Training in-service subject teachers to implement formative assessment through action research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Formative assessment is widely accepted as an essential strategy that teachers of all levels should know and use. At the secondary education level, a crucial stage in learner development, teachers are expected to actively incorporate formative assessment strategies into their subject-specific teaching and to create learning environments that consider both the teaching methods and the specific content being taught. This study reports findings from a continuing professional development (CPD) program that was designed to train in-service secondary school subject teachers to implement formative assessment strategies in their teaching practice. The main purpose of this study was to analyze the effectiveness of a CPD program about formative assessment to support teachers’ professional development. The program was developed throughout the school year 2024/25, using an action research framework to involve teachers in planning, acting, observing and reflecting on their own assessment strategies. The study involved 26 teachers who planned both self- and peer-assessment activities in their upper secondary classrooms. During and after the CPD program, teachers completed two questionnaires focused on two main issues: firstly, they had to reflect on the effectiveness of the formative assessment strategies implemented in their classrooms. Secondly, they had to consider whether the action research CPD program supported their own professional development. Findings indicate that teachers perceived formative assessment as a valuable strategy for planning activities to increase students’ cognitive, metacognitive, behavioral, and affective skills. Additionally, teachers reported that the CPD program improved both their formative assessment capacity and their skills in pedagogical content knowledge.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".