Examining of Teachers’ Views and Practices on Formative Assessment in Terms of Various Variables

Öz

The aim of this study is to examine whether the views and practices of teachers regarding formative assessment differ significantly according to gender, age, professional seniority, teaching level, undergraduate degree, education status, and settlement area. The survey model was used in this study, in which the views and practices of teachers toward formative assessment were examined in terms of various variables. The sample of the study consists of 252 teachers in the central districts of Erzurum city center. We used the Teachers' Formative Assessment Concepts and Practices Scale to collect data for the research. The data obtained in the study was first tested for normality. We performed a t-test and a one-way analysis of variance based on the normal distribution of the data. According to the research findings, no significant difference was found in any dimension of the scale according to the variables of gender, age, professional seniority, teaching level, education status, and settlement area of teachers’ views and practices towards formative assessment. According to the undergraduate graduation variable, no significant difference was reached in the affective, attitude, subjective norm, self-efficacy, intention, and behavior dimensions of the scale, but a significant difference was in the controllability. The research found that factors like gender, professional seniority, teaching level, undergraduate degree, education status, and where teachers live did not significantly affect their opinions and practices about formative assessment. The study concluded that the age variable significantly influenced teachers’ views and practices regarding formative assessment in the behavioral dimension of the scale.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Measurement and evaluation
• formative assessment
• teacher

Etik Beyan

This study is derived from the master's thesis conducted by the first author under the supervision of the second author.

Öğretmenlerin Biçimlendirici Değerlendirmeye Yönelik Görüş ve Uygulamalarının Çeşitli Değişkenler Açısından İncelenmesi

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı öğretmenlerin biçimlendirici değerlendirmeye yönelik görüş ve uygulamalarının cinsiyet, yaş, mesleki kıdem, öğretim kademesi, lisans mezuniyeti, öğrenim durumu ve yerleşim birimine göre anlamlı olarak farklılaşıp farklılaşmadığını incelemektir. Öğretmenlerin biçimlendirici değerlendirmeye yönelik görüş ve uygulamalarının çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelendiği bu çalışmada tarama modeli kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın örneklemini Erzurum il merkezine bağlı merkez ilçelerdeki 252 öğretmen oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmada verilerin toplanabilmesi amacıyla “Kişisel Bilgiler Formu” ve “Öğretmenlerin Biçimlendirici Değerlendirmeye İlişkin Görüş ve Uygulamaları Ölçeği” kullanılmıştır. Çalışmada elde edilen verilere ilk olarak normallik testi yapılmıştır. Verilerin normal dağılım göstermesinden hareketle t-testi, tek yönlü varyans analizi yapılmıştır. Araştırma bulgularına göre öğretmenlerin biçimlendirici değerlendirmeye yönelik görüş ve uygulamalarının cinsiyet, yaş, mesleki kıdem, öğretim kademesi, öğrenim durumu ve yerleşim birimi değişkenlerine göre ölçeğin hiçbir boyutunda anlamlı bir farka ulaşılmamıştır. Lisans mezuniyeti değişkenine göre ölçeğin duyuşsal, tutum, öznel norm, öz yeterlik, niyet ve davranış boyutunda anlamlı bir farka ulaşılmamış olup ölçeğin kontrol edilebilirlik boyutunda ise anlamlı farka ulaşılmıştır. Araştırmanın sonucunda öğretmenlerin biçimlendirici değerlendirmeye yönelik görüş ve uygulamaları açısından cinsiyet, mesleki kıdem, öğretim kademesi, lisans mezuniyeti, öğrenim durumu ve yerleşim birimi değişkenlerinin önemli faktörler olmadığı belirlenmiştir. Yaş değişkeninin ölçeğin davranış boyutunda ise öğretmenlerin biçimlendirici değerlendirmeye yönelik görüş ve uygulamalarını önemli düzeyde etkilediği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ölçme ve değerlendirme
• biçimlendirici değerlendirme
• öğretmen

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışma birinci yazarın ikinci yazar danışmanlığında yaptığı yüksek lisans tezinden üretilmiştir.

