Formative assessment in mathematics: Mediated by feedback's perceived usefulness and students’ self-efficacy

Learning and Instruction

Volumn 60, Issue , 2019, Pages 154-165

  Rakoczy, Katrin ^a   Pinger, Petra ^a   Hochweber, Jan ^b   Klieme, Eckhard ^a   Schütze, Birgit ^c   Besser, Michael ^d  

^a GERMAN INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH   (Germany)

^b University of Teacher Education StGallen   (Switzerland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MÜNSTER   (Germany)

^d LEUPHANA UNIVERSITY OF LÜNEBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Formative assessment; Intervention study; Mediation; Perceived usefulness; Self efficacy

Indexed keywords

EID: 85041370800     PISSN: 09594752     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.01.004     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Andrade, H.L., Summing up and moving forward: Key challenges and future directions for research and development in formative assessment. Andrade, H.L., Cizek, G.J., (eds.) Handbook of formative assessment, 2010, Routledge, New York, NJ, 344–351.
2. Asparouhov, T., Muthén, B.O., Multiple imputation with Mplus. 2010 Retrieved September 29, 2010, from http://statmodel.com/download/Imputations7.pdf.
3. Bandura, A., Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. 1997, Freeman, New York.
4. Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A., The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (1986), 1173–1182 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173.
5. Bennett, R.E., Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 18:1 (2011), 5–25 https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678.
6. Besser, M., Blum, W., Klimczak, M., Formative assessment in every-day teaching of mathematical modelling: Implementation of written and oral feedback to competency-oriented tasks. Stillman, G., Blum, W., Brown, J., Kaiser, G., (eds.) ICTMA-15 proceedings (469-478), 2012, Springer, New York.
7. Besser, M., Leiss, D., The influence of teacher-training on in-service teachers’ expertise: A teacher-training-study on formative assessment in competency-oriented mathematics. Oesterle, S., Liljedahl, P., Nicol, C., Allan, D., (eds.) Proceedings of the 38th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education and the 36th conference of the North American chapter of the psychology of mathematics education, Vol. 2, 2014, PME, Vancouver, Canada, 129–136.
8. Black, P., Wiliam, D., Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 5:1 (1998), 7–75 https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102.
9. Black, P., Wiliam, D., Inside the Black Box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan 80:2 (1998), 139–144 https://dx.doi.org10.1177/003172171009200119.
10. Black, P., Wiliam, D., Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. 1998, Kings College, London School of Education, London.
11. Black, P., Wiliam, D., Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 21:1 (2009), 5–31 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5.
12. Black, P., Wiliam, D., Assessment for learning in the classroom. Gardner, J., (eds.) Assessment and learning, 2nd ed., 2012, SAGE, London [u.a.], 11–32.
13. Blum, W., Leiss, D., Investigating quality mathematics teaching – the DISUM Project. Bergsten, C., Grevholm, B., (eds.) Develobing and researching quality in mathematics teaching and learning, 2007, SMDF, Linköping, 3–16.
14. Briggs, D.C., Ruiz-Primo, M.A., Furtak, E., Shepard, L., Yin, Y., Meta-analytic methodology and inferences about the efficacy of formative assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 31:4 (2012), 13–17, 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2012.00251.
15. Brookhart, S.M., A theoretical framework for the role of classroom assessment in motivating student effort and achievement. Applied Measurement in Education 10:2 (1997), 161–180 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324818ame1002_4.
16. Bullock, J.G., Green, D.P., Ha, S.E., Yes, but what's the mechanism? (Don't expect an easy answer). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 98 (2015), 550–558 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018933.
17. Bürgermeister, A., Klieme, E., Rakoczy, K., Harks, B., Blum, W., Formative Leistungsbeurteilung im Unterricht: Konzepte, Praxisberichte und ein neues Diagnoseinstrument für das Fach Mathematik (Trans.) Formative assessment in instruction: concepts, reports, and a new diagnostic instrument for mathematics Hasselhorn, M., Schneider, W., Trautwein, U., (eds.) Lernverlaufsdiagnostik. Tests und Trends [Formative assessment. Tests and trends], Vol. 12, 2014, Hogrefe, Göttingen, S41–S60.
18. Carver, C.S., Scheier, M.F., On the self-regulation of behavior. 1998, University Press, New York, Cambridge, 10.1017/CBO9781139174794.
19. Clark, I., Formative assessment: Assessment is for self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review 24 (2012), 205–249, 10.1007/s10648-011-9191-6.
20. Cole, D.A., Maxwell, S.E., Testing mediational models with longitudinal data: Questions and tips in the use of structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 112:4 (2003), 558–577 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.112.4.558.
21. Collins, L.M., Schafer, J.L., Kam, C.-M., A comparison of inclusive and restrictive strategies in modern missing data procedures. Psychological Methods 6:4 (2001), 330–351 https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.6.4.330.
22. Dresel, M., Ziegler, A., Failure as an element of adaptive learning. Paper presented at the eighth biennial conference of the European association for research on adolescence, 2002, Oxford, UK.
23. Dunn, K.E., Mulvenon, S.W., A critical review of research on formative assessment: The limited scientific evidence of the impact of formative assessment in education. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation 14:7 (2009), 1–11.
24. Educational Testing Service, Research rationale for the keeping learning on track program. 2009, Author, Princeton.
