FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

HOW TECHNOLOGY BASED FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT IMPACTS STUDENT
ACHIEVEMENT IN AN ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM

A Doctoral Capstone Project
Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies and Research
Department of Secondary Education and Administrative Leadership

In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education

Thomas H. Kalinoski
California University of Pennsylvania
July 2021

i

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

© Copyright by
Thomas H. Kalinoski
All Rights Reserved
July 2021

ii

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

iv

Dedication
I dedicate this doctoral project to my family. For the last three years my family and I had
to make a huge sacrifice by accommodating my work and graduate school schedule. There were
many times when my time was consumed by work and class. Time is such a precious
commodity, and I will make a commitment to be more present with my family moving forward.
First, I want to thank my wife, Missy, who has offered unwavering support and
encouragement during these past few years. She is my biggest cheerleader. Her sacrificial care of
me and our two children made it possible for me to complete this work. Thank you for your
pushing me, being there for me, and your never-ending patience. You were always there to keep
me focused and push me, while continually keeping our family running. I’m sure keeping me
focused was very taxing. I am indebted to her, as a lot of additional responsibility was put on her
plate throughout my doctoral journey. I will forever be thankful for the sacrifices she made
throughout this process. She was always there to help in anyway she could.
Second, I want to thank my two children. I know at times it was difficult for to
understand that I had work to do on nights and weekends and that I couldn’t always provide them
with attention that they needed at the moment. In no particular order (because everything is a
competition with them), I’ll start with Preston, my older son. I know that being enrolled in this
Doctorate program has consumed a lot of my time. I hope that I did an effective job of balancing
the amount of time I spent with you and doing school work. Thank you for always being there
for me and our family. I appreciate the leadership role you take when needed. I also appreciate
you helping out by cooking dinners for our family when we have to be in many different places at
once and have limited time to cook. While you are only entering 10th grade at the moment, you
just started your first college class. I wish you the best of luck as you begin your college
education and know you will do great.
Next, I need to thank my younger, more spirted son, Parker. Thank you for always being
there for me to make me laugh. Your quick wit, phrases, jokes, and continuous pursuit to push

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

v

the limits as much as possible is secretly entertaining to me. Actually, sometimes it’s not in
secret, as I will sometimes laugh, when I am trying to be serious. Your sense of humor and
presence always provided me with a much-needed break and laugh. I remember doing school
work one night and you asked what I was doing? When I replied that I was doing homework, you
asked with all seriousness, “can’t you just use a homework pass?” While I couldn’t use a
homework pass that night, perhaps this is something CalU wants to look into.
I can’t forget Paxton, our Shih Tzu. Thank you for your unlimited amount of compassion
and love. You are a true companion.

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

vi

Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge everyone who played a role in my academic
accomplishments and have helped me along the way. First of all, my capstone committee
chairperson, Dr. Todd Keruskin, your guidance, support, and encouragement throughout the
doctoral process was invaluable. You always expressed a genuine willingness to help and started
each of our conversations by asking how I was doing.
Secondly, I would like to thank my other committee member, Dr. Frank DeFelice. He is
an invaluable resource as he served many years as a superintendent and assistant executive
director. Dr. DeFelice always is there to listen and provide guidance to me. He has a wealth of
knowledge that he is always willing to share. Despite what is going on, he has always made time
for me, day or night.
Lastly, I would also like to thank the administrators, staff, and students of Colonial
Academy for participating in the research study. Without your participation I wouldn’t have been
able to complete my research project. I hope the results of the capstone project provide you
insight on what techniques can be used to increase student achievement.
Thank you to the teachers that volunteered to participate in this study. I know it wasn’t
easy for you and truly appreciate your willingness. I know you probably dreaded receiving
emails from me asking for data throughout the last months of the school year. I truly appreciate
your participation and hope that your experience, as well as your students’ experiences, were
meaningful.

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

vii

Table of Contents

© Copyright by

ii

Signature Page

iii

Dedication

iv

Acknowledgements

vi

Table of Contents

vii

Abstract

x

List of Tables

xi

CHAPTER Ⅰ

1

Introduction

1

CHAPTER II

5

Review of Literature

5

Introduction

5

Definition of Formative Assessment

5

History of Formative Assessment

7

Variables

9

Grade Levels

9

Subject Areas

10

Teacher Variables

12

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

viii

Professional Development

13

Frequency and Timing

17

Special and Alternative Education

18

Technology Based

19

Satisfaction

27

Effectiveness

30

Summary

34

CHAPTER III

36

Methodology

36

Purpose

37

Setting and Participants

38

Intervention and Research Plan

40

Research Design, Methods, and Data Collection

42

Validity

47

Summary

48

CHAPTER IV

49

Data Analysis and Results

49

Data Analysis

50

Results

50

Comparison of Questionnaire Results

61

Pre and Post Score Results

68

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
Summary & Transition

ix
78

CHAPTER V

79

Conclusions and Recommendations

79

Introduction

79

Conclusions

79

Research Question 1

80

Research Question 2

81

Research Question 3

82

Fiscal Implications

83

Alternative Education Setting

84

Future Directions for Research

85

Suggested Future Research Topics

85

Conclusion

86

References

87

Appendix A. IRB Approval Letter

92

Appendix B. Participant Consent Form

93

Appendix C. Colonial Academy Pre-Research Study - Formative Assessment

95

Appendix D. Colonial Academy Pre-Research Study - Formative Assessment

99

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

x

Abstract
This capstone project is focused on what impact the use of technology-based formative
assessment has on student achievement in an alternative education school. This study analyzed
student assessment scores prior to providing teachers with instruction on how to use technology
to effectively give student formative assessments. After the teachers were provided with the
knowledge to use a formative assessment application, the teachers were asked to implement the
formative assessment process in their daily instruction. Surveys were also issued to teacher
before training was provided to them, as well as after a period of time in which they were able to
implement the instructional strategy in their classrooms. Classroom assessments were delivered
at the end of the period in which teachers began using formative assessments. Afterward, student
assessment scores were analyzed to identify whether the use of this instructional strategy had an
effect on student achievement.

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

xi

List of Tables

Table 1 Participants in the Study ................................................................................................... 40
Table 2 Data Collection Timeline .................................................................................................. 45
Table 3 Teachers Familiarity with Formative Assessment ............................................................ 51
Table 4 Formative Assessment Using Clickers .............................................................................. 52
Table 5 How Often a Teacher Uses Formative Assessment in the Classroom .............................. 52
Table 6 Teachers Using Formative Assessment to Adjust Pacing ................................................. 53
Table 7 Learning Gaps & Misconceptions .................................................................................... 54
Table 8 Teachers Using Formative Assessment to Provide Feedback .......................................... 54
Table 9 Effectiveness of Formative Assessment............................................................................. 55
Table 10 Teachers Familiarity with Formative Assessment .......................................................... 56
Table 11 Formative Assessment Using Clickers ............................................................................ 57
Table 12 How Often a Teacher Uses Formative Assessment in the Classroom ............................ 57
Table 13 Teachers Using Formative Assessment to Adjust Pacing ............................................... 58
Table 14 Learning Gaps and Misconceptions ............................................................................... 59
Table 15 Teachers Using Formative Assessment to Provide Feedback ........................................ 60
Table 16 Effectiveness of Formative Assessment........................................................................... 61
Table 17 Comparison of Teachers Familiarity with Formative Assessment ................................. 61
Table 18 Comparison of Formative Assessment Using Clickers ................................................... 62
Table 19 Comparison of How Often a Teacher Uses Formative Assessment in the Classroom ... 64
Table 20 Comparison of Teachers Using Formative Assessment to Adjust Pacing ...................... 65
Table 21 Comparison of Learning Gaps and Misconceptions ...................................................... 66
Table 22 Comparison of Teachers Using Formative Assessment to Provide Feedback ............... 67
Table 23 Comparison of Effectiveness of Formative Assessment .................................................. 68

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

xii

Table 24 Average of Pre and Post Scores ..................................................................................... 69
Table 25 Frequency of Pre and Post Test Assessments ................................................................. 72
Table 26 Range of Pre and Post Score Assessment ....................................................................... 76

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

1

CHAPTER Ⅰ
Introduction
Schools are continually striving to assist students in reaching their fullest potential. There
are a variety of instructional strategies that teachers can employ today to achieve this goal. One of
those instructional strategies is formative assessment. When formative assessment is combined
with technology, the teacher is provided with real time data on student comprehension. Children
today have devices in their hands throughout the entire day, yet, many teachers lack the tools and
knowledge necessary to provide instruction in today's digital world these kids are growing up in.
I have been an educator at Colonial Intermediate Unit 20 for 17 years of which I’ve held
various technology related positions, currently serving as the Director of Technology and
Operations. I have taken a unique approach to entering Education Administration as I have never
been a teacher or building principal. While some might view this as a disadvantage, I view it as
an advantage as it provides me with a unique viewpoint and allows me to truly think outside of
the box as I haven't been jaded and exposed to “norms” and haven’t been told to provide
instruction a certain way or evaluate students in a classroom. My current role of Director is also
advantageous also provides me an advantage because I sit on the cabinet and am able to work
with my colleagues in a leadership capacity and gain many perspectives.
Colonial Intermediate Unit 20 operates an Alternative Education School, Colonial
Academy. Students from the 13 different school districts around our regions choose to send
students to this school when they have exhibit undesirable behaviors in their home district or have
unique needs that the child’s resident school is not equipped to handle. Colonial Academy
consists of students from grades 6-12 and is currently serving roughly 300 students at the present
time. Many of these students in attendance are at this school because of major and/or repetitive
disciplinary issues. It is the goal of Colonial Academy to not only educate these students but to
provide them with social and emotional skill sets that are needed to control their behaviors and
ultimately return to their home district. A student’s time at Colonial Academy is variable based

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

2

on the child’s behavior and academic success, therefore, its critical for teachers to use techniques
to monitor their student’s comprehension on a continual basis.
Over the years, Colonial Academy continues to get closer to a ratio of one device to one
child. Each student having their own device would give the students the ability to retrieve and
submit assignments and do research as assigned. These devices are already in some student’s
hands and could easily be used to complete formative assessments and provide teachers with real
time data regarding student comprehension for the topic being taught at the moment. This data is
invaluable as it instantly lets the teachers know which students are grasping the concepts and
which students might need more follow up. The results also let the teacher know whether they
generally can move onto the next topic or whether they need to review the current topic in further
detail. Conducting formative assessments multiple times per day helps to make sure that students
aren’t left behind. It’s fascinating to me that the use of technology-based assessment tools is not
more wide spread. I can’t imagine a situation in which a teacher wouldn’t find this data valuable
or see the potential return on investment.
Providing teachers with professional development on how to use technology based
formative assessment tools and integrate it into lessons has the potential of impacting student
achievement. Performing research in this alternative education setting is critical as there is limited
research regarding the use of formative assessment with this specific type of student population.
Teachers are often overwhelmed with training and professional development, especially in an
alternative education setting. It is crucial to get buy-in prior to introducing formative assessment
training, or any additional training. Getting buy-in ahead of time will result in the teachers being
more engaged and make it more likely that they will take the newfound knowledge and
successfully implement it in their classes.
Teachers are sometimes reluctant to explore new ways of teaching. When operating
within an alternative education school, teachers are expected to take on many more tasks than that
of a regular education teacher. This sometimes results in a reluctancy to take on one more task.