Kaynakça

1. Akbaş, Ç., & Ozan, C. (2024). The effects of formative assessment on student achievement and attitudes in math. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 18(2), 351-374. https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.1512149
2. Andrade, H., & Brookhart, S. (2014). Toward a theory of assessment as the regulation of learning. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Philadelphia, PA.
3. Andrade, H. L., & Brookhart, S. M. (2019). Classroom assessment as the co-regulation of learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 27(4), 350-372. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2019.1571992
4. Andrade, H., & Heritage, M. (2018). Using formative assessment to enhance learning, achievement, and academic self-regulation. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315623856
5. Assessment Reform Group. (2002). Assessment for learning: 10 principles. research-based principles to guide classroom practice. http://www.uni-koeln.de/hf/konstrukt/didaktik/benotung/ assessment_basis.pdf Bahadır, E., & Ozan, C. (2025). Content analysis of studies on formative assessment. The Journal of Lımıtless Educatıon and Research, 10(1), 34-55. https://doi.org/10.29250/sead.1551766 Bakan, Ü., & Buldur, S. (2021). Biçimlendirici değerlendirme uygulamalarıyla zenginleştirilmiş etkileşimli kısa tarihsel hikâyelerin öğrencilerin bilimsel bilginin doğasına yönelik anlayışlarına etkisi. Cumhuriyet Uluslararası Eğitim Dergisi, 10(4), 1421-1448. https://doi.org/10.30703/cije.825140
6. Baynard, L.R. (2011). An investigation into the relationships among middle school teachers’ beliefs about collaboration, their perceptions of formative assessment, and selected teacher characteristics [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia.
7. Bayrak, N., Çalık, M., & Doğan, S. (2021). Akıllı biçimlendirici değerlendirme sisteminin akademik başarı ve ders sürecine etkisi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 36(2), 333-349. https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2019056742
8. Bennett, K. R., & Cunningham, A.C. (2009). Teaching formative assessment strategies to preservice teachers. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(3), 99-105.

