The Effect of Formative Assessment Practices on Student Learning: A Meta-Analysis Study

Öz

The main purpose of this meta-analysis study is to investigate how formative assessment practices promote student learning in Turkey. 32 studies with 47 effect sizes that met the specified criteria such as using true experimental or quasi-experimental design and measuring learning outcomes were included as the final analysis in the meta-analytical review method. The overall mean effect size of the study was obtained as .72 (SE= .07, p< .05). Further investigation through subgroup analysis showed that the effect sizes made a significant difference on different types of formative feedback. The effect of features of formative assessment interventions on student learning indicated that student initiated formative feedback (d=1.16) and mixed feedback (d=.83) had a large effect, which was followed by a medium effect of adult initiated formative feedback (d=.69) and a small effect of computer initiated formative feedback (d =.42). On the other hand, education level and publication type had no effect on student academic performance in the study. These findings support the positive effect of formative assessment practices on student learning. Such a result suggests that increasing the number of different types of formative assessment practices in the classrooms would promise a considerable contribution to student learning.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Formative assessment
• Student learning
• Meta-analysis

References

1. Andersson, C., & Palm, T. (2017a). The impact of formative assessment on student achievement: A study of the effects of changes to classroom practice after a comprehensive professional development programme. Learning and Instruction, 49, 92-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.12.006
2. Andersson, C. & Palm, T. (2017b). Characteristics of improved formative assessment practice. Education Inquiry, 8 (2), 104-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2016.1275185
3. Andrade, H. (2010). Students as the definite source of formative assessment: Academic self-assessment and the self-regulation of learning. In G. J. Cizek & H. L. Andrade (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 90–105). Routledge Publishing.
4. Andrade, H., & Brookhart, S. M. (2016). The role of classroom assessment in supporting self-regulated learning. In D. Laveault & L. Allal (Eds.), Assessment for learning: Meeting the challenge of implementation (pp. 293–309). Springer Publishing.
5. Başol-Göçmen, G. (2004). Meta-analizin genel bir değerlendirmesi [A general revision of meta-analysis]. Sakarya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7, 186–192.
6. Begg, C.B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994). Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics, 50, 1088–1101. https://doi.org/10.2307/2533446
7. Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: a critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5 25. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678
8. 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

9. 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
10. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley and Sons Publishing.
11. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school (expanded ed.). National Academy Press.
12. Brookhart, S. M. (2009). Exploring formative assessment. ASCD Publishers.
13. Brookhart, S.M. (2010). Formative assessment strategies for every classroom (2nd ed.). An ASCD Action Tool Publishers.
14. Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245 281. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543065003245
15. Card, N. A. (2012). Applied meta-analysis for social science research. The Guilford Press.
16. 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
17. Clark, I. (2012). Formative assessment: Assessment is for self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 24(2), 205–249.
18. Cohen, J. (1962). The statistical power of abnormal-social psychological research: a review. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65, 145–153.
19. Cohen, J. (1987). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20. Delen, I., & Bellibas, M. S. (2015). Formative assessment, teacher-directed instruction and teacher support in Turkey: Evidence from PISA 2012. Mevlana International Journal of Education, 5(1), 88-102. http://dx.doi.org/10.13054/mije.15.01.5.1
21. Double, K., McGrane, J. & Hopfenbeck, T. N. (2020). The impact of peer assessment on academic performance: A meta-analysis of control group studies. Educational Psychology Review, 32 (2), 481–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09510-3
22. Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56, 455–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x
23. Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Bmj, 315(7109), 629-634.
24. Field, A.P., & Gillett, R. (2010). How to do a meta-analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 63, 665–694. https://doi.org/10.1348/000711010X502733
25. Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation on student achievement: A meta analysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199 208. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440298605300301
26. Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Struyven, K. (2010). Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 304-315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.007
27. Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Sage Publications.
28. Graham, S., Hebert, M., & Harris, K.R. (2015). Formative assessment and writing. The elementary school journal, 115 (4), 523-547.
29. Hargreaves, E. (2008). Assessment. In G. McCulloch, & D. Crook (Eds.), The routledge international encyclopedia of education (pp. 37–38). Routledge Publishing.
30. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 metaanalyses relating to achievement. Routledge Publishing.
31. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
32. Hedges, L.V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass' estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6(2), 107–128.
33. Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998). Fixed-and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 486-504. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.486
34. Higgins, J., Thompson, S.G., Deeks, J.J., & Altman, D.G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ, 327, 557–560. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
35. 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
36. Kitchen, H., Bethell, G., Fordham, E., Henderson, K., & Li, R.R. (2019). OECD reviews of evaluation and assessment in education: student assessment in Turkey, OECD reviews of evaluation and assessment in Education, OECD Publishing. Retrieved August 17, 2021 from https://doi.org/10.1787/5edc0abe-en
37. 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(2), 254–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
38. Klute, M., Apthorp, H., Harlacher, J., & Reale, M. (2017). Formative assessment and elementary school student academic achievement: A review of the evidence (REL 2017–259). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Central. Retrieved January 15, 2021 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED572929.pdf
39. Lee, H., Chung, H.Q., Zhang, Y., Abedi, J., & Warschauer, M. (2020). The effectiveness and features of formative assessment in US K-12 education: systematic review. Applied Measurement in Education, 33(2), 124 140. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2020.1732383
40. Lipsey, M., & Wilson, D. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Sage Publications.
41. Maier, U., Wolf, N., & Randler, C. (2016). Effects of a computer‐assisted formative assessment intervention based on multiple‐tier diagnostic items and different feedback types. Computers & Education, 95, 85– 98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.12.002
42. McManus, S., Ed. (2008). Attributes of effective formative assessment. Council of Chief State School Officers.
43. Miller, T. (2009). Formative computer-based assessment in higher education: the effectiveness of feedback in supporting student learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34 (2), 181-192. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930801956075
44. MoNE (2013). Early childhood education program [Okul öncesi eğitim programı], Ministry of National Education, Ankara. https://tegm.meb.gov.tr/dosya/okuloncesi/ooproram.pdf
45. MoNE (2017). The topics of in-service training activities in the last five years, 2012-2016 [Son 5 yılda düzenlenen (2012-2016) hizmetiçi eğitim faaliyetleri konuları], Ministry of National Education, Ankara.
46. MoNE (2018). Geography curriculum [Coğrafya dersi öğretim programı], Ministry of National Education, Ankara. https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Dosyalar/2018120203724482-Cografya%20dop%20pdf.pdf
47. MoNE (2020). Strengthening teacher capacity based on school and classroom-based assessment. Social Studies Lesson Teacher's Guide Booklet [Okul ve sınıf tabanlı değerlendirmeye dayalı öğretmen kapasitesinin güçlendirilmesi. Sosyal Bilgiler Dersi Öğretmen Rehber Kitapçığı], Ministry of National Education, Ankara
48. Popham, W. J. (2008). Transformative assessment. Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
49. Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results, Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 638-641. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638
50. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science,18 (2),119–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00117714
51. Schwarzer, G., Carpenter, J. R., & Rücker, G. (2015). Meta-analysis with R. Cham: Springer.
52. Üstün, U., & Eryılmaz, A. (2014). A research methodology to conduct effective research syntheses. Education and Science, 39(174), 1-32.
53. Weldmeskel, F.M., & Michael, D.J. (2016). The impact of formative assessment on self-regulating learning in university classrooms. Tuning Journal for Higher Education, 4 (1), 99-118. https://doi.org/10.18543/tjhe-4(1)-2016pp99-118
54. Wiliam, D. (2018). Feedback: at the heart of –but definitely not all of–formative assessment. In A. A. Lipnevich & J. K. Smith (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of instructional feedback (pp. 3–28). Cambridge University Press.
55. Van der Kleij, F., Feskens, R., & Eggen, T.J.H.M. (2015). Effects of feedback in a computer-based learning environment on students’ learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 85(4), 1-37. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314564881
56. YÖKAK (2018). Yükseköğretim değerlendirme ve kalite güvencesi 2017 yılı durum raporu [2017 higher education evaluation and quality Assurance Status Report], Ankara: YÖK. https://yokak.gov.tr/Common/Docs/Site_Activity_Reports/2018DurumRaporuv2.pdf
57. YÖKAK (2019). Yükseköğretim değerlendirme ve kalite güvencesi 2018 yılı durum raporu [2018 Higher Education Evaluation and Quality Assurance Status Report], Ankara: YÖK.
