nach oben

Learning Environments Research

Erschienen in:

05.06.2017 | Original Paper

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

verfasst von: Petra Pinger, Katrin Rakoczy, Michael Besser, Eckhard Klieme

Erschienen in: Learning Environments Research | Ausgabe 1/2018

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Formative assessment is considered to be a promising teaching practice for promoting teaching and learning processes. The implementation of teaching practices into instruction involves intervening with a learning environment that is characterised by certain features of instructional quality. Our study aims to contribute to the understanding of formative assessment by analysing the interplay between a formative assessment intervention and aspects of general instructional quality. In a quasi-experimental study design, 15 teachers participated in a control group (n = 361 students) and 20 teachers in the intervention classes (n = 498 students) implemented a curriculum-embedded formative assessment tool in their ninth-grade mathematics classes. No effects were found for the intervention on the assessed aspects of general instructional quality (process-oriented instruction, teacher–student relationship, effective use of instructional time). However, multilevel regression analyses revealed an interaction effect between the intervention and process-orientation and the effective use of instruction time. Our findings suggest that implementing formative assessment tools do not seem to suffice regarding changes in general instructional quality, but that an intervention with detailed material and guidelines can counterbalance effects of instructional quality, fostering students’ achievement in classes with lower degrees of process orientation and a less effective use of instructional time.

Vorheriger Artikel Measures of instruction for creative engagement: Making metacognition, modeling and creative thinking visible

Nächster Artikel Towards a better understanding of the potential of interactive whiteboards in stimulating mathematics learning

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

The project was supported by grants from the German Research Foundation (DFG, KL 1057/10-3, BL 275/16-3 and LE 2619/1-3); principal researchers: E. Klieme, K. Rakoczy (both Frankfurt), W. Blum (Kassel) and D. Leiss (Lüneburg).

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Inside the black box. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–73.CrossRef

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 5–31.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Bloom, B. S., Hasting, J. T., & Madaus, G. F. (1971). Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.

Clausen, M. (2002). Unterrichtsqualität: Eine frage der perspektive? [Teaching quality: A matter of perspective?]. Münster, Berlin: Waxmann.

Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23, 13–20.CrossRef

Creemers, B. P. M., Kyriakides, L., & Antoniou, P. (2013). Teacher professional development for improving quality of teaching. Dodrecht: Springer.CrossRef

De Jong, R., & Westerhof, K. J. (2001). The quality of student ratings of teacher behaviour. Learning Environments Research, 4(1), 51–85.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Macmillan. doi:10.1080/01443410.2013.785384.

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.CrossRef

Fraser, B. J. (1998). The birth of a new journal: Editor’s introduction. Learning Environments Research, 1, 1–5.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Harks, B., Klieme, E., Hartig, J., & Leiss, D. (2014a). Separating cognitive and content domains in mathematical competence. Educational Assessment, 19(4), 243–266.CrossRef

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 CrossRef

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2011). Formative assessment: A meta-analysis and a call for research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(4), 28–37.CrossRef

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.

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.

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.CrossRef

Kunter, M. (2005). Multiple ziele im mathematikunterricht [Multiple goals in Mathematics instruction]. Münster: Waxmann.

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus (Version 7) [Computer Software]. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.

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.

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.

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.CrossRef

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.CrossRef

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.

Rakoczy, K., Klieme, E., Leiss, D., & Blum, W. (2017). Formative assessment in mathematics instruction: Theoretical considerations and empirical results of the Co²CA project. In D. Leutner, J. Fleischer, J. Grünkorn & E. Klieme (Eds.), Competence assessment in education: Research, models, and instruments (pp. 447–467). Berlin: Springer.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144.CrossRef

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.

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Shute, V. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189. doi:10.3102/0034654307313795.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

TIMSS+im Nationalfonds-Projekt “Schule, Leistung und Persönlichkeit”. (1995). Population 2 Zweiter Schülerfragebogen M [Population 2 Second questionnaire]. Bern: Amt für Bildungsforschung.

Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London: The Falmer Press.CrossRef

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.

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.CrossRef

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.

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.

Titel: Interplay of formative assessment and instructional quality—interactive effects on students’ mathematics achievement
verfasst von: Petra Pinger
Katrin Rakoczy
Michael Besser
Eckhard Klieme
Publikationsdatum: 05.06.2017
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Learning Environments Research / Ausgabe 1/2018
Print ISSN: 1387-1579
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-1855
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-017-9240-2

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2018

Measures of instruction for creative engagement: Making metacognition, modeling and creative thinking visible

Student participation in learning environment improvement: analysis of a co-design project in a Finnish upper secondary school

Elements affecting the development of professional learning communities in schools

Towards a better understanding of the potential of interactive whiteboards in stimulating mathematics learning

Students’ perceptions of the learning environment in tertiary science classrooms in Myanmar

Development and evaluation of a Chinese version of the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI)

Premium Partner