9. Black, P., & Harrison, C. (2001). Feedback in questioning and marking: The science teacher’s role in formative assessment. School Science Review, 82(301), 55-61.
10. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
11. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
12. Blanca, M. J., Alarcón, R., Arnau, J., Bono, R., & Bendayan, R. (2017). Non-normal data: Is ANOVA still a valid option? Psicothema, 29(4), 552-557. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2016.383 Boström, E., & Palm, T. (2023). The effect of a formative assessment practice on student achievement in mathematics. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1101192. https://doi.org/10.3389/ feduc.2023.1101192
13. Box, G. E. P. (1953). Non-normality and tests on variances. Biometrika, 40, 318-335.
14. Brookhart, S. M. (2008). How to give effective feedback to your students. ASCD.
15. Brown, G. T. L., Harris, L. R., & Harnett, J. (2012). Teacher beliefs about feedback within an assessment for learning environment: Endorsement of improved learning overstudent well-being. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 968-978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.05.003 Büyükkarcı, K. (2014). Assessment beliefs and practices of language teachers in primary education. International Journal of Instruction, 7(1), 107-120. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1085246
16. Can, A. (2013). SPSS ile bilimsel araştırma sürecinde nicel veri analizi. Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
17. Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315-1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
18. Cauley, K. M., & McMillan, J. H. (2010). Formative assessment techniques to support student motivation and achievement. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650903267784
19. Cowie, B., & Bell, B. (1999). A model of formative assessment in science education. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 6(1), 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695949993026
20. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
21. Dawson, P., Yan, Z., Lipnevich, A., Tai, J., Boud, D., & Mahoney, P. (2023). Measuring what learners do in feedback: the feedback literacy behaviour scale. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(3), 348-362. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2023.2240983
22. Delacre, M., Lakens, D., & Leys, C. (2019). Why psychologists should use Welch’s t-test instead of Student’s t-test. International Review of Social Psychology, 30(1), 92-101. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.82
23. DeLuca, C., LaPointe-McEwan, D., & Luhanga, U. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy: a review of international standards and measures. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 28(3), 251-272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-015-9233-6
24. Demirci, C. (2009). Constructivist learning approach in science teaching. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 37(37), 24-35.
25. Doğan, C. D. (2016). Biçimlendirici değerlendirmenin üniversite öğrencilerinin değerlendirme tercihleri üzerindeki etkisi: Bir ölçekleme çalışması. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(2), 413-431. http://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2016.16.2-5000194935
26. Elden, A. (2019). Okul öncesi öğretmenlerinin biçimlendirici değerlendirme uygulamaları [Yüksek lisans tezi, Başkent Üniversitesi]. Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
27. Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage.
28. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
29. Gedikli, H., & Buldur, S. (2020). Fen bilimleri dersinde biçimlendirici değerlendirme uygulamalarının öğrencilerin üst bilişe yönelimli sınıf çevresine yönelik algılarına etkisi. Cumhuriyet Uluslararası Eğitim Dergisi, 9(2), 326-556.
30. Glass, G. V., Peckham, P. D., & Sanders, J. R. (1972). Consequences of failure to meet assumptions underlying the fixed effects analyses of variance and covariance. Review of Educational Research, 42(3), 237-288.
31. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3), 381–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/135406002100000512
32. Güngör, B., & Özgür, S. (2009). İlköğretim beşinci sınıf öğrencilerinin sindirim sistemi konusundaki didaktik kökenli kavram yanılgılarının nedenleri. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 3(2), 149-177.
33. Gürbulak Töremiş, G. (2025). Lise öğretmenlerinin biçimlendirici değerlendirme uygulamalarının incelenmesi [Yüksek lisans tezi, Atatürk Üniversitesi]. Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
34. Hattie, J. (2023). Visible learning: The sequel. Routledge.
35. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
36. İnaltun, H., & Ateş, S. (2018). Fen bilimleri eğitiminde biçimlendirici değerlendirme: Literatür taraması. Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 38(2), 567-612. https://doi.org/10.17152/gefad.353975 James, M. (2006). Assessment, teaching and theories of learning. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp. 47–60). Sage.
37. Karaman, P. (2019). Öğretmenlerin biçimlendirici değerlendirme uygulamaları: Karma yöntem araştırması. İlköğretim Online, 18(2), 785–802. https://doi.org/10.17051/io.2019.574654
38. Karaman, P. (2021). The effect of formative assessment practices on student learning: A meta analysis study. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 8(4), 801-817. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.870300
39. Karaman, P., & Karaman, A. C. (2017). Teachers’ formative assessment practices and its predictors. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 3(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.3.1.1
40. Karaman, P., & Şahin, Ç. (2017). Adaptation of teachers' conceptions and practices of formative assessment scale into Turkish culture and a structural equation modeling. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 10(2), 185-194. https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.201723611 Karasar, N. (2016). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi (31. baskı). Nobel.
41. Kaya, G., Atasoy, V., Candan-Helvacı, S., & Pektaş, M. (2021). Fen öğretmenlerinin biçimlendirici değerlendirmeye yönelik farkındalığının sınıf içi uygulamalarındaki rolü. Eğitim ve Bilim, 46(205), 335-357. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2020.8934 Keeley, P. (2015). Science formative assessment: Practical strategies for linking assessment, instruction, and learning. Corwin.
