–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creemers, B. P. M., Kyriakides, L., & Antoniou, P. (2013). Teacher professional development for improving quality of teaching. Dodrecht: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, R., & Westerhof, K. J. (2001). The quality of student ratings of teacher behaviour. Learning Environments Research, 4(1), 51–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Decristan, J., Klieme, E., Kunter, M., Hochweber, J., Büttner, G., Fauth, B., et al. (2015). Embedded formative assessment and classroom process quality: How do they interact in promoting science understanding? American Educational Research Journal, 52(6), 1133–1159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. doi:10.3102/0013189X08331140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Macmillan. doi:10.1080/01443410.2013.785384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fauth, B., Decristan, J., Rieser, S., Klieme, E., & Büttner, G. (2014). Student ratings of teaching quality in primary school: Dimensions and prediction of student outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 29, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B. J. (1998). The birth of a new journal: Editor’s introduction. Learning Environments Research, 1, 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B. J. (2012). Classroom learning environments: Retrospect, context and prospect. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 1191–1239). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Furtak, E. M., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Shemwell, J. T., Ayala, C. C., Brandon, P. R., Shavelson, R. J., et al. (2008). On the fidelity of implementing embedded formative assessments and its relation to student learning. Applied Measurement in Education, 21, 360–389. doi:10.1080/08957340802347852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harks, B., Klieme, E., Hartig, J., & Leiss, D. (2014a). Separating cognitive and content domains in mathematical competence. Educational Assessment, 19(4), 243–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harks, B., Rakoczy, K., Hattie, J., Besser, M., & Klieme, E. (2014b). The effects of feedback on achievement, interest and self-evaluation: The role of feedback’s perceived usefulness. Educational Psychology, 34(3), 269–290. doi:10.1080/01443410.2013.785384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hondrich, A. L., Hertel, S., Adl-Amini, K., & Klieme, E. (2016). Implementing curriculum-embedded formative assessment in primary school science classrooms. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 23(2), 353–376. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2015.1049113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2011). Formative assessment: A meta-analysis and a call for research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(4), 28–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klieme, E., Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2009). The Pythagoras study: Investigating effects of teaching and learning in Swiss and German mathematics classrooms. In T. Janik & T. Seidel (Eds.), The power of video studies in investigating teaching and learning in the classroom (pp. 137–160). Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimczak, M., Kampa, M., Bürgermeister, A., Harks, B., Rakoczy, K., Besser, M., et al. (2012). Dokumentation der Befragungsinstrumente der Interventionsstudie im Projekt “Conditions and Consequences of Classroom Assessment” (Co²CA). Frankfurt am Main: DIPF. http://www.pedocs.de/volltexte/2016/12119/pdf/Klinczak_et_al_2012_Dokumentation_der_Befragungsinstrumente.pdf.

  • Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–284. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.119.2.254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunter, M. (2005). Multiple ziele im mathematikunterricht [Multiple goals in Mathematics instruction]. Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunter, M., & Baumert, J. (2006). Who is the expert? Construct and criteria validity of student and teacher ratings of instruction. Learning Environments Research, 9, 231–251. doi:10.1007/s10984-006-9015-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunter, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S., & Neubrand, M. (2013). Cognitive activation in the mathematics classroom and professional competence of teachers. Results from the COACTIV project. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lipowsky, F., Rakoczy, K., Pauli, C., Drollinger-Vetter, B., Klieme, E., & Reusser, K. (2009). Quality of geometry instruction and its short-term impact on students’ understanding of the Pythagorean Theorem. Learning and Instruction, 19, 527–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Trautwein, U., & Kunter, M. (2009). Assessing the impact of learning environments: How to use student ratings of classroom or school characteristics in multilevel modeling. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(2), 120–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maulana, R., & Helms-Lorenz, M. (2016). Observations and student perceptions of the quality of preservice teachers’ teaching behaviour: Construct representation and predictive quality. Learning Environments Research, 19, 335–357. doi:10.1007/s10984-016-9215-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMillan, J. H. (2010). The practical implications of educational aims and contexts for formative assessment. In H. L. Andrade & G. J. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 41–58). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus (Version 7) [Computer Software]. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.