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

3

Careful and direct communication must be used to explain how the implementation of technology
based formative assessment could ultimately make their teaching job easier and positively impact
student achievement simultaneously.
Students in this type of setting would benefit from their teachers using formative
assessment tools. One reason is that some students are hesitant to speak up in the classroom for
fear of how they might be perceived by their peers. By using technology based formative
assessment tools, a student can answer a question without worrying about the whole class
knowing whether they got the answer right or wrong, worrying that they may get bullied or called
names because they got the answer wrong or got it right, or worrying they will be called “the
class pet.” By using formative assessment, the teacher gets a feel for whether the whole class is
understanding the topic and not just one or two students who raise their hand. A teacher can then
move onto the next topic or can stay on the current topic and go further in depth with teaching the
current topic. The use of technology based formative assessment tools allows students and
teachers to be more engaged in learning and keeps children’s attention throughout the length of
the entire class as they are actively engaged and participating all the time. Instant feedback is
given which allows the students to know that they are learning or that they might need a little
more help on a topic.
This research project will examine the impact of using technology based formative
assessment and its impact on student achievement. The researcher will utilize teacher surveys to
gain an understanding of how teachers use formative assessments in their classrooms. This
researcher will also gather relevant data regarding academic performance, technology tools used
in the classroom, as well as pre and post academic test scores.
This research study will be guided by the following three questions:
1. Does the use of technology based formative assessment lead to increased student
achievement?
2. How does the frequency of using formative assessment affect student achievement?

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

4

3. Does the use of technology based formative assessment narrow the range of achievement
when comparing high scores against low scores?
Anonymized initial assessment data will be collected. Teachers will then be provided
professional development on a technology based formative assessment tools that they will utilize
in their classroom for a period of time. Afterward, the teachers will be asked to utilize the new
technique that they learned in their classrooms. Teacher surveys that will be completed prior to
and after the implementation of technology based formative assessment will also be collected.
Additional anonymized student assessments will be collected at the end of the research term as
well. All of this data will be analyzed to look for patterns and ultimately determine whether the
use of technology based formative assessment led to increased student achievement.

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

5

CHAPTER II
Review of Literature
Introduction
Formative Assessment is an instructional technique that can be traced back to the 1960s.
While it was first used back in the 1960s, it wasn't known as the definition we know it as today
until the 1970s (Bloom et al., 1971). There is no widely agreed upon definition of formative
assessment (Black & Wiliam, 2003; Wiliam, 2014; Baran-Łucarz, 2019). Hirsh (2020) states that
formative assessment:
is characterized by clarification of the goals of instruction, the seeking of
information on students’ current level in relation to the goals, and provision of
feedback that clarifies how the gap between the students’ current levels and the
goal can be closed. (p. 91)
(Nitko 1993, as cited in Ketabi & Ketabi, 2014) found various definitions of
formative assessment: (1) formative assessment has two main purposes, to choose or
modify the learning procedures and to decide on the best remedies to make the learning
and teaching processes more effective and (2) formative assessment. (Gattulo 2000, as
cited in Ketabi & Ketabi, 2014):
(a) is an ongoing multi-phase process that is carried out on a daily basis through
teacher-pupil interaction, (b) it provides feedback for immediate action, and (c) it
aims at modifying teaching activities in order to improve learning processes and
results. (p. 437)
Furthermore, (Brown 2004, as cited in Baran-Łucarz, 2019), “pinpoints that most of the
assessment taking place in the classroom is actually formative by nature since it allows learners to
form their knowledge by analyzing and internalizing teachers’ comments.”
Definition of Formative Assessment

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

6

According to Wiliam (2014), The Assessment Reform Group defines formative
assessment “as the process of seeking and interpreting evidence for learners and their teachers to
decide where the learners are in their learning, where they need to go, and how best to get there.”
The Assessment Reform Group proposed seven characteristics of assessment that promotes
learning:
(1) it is embedded in a view of teaching and learning of which it is an essential
part; (2) it involves sharing learning goals with pupils; (3) it aims to help pupils
to know and to recognize the standards they are aiming for; (4) it involves pupils
in self-assessment; (5) it provides feedback which leads to pupils recognizing
their next steps and how to take them; (6) it is underpinned by confidence that
every student can improve; and (7) it involves both teacher and pupils reviewing
and reflecting on assessment data. (Wiliam, 2014, p.4)
Similarly, (Stiggins et al. 2005, as cited in Wiliam 2014) proposed that assessment for
learning consists of seven strategies:
(1) provide students with a clear and understandable vision of the learning target;
(2) use examples and models of strong and weak work; (3) offer regular
descriptive feedback; (4) teach students to self-assess and set goals; (5) design
lessons to focus on one learning target or aspect of quality at a time; (6) teach
students focused revision; and (7) engage students in self-reflection and let them
keep track of and share their learning. (pp. 7-8)
Ng (2018) also based formative assessment on principles. They are:
Principle 1 (P1): Aligning assessment to teaching and learning; Principle 2 (P2):
Multidimensional assessment methods; Principle 3 (P3): Selecting assessments
susceptible to learning; Principle 4 (P4): Drawing on join-efforts amongst
colleagues; Principle 5 (P5): Assessing students continuously; Principle 6 (P6):
Allowing students to take part in the assessment process; Principle 7 (P7): Using

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

7

assessment to uncover learning; Principle 8 (P8): Making marking criteria
accessible; Principle 9 (P9): Providing feedback; and Principle 10 (P10):
Analyzing and reporting students’ results. (p. 2)
The common theme in the three definitions above is that here is frequent, interactive assessment
of students’ progress and understanding to identify learning needs and to adjust teaching
accordingly (Wiliam, 2014).
Other key terms used in conjunction with formative assessment are assessment for
learning and blended learning. Blended learning is the integration of conventional face-to-face
learning with online content (Baig et al., 2020). Klenowski (2009) defines assessment for learning
as “part of everyday practice by students, teachers and peers that seeks, reflects upon and
responds to information from dialogue, demonstration and observation in ways that enhance
ongoing learning.”
Another form of assessment is called summative assessment, which is widely used in
teaching today. It is mainly used because it is easy to administer and higher institutions require
these standardized assessments for entrance into their facilities (Baran-Łucarz, 2019). Summative
assessments are not based on instant feedback but verifies what the student knows and has
mastered during a particular time. A student’s success is measured by using scores, percentages,
and/or points. There is no doubt that students need to be assessed in the classroom but what
modality to do so is the question. According to Hirsh (2020), there are five assessment
instruments that teachers considered to form the most important basis for assessing students’
knowledge which were: continuous observations of what students do in the classroom (85%
indicated this as an important basis for assessment), oral assignments and reports (83%), written
assignments (67%), results of national tests (66%), and results of other tests (62%). Summative
assessments force students to compare and rank themselves versus focusing on what they can
improve on.
History of Formative Assessment

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

8

Formative assessment was initially used to reference educational programs rather than to
evaluate the learning progress of students. Ten years later it shifted from programs to process,
however it took till the 1980s to truly begin what is known today as formative assessment. In the
1970s and 1980s, the development of new tools was advanced by a series of research projects at
Chelsea College (which merged with King’s College in 1985) which explored ways assessments
might support learning. The Concepts in Secondary Mathematics and Science (CSMS) project
investigated mathematical and scientific reasoning in students through the use of tests that were
intended to illuminate aspects of students’ thinking, rather than just measure achievement:
This approach did not lead as directly to results applicable in normal teaching as
did the more empirical approach of the mathematics team, which focused on the
diagnosis of errors in the concepts formed by secondary school students, and
looked for ways to address them. (Hart, 1981, as cited in Black & Wiliam, 2003,
p. 624)
The recommendation of the Committee of Inquiry into the Teaching of Mathematics in
Schools (1982) was for a system for “graded tests” to be developed for students in secondary
schools to be certified, therefore, leaving the results of examinations to be developed. Black and
Wiliam (2003) found that similar systems have been used to improve motivation and achievement
in foreign language for many years. The group at Chelsea College chose to aim for a system for
all pupils, and with support from both the Nuffield Foundation and the Inner London Education
Authority (ILEA), their Graded Assessment in Mathematics (GAIM) Project was established in
1983. It was one of five graded assessment schemes supported by the ILEA. This development
was more ambitious in attempting to establish a new system. In mathematics, English, and craft,
design and technology, the schemes set out to integrate the summative function with the
formative. They found three strains on this system:
First, in 1988, but then the new criteria for the General Certificate of Secondary
Education (GCSE) specified that, in mathematics, the assessments must include a

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

9

written end-of-course examination which had to count for at least 50% of the
available marks (Department of Education and Science & Welsh Office, 1985).
The original developments in other subjects made more use of frequent formal
tests, but were similarly constrained by the GCSE rules. Second, The National
Curriculum Task Group on Assessment and Testing (TGAT) (1988a, 1988b)
adopted the model of age-independent levels of achievement that had been used
by the graded assessment schemes, but required a system of 10 levels to cover
the age range 5–16, arranged so that the average student could be expected to
achieve one level every two years. Third, assuring comparability of awards, both
between schools and with other traditionally based awards, required costly
administration. (Black & Wiliam, 2003, pp. 624-625)
By 1995 formative assessment went on hold and the government was not interested in
going forth with researching formative assessment strategies. Ateh (2015) found that by the early
2000s, the focus shifted to that teachers’ next instructional moves should not be based on what
comes next in the lesson or unit plan but rather on what emerges from students’ responses. He
also found that the expectation for any classroom instruction is that teachers will use elicited
evidence of student knowledge to address students’ learning needs. Teachers must plan to elicit
students’ knowledge while reflecting on the three key processes that guide formative assessment:
(a) What do students know? (b) What do students need to know? (c) How will students close the
gap between what they know and what they need to know?
Variables
Grade Levels
“Much of the work has focused on breaking the domain of formative assessment into
smaller, more management pieces (Leahy et al., 2005, as cited in Lyon et al., 2018) that could be
used in any content area, at any grade level, and with any curriculum.” According to the literature

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

10

review there appears to be mixed data in regards to the subject area taught, grade level taught, and
using formative assessment in those classrooms and how it affects student achievement.
Frey and Schmitt (2010) suggested that elementary teachers use tests that are already
prepared for them less often than other grade levels and they might be more likely to design
assessments for use in ways consistent with the goals of formative assessment. (Stiggins 2004, as
cited in Frey & Schmitt, 2010) found that quality classroom assessment in middle grades schools
have the potential to improve learning if teachers focus on the quality of their assessments,
provide feedback to students, and involve students in the assessment process. The student
involved approach to classroom assessment requires that the middle grade teachers have to make
an effort to engage in a formative assessment approach (Frey & Schmitt, 2010). They conducted a
study using a two-way analysis of variance with gender and grade level taught. They found that
none of the analyses resulted in differences significant at less than the .05 level. However, two
analyses identified differences significant at around the .06 level with small to moderate effect
sizes. The frequency with which teachers give tests that do not affect student grades differed by
subject taught and grade level taught. Follow-up analyses found frequency differences between
elementary teachers and both math teachers and science teachers. Differences were also found
between teachers of 3rd-5th grade and teachers of 9th-12th grade.
Subject Areas
A study conducted by Baran-Łucarz (2019) found that only 25% of students taking a
foreign language in Poland high schools stated that they received any type of formative
assessments.
There is not much research conducted about the practice of formative assessment in arts
education (music, fine arts, dance, theatre). Much of arts education is based on teachers' reflective
practice. This means that the researchers themselves either used formative assessment or they
investigated other teachers who talked about doing so but didn’t pay equal attention to other
important aspects of teaching. A study conducted by Kazragytė and Kudinovienė (2019) found

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

11

that 49.3% of the arts education lessons for which formative assessment was used was effective.
Of the above-mentioned lessons, 54% was provided for pupils of elementary education, 33% for
pupils of lower secondary education, and only 13% for pupils of upper secondary education.
Conversely, it was found that 50.7% of the arts education lessons in which formative assessment
was used was found to be ineffective. Of them, 37% of the lessons were provided for pupils of
elementary education, 61% was for pupils of lower secondary education, and only 8% for pupils
of upper secondary education.
A study conducted by Lyon et al. (2018) found that teachers significantly increased their
practice of formative assessment at the category level in both mathematics and science,
specifically in the categories of providing feedback and asking questions. However, closer
examination of implementation using responses to the Daily Log of Formative Assessment
Practice (DLoP) indicates that mathematics and science teachers used different formative
assessment approaches. These findings support the idea that teachers’ content area can influence
the way that a teacher chooses to use formative assessments.
(Ayala et al. 2008, as cited in Furtak et al., 2018) and (Bell et al. 1999, as cited in Furtak
et al., 2018) reported that, “formative assessment is described as the instructional tasks teachers
enact to surface student thinking as well as the whole-class discussions teachers orchestrate as
opportunities to attend and respond to students’ ideas” reported that designing and using
formative assessment in science classrooms presents multiple challenges for teachers. That is
teachers must be able to design their lessons that will allow students the opportunities to share
their thinking and navigate their ideas on the fly. Studies of science classrooms today still indicate
that teachers control the majority of classroom interactions leaving very little time or space for
students to voice their ideas and expand on their thinking. Yet, research into classroom discourse
has shown that teachers asking open-ended and authentic questions such as those that begin with
“Why, How, or What do you think” provide room for students to share their ideas. Formative
assessment classrooms provide a free exchange of ideas between teachers and students.