25. Fast, L.A., Lewis, J.L., Bryant, M.J., Bocian, K.A., Cardullo, R.A., Rettig, M., et al. Does math self-efficacy mediate the effect of the perceived classroom environment in standardized math test performance?. Journal of Educational Psychology 102 (2010), 729–740 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018863.
26. Furtak, E.M., Ruiz-Primo, M.A., Shemwell, J.T., Ayala, C.C., Brandon, P.R., Shavelson, R.J., et al. On the fidelity of implementing embedded formative assessments and its relation to student learning. Applied Measurement in Education 21:4 (2008), 360–389 https://doi.org/10.1080/08957340802347852.
27. Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., Struyven, K., Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction 20 (2010), 304–315 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.007.
28. Goetz, T., Frenzel, A.C., Stoeger, H., Hall, N.C., Antecedents of everyday positive emotions: An experience sampling analysis. Motivation and Emotion 34 (2010), 49–62 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-009-9152-2.
29. Graham, J.W., Olchowski, A.E., Gilreath, T.D., How many imputations are really needed? Some practical clarifications of multiple imputation theory. Prevention Science 8:3 (2007), 206–213 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-007-0070-9.
30. Harks, B., Klieme, E., Hartig, J., Leiß D., Separating cognitive and content domains in mathematical competence. Educational Assessment 19:4 (2014), 243–266 https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2014.964114.
31. Harks, B., Rakoczy, K., Hattie, J., Besser, M., Klieme, E., The effects of feedback on achievement, interest and self-evaluation: The role of feedback's perceived usefulness. Educational Psychology 34:4 (2014), 269–290 https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.785384.
32. Hattie, J., Formative and summative interpretations of assessment information. 2003, School of Education. The University of Auckland Retrieved October 21, 2014, from http://web.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/fms/default/education/staff.
33. Hattie, J., Timperley, H., The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research 77:1 (2007), 81–112 https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487.
34. Heritage, M., Formative assessment: What do teachers need to know and do?. Phi Delta Kappan 89 (2007), 140–145 https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170708900210.
35. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garnier, H., Givvin, K.B., Hollingsworth, H., Jacobs, J., Stigler, J., Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 Video Study. NCES (2003-013), U.S. Department of Education, 2003, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC.
36. Jiang, Y., Song, J., Lee, M., Bong, M., Self-efficacy and achievement goals as motivational links between perceived contexts and achievement. Educational Psychology 34:1 (2014), 92–117 https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2015.999417.
37. Kingston, N., Nash, B., Formative assessment: A meta-analysis and a call for research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 30:4 (2011), 28–37 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2011.00220.
38. Leiss, D., Schukajlow, S., Blum, W., Messner, R., Pekrun, R., The role of the situation model in mathematical modelling - task analyses, student competencies, and teacher interventions. Journal für Mathematikdidaktik 31:1 (2010), 119–141 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13138-010-0006-y.
39. MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M., Williams, J., Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research 39:1 (2004), 99–128 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4.
40. McMillan, J.H., Venable, J.C., Varier, D., Studies of the effect of formative assessment on student achievement: So much more is needed. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 18(2), 2013 Available online http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=18&n=2.
41. Morin, A.J.S., Marsh, H.W., Nagengast, B., Scalas, L.F., Doubly latent multilevel analyses of classroom climate: An illustration. Journal of Experimental Education 82 (2014), 143–167 https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2013.769412.
42. Mouratidis, A., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., How you provide corrective feedback makes a difference: The motivating role of communicating in an autonomy-supporting way. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology 32 (2010), 619–637 https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.32.5.619.
43. Muthén, L.K., Muthén, B.O., Mplus user's guide (version 7.4). [Computer software], 1998-2012, Muthén & Muthén, Los Angeles, CA.
44. Narciss, S., Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks. Spector, J.M., Merrill, M.D., van Merrienboer, J.J.G., Driscoll, M.P., (eds.) Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, 3rd ed., 2008, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 125–144.
45. Nicol, D.J., Macfarlane-Dick, D., Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education 31:2 (2006), 199–218 https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090.
46. Olkin, I., Finn, J.D., Correlations redux. Psychological Bulletin 118 (1995), 155–164 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.155.
47. Pajares, F., Self-efficacy beliefs in achievement settings. Review of Educational Research 66 (1996), 543–578 https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066004543.
48. Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review. Educational Research Review 9 (2013), 129–144 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.002.
49. Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., Botella, J., Effects of self-assessment on self-regulated learning and self-efficacy: Four meta-analyses. Educational Research Review 22 (2017), 74–98 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.08.004.
50. Pellegrino, J.W., Chudowsky, N., Glaser, R., Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. 2001, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