  • Niss, M. (2003). Mathematical competencies and the learning of mathematics: The Danish KOM project. In A. Gagatsis & S. Papastavridis (Eds.), Mediterranean conference on mathematical education (pp. 115–124). Athens: 3rd Hellenic Mathematical Society and Cyprus Mathematical Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, R. M., Wehby, J. H., & Reschly, D. J. (2011). Teacher classroom management practices: Effects on disruptive or aggressive student behavior. Campbell Systematic Reviews. doi:10.4073/csr.2011.4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pianta, R. C., & Hamre, B. K. (2009). Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement of classroom processes: Standardized observation can leverage capacity. Educational Reseacher, 38(2), 109–199. doi:10.3102/0013189X09332374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinger, P., Rakoczy, K., Besser, M., & Klieme, E. (2016). Implementation of formative assessment–effects of quality of programme delivery on students’ mathematics achievement and interest. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2016.1170665.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prenzel, M., Kirsten, A., Dengler, P., Ettle, R., & Beer, T. (1996). Selbstbestimmt motiviertes und interessiertes Lernen in der kaufmännischen Erstausbildung [self-determined motivated and interested learning in vocational training in business administration]. Zeitschrift für Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik, 13, 108–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rakoczy, K. (2008). Motivationsunterstützung im Mathematikunterricht: Unterricht aus der Perspektive von Lernenden und Beobachtern [Motivational support in mathematics lessons: Instruction from the perspectives of learners and observers]. Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rakoczy, K., Buff, A., & Lipowsky, F. (2005). Befragungsinstrumente [Questionnaires]. In E. Klieme, C. Pauli, & K. Reusser (Eds.), Dokumentation der Erhebungs- und Auswertungsinstrumente zur schweizerisch- deutschen Videostudie “Unterrichtsqualität, Lernverhalten und mathematisches Verständnis” (Vol. 13). Frankfurt am Main: GFPF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rakoczy, K., Harks, B., Klieme, E., Blum, W., & Hochweber, J. (2013). Written feedback in mathematics: Mediated by students’ perception, moderated by goal orientation. Learning and Instruction, 27, 63–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rakoczy, K., Klieme, E., Drollinger-Vetter, B., Lipowsky, F., Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2007). Structure as a quality feature in mathematics instruction: Cognitive and motivational effects of a structured organisation of the learning environment vs. a structured presentation of learning content. In M. Prenzel (Ed.), Studies on the educational quality of schools The final report on the DFG Priority Programme (pp. 102–121). Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rakoczy, K., Klieme, E., Leiss, D., & Blum, W. (2017). Formative assessment in mathematics instruction: Theoretical considerations and empirical results of the Co2CA project. In D. Leutner, J. Fleischer, J. Grünkorn & E. Klieme (Eds.), Competence assessment in education: Research, models, and instruments (pp. 447–467). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, M. C., & Randel, B. (2010). Research on characteristics of effective professional development programs for enhancing educators’ skills in formative assessment. In H. L. Andrade & G. J. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 251–276). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidel, T., & Shavelson, R. J. (2007). Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade: The role of theory and research design in disentangling meta-analysis results. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 454–499. doi:10.3102/0034654307310317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shavelson, R. J., Young, D. B., Ayala, C. C., Brandon, P. R., Furtak, E. M., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., et al. (2008). On the impact of curriculum-embedded formative assessment on learning: A collaboration between curriculum and assessment developers. Applied Measurement in Education, 21, 295–314. doi:10.1080/08957340802347647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189. doi:10.3102/0034654307313795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, B. A., & Fraser, B. J. (2013). Relationships between learning environment and mathematics anxiety. Learning Environments Research, 16(2), 297–313. doi:10.1007/s10984-013-9134-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TIMSS+im Nationalfonds-Projekt “Schule, Leistung und Persönlichkeit”. (1995). Population 2 Zweiter Schülerfragebogen M [Population 2 Second questionnaire]. Bern: Amt für Bildungsforschung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London: The Falmer Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Waldis, M., Buff, A., Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2002). Skalendokumentation zur Schülerin-nen- und Schülerbefragung im schweizerischen Videoprojekt [Scale documentation of the student questionnaire of the Swiss video project]. Universität Zürich: Pädagogisches Institut.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1993). Toward a knowledge base for school Learning. Review of Educational Research, 63(3), 249–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiliam, D. (2010). An integrative summary of the research literature and implications for a new theory of formative assessment. In H. L. Andrade & G. J. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 18–40). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiliam, D., & Thompson, M. (2008). Integrating assessment with learning: What will it take to make it work? In C. A. Dwyer (Ed.), The future of assessment: Shaping teaching and learning (pp. 53–84). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the German Research Foundation under Grant KL 1057/10-3, BL 275/16-3 and LE 2619/1-3. We would like to thank Malte Klimczak for his support in planning and conducting the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Petra Pinger.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pinger, P., Rakoczy, K., Besser, M. et al. Interplay of formative assessment and instructional quality—interactive effects on students’ mathematics achievement. Learning Environ Res 21, 61–79 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-017-9240-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-017-9240-2

Keywords

Navigation