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

12

Formative assessments have been used longer in the English Language Arts classrooms
than other classrooms. These types of classrooms use rubrics as a form of formative assessments
to show the quality of work (Lyon et al., 2018). Rubrics are often used to improve complex skills
such as writing, however, can be used and applied across other content areas (science) and other
tasks such as writing lab reports, analysis, and oral presentations. (Ackermans et al., 2017;
Panadero & Jonsson, 2013, as cited in Lyon et al., 2018).
Teacher Variables
Kazragytė and Kudinovienė (2019) believe that a teacher needs concurrent skills which
can be used to identify not just “what the learner has (or has not) achieved, but what they might
achieve, what they are ready to achieve.” They believe that there is a strong relationship between
formative assessment and the teacher’s self-awareness abilities, needed to predict students'
achievements and plan them. They believe that:
a teacher should have good skills in feedback implementation and exactly the
same skills of lesson leadership: to be able to have clear learning objectives and
criteria, assignments, to make suggestions for learners, involving the suggestions
of the learners themselves, etc. (Brookhart, 2008, as cited in Kazragytė and
Kudinovienė, 2019, p. 219)
According to Swathi et al. (2020) they reported that when they studied an experienced teacher,
she did not express feeling overwhelmed at asking questions or using student
responses to guide her next steps. She felt more in control of using the
framework in the classroom and of the cards given to her, she referred to them
frequently and asked the questions as is evident from the classroom observations.
(p. 113)
According to Robinson et al (2014)
Also of interest was the finding that a teacher’s years of experience was unrelated
to any of the variables analyzed stating that experiences, indicating that

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

13

experience was not likely a factor in teachers’ adoption or understanding of
formative assessment practices. However, the negative and statistically
significant negative correlations between teachers’ ratings of the impact of other
professional development activities on current (–.472) and planned use (–.426)
and their understanding (–.475) do suggest other demands on their time limited
how much they learned or could participate in using the AFL practices. This is
hardly a surprise as time and competing demands are frequently noted as limiting
factors in teacher participation in PD activities. (p. 156)
It was evident that teachers lacked the background and understandings of the fundamental
principles of formative assessment to fully capitalize on the uses of its practice.
They also may lack the time and support needed to integrate these practices into their teaching
over a sustained period, or have little opportunity for active and collaborative learning. Stewart
and Houchens (2014) found that teachers who didn't fully understand how to implement
formative assessments did not use formative assessments in their classrooms. Swathi et al. (2020)
research shows that inexperienced teachers have lesser recall of classroom memories than
experienced teachers and that they feel overwhelmed. Novices, in general, exhibit limited
processing capacity that constraints learning and performance. A study conducted by Kazragytė
and Kudinovienė (2019) revealed that teachers did not use formative assessment at the end of the
lessons or did not conduct it properly. Without a deeper understanding of formative assessment
teachers may fail to recognize that using formative assessment represents a major change in the
teacher’s role in student learning and a fundamental reorientation of the teacher–student learning
relationship on the part of both teachers and students. It will take new ideas, professional
development (PD), everyday practice, and change in student learning, all done over time that is
the key to accomplishing the shift to formative assessment practices.
Professional Development

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

14

Teachers have been tasked with a lot of training and other forms of professional
development including advancing skills in using formative assessment. Despite the efforts for
changing traditional education practices with contemporary ones, it appears the changes have
happened at a slow rate (Ahmedi, 2019). Stewart and Houchens (2014) study found that teachers
who participated in professional development experienced a growth in their capacity to use and
teach various formative assessment strategies. (Wei et al. 2009, as cited in Robinson et al., 2014)
found that professional development is most effective when teachers actively engage in learning
during the PD which focuses on improved instruction and student achievement while taking those
theories back to the classroom. Stewart and Houchens (2014) found that whole group one-day
professional development sessions are not as effective as the same learning in a collegial group
over time. They also believe that central administrators should offer mandatory formative
assessment PD to new teachers only and then voluntary sessions to others within their schools.
The different opinions lead to one asking themselves, “what type of professional development is
needed?”
“The question remains, how do teachers use learning progressions in long-term
professional development to support their understanding of student ideas, their formative
assessment task design, and their abilities to draw out and respond to student thinking”
(Whitcomb, 2013). He reported that many prior studies have already established that it is
important for teachers to engage in long term, discipline specific professional development to
enhance their classroom practices. As such, Borko et al. (2008) created a professional
development approach that incorporated elements of established models of effective, long-term
professional development, including cycles of planning, teaching and reflecting, reflecting on
evidence of teaching together, engaging in active learning strategies as well as explicit instruction
to learn new instructional approaches, and guiding teacher learning through active facilitation.
Furtak et al. (2018) developed the Formative Assessment Design Cycle, which is a fivestep approach for professional development to support teachers in the development of formative

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

15

assessment tasks with the support of a learning progression. In the first step, the facilitator guides
the learner to explore student ideas as well as their own understandings about the concept being
taught. In the second step, the learner designs tasks with their colleagues to evoke more
information about students’ ideas during instruction. In the third step, learners practice using the
tasks they rehearsed and actually use formative assessment tasks. In the fourth step, the learners
enact the tasks during their units and collect student work. In the fifth and final step, the learners
reflect on enactment by exploring examples of student work, videotaped enactment of the
formative assessment, and reflecting on what students learned, as well as how to improve the
formative assessment tasks and their accompanying classroom practices in the future. Furtak et al.
(2018) believed that by using the above steps the teachers would rehearse asking the types of
questions that would evoke student thinking and be better prepared to respond with quality
feedback during instruction in the classroom. The findings of their study have important
implications for the design and implementation of professional development, and the possible
linkages between professional development, teacher formative assessment abilities, and student
learning. Finding the right professional development can raise teacher effectiveness in a variety of
schools with varying socio-cultural, social, and economic backgrounds.
Lyon et al. (2018) researched the development of various professional development (PD)
programs that focus on increasing teachers’ use of formative assessment across domains
including the Keeping Learning on Track Program, The Learning Set, the Classroom Assessment
for Student Learning, Embedded Formative Assessment, and many others. These PD programs all
use a common approach to engage teachers with formative assessment.
Robinson et al. (2014) reported that these early observations and feedback from the
public-school personnel emphasized the importance of the following when it comes to PD:
(1) offering training that fit into the perceived needs of the participating schools;
(2) recognizing/respecting teachers’ background knowledge; (3) avoiding being
perceived as an add-on to teachers’ already heavy workload; (4) focusing on

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

16

strategies teachers could use in their daily work with students; (5) providing
opportunities for collaborative dialog among teachers; (6) providing a means of
examining changes in teachers’ actual use of formative assessment strategies; and
(7) providing a timely means of examining the impact of these changes in their
teaching practices on student learning. (p. 142)
(Heritage 2007, as cited in Lyon et al., 2018) argued that to be effective,
PD related to formative assessment must be rooted in content to ensure that
teachers are able to operationalize the complete formative assessment cycle (i.e.,
collecting quality evidence of student understanding through well-designed
questions, interpreting the evidence collected, and selecting appropriate next
instructional steps). The knowledge needed to accomplish these tasks in a
consistent, systematic, and effective way differs by content area and must be
based upon what we know about how student learning progresses within a
specific content area. (p. 145)
(Stiggins et al. 2006 as cited in Robinson et al., 2014) found that in order to enhance
teachers’ understanding, develop their basic assessment skills, and provide practical strategies for
teachers to use related to the above, professional development must specifically focus on:
(1) a balanced approach to formative and summative assessment; (2) use of
formative assessment ideas/strategies; (3) use of assessment to motivate; (4) use
of effective feedback strategies; (5) unwrapping learning targets with students;
(6) unwrapping reasoning-level learning targets with students; (7) choosing
appropriate means of assessment; (8) effectively leading reasoning-level
discussions; (9) use of goal setting with students; (10) use of data for instruction;
(11) use of data to meet individual student needs; (12) use of assessment for
students’ self-monitoring; (13) appropriately developing selection-type items;
(14) use of peer questioning/discourse; (15) conducting effective discussions;

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

17

(16) use of exemplars and rubrics; and (17) student participation in developing
rubrics. (p. 150)
(Atkins et al. 2005, as cited in Furtak et al., 2018) found little research has been
completed that explores how to support teachers through professional development in designing
their own formative assessment activities. Furthermore, the field is only beginning to examine
how learning progressions can support teachers’ formative assessment abilities. Another
drawback for professional development is that these programs are typically pre-arranged and
packed with essential knowledge and skills for teachers to understand and apply, therefore, giving
them little time to practice these new skills. Also, time constraints placed on lecturers limit their
ability as well to present sessions to where teachers can reflect upon their own assessment
practices. Marsh (2006) reports that if teachers are to gain confidence in using formative
assessments they need to observe and consult with other teachers about effective teaching and
learning practices.
Oftentimes, it's not just the teachers lack of understanding of formative assessment but
their willingness to learn about new initiatives. According to Frey and Schmitt (2010) formative
assessment is not very common. They found that about 12% of assessments given do not even
affect student grades and three out of every four tests are given after instruction is completed.
Schneider and Randel (2010) found that even with continuing evidence and research that supports
the effectiveness of formative assessment they are slow to be integrated into the classrooms and
into everyday classroom practices. (Ali and Elmahdi 2001, as cited in Elmahdi et al., 2018) study
used a program called “Plickers” in their classrooms and pointed out that technology resources,
support, and teacher’s reluctance in adopting technology in teaching activities to be the main
issue in using formative assessments.
Frequency and Timing
Another factor that affects formative assessment and student achievement is the
frequency of how often assessments are given. According to (Horwitz 2017, as cited in Frey and

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

18

Schmitt, 2010) frequent formal summative assessment in this case can lead to inhibition and
anxiety, therefore, creative constant feedback and interaction leads to greater success and less
overall anxiety and learning. Frey and Schmitt (2010) found that only a small proportion of
classroom tests are formative assessment. They found that 87.68% were assessments that affected
grades and are given after instruction is over. Stiggins and DuFour (2009) believe that “formative
classroom assessments must provide an answer about where a student is located in his or her
learning, not once a year or every few weeks, but continuously while the learning is happening.”
Kazragytė and Kudinovienė (2019) found that formative assessment is used before teaching for
diagnostic purposes, during teaching and after teaching to decide if the students are ready for the
next teaching. They believe it is essential to continually gather data relating to student
comprehension during instruction.
Cauley and McMillan (2010) found that “although formative assessment can be
performed after a test, effective teachers use formative assessment during instruction to identify
specific student misunderstandings, provide feedback to students to help them correct their errors,
and identify and implement instructional correctives.”
Baran-Łucarz (2019) study found that leaving assessment till the end of a course and
limiting it to a score can be expected to debilitate progress, due to depriving students of
information about their foreign language use. However, Kazragytė and Kudinovienė (2019)
argues that teachers should include formative assessment episodes following their teaching.
Special and Alternative Education
Research has shown that formative assessment in special education classrooms are a great
tool for mastery of learning for special needs students. Research by Robinson et al. (2014) found
that Teacher A, whose class was composed of nine special needs students and 11 regular
education students, had an overall increase of 35 percentage points in students’ mastery of the
standard of learning (SOL) being assessed (students scored 11% below the district average on the
non-targeted SOL and 24% above the district average on the targeted SOL) and a 28 percentage