42. Kıncal, R. Y., & Ozan, C. (2018). Effects of formative assessment on prospective teachers’ achievement, attitude and self-regulation skills. International Journal of Progressive Education, 14(2), 77-92. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2018.139.6
43. Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2011). Formative assessment: A meta-analysis and a call for research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(4), 28-37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2011.00220.x Lake, C., & Tessmer, M. (1997). Constructivism’s implications for formative evaluation, constructivism and formative evaluation, AECT, 5(10), 1-11. http://tecfaetu.unige.ch/staf/staf-e/vimare/staf18/Documentation/CIFFE.pdf Lumley, T., Diehr, P., Emerson, S., & Chen, L. (2002). The importance of the normality assumption in large public health data sets. Annual Review of Public Health, 23, 151-169.
44. McAlphine, M. (2002). Principles of assessment. Robert Clark Centre for Technological Education, University of Glasgow. http://www.caacentre.ac.uk/dldocs/Bluepaper1.pdf McMillan, J. (2022). Classroom assessment: Principles and practice for effective standards-based instruction (8th ed.). Pearson.
45. MEB. (2018). Öğretmenlik mesleği genel yeterlikleri. MEB Öğretmen Yetiştirme ve Geliştirme Genel Müdürlüğü. Moss, C. M., & Brookhart, S. M. (2019). Advancing formative assessment in every classroom: A guide for instructional leaders (2nd ed.). ASCD.
46. Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
47. OECD. (2005). Formative assessment: Improving learning in secondary classrooms. centre for educational research and innovation. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/35661078.pdf OECD. (2019). TALIS 2018 results (Volume I): Teachers and school leaders as lifelong learners. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en
48. OECD. (2023). OECD digital education outlook 2023: Towards an effective digital education ecosystem. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/c74f03de-en
49. Ozan, C. (2017). Biçimlendirici değerlendirmenin öğrencilerin akademik başarı, tutum ve öz düzenleme becerilerine etkisi [Doktora tezi, Atatürk Üniversitesi]. Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
50. Ozan, C., & Bahadır, E. (2024). Öğretmenlerin Biçimlendirici Değerlendirme Uygulamaları Ölçeği’nin Türk kültürüne uyarlanması. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 43(2), 1119-1158. https://doi.org/10.7822/omuefd.1458037 Panadero, E. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 422. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422
51. Panadero, E., Alqassab, M., Fernández Ruiz, J., & Ocampo, J. C. (2023). A systematic review on peer assessment: intrapersonal and interpersonal factors. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(8), 1053-1075. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2023.2164884
52. Pastore, S. (2023). Teacher assessment literacy: A systematic review. Frontiers in Educaiton, 8, 1217167. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1217167
53. Pisa-Schock (2002). Nach dem pladoyer für eine bildungsreform. P. Müler (Ed.). Hoffmann und Campe.
54. Ruxton, G. D. (2006). The unequal variances t-test is an underused alternative to Student’s t-test and the Mann–Whitney U test. Behavioral Ecology, 17(4), 688-690. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ark016
55. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119-144.
56. Sach, E. (2012). Teachers and testing: An investigation into teachers’ perceptions of formative assessment. Educational Studies, 38(3), 261-276. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2011.598690
57. Sach, E. (2015). ‘Because I do not need to…’: Teachers’ resistance to formative assessment. Journal of Education for Teaching, 41(3), 298-307. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2015.1044227
58. Schildkamp, K., van der Kleij, F. M. Heitink, M. C., Kippers, W. B., Veldkamp, B. P. (2020). Formative assessment: A systematic review of critical teacher prerequisites for classroom practice, International Journal of Educational Research, 103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101602
59. Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X029007004
60. Şahin, M. (2014). Okul öncesi öğretmenlerinin ölçme ve değerlendirme hakkındaki düşünce ve uygulamaları (Yüksek lisans tezi. Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi). Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
61. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.
62. Thomas, G., Martin, D., & Pleasants, K. (2011). Using self- and peer-assessment to enhance students’ future-learning in higher education. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 8, 5. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.8.1.5 Ün Açıkgöz, K. (2003). Aktif öğrenme. Eğitim Dünyası.
63. Walsh, J. A., & Sattes, B. D. (2015). Questioning for classroom discussion: Purposeful speaking, engaged listening, deep thinking. ASCD.
64. Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Solution Tree.
65. Wiliam, D., & Thompson, M. (2007). Integrating assessment with instruction: What will it take to make it work? In C. A. Dwyer (Ed.), The future of assessment: Shaping teaching and learning (pp. 53–82). Lawrence Erlbaum.
66. Winstone, N., & Carless, D. (2019). Designing effective feedback processes in higher education: A learning-focused approach. Routledge.
67. Wu, J., & Yu, X. (2025). The influence of formative assessment on academic performance: exploring the role of teachers’ emotional support. Frontiers in Psychology, 16. 1567615. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1567615
68. Yan, Z., & Cheng, E. C. K. (2015). Primary teachers' attitudes, intentions and practices regarding formative assessment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 128-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.10.002
69. Yan, Z., Li, Z., Panadero, E., Yang, M., Yang, L., & Lao, H. (2021). A systematic review on factors influencing teachers’ intentions and implementations regarding formative assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 28(3), 228-260. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2021.1884042
70. Zhang, K., Yılmaz, R. M., Üstün, A. B., & Karaoğlan Yılmaz, F. G. (2023). Learning analytics in formative assessment: A systematic literature review. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 14(Special Issue), 359-381. https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.1272054