58. Zimmerman, B. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated student: An overview. Theory into Practice 41(2), 64-70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2
59. Zimmerman, B., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31(4), 845 862. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312031004845
60. Arici, A.F., & Kaldirim, A. (2015). The effect of the process-based writing approach on writing success and anxiety of pre-service teachers. Anthropologist, 22(2), 318-327. https://doi.org/10.1080/09720073.2015.11891883
61. Atik, A.D., & Erkoç, F. (2017). The impact of formative tests on student achievement. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 13(4), 670-692.
62. Aydın, S., Ural Keleş, P., & Ürün, N. (2016). Süreç değerlendirme yönteminin 7. Sınıf öğrencilerin güneş sistemi ve ötesi: uzay bilmecesi ünitesinde akademik başarıları ve kalıcılık düzeylerine etkisi [The effect of formative assessment on the achievement and retention levels of 7th grade students at the unit of solar system and beyond: mystery in space]. Türk Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi (TURKEAD), 1(1), 11-17.
63. Batıbay, E.F. (2019). Web 2.0 Uygulamalarının Türkçe dersinde motivasyona ve başarıya etkisi: kahoot örneği [The impact of Web 2.0 applications on motivation and success in Turkish course: the example of kahoot] [Master’s thesis]. Haccettepe University.
64. Bayat, N. (2014). The effect of the process writing approach on writing success and anxiety. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(3), 1123-1141.
65. Bayrak, N., Çalık, M., & Doğan, S. (2019). The effects of smart formative assessment system on academic achievement and course process. Hacettepe University Journal of Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2019056742.
66. Baysal, H. (2020). Altıncı sınıf İngilizce dersinde kavram karikatürleri kullanımının öğrenci başarısına, konuşma becerisine ve motivasyonuna etkisi [The effect of using concept cartoons on students’ achievement, speaking skill, and motivation in the sixth grade English] [Master’s thesis]. Balıkesir University.
67. Bolat, Y.İ., Şimşek, Ö., Ülker, Ü. (2017). Oyunlaştırılmış çevrimiçi sınıf yanıtlama sisteminin akademik başarıya etkisi ve sisteme yönelik görüşler [The impact of gamified online classroom response system on academic achievement and views about this system]. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(4), 1741-1761.
68. Demirkesen, B. (2019). The effects of a mobile phone application on Turkish EFL students’ grammar learning [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Necmettin Erbakan University.
69. Elvan, Ö. (2012). Sosyal Bilgiler öğretiminde çalışma yaprakları kullanılmasının kavram yanılgılarını gidermeye etkisi [The effect of the usage of worksheets for resolving misconceptions in teaching social studies] [Master’s thesis]. Ahi Evran University.
70. Eraz, G., & Öksüz, C. (2015). Effect of primary school teachers’ feedback on students’ extracurricular mathematics activities. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 36, 105-119.
71. Güzel, Z. (2018). Fen bilimleri öğretiminde öz ve akran değerlendirme uygulamalarının yer aldığı probleme dayalı öğrenme yaklaşımının öğrencilerin başarı ve tutumlarına etkisi [The effects of problem based approach practiced trough self and peer assessment on student achievement and attitudes in science teaching] [Master’s thesis]. Necmettin Erbakan University.
72. Hotaman, D. (2020). The effect of formative assessment on the academic achievement levels of prospective teachers. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 9(3), 33-44.
73. Kaya, B., & Ateş, S. (2016). The effect of process-based writing focused on metacognitive skills oriented to fourth grade students’ narrative writing skill. Education and Science, 41(187), 137-164. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2016.6752
74. Kincal, 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
75. Korkmaz, Ö., Vergili, M., Çakır, R., & Uğur Erdoğmuş, F. (2019). Plickers Web 2.0 ölçme ve değerlendirme uygulamasının öğrencilerin sınav kaygıları ve başarıları üzerine etkisi [The impact of plickers Web 2.0 assessment and evaluation tool on exam anxiety and academic succes of students]. Gazi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 5(2), 15-37. https://dx.doi.org/10.30855/gjes.2019.05.02.002.
76. Köksalan, S. (2019). Sorgulamaya dayalı öğretimde kullanılan biçimlendirici değerlendirmenin öğrencilerin Fizik dersine yönelik tutumlarına ve kavramsal öğrenmelerine etkisinin incelenmesi [Investigation of the effect of formative assessment used in inquiry-based instruction on students' attitudes towards physics lesson and conceptual learning] [Master’s thesis]. Marmara University.