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

19

point difference in mastery for the special education students in her inclusion class. Teacher B,
who taught a class of 22 gifted and regular education students, had a 13-percentage point
difference in mastery (students scored 14% above the district average on the non-targeted SOL
and 27% above the district average on the targeted SOL). Also of note is the overall percentage of
students mastering the targeted SOL, where 80% of the inclusion class/regular education class
and 83% of the gifted/regular education class reached a mastery level on the SOL, suggesting the
potential for formative assessment practices to help close the gap between lower and higher
performing students. Cornelius (2013) found that the outcomes for students who struggle with
learning, students with disabilities, and English language learners increase when formative
assessment is implemented as a systematic and continual process. He also found that “formative
assessment allows teachers to make instructional decisions based on student needs, thus enabling
more personalized instruction for all students,” therefore, if a different pace or extra support is
needed, a teacher can use their knowledge of students and their responses to implement strategies
to help the student learn and drive their instructional practices. Teachers can use technology as a
way to use formative assessments to assist these students.
Technology Based
Bahati et al. (2019) found that effective use of technology can improve and support
formative assessment in the classroom. It allows students to monitor real time data whenever and
wherever they want. It allows instant feedback and changes a student's misconception.
Technology speeds up tracking, tracing, storing, processing and visualizing students’ results as
well as actions. They also found that students felt that their learning was improved as a result of
taking part in online formative assessment instructional activities. Dalby and Swan (2019) also
agree that rapid assessment, timely feedback, and tracking of student learning can usefully
contribute to formative assessment. They designed their lessons to help identify additional
functions of benefit, including the accessibility of summaries of student responses for teachers,
from which they can quickly identify common misconceptions, and then give direct formative

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

20

feedback to students that could be provided by some interactive, adaptive software. Robertson et
al. (2018) found notable value in using a technology tool as a vehicle to deliver the formative
assessment in the online classroom. They believe it creates a way to make the content more
interesting and makes it possible for students to get specific individualized feedback. It also
creates immediate feedback and provides clear data analytics. Immediacy was one of the biggest
instructors and student benefits of using the technology tool. Skordis-Worrall et al. (2015) study
conducted a thematic analysis in the online learning environment, and one of the five major
themes that arose was the immediacy of feedback.
As stated by Robertson et al. (2018), effective technology tools can boost the teacher’s
presence with little effort and minimal time commitment on the part of the teacher. Today, recent
technology allows teachers to create formative assessments that can be used to give students and
teachers immediate feedback on student performance. Applications can offer one or both
feedback options: verification or elaborative. Verification feedback is a great tool for students to
progress towards learning objectives, but it only provides half of the needed details. (Marsh et al.
2012, as cited in Robertson et al., 2018) “found that verification feedback delivered directly after
each question improved assessment scores in comparison to when an answer-key is posted for
students to self-verify afterward.” Robertson et al., (2018) found that:
The benefits of elaborative feedback take this one step further back, allowing the
student to see why an answer was right or wrong and how the student can master
the approach moving forward. Traditionally, teachers had to add up and create their
own charts and reports to summarize class achievement. With Web 2.0 tools, data
analytics are built into the application to allow teachers and students a fast, graphic
way to see where they are excelling or struggling, and it even gives tips and hints
for improvement. Furthermore, elaborative feedback reports allow teachers to
tailor lesson plans or guide the discussion toward the needs of the individual
student. (para. 6)

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
They also reported that:
Furthermore, program scoring released instructor time to focus on providing
interventions during the week for commonly missed questions. For example, in
one course many students may miss question number three while in a different
course they may miss question number five. While there was not a significant
difference between the scores of students who took either assessment, this comes
as no surprise for anyone who knows how formative assessment works. (para. 30)
They also stated that:
The Web 2.0 tool was not only able to increase the effectiveness of the delivery of
the formative assessment, but it also allowed for the instructor to be more
productive by saving the teacher anywhere from 5 to 10 minutes per student
submission. The time saved allowed the teacher to focus more time and energy
into other areas of instruction while still helping students achieve the same results.
The data from the technology tool provides instructors with a chunk of valuable
information that can be used to increase student performance and teacher practices.
(para. 34)
(Dakka 2015, as cited in Robertson et al., 2018):
the element that supports teachers most when integrating technology based, oneon-one feedback is the immediacy of that feedback. Additionally, students can
further develop their critical thinking skills while reviewing and reflecting on
individual or class results and feedback. Thus, the researchers for this study
determined that the technology tool used for formative assessment must provide
both elaborative and verification feedback that is immediate. Both of these
elements allow the student to adjust their thinking towards the objective before the
summative assessment. (para. 7)

21

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

22

Roberston et al. (2018) found that, “data collection and analytics are helpful for teachers
because they provide a fast, graphic way to see where students are excelling and struggling.”
Furthermore, students can further develop their critical thinking skills while reviewing and
reflecting on the class results and immediate feedback. (Bhagat and Spector 2017, as cited in
Robertson et al., 2018) “further concluded that technology can support formative assessment by
enhancing learning performance, attitude, and motivation across various disciplines.”
Additionally, today’s students live in a digital world with technology in all facets of life so they
already know how to use it. The integration of technology in classrooms becomes a necessity for
effective teaching that improves learning, especially in the 21st century; where the road to
motivate and encourage students to learn is paved with their passion for technology and digital
tools. Elmahdi et al. (2018) found that with the advent of technology and its role in education, a
wide body of research has developed in investigating the role of technological instructions in the
educational process and their effect in improving the interactive education environment. Through
their research Elmahdi et al. (2018) identified two major advantages to using technology for
formative assessment in that they support individualized learning and they open up time in
teaching courses for more interactive lessons.
There are a number of affordable newly introduced technologies and software that aid
teachers to use formative assessment during the instructional process which enhance learning and
assessment. One of these technologies are classroom response systems; mainly referred to as
CRSs. These technologies include, but not limited to, Clickers, Socrative, Kahoot, Plickers and
Recap. The common denominator among these technologies is their ability to collect real-time
formative assessment data that helps teachers to provide instant feedback (Elmahdi et al., 2018).
Research findings by Elmahdi et al. (2018) reported that CRSs enhanced questioning and
feedback when technology is integrated with the method of teaching, maximized learner
engagement, and had a positive effect on students’ attitudes and academic performance. Research
has found that these systems activate students thinking, enhance immediate feedback, motivate

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

23

participation, and foster discussion. Ultimately, it transforms the classroom from teacher-centered
to student-centered. In a study conducted by Elmahdi et al. (2018):
it is apparent from this table that in investigating students perception about the
importance of implementing formative assessment in their classroom, their
responses showed how highly they view the importance of formative assessment
(Mean = 4.40, SD = 0.54) in identifying different concepts that students are
struggling to understand (Mean = 4.46, SD = 0.89), in identifying skills students
are having difficulty acquiring (Mean = 4.29, SD = 0.96), in providing
information needed to adjust teaching and learning while it is happening (Mean =
4.38, SD = 0.80), and in guiding teachers and students in making decisions about
how to move forward to reach their goals (Mean = 4.28, SD = 1.00). The results
also showed that participants agree that formative assessment should be an
integral part of classroom learning (Mean = 4.57, SD = 0.77).
They also found that in response to their first open-ended question
As a student, how effective is using Plickers in the classroom for the teaching
and learning process? participants overwhelmingly agree that Plickers is an
effective tool in aiding the learning process. As students, they argue that Plickers
help them to be engaged in the lesson. One student wrote, “I think that it’s very
useful method to engage all students to participate even they are shy or quiet.”
On the same line, another respondent stated, “I think this method attract the
students and makes them interest[ed].” A third participants wrote “the students
will be engaged and enjoy their learning.” One participant argued, “It motivates
all learners and engages them.” Another aspect that the participants offered in
response to the above question is about checking understanding, which can be
quickly and easily obtained by using Plickers. For example, one respondent
stated, “It measures the students understanding in a fun and different way”.

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
Another respondent wrote, “I will use it to assess the students’ understanding”. A
third student wrote, “Yes, because it’s a very interesting way to assess the
students and check their understanding”. (p. 185)
It is apparent from the above results that the current generation of children like to use
technology in their daily lives and feel that using it in the classroom has a positive effect
on their learning as evidenced by many researchers. Elmahdi et al. (2018):
continued probing and asking questions asking if students if using technology
based formative assessment in the classroom impacts their learning outcomes, the
results showed that they do agree (Mean = 4.19, SD = 0.98). For the open-ended
question “Do you plan to use Plickers in your classrooms when you become a
teacher? If the answer is yes, would you please explain the reasons?” indicated
that they will use Plickers in the future when they become teachers. They offered
a number of reasons; one of which is the excitement and fun that technology
brings to the classroom; as one participant put it this way “it is fun of all ages for
primary school or college students will have fun.” Another participant wrote “it
makes the lesson very easier and in a fun way”. A second aspect that the
researchers identified in the participants’ responses to the above question is
saving the learning time. “Yes, I plan to use Plickers [because] it saves the
learning time,” mentioned one respondent. Another respondent stated, “Another
thing, it saves time because it can be done in a very quick [way].” Many of the
respondents maintain that Plickers is good to break the traditional classrooms’
routines, as mentioned by one of the respondents in writing “Plickers is a great
way to change the routine and change the ordinary atmosphere of the class”.
Moreover, the participants indicated that using Plickers gives equal opportunities
to all students to participate. “Students will have an equal chance to participate in
the class,” stated one respondent. Another participant wrote, “Yes [I will use it]

24

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

25

because by it all the students will be participating.” A third respondent stated, “It
gives all students the chance to respond”. (pp. 185-186)
The positive benefits of using technology with formative assessments creates a
fun and exciting way which helps aid the learning process. It gives all students in the
classroom, even the shy ones, an equal opportunity to participate in one class session with
immediate feedback and frees up teacher time to focus on more in-depth teaching to the
classroom's strengths and weaknesses.
Although there is research evidence that suggests positive benefits from using
technology, it is sometimes difficult to draw strong conclusions about classroom use. While some
research provides evidence of learning gains (Higgins et al., 2012, as cited in Dalby & Swan,
2019) and supports claims that technology can promote deeper learning, (Vander Ark &
Schneider, 2012, as cited in Dalby & Swan, 2019), other studies are less conclusive (Haßler et al.,
2016 as cited in Dalby & Swan, 2019). According to (Higgins et al. 2012, as cited in Dalby &
Swan, 2019) these differences can be due to the way that technology is used or the way that
teachers teach. Roschelle and Pea (2002) believe it is the teacher that affects the educational
function of the technology in the classroom. They question whether technological methods are
just a supplement rather than a replacement for teachers. (DeBarger et al. 2010, as cited in Dalby
& Swan, 2019) suggest that teachers need clear learning patterns or teaching routines to
effectively engage students in collaborative learning using technology. Although their
suggestions of teaching routines are specific to the context, they indicate how learning might be
enriched through a formative process informed by technology. Dalby and Swan (2010) also found
that technology use and formative assessment in a classroom is still not widespread and
developed like it should be. They believe the greatest challenge in doing so is not the technology
itself but the understanding of the process by which it can enhance student learning. Likewise,
(Fullan and Donnelly 2013, as cited in Dalby & Swan, 2019) and (Mishra and Koehler 2006, as
cited in Dalby & Swan, 2019) agree that the difficulty is that teachers need to implement

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

26

appropriate teaching approaches to use technology successfully in their learning processes but in
order to do so they must focus on improving teachers’ skills with digital technology.
Another reason why formative assessments and technology fail is that principals
oftentimes apply a considerable amount of pressure onto teachers requesting them to concentrate
upon obtaining high academic standards for their respective classes especially in the core subjects
of language, mathematics and science. Here is the US, we even have the ("No Child Left Behind
Act “2001, as cited on Marsh, 2006) which requires principals to ensure that minimum standards
are achieved in the core subjects in their respective schools. Schools are penalized for not meeting
those standards; therefore, high pressure is placed on assessments.
Another flaw and reason that many teachers don't give formative assessments is that
many education systems offer awards and honors for students who do well academically.
Ultimately, these awards are based on high proficiency of students in summative examinations.
Most schools praise students who meet a “high” level of achievement.
A challenge raised by Robertson et al. (2018) was determining the effectiveness of
formative assessments from how and when the formative assessments are given. (Bhagat and
Spector 2017, as cited in Robertson et al., 2018) found that if feedback is delayed, it may not
support student learning or engagement and that constructive feedback could be perceived the
wrong way and have a negative impact on the learning process. They found that sometimes one
on one feedback can be challenging to achieve in the online classroom setting.
With over 80,000 educational applications available for download in just Apple’s App
Store alone, even though they are categorized as “educational,” there is no evaluation criteria or
statistical proof that these technology tools are geared to or improve teaching and learning. These
technology apps are left for the teachers to determine if they are fit for the classroom and actually
educational. The teachers will have to trial and error these apps to see if they are a fit for their
classroom or not, which oftentimes wastes, time, money, and resources (Robertson et al., 2018).

