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

Learning Environments Research

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2018, Pages 61-79

  Pinger, Petra ^a   Rakoczy, Katrin ^a   Besser, Michael ^b   Klieme, Eckhard ^a  

^a GERMAN INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH   (Germany)

^b LEUPHANA UNIVERSITY OF LÜNEBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Achievement; Feedback; Formative assessment; Instruction; Instructional quality; Intervention; Mathematics; Teaching quality

Indexed keywords

EID: 85020188804     PISSN: 13871579     EISSN: 15731855     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10984-017-9240-2     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Inside the black box. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148.
5. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–73.
6. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 5–31.
7. 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.
8. Bloom, B. S., Hasting, J. T., & Madaus, G. F. (1971). Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Clausen, M. (2002). Unterrichtsqualität: Eine frage der perspektive? [Teaching quality: A matter of perspective?]. Münster, Berlin: Waxmann.
13. Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23, 13–20.
14. Creemers, B. P. M., Kyriakides, L., & Antoniou, P. (2013). Teacher professional development for improving quality of teaching. Dodrecht: Springer.
15. De Jong, R., & Westerhof, K. J. (2001). The quality of student ratings of teacher behaviour. Learning Environments Research, 4(1), 51–85.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Macmillan. doi:10.1080/01443410.2013.785384.
19. 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.
20. Fraser, B. J. (1998). The birth of a new journal: Editor’s introduction. Learning Environments Research, 1, 1–5.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. Harks, B., Klieme, E., Hartig, J., & Leiss, D. (2014a). Separating cognitive and content domains in mathematical competence. Educational Assessment, 19(4), 243–266.
24. 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
25. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2011). Formative assessment: A meta-analysis and a call for research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(4), 28–37.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. Kunter, M. (2005). Multiple ziele im mathematikunterricht [Multiple goals in Mathematics instruction]. Münster: Waxmann.
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. 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.
36. 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.
37. 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.
38. 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.
39. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus (Version 7) [Computer Software]. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. 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.
45. 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.
46. 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.
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. 2CA project. In D. Leutner, J. Fleischer, J. Grünkorn & E. Klieme (Eds.), Competence assessment in education: Research, models, and instruments (pp. 447–467). Berlin: Springer.
50. 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.
51. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144.
52. 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.
53. 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.
54. 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.
55. Shute, V. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189. doi:10.3102/0034654307313795.
56. 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.
57. TIMSS+im Nationalfonds-Projekt “Schule, Leistung und Persönlichkeit”. (1995). Population 2 Zweiter Schülerfragebogen M [Population 2 Second questionnaire]. Bern: Amt für Bildungsforschung.
58. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London: The Falmer Press.
59. 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.
60. 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.
61. 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.
62. 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.