77. Kuzudişli, H. (2019). Video-içi biçimlendirici değerlendirme ortamında öğrenen değerlendirme etkileşimlerinin incelenmesi [Investigating of interaction between learner-assessment in the video formative assessment environment] [Master’s thesis]. Haccettepe University.
78. Müldür, M., & Yalçın, A. (2019). Öz düzenlemeye dayalı yazma eğitiminin ortaokul öğrencilerinin bilgilendirici metin yazma becerisine, yazmaya yönelik öz düzenleme becerisine ve yazma öz yeterlik algısına etkisi [The effect of self-regulated writing instruction on middle school students’ informative writing skills, self-regulated writing skills, and self-efficacy perception]. Ilkogretim Online, 18(4), 1779-1804. https://dx.doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2019.639323
79. Ozan, C., & Kıncal, R. Y. (2018). The effects of formative assessment on academic achievement, attitudes toward the lesson, and self-regulation skills. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18, 85–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.1.0216
80. Özgür, P. (2016). Facebook sosyal ağına entegre e-portfolyo yazılımının akademik başarı ve öğretim sürecinde kullanımına yönelik tutuma etkisi [The effect of e-portfolyo software integrated to facebook social network on academic success and attitudes towords its use in teaching process]. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 6(1), 38-56.
81. Sever, E., & Memiş, A. (2013). Süreç temelli yazma modellerinin ilkokul dördüncü sınıf öğrencilerinin yazım–noktalama becerisine ve yazma eğilimine etkisi [The Effects Of Process-Based Writing Models On Primary School 4th Grade Students' Spelling-Punctuation Skills And Writing Dispositions]. Karadeniz Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 5(9), 243- 259.
82. Tavşanlı, F. (2019). Süreç temelli yazma modüler programının ilkokul 2. sınıf öğrencilerinin yazmaya ilişkin tutum, yazılı anlatım becerisi ve yazar kimliği üzerine etkisi [The effect of process writing modular program on 2nd grade elementary school students’ towards attitudes, writing skills and their author identity] [Doctoral dissertation]. Uludağ University.
83. Topal, M. (2020). Oyunlaştırma ile zenginleştirilmiş çevrimiçi öğrenmenin başarı, çevrimiçi bağlılık ve öğrenme motivasyonu üzerinde etkisi [The effect of online learning enchanced with gamification on student’s engagement to online learning environment, academic achievement and learning motivation] [Doctoral dissertation]. Sakarya University.
84. Turan, M.A., & Sakız, G. (2014). Fen ve teknoloji dersinde portfolyo kullanımının öğrenci başarısı ve kalıcılığa etkisi [The influence of portfolios on student success and retention level in science and technology class]. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 10(3), 48-63.
85. Yalaki, Y. & Bayram, Z. (2015). Effect of formative quizzes on teacher candidates’ learning in general chemistry. International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES), 1(2), 151- 156.
86. Yaşar, C. (2018). Geri bildirimin verilme zamanının matematik başarısına etkisi [The effect of feedback time on mathematics achivement] [Master’s thesis]. Hasan Kalyoncu University.
87. Yıldız, G., & Kılıç Çakmak, E. (2019). Zenginleştirilmiş e-değerlendirme sisteminin ders başarısına etkisi ve öğrenci memnuniyetinin incelenmesi [The effect of enriched e-assessment system on course success and review of student satisfaction]. Gazi Journal of Education Sciences (GJES), 5, 106-139.
88. Yılmaz, N. (2015). Cebir öğretiminde yazma etkinliklerini kullanmanın ortaokul 7. sınıf öğrencilerinin başarılarına etkisi [The impact of using writing activities in teaching algebra on seventh grade middle school students’ achievement]. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(1), 356-376.
89. Yorgancı, S. (2015). Web tabanlı uzaktan eğitim yönteminin öğrencilerin matematik başarılarına etkileri [The effects of web based distance education method on students’ mathematics achievements]. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 23(3), 1401-1420.
90. Yurdabakan, İ., & Cihanoğlu, M. O. (2009). Öz akran değerlendirmenin uygulandığı işbirlikli okuma ve kompozisyon tekniğinin başarı, tutum ve strateji kullanım düzeylerine etkisi. [The effects of cooperative reading composition technique with the applications of self and peer assessment on the levels of achivement, attitude, strategy use]. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 11(4), 105-123.
91. Yurdabakan, İ., & Olgun, M. (2011). The influence of peer and self-assessment on learning and metacognitive knowledge: Consequential validty. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 2(4), 44-57.