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

27

A study conducted by Elmahdi et al (2018) reported that technology issues with the
internet was a factor:
In the open-ended questions, the participants’ responses to the above statements
are, overwhelmingly, about the difficulties and problems related to technical
aspects. For example, one participant wrote, “the network might not work or it
might be slow”. Another respondent stated, “Sometimes there is no internet
service in the classroom so it will be hard to for the teacher to move from one
question to another,” a third participant wrote, “The teacher may face
technological problems. For example, access to the Internet.” An additional
aspect that emerged from the respondents’ answers to the above question is that
Plickers is only limited to objective questions. For example, one of the
respondents wrote, “The teacher is limited to use the multiple-choice questions.”
On the other hand, some respondents questioned the security of the information,
“You don’t guarantee that there won’t be no bugs in the application that may
delete all the histories and answers you saved in the application”. (p. 187)
With the positive results of formative assessment from the technology standpoint, one should
look at how satisfied students and teachers are with formative assessments.
Satisfaction
“It is important to notice that, amid the progressive increase of using new technologies to
support Formative Assessment (FA), the consideration of students’ perceptions has a paramount
importance. Students’ acceptance and attitude towards these technologies seem to be part of the
determining factors” (Bahati et al., 2019).
Baig et al. (2020) found that Blackboard (Bb) was not used efficiently by medical
students and that they reported having technical difficulties while using it. When they asked
students some open-ended questions on recommendations, they received that 52% of students
wanted their professors to use it in all their courses and then 52% recommended its use for more

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

28

formative assessment. They reported that the medical students extensively used digital selfdirected learning resources, including Bb and all students attempted formative assessment on Bb;
and the medical students stated that e-learning resources were beneficial. The students did point
out that they liked the web-based learning as an alternative to face to face teacher, however, the
shift caused them to feel stressed and anxious. Therefore, the students would have preferred a
blended learning method to allow a more gradual transition to all online learning. Hirsh (2020)
found that students continuously receive grades and perceive these grades and feedback as a
display of constant flawlessness.
Kazragytė and Kudinovienė (2019) noted that where formative assessment was found to
be most effective, there was a good student to teacher relationship, motivated student learning,
and other positive qualities. They found that as the formative assessment didn’t motivate students,
behavioral problems emerged:
In more than one third of the lessons (n – 28; 39%), relationships between the
teacher and pupils were noticed to be poor due to the teachers’ dominance,
negative emotional expressions of the teachers’, excessively light tasks, lack of
knowledge regarding what the pupils should to achieve and what kind of work is.
(p. 227)
Bahati et al. (2019) found that students were mostly satisfied with the quality of every
feedback criterion across all the formative e-assessment strategies.
The students’ scores (M = 69.2, SD = 12.36) were correlated with the learner
satisfaction ratings on the quality of the student engagement and the quality of
feedback within formative e-assessment learning activities. Firstly, the high
positive correlation (.59 ≤ r ≤ .54) was found where the students who reported
high satisfaction ratings in one assessment strategy were highly likely to report
higher satisfaction ratings in another formative e-assessment strategy. This was
observed between the learner satisfaction with the quality of feedback in online

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

29

knowledge survey and in online student-generated questions, in online studentgenerated questions and electronic reflective journals, and in online knowledge
survey and electronic reflective journals. Secondly, the moderate positive
correlation (.43 ≤ r ≤ .30) was also found where the students who reported high
satisfaction ratings in one assessment strategy were moderately likely to report
higher satisfaction ratings in another formative e-assessment strategy. This was
observed for example between the learner satisfaction with quality of student
engagement and the quality of feedback in electronic reflective journals, between
learner satisfaction with the quality of student engagement in online knowledge
survey and electronic reflective journals, in online student-generated questions
and electronic reflective journals. Thirdly, there was a low positive correlation
(.26 ≤ r ≤ .19) where the students who reported high satisfaction ratings in one
assessment strategy were less likely to report higher satisfaction ratings in
another formative e-assessment strategy. This low positive correlation was
observed for instance between the learner satisfaction with the quality of student
engagement in online student-generated questions and the learner satisfaction
with the quality of feedback in electronic reflective journals. In addition, a low
positive correlation was revealed between the learner satisfaction with the quality
of feedback in online knowledge survey and the learner satisfaction with the
quality of student engagement in online-student generated-questions. (pp. 72-73)
Ahmedi (2019) found that formative assessment may have an important effect on the
students’ attitudes and their achievements, however, it may be the teachers’ attitude towards
formative assessment that has an effect towards the students' achievement as well.
Wiliam (2014) found that many teachers invent techniques that they believe are important to
themselves, but may be less important to other teachers and maybe even irrelevant to the teaching

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

30

of the other teachers and/or classrooms. Ahmedi (2019) found that there is a correlation between
attitudes toward formative assessment and its implementation in practice by Kosovar teachers:
Results indicated that 63.5 % of the teachers have a completely positive attitude
towards formative assessment, whereas 40 % of these teachers have a completely
positive action; 25.1 % have a partially positive attitude, whereas 35.2 % have a
partially positive action; 5.1 % have a neutral attitude, whereas 15.2 % have a
neutral action; 4.6 % have a partially negative attitude, whereas 3.7 % have a
partially negative action; 1.7 % have a completely negative attitude, whereas 5.9
% of the teachers have a completely negative action regarding formative
assessment. (p. 170)
They also found that attitudes not only affect the way teachers teach but also the content
they teach. He found that teachers’ attitudes towards formative assessment are positive, however,
that they do not always use formative assessments or do not use them the right way. Overall, the
question remains, is using formative assessment in the classroom an effective tool?
Effectiveness
In the traditional classroom model, the teacher is viewed as having the knowledge and
student ideas are only drawn out for the purpose of evaluating them (Reznitskaya, 2012; Mercer,
2010; & Alexander, 2008, as cited in Furtak et al., 2018). In formative assessment, however,
teachers build on student ideas and provide helpful feedback to move students onward in their
everyday learning (Shepard, 2000, as cited in Furtak et al., 2018). In doing so, this provides
information about the quality of student performance, prompting students for particular types of
responses, and asking follow-up questions that push students to improve the understanding and
quality of their work. These types of feedback have been positively associated with student
learning and are central to many definitions of quality formative assessment (Hattie & Timperley,
2007; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; & Wiliam, 2007, as cited in Furtak, 2018).

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

31

Baig et al. (2020) conducted a study to show the impact of formative assessment on the
final marks in the module exam. After finishing module activity, each year, all students were
invited to fill a structured questionnaire and almost all students returned a completed
questionnaire. Overall, the exam score was significantly higher in all three years relative to the
formative assessment (p <0.001). A positive correlation was found between students’
performance in the online Blackboard (Bb) MCQ exam and their final MCQ exam (p <0.001).
They found that the final exam score in the endocrine module was higher as compared to the
online quiz as formative assessment in the endocrine module. Their study reported that more
engagement of students with online materials improves the students’ test scores as well as
reported a robust relationship between discussion board activity and final marks. Their findings
are comprehensible because the online MCQ exam was held a few days before the summative
exam, so the students improved their weaknesses and removed their misconceptions and thus
obtained better results. Their study also found that the use of only one method makes the teaching
monotonous, and students lose interest and concentration in a few minutes while the combination
of different teaching and learning methods improves the engagement with the content,
comprehension, and retention of knowledge. The majority of the students liked the blended
learning method and accepted Bb’s impact and effectiveness. The formative online assessment on
Bb improved the students’ performance in the final exam, and a positive correlation was noted
between students’ marks in online (Bb) exam with their final exam marks.
According to Baran-Łucarz et al. (2019) “formative assessment yielded greater learning
gains than that of conventional teacher-dominant summative assessment practices”. Teachers who
bring forth and use students’ thinking as the basis for instructional decisions can positively affect
student learning. (Black and Wiliam 1998, as cited in Baran-Łucarz et al. 2019), who
demonstrated that when teachers effectively utilize formative assessment strategies, student
learning increases significantly. (Hodgen and Webb 2008, as cited in Ng, 2018) believe that the
quality of feedback, questioning, dialogue, and sharing are essential for the implementation of

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

32

formative assessment, they believe the teachers have to set and clarify the outcomes, and the
students have to understand and share the learning outcomes. On the other hand, Ng et al. (2018)
found that that quick feedback is also important. They believe that the students can actually use
such feedback to guide their future learning. At the same time, students’ motivation to use the
feedback to improve learning is considered particularly important for online assessments
(Azevedo & Bernard, 1995; Mory, 2004, as cited in Ng, 2018). Ahmedi (2019) also believe that
through feedback from teachers, students learn their strengths and weaknesses in certain subjects
and will engage more or less in the relevant subjects. She believes that both teachers and students
benefit from formative assessments. She believes that teachers may use it to keep the class in
control, and students will use it to keep their personal results in control.
Marsh (2006) agrees with Ahmedi (2019) as well that formative assessment is valuable
for both teachers and students. He believes that formative assessment provides information to
teachers about how students are progressing and they can use this information to make the
necessary instructional adjustments to their teaching. He believes that students can also gain from
feedback obtained from the assessment because it can help them realize where there are gaps in
their desired goals and in their current knowledge and skills. From an educational point of view, it
is difficult to disagree with many of the claims made about formative assessment:
formative assessment helps with planning because it involves giving clear
learning intentions to students; formative assessment ensures that pupils are
focused on the purpose of the task and that they can become involved in their
learning and can comment on it - that is, there is a sharing of learning intentions;
formative assessment empowers the student to realize his/her own learning needs
and to have control over future targets. Students are trained to evaluate their own
achievements against the learning intentions in oral or written form; formative
assessment tracks progress diagnostically and informs a student of his/her
successes and weaknesses; and formative assessment ensures student motivation

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

33

and involvement in progress - it raises achievement, it keeps teachers informed of
individual needs. (Marsh, 2006, p 2)
Ng (2018) agrees that there are dual benefits to formative assessments. She believes that they
provide feedback to students so they can improve on their assignments prior to any formal
assessments and they can provide information for teachers, helping them monitor students'
learning progress and revise reaching content accordingly.
According to Lyon et al. (2018) a class response or clicker system for formative
assessment is extremely important and allows for increased student participation. According to
Bahati et al. (2019) many studies have confirmed that both quantity and quality of student
interactions are highly correlated with student satisfaction in most learning environments. Student
interaction plays an important role and constitutes one of the major factors that determine student
satisfaction in online courses. Robinson et al. (2014) found that the:
current use of strategies was also related to perceptions of students’ ownership of
their learning (r = .434) and a change in students’ orientation to learning (r =
.506). Teachers’ understanding was related to increased student participation (r =
.443) and teachers’ plan to use the strategies in the future was related to increased
student participation (r = .476), ownership (r = .437), and orientation to learning
(r = .448). All of these correlations were statistically significant at the .05 level.
(pp. 154-156)
Given the results above the correlation suggests that formative assessment had a positive impact
on student learning.
Additional reasons for doing formative assessment have been given by educators who
contend that summative assessment, especially standardized exams, can adversely affect students
and that more formative assessment should be used in its place (Black & Wiliam, 2003; Marsh,
2006).