51. Perrenoud, P., From formative evaluation to a controlled regulation of learning. Towards a wider conceptual field. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 5:1 (1998), 85–102 https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050105.
52. Pinger, P., Rakoczy, K., Besser, M., Klieme, E., Implementation of formative assessment –Effects of quality of program delivery on students’ mathematics achievement and interest. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 2016 Advance online publication https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2016.1170665.
53. Preacher, K.J., Advances in mediation analysis: A survey and synthesis of new developments. Annual Review of Psychology 66 (2015), 825–852 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015258.
54. Preacher, K.J., Hayes, A.F., Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods 40 (2008), 879–891 https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879.
55. Rakoczy, K., Harks, B., Klieme, E., Blum, W., Hochweber, J., Written feedback in mathematics: Mediated by students’ perception, moderated by goal orientation. Learning and Instruction 27 (2013), 63–73 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.03.002.
56. 2 CA project. Leutner, D., Fleischer, J., Grünkorn, J., Klieme, E., (eds.) Competence assessment in education: Research, models, and instruments, 2017, Springer, Berlin, 447–467.
57. Rotondi, M.A., Sample size estimation functions for cluster randomized trials (Version 1.0). [Software], 2015 Retrieved December 8, 2017 from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/CRTSize/CRTSize.pdf.
58. Sadler, R., Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education 5:1 (1998), 77–84 https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050104.
59. Sadler, T.D., Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning and research. Contemporary trends and issues in science education: v. 39. 2011, Springer, Dordrecht, New York.
60. Schafer, J.L., Graham, J.W., Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods 7:2 (2002), 147–177 https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.2.147.
61. Schunk, D.H., Self-efficacy and education and instruction. Maddux, J.E., (eds.) Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and applications, 1995, Plenum, New York, 281–303.
62. Schunk, D.H., Pajares, F., Self-efficacy theory. Wentzel, K.R., Wigfield, A., (eds.) Handbook of motivation at school, 2009, Routledge, New York, 35–53.
63. Schunk, D.H., Swartz, C.W., Goals and progress feedback: Effects on self-efficacy and writing achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology 18:3 (1993), 337–354 https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1993.1024.
64. Shute, V.J., Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research 78:1 (2008), 153–189 https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795.
65. Stiggins, R., Assessment for learning: A key to motivation and achievement. Edge 2:2 (2006), 3–19.
66. Strijbos, J.W., Narciss, S., Dünnebier, K., Peer feedback content and sender's competence level in academic writing revision tasks: Are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency?. Learning and Instruction 20 (2010), 291–303 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.008.
67. Televantou, I., Marsh, H.W., Kyriakides, L., Nagengast, B., Fletcher, J., Malmberg, L.-E., Phantom effects in school composition research: Consequences of failure to control biases due to measurement error in traditional multilevel models. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 26 (2015), 75–101 https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2013.871302.
68. Tulis, M., Error management behavior in classrooms: Teachers’ responses to students’ mistakes. Teaching and Teacher Education 33 (2013), 56–68 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.02.003.
69. Tulis, M., Steuer, G., Dresel, M., Learning from errors: A model of individual processes. Frontline Learning Research 4:2 (2016), 12–26 https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v4i2.168.
70. Tymms, P., Effect sizes in multilevel models. Schagen, I., Elliot, K., (eds.) But what does it mean? The use of effect sizes in educational research, 2004, NFER, Slough, 55–66.
71. Tymms, P., Merrell, C., Henderson, B., The first year at school: A quantitative investigation of the attainment and progress of pupils. Educational Research and Evaluation 3 (1997), 101–118 https://doi.org/10.1080/1380361970030201.
72. Van Zundert, M., Sluijsmans, D., van Merriënboer, J., Effective peer assessment processes: Research findings and future directions. Learning and Instruction 20 (2010), 270–279, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.004.
73. Wigfield, A., Eccles, J.S., Rodriguez, D., The development of children's motivation in school contexts. Review of research in education, Vol. 23, 1998, American Educational Research Association, Washington DC, 73–118.
74. Wiliam, D., Lee, C., Harrison, C., Black, P., Teachers developing assessment for learning: Impact on student achievement. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 11:1 (2004), 49–65 https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594042000208994.
75. Wiliam, D., Thompson, M., Integrating Assessment with Learning: What will it take to make it work?. Dwyer, C.A., (eds.) The future of assessment. Shaping teaching and learning, 2008, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York, 53–84.
76. Wilson, M.R., Sloane, K., From principles to practice: An embedded assessment system. Harlen, W., (eds.) Student assessment and testing, 3, 2008, SAGE, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, 87–112.
77. Wu, M.L., Adams, R.J., Wilson, M.R., ConQuest: Generalised item response modelling software. 1998, Australian Council for Educational Research, Camberwell.
78. Yin, Y., Shavelson, R.J., Ayala, C.C., Ruiz-Primo, M.A., Brandon, P., Furtak, E.M., et al. On the impact of formative assessment on student motivation, achievement, and conceptual change. Applied Measurement in Education 21:4 (2008), 335–359 https://doi.org/10.1080/08957340802347845.