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

34

Furthermore, as the literature highlights (Erickson, 2007, as cited in Robinson, 2014),
adopting formative assessment practices involves individual and societal shifts in terms of how
educators and students think about the nature of knowledge and knowledge gains. Formative
assessment is unlikely to be readily adopted by teachers whose beliefs systems and orientations
have developed over time. These largely unexamined belief systems serve as what (Erickson
2007, as cited in Robinson, 2014) described as a threat to formative assessments.
Summary
Widespread adoption of formative assessment conducted with technology tools is not
present at Colonial Academy. The research suggests the implementation of this technique can
improve student achievement and provide teachers with the data they need to become more
effective teachers. It improves student engagement, but more importantly in an alternative
education setting it can perceivably decrease undesirable student behaviors by keeping the kids
actively engaged. Since there's constant feedback and communication between the teachers and
students it allows the teachers to identify the individual students that might need more assistance
with a topic and allows them to provide them said assistance, therefore, improving studentteacher relationships.
Its particularly important during this pandemic and our increased demand for remote
learning that there is a decrease in face-to-face interactions that there is a need for teachers to
make the most of the “virtual” time with these students to make sure they are comprehending the
material that is being taught. It is important that the constant feedback is given to these students
even more so than if they were in class because in class there might be more evidence of visual
cues that could tell the teacher whether the student(s) is grasping the concepts being taught.
It's clear that teachers need ongoing professional development for not only formative
assessment but for general improvement for instructional strategies. I don’t want to say that its
comical but I guess it's somewhat concerning that one of the things teacher’s requests is less
professional development hours. With the various state mandates on content that needs to be

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
reviewed with school employees more professional development is actual needed because the
majority of the preallotted time is being consumed already, leaving no time for focus on new
initiatives and teacher development.

35

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

36

CHAPTER III
Methodology
The review of literature suggests that the use of technology based formative assessment
tools have the potential to increase student achievement. However, teachers need the necessary
professional development, tools, and support, to effectively implement these instructional
techniques. This research study examined whether using formative assessment tools increase
student academic achievement. This study also examined how the frequency of using formative
based assessments affected student’s achievement. In addition to identifying the purpose of the
study, this chapter will identify the setting and participants. Chapter III will also include the
intervention and research plan along with the research design, methods, and data collection.
Finally, this chapter will summarize the results of the study.
It should be noted that during this research study that the COVID-19 pandemic has
significantly impacted schools’ instructional models over the past year. Not only has it impacted
learning, it has significantly impacted children socially and emotionally. Approximately one year
ago, schools in our area abruptly shut down for a period of two weeks. School administrators
quickly developed a plan to continue to provide instruction to students in a variety of ways which
mainly consisted of students receiving some form of asynchronous virtual instruction. During the
time period in which data collection occurred students were still being instructed in a blended
learning environment. One year into the pandemic, educators are still trying to figure out how to
best teach students when they are not in the same physical space. While everyone is valiant in
their efforts, there is certainly opportunity for improvement. Teachers are faced with students
being removed from in-class instruction for periods of weeks as per recommendations from the
Pennsylvania Department of Health and the United States Center for Disease Control and
Prevention.

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

37

This action research study utilized a quantitative approach, utilizing participant surveys
and assessment scores. Participants in this study include alternative education teachers assigned
to work in Colonial Academy.
Purpose
The purpose of this action research study was to identify whether the use of technology
based formative assessment positively impacts student achievement in sixth through twelfth grade
students in an alternative setting. This is especially important in an alternative educational setting,
as the transient rate in such a school is far greater than that of a traditional school. In fact, it is the
goal of the alternative educational school to address the behaviors of the students that cause them
to be transferred to the school in the first place and ultimately return them back to their resident
district. Given the abbreviated stay it is essential that teachers are aware of how well each student
is comprehending the material that is being presented so they can adapt their instruction
accordingly.
The students at Colonial Academy typically benefit from being continuously engaged
during the instructional process. The frequent use of a technology based formative assessment
tool does just that. It allows for simultaneous interaction by all students in the classroom rather
than just one at a time. This instructional strategy also provides educators with real time data they
can use to adapt their teaching. For instance, if the data shows that a majority of the students are
incorrectly answering a question the teacher can immediately review the material that was just
presented and perhaps present it in an alternative fashion. If the data shows that one student in
particular continues to not grasps the concepts that are being taught a paraprofessional can be
assigned to work with the individual student to help them grasp the material that is being
presented. If the data shows that all students are comprehending what is being taught the teacher
knows that they may progress onto the next topic or concept.
Research questions were developed to explore whether students were able to increase
their academic performance using technology based formative assessments.

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

38

1.) Does the use of technology based formative assessment lead to increased student
achievement?
2.) How does the frequency of using formative assessment affect student achievement?
3.) Does the use of technology based formative assessment narrow the range of
achievement when comparing high scores against low scores?
Determining whether using technology based formative assessments do and do not work to grow
students’ academic achievement world pragmatically inform teachers on how to utilize different
teaching methods in instruction to increase academic performance of all students.

Setting and Participants
Colonial Academy is operated by Colonial Intermediate Unit 20 and serves 13 school
districts in Northampton, Monroe, and Pike Counties in Pennsylvania. Colonial Academy
provides alternative educational/treatment placement for identified at-risk children grades six
through twelve, serving Alternative Education, Emotional Support, Life Skills Support, Autism
and Partial Hospitalization students. Additional Academic and Behavioral Health Support
Programs offered at Colonial Academy include: Physical Education, Art Education, Drug and
Alcohol Intervention/Prevention, Anger Management, Psychological Services, Student Assistance
Program, Positive Behavior Support, Violence Prevention Groups, and Social Skills
There are approximately 300 students served at a time. All students enrolled in Colonial
Academy have an Individualized Educational Plan (IEP). There is a 1:12 staff to student ratio,
with most classrooms having ten students or less in the classroom.
While at Colonial Academy, students not only receive typical classroom instruction, they
also receive vocational study, character development, individual, group, and family counseling,
crisis intervention, and community experiences. The program is designed to successfully return
students to their home schools, enter the employment world, graduate from high school, and have
a positive impact on the community.

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

39

Colonial Academy is a unique educational facility in that it serves students of varying
educational backgrounds from 13 different school districts in three different counties. Each child
in each classroom can be at a different level of education meaning the teachers can have a hard
time teaching a classroom of ten students all with varying levels of need. Teachers need to come
up with varying teaching strategies and techniques to assist students in achieving academic
success. A strategy that could be utilized is technology based formative assessment. Technology
based formative assessment will allow a teacher to understand whether the students are grasping
the concepts to be able to move on or not. It will allow students the opportunity to answer
questions without being called on and afraid that they maybe embarrassed because they might not
know the answer and get bullied by their classmates. It would also allow instant feedback
benefiting both the teacher and student knowing where the strengths and weaknesses are in the
lesson.
The participants of this study were all volunteers and could elect to discontinue
participants in the study at any time. They were made aware that their refusal to participate did
not negatively have an impact on their job performance or evaluation. For the purpose of
reporting results in this study each participant was assigned a letter after their job category in
order to identify their feedback through their questionnaires, interviews, and observations.
There were five alternative education teachers who participated in this study (Table 1).
The participants were asked to participate in a pre-research survey. The survey consisted of nine
questions utilizing Google Forms. They were then asked to participate by watching a YouTube
video I created on a formative assessment tool, Mentimeter. Teachers were made aware that they
would have to utilize the formative assessment tool in the YouTube video in the frequency of
their choosing. The teachers would then complete a post research survey approximately six to
eight weeks later. The post survey consisted of eight questions utilizing Google Forms. The
principal and assistant principal aided in collecting of the assessment scores from the teacher’s
classes.

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

40

Table 1
Participants in the Study
Participant Code

Primary Job Duty

Teacher A

Alternative Education Teacher

Teacher B

Alternative Education Teacher

Teacher C

Alternative Education Teacher

Teacher D

Alternative Education Teacher

Teacher E

Alternative Education Teacher

Administrator A

Principal

Administrator B

Assistant Principal

The Institutional Review Board (IRB) (Appendix A) did not require parent permission for
students to participate in this study because the non-identifying data collected is being
administered by teachers and being collected as part of the curriculum. The Research Study
Consent Form was provided to the alternative education teachers and administrators to review,
sign, and return. (Appendix B).
Intervention and Research Plan
The literature review identified that many variables contribute to the effects that
technology-based formative assessment has on student achievement. One idea that was noted by
Frey and Schmitt (2010) were that formative assessment might be used more frequently in
elementary grades as the availability of preexisting assessment material is not as abundant as it is
in secondary grades. Another study by (Stiggins 2002, as cited in Frey & Schmitt, 2010)
suggested that students in middle grades benefit from being the recipient of formative assessment
due to the assessments providing instant feedback to both the student and the teacher. They also

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

41

found that this instructional strategy also aided in keeping students engaged in the learning
process.
Stewart and Houchens (2014) found that the quality and frequency of professional
development that teachers receive greatly affect their ability to not only implement technology
based formative tools effectively but any instructional proactive that is being taught during
professional development. Stewart and Houchens (2014) found that whole one day professional
development is not as effective as professional development received over time. This is
interesting as it is contrary to the methodology used by most districts that are in my region.
Traditionally these schools build professional development days into the school year calendar in
which students are off of school and teachers participate in professional development sessions all
day.
Stewart and Houchens (2014) also noted that teachers did not have the skills necessary to
effectively implement formative assessment strategies in the classroom which contributes to the
frequency of which it is utilized. This directly ties back to their previous finding pertaining to the
method in which teachers receive professional development.
The frequency and timing of technology based formative assessments has an impact on
its effectiveness. When delivered too frequently students can become anxious which can inhibit
their learning according to Horwitz (2017). Conversely, it is important to use formative
assessment to gather data prior to and during instruction as Kazragytė and Kudinovienė (2019)
stated. They found that it helps the teacher determine whether additional instruction is needed on
the current topic or whether the teacher can proceed to the next topic.
This research study was divided up into three different research phases. During the first
phase existing summative assessment results were gathered from the school. The data was
analyzed and provided baseline data regarding students existing achievement.

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

42

The second phase of the research study consisted of providing professional development
on using Mentimeter. After teachers were provided professional development, they then began
issue formative assessments to the students during instruction.
During the third phase of this research study, additional assessment data was collected
that was completed after four to eight weeks after assessment was used in the classroom. The
baseline data was then compared to the data during phase three of the research study to make
assumptions regarding the effectiveness of the technology based formative assessments.
There are many implications that need to be considered when deciding to use technology
based formative assessments in a school. Many schools have pacing guidelines in place. Schools
need to be able to adjust those guidelines if the results of the formative assessments show that a
majority of the students are not comprehending the material that is being presented. This could
lead to individual classes falling behind those pacing guidelines in exchange for comprehension.
The second thing that needs to be considered is the cost of the application that is used as well as
the devices that are needed. In order to collect the largest amount of data simultaneously during
class its essential that each student has their own device. There’s a cost associated with that a
school would need to take into consideration for this. Secondarily, the cost structure of the
application itself needs to be budgeted for. Thirdly, schools need to make sure they are delivering
professional development to their teachers in a way that is meaningful and effective. Schools
might need to consider whether they need to move away from the model and schedule that
professional development that is delivered today and switch to a model that is more frequent basis
throughout the year in smaller allotments of time. This will allow for greater comprehension by
the teachers as a whole day of different topics is not given in a single day. Lastly, at least initially,
teachers might need some additional planning time to effectively implement the technology based
formative assessment tool in the classroom. Some teachers might want to create the assessments
ahead of time, where others may want to create the assessments in real time during the class.
Research Design, Methods, and Data Collection

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

43

A quantitative study was chosen to examine the research questions from an overall
perspective. According to Dobrovolny and Fuentes (2008), quantitative research is used to seek to
validate whether a particular assumption is true, assume an objective reality that is relatively
constant, separate and detach the observer from the observed, explore population characteristics
or sampling that represent population characteristics, refer to the people who participate in the
research as subjects, randomly select samples that are as large as possible, describe behaviors
with numbers, examine behavior and other observable variables, explore human behavior in
natural or experiment-like settings, analyze social reality according to predefined variables, use
preconceived concepts and theories to determine what data will be collected, use statistical
methods and inference to analyze data, generalize findings from a sample to a defined population,
prepare impersonal, objective reports of research findings, and make sure that the final report
typically contains charts, graphs, and tables that summarize the data.
The researcher pursued California University of Pennsylvania’s Institutional Review
Board (IRB) approval on September 2, 2020. The researcher received approval on September 19,
2020 to begin collecting data.
Three methods of data collection were used to obtain a complete analysis of the data. The
first method used to collect data was student assessment scores. These scores were obtained from
each teacher on an individualized basis to obtain baseline data for each student. This is done
because unlike a district, Colonial Academy serves children of all academic levels and abilities.
By assessing the frequency and quality with which teachers engage in a range of
evidence-based practices, resources dedicated to promoting teacher effectiveness
can be targeted more closely to specific needs, can be used to provide formative
feedback, and potentially can contribute to growth in student achievement.
(Lekwa et al., 2019, p. 272)
The second method of data collection was an online questionnaire administered through
Google Forms. The use of Google Forms allowed the researcher to quickly capture closed-ended

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

44

questions for the participant group. The use of closed-ended questions allows the researcher to
limit the participants to responding to specific questions by providing them with predetermined
answers. The researcher used the four types of questions used in surveys known as demographic,
knowledge, attitudinal, and behavioral. Demographic questions are those that allow respondents
to indicate personal characteristics. Knowledge questions seek to determine how much an
individual knows about a particular subject. Attitudinal questions are questions that ask individual
respondents to indicate their attitudes or opinions about a topic. Behavioral questions are those
that seek information about actual behaviors of individuals in the sample group. The researcher
used a mix of Likert-type questions, Likert scale, and checklists. A Likert scale question begins
with a statement and then asks participants to respond with an agree-disagree continuum. A
Likert-type question is similar to a Likert scale; however, it measures something other than extent
of agreement. It forces the participants to respond on a scaled that examines quality, frequency of
occurrence, or degree of benefit (Mertler, 2019).
The use of questionnaires come with many advantages such as the researcher being able
to collect large amounts of data from participants in a relatively short amount of time, allows for
generalizability for large populations, and is versatile in what can be investigated and how data
can be collected (Mertler, 2019). Along with advantages comes limitations. Some limitations
include low response rates as well as monetary issues relating to the mode of collecting data.
Another limitation is that the researcher is relying on the participants to self-report data, that is
they are telling us what they believe is true or accurate.
The next method of data collection was a post survey questionnaire using Google Docs.
Again, just like the initial questionnaire, closed-ended questions were used to gather data. Finally,
the last method of collection data was the post assessment scores. The post assessment scores
were collected after the teachers utilized Mentimeter for a period of four to six weeks. Each of
the teachers used Mentimeter at varying frequencies throughout their instruction.

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

45

Prior to the start of the research study, the researcher established the research timeline
that appears in Table 2 to ensure timeliness for the completion of the research project. Since the
conclusion of this research study, the actual dates that the data was collected has been added to
the research timeline.
Table 2
Data Collection Timeline

Research Question

Does the use of
technology-based
formative assessment lead
to increased student
achievement?
How does the frequency
of using formative
assessment affect student
achievement?
Does the use of
technology based
formative assessment
narrow the range of
achievement when
comparing high scores
against low scores?

Types Of
Data To
Collect
(i.e.
qualitative,
quantitative)

Data Sources
(detailed explanation
of the types of data
you will collect)

Timeline
Actual Data
For
Collection
Collecting
Date
Data

quantitative

Student assessment
data prior to and after
formative assessment
techniques are used
when providing
instruction to students.

April 2021 April 2021
- June 2021 - June 2021

quantitative

Formative assessment
surveys completed by
teachers and student
assessment scores

April 2021 April 2021
- June 2021 - June 2021

quantitative

Student assessment
data prior to and after
formative assessment
techniques are used
when providing
instruction to students.

April 2021 April 2021
- June 2021 - June 2021

In April 2021, all alternative education teachers were given a Research Study Consent
Form. All participants in the research study were willing volunteers and were told that they could
stop participating at any point of the study and for any reason. All participants who began the
research study were able to follow through to completion of the study. Prior to the start of this
research project, in April 2021, the researcher met with the alternative education teachers to
explain the nature of the research study, the proposed data collection, the work involved and that

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

46

their participation was completely voluntary and they could opt out if they chose to do so at any
time.
It was explained that anonymity would be held in the collection of the data. The
researcher explained to the alternative education teachers that no personally identifying
information would be included in the research study. This was accomplished by not collecting
names, emails, or identifying information of the participants completing the surveys as well as not
collecting students’ names. Participants were assigned a letter in random order to prevent other
participants from identifying the name of the participant.
In April 2021, all alternative education teachers who agreed to participate in this study
were asked to watch Tech Tip #78- Use Mentimeter for Formative Assessment. This tech tip
consisted of a screencast recorded by the researcher that provided an asynchronous professional
development on the effective use of Mentimeter. After the teachers watched the video, they were
then given the first questionnaire, Pre-Research Survey through Google Forms, which recorded
their responses. The alternative education teachers were asked to complete the questionnaire
within a week of receipt and all responses were returned within that timeframe. Participants were
assigned a persistent letter designation in order to identify their responses and keep anonymity.
After the initial survey was completed, the researcher received the initial assessment
scores from the alternative education teachers for the students that the teachers chose who would
be participating in the research study. The alternative education teachers were then asked to
complete the technology based formative assessment at the frequency of their choice (daily,
weekly, monthly) for four to eight weeks. At the conclusion of the eight weeks the teachers were
then asked to complete a questionnaire, Post-Research Study through Google Forms, which
recorded their responses. Also requested was the students post assessment scores after they were
given technology based formative assessments for the four-to-eight-week time period.
Through the review of the pre-assessment scores, initial questionnaire, second
questionnaire, and post assessment scores, the researcher began to develop a targeted professional

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

47

plan that was implemented with teachers. This professional development plan will be slated to
start in the 2021- 2022 school year and will be discussed in more depth in the next chapter.
Validity
All types of quantitative research are subject to threats of validity. The researcher
collecting several types of data from the research participants to answer the research questions.
The multiple sources of data were used not only to collect accurate data for students of different
cognitive levels but also helped to eliminate concerns over the validity of the data. First, given
that all data was collected by one single researcher, the data collection methods were done in a
consistent way to protect the reliability and validity of the study. Secondly, the researcher
attempted to use multiple data collection methods using pre-surveys, post-surveys, preassessment scores, and post- assessment in an effort to compare whether technology based
formative assessment increased student academic achievement. Lastly, data accuracy for this
study was ensured through documentation. Special care was taken when analyzing the
quantitative data that was collected to make sure that the individual reported scores in both pre
and post assessments were attributed to the same student.
According to Mertler (2019) there are four types of inferences drawn from validity:
content, concurrent, predictive, and construct. Content validity measures whether a test is
representative of all things being measured. In this research study the pre-survey, post-surveys
were designed alongside the research questions. The use of concurrent validity is the use of two
different assessment to predict the outcome. For example, which was not used in this study, could
by the use of administering a math test if that subject was not used for the technology based
formative assessment. Predictive validity is how well you can predictive future results. The use of
comparing current student assessment scores to post assessment scores would be an example of
predictive validity because one would make inferences that students’ scores will increase at a
later time. Construct validity refers to whether a measurement tool really is representative of the
thing we are interested in measuring. For example, in this research study, is the academic scores

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

48

of the student’s representative of the students’ improvement/lack of improvement from the
technology based formative assessment or are they having a good day/bad day?
Summary
This quantitative design study is intended to improve students’ academic achievement
while creating an interactive tool that teachers and students can utilize while getting immediate
feedback on their comprehension of the topic being taught. This study was designed to ensure that
data collected was reliable and valid. Other researchers should be able to go into other
educational settings and be able to replicate this research study, however, may need to tailor the
needs to their district, as Colonial Academy, is an alternate education placement setting. The next
chapter will detail the results of the study. It will detail the answers to the research questions and
reflect on the design of this research paper.

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

49

CHAPTER IV
Data Analysis and Results
The students that attend Colonial Academy are there for a variety of reasons. In some
cases, students attend Colonial Academy because they have been expelled from their home
district for discipline related issues. In other instances, the home school districts elect to send
their students to Colonial Academy because Colonial Academy has specialized programs to meet
the needs of unique students. These unique needs include emotional support, autistic support,
physical support, life skills, drug and alcohol education, and students that are deemed
“disruptive” under Title 24 P.S. Education § 19-1901-C. A disruptive student is defined as
A student who poses a clear threat to the safety and welfare of other students or
the school staff, who creates an unsafe school environment or whose behavior
materially interferes with the learning of other students or disrupts the overall
educational process. The disruptive student exhibits to a marked degree any or
all of the following conditions:
(i) Disregard for school authority, including persistent violation of school policy
and rules.
(ii) Display or use of controlled substances on school property or during schoolaffiliated activities.
(iii) Violent or threatening behavior on school property or during schoolaffiliated activities.
(iv) Possession of a weapon on school property, as defined under 18 Pa.C.S. §
912 (relating to possession of weapon on school property).
(v) Commission of a criminal act on school property or during school-affiliated
activities.
(vi) Misconduct that would merit suspension or expulsion under school policy.
(FindLaw Staff, 2019)

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

50

Data collection in an alternative education school like Colonial Academy is difficult due
to the fact that it is not a traditional school or houses traditional classrooms. In additional
the absenteeism and transient rate is at Colonial Academy is higher than a traditional
school setting. The students’ unique needs hinder their ability to participate and learn at a
prescribed time during the day.
Results from this study provide valuable information that can influence how
teachers can engage students to increase student achievement in an alternative
educational setting. While generalizations can be made from these results could be
beneficial to all school districts, it is important to keep in mind that these results will be
interpreted within the context of the alternative education setting. Other school districts
may find the results of this research may yield different results based on their student
population, teachers, curriculum, and other circumstances.
Data Analysis
Data was collected over a period of six to eight weeks depending on the classroom. The
researcher reached out to the principal and asked him to identify some teachers who would be
interested in participating in the research study. Those teachers who were interested were then
asked to complete a Research Consent Form. The researcher then sent the teachers a video to
watch regarding the assessment tool being used so that they could learn how to use the tool
called, Mentimeter for Formative Assessment. The teachers were then asked to complete a PreResearch Survey. The teachers were then told to give pre-assessments and then post assessments
after using Mentimeter for Formative Assessment.
Results
When analyzing the results there were two different sets of data collection, the preassessment data and post-assessment data. The initial data was collected in order to understand
where the students comprehension/learning of the content being presented without the use of
formative assessment techniques. After Mentimeter Formative Assessment techniques were

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

51

utilized in the classroom, the participants collected final post- assessment data in order to
determine whether or not using technology based formative technology increases student
academic achievement. In order to understand the results of the research study it is important to
analyze both the initial and final sets of data.
Results from Pre-Research Survey
The teachers were given a 13-question survey in order for the research to gain an
understanding of their familiarity with formative assessment (Table 3).
Table 3
Teachers Familiarity with Formative Assessment
How familiar teacher is with formative
assessment?

Grades 4- Grades 6- Grades 8- Grades 105
7
9
12
n=1
n=3
n=3
n=1

Not At All Familiar

0

0

0

0

Slightly Familiar

0

0

0

0

Somewhat Familiar

0

0

0

1

Moderately Familiar

1

2

1

0

Extremely Familiar

0

1

2

0

One teacher in grades 10 through 12 was somewhat familiar with formative assessment
techniques. Four of the teachers in grades four through nine were moderately familiar with
formative assessment techniques. Three of the teachers in grades six through nine said they were
extremely familiar with formative assessment techniques. The majority of teachers in grades six
through seven were moderately familiar with formative assessment techniques. The majority of
teacher in grades 8-9 said they were extremely familiar with formative assessment techniques.
The teachers were asked how often they used formative assessment to gather real time
data using clickers. A clicker is a physical device that allows respondents to specify a response to

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

52

a question by pressing a button on the physical device. Table 4 shows how often the teachers
utilized clickers.
Table 4
Formative Assessment Using Clickers
Grades
4-5
n=1

Grades
6-7
n=3

Grades
8-9
n=3

Grades
10-12
n=1

Do Not Use

0

2

2

1

Quarterly

0

0

0

0

Monthly

0

0

0

0

Once or Twice a Week

1

1

1

0

Daily

0

0

0

0

How often teacher uses formative assessment to
gather real time data using clickers?

Five teachers in grades six through 12 did not use clickers in the classroom. Three of the teachers
in grades four through nine used clickers once or twice a week in the classroom.
The teachers were then asked about how they used formative assessment to gather data in
the classroom. Table 5 shows how often the teachers used formative assessment in their
classroom prior to the research study.
Table 5
How Often a Teacher Uses Formative Assessment in the Classroom
Grades
4-5
n=1

Grades
6-7
n=3

Grades
8-9
n=3

Grades
10-12
n=1

Do Not Use

1

1

0

0

Quarterly

0

0

0

0

Monthly

0

0

0

0

How often does the teacher use formative assessment
to gather real time data using an application?

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

53

Grades
4-5
n=1

Grades
6-7
n=3

Grades
8-9
n=3

Grades
10-12
n=1

Once or Twice a Week

0

2

2

1

Daily

0

0

1

0

How often does the teacher use formative assessment
to gather real time data using an application?

Two of the teachers in grades four through seven did not use formative assessment applications in
their classrooms prior to the research study. Five teachers in grades six through twelve used
formative assessment applications in their classrooms once or twice a week. One teacher in
grades eight through nine used formative assessment applications on a daily basis in their
classroom prior to the research study.
The teachers were asked prior to the research study how often they utilized formative
assessment to adjust sequence and pacing. Table 6 shows how often the teachers utilized
formative assessment with pacing.
Table 6
Teachers Using Formative Assessment to Adjust Pacing
Grades
4-5
n=1

Grades
6-7
n=3

Do Not Use

0

0

0

0

Quarterly

0

0

0

0

Monthly

0

0

0

0

Once or Twice a Week

0

1

1

1

Daily

1

2

2

0

How often teacher uses formative assessment to
adjust sequence and pacing

Grades Grades 108-9
12
n=3
n=1

Three of the teachers in grades six through 12 utilize the data obtained from formative
assessments to adjust pacing and sequence at least once or twice a week. Five teachers in grades

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

54

four through nine reported that they utilized formative assessment on a daily basis to adjust
sequence and pacing. The teachers in grades six through nine adjusted their sequence and pacing
more frequently than teachers in other grades as a result of data gathered from formative
assessments.
The teachers were asked about their use of formative assessment to target learning gaps.
Table 7 shows how often participants utilized formative assessment to target learning gaps.
Table 7
Learning Gaps & Misconceptions
Grades
4-5
n=1

Grades
6-7
n=3

Grades
8-9
n=3

Grades
10-12
n=1

Do Not Use

0

0

0

0

Quarterly

0

0

0

0

Monthly

0

0

0

0

Once or Twice a Week

0

1

2

1

Daily

1

2

1

0

How often teacher uses formative assessment to target
learning gaps and misconceptions

Four of the teachers used formative assessment at least once or twice a week to target learning
gaps and misconceptions. Four teachers utilized formative assessment on a daily basis prior to the
research study to target learning gaps and misconceptions.
Teachers were asked if they used formative assessment to provide descriptive feedback.
Table 8 shows how often the teachers utilized formative assessment prior to the research study.
Table 8
Teachers Using Formative Assessment to Provide Feedback

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

55

Grades
4-5
n=1

Grades
6-7
n=3

Do Not Use

0

0

0

0

Quarterly

0

0

0

0

Monthly

0

0

0

1

Once or Twice a Week

0

2

2

0

Daily

1

1

1

0

How often teacher uses formative assessment to
provide descriptive feedback

Grades Grades 108-9
12
n=3
n=1

One teacher in grades ten through twelve reported using formative assessment once a week to
provide descriptive feedback. Four of the teachers in grades six through nine reported utilizing
formative assessment to provide descriptive feedback. Three teachers in grades four through nine
reported using formative assessment to provide descriptive feedback.
Teachers were asked their perception of how effective they believed that utilizing
formative assessment will be. Table 9 shows the teachers perception of how effective they believe
the use of formative assessment will have on the student’s academic achievement.
Table 9
Effectiveness of Formative Assessment
Grades
4-5
n=1

Grades
6-7
n=3

Grades
8-9
n=3

Grades
10-12
n=1

No Impact

0

0

0

0

Minimal Impact

0

0

0

0

Moderate Impact

1

3

2

1

Substantial Impact

0

0

1

0

The teacher’s perception of how effective technology
based formative assessment is that it will:

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

Enormous Impact

0

56

0

0

0

Seven of the teachers in grades four through twelve said that they believe using technology based
formative assessment will have a moderate impact on students’ academic achievement. One
teacher in grades eight though nine believes that there will be a substantial impact on students’
academic achievement. The sixth grade teachers unanimously felt that technology-based
formative assessment would have a moderate impact on student achievement.
Results from Post-Research Survey
Teachers were then given a post survey questionnaire to help the researcher get an
understanding of the teachers' familiarity with the use of technology based formative assessment
and student academic achievement in an alternative educational setting. Table 10 shows the
teachers understanding of formative assessment after utilizing it for the six to eight weeks in the
classroom setting.
Table 10
Teachers Familiarity with Formative Assessment
How familiar teacher is with formative
assessment

Grades 4- Grades 6- Grades 8- Grades 105
7
9
12
n=1
n=3
n=3
n=1

Not At All Familiar

0

0

0

0

Slightly Familiar

0

0

0

0

Somewhat Familiar

0

0

0

0

Moderately Familiar

1

1

0

1

Extremely Familiar

0

2

3

0

Two teachers in grades four through seven and one teacher in grades 10 through 12 reported that
they were moderately familiar with formative assessment at the conclusion of the research period.

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

57

Five teachers in grades six through nine stated that they were extremely familiar with formative
assessment after the research period. This data generally represents a slight increase in familiarity
with formative assessments when compared to the survey data from the beginning of the research
period.
The teachers were then asked how often they used formative assessment to gather real
time data using Clickers. Table 11 shows how often the teachers utilized Clickers.
Table 11
Formative Assessment Using Clickers
Grades
4-5
n=1

Grades
6-7
n=3

Grades
8-9
n=3

Grades
10-12
n=1

Do Not Use

0

1

0

0

Quarterly

0

0

0

0

Monthly

0

0

0

0

Once or Twice a Week

0

1

0

1

Daily

1

1

3

0

How often teacher uses formative assessment gather
real time data using clickers

One teacher in grades four through five did not use clickers in the classroom at the conclusion of
the research period. One teacher in grades six through seven and one teacher in grades 10 through
12 utilized clickers once or twice a week in the classroom by the end of the research period. Five
teachers in grades four through nine chose to use clickers on a daily basis in their classroom by
the end of the research period.
Teachers were then asked how they used formative assessment to gather real time data
using an application (Table 12).
Table 12
How Often a Teacher Uses Formative Assessment in the Classroom

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

58

Grades
4-5
n=1

Grades
6-7
n=3

Grades
8-9
n=3

Grades
10-12
n=1

Do Not Use

1

1

0

0

Quarterly

0

0

0

0

Monthly

0

0

0

0

Once or Twice a Week

0

2

2

1

Daily

0

0

1

0

How often teacher uses formative assessment to
gather real time data using an application

Two teachers in grades four through seven did not use formative assessment to gather real time
data using an application at the end of the research period. Five teachers in grades six through 12
used formative assessment to gather real time data using an application at least once or twice a
week at the conclusion of the study. One teacher in grades eight through nine reported that they
utilized formative assessment to gather real time data using an application on a daily basis at the
time the research study concluded.
Teachers were then asked how often they utilized formative assessment to adjust pacing.
Table 13 shows how often the teachers utilized formative assessment to adjust sequence and
pacing in their classroom for teaching at the conclusion of the research study.
Table 13
Teachers Using Formative Assessment to Adjust Pacing
Grades
4-5
n=1

Grades
6-7
n=3

Do Not Use

0

0

0

0

Quarterly

0

0

0

0

Monthly

0

0

0

0

How often teacher uses formative assessment to
adjust sequence and pacing

Grades Grades 108-9
12
n=3
n=1

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

59

Once or Twice a Week

0

1

1

1

Daily

1

2

2

0

Three teachers in grades six through 12 reported that they used formative assessment to adjust
their pacing and sequencing in the classroom at least once or twice a week. Five teachers in
grades four through nine reported that they used formative assessment on a daily basis in their
classroom to adjust sequencing and pacing. There were no increases or decreases in frequency of
sequence or pacing adjustments when compared to the data at the start of the research period.
Teachers were then asked how often they employed formative assessment in the
classroom to target learning gaps and misconceptions (Table 14).
Table 14
Learning Gaps and Misconceptions
Grades
4-5
n=1

Grades
6-7
n=3

Grades
8-9
n=3

Grades
10-12
n=1

Do Not Use

0

0

0

0

Quarterly

0

0

0

0

Monthly

0

0

0

0

Once or Twice a Week

0

1

2

1

Daily

1

2

1

0

How often teacher uses formative assessment to target
learning gaps and misconceptions

Four teachers in grades six through 12 reported that they utilized formative assessment to target
learning gaps and misconceptions at least once or twice a week towards the end of the research
period. Four teachers in grades four through nine reported that they used formative assessment on

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

60

a daily basis to target learning gaps and misconceptions at the conclusion of the research period.
This data was consistent with the data collected in the pre-research study questionnaire.
The teachers were asked about using formative assessment to provide feedback. Table 15
shows how often teachers used formative assessment to provide descriptive feedback in the
classroom.
Table 15
Teachers Using Formative Assessment to Provide Feedback
Grades
4-5
n=1

Grades
6-7
n=3

Do Not Use

0

0

0

0

Quarterly

0

0

0

0

Monthly

0

0

0

1

Once or Twice a Week

0

2

2

0

Daily

1

1

1

0

How often teacher uses formative assessment to
provide descriptive feedback

Grades Grades 108-9
12
n=3
n=1

One teacher in grades 10 through 12 utilized formative assessment to provide descriptive
feedback on a monthly basis at the end of the research period. Four teachers in grades six through
nine reported that they used formative assessment to provide descriptive feedback at least once or
twice a week at the conclusion of the research period. Three teachers in grades four through nine
reported that they employed formative assessment on a daily basis to provide descriptive
feedback once the research project was ending. There was no change in the frequency of feedback
provided as a result of formative assessment when comparing the data collected in the preresearch study questionnaire against the data in the post-research study questionnaire.

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

61

The teachers were then asked how they feel regarding the effective of technology based
formative assessment on student academic achievement. Table 16 shows the results of how the
teachers feel regarding using technology based formative assessment in the classroom.
Table 16
Effectiveness of Formative Assessment
Grades
4-5
n=1

Grades
6-7
n=3

Grades
8-9
n=3

Grades
10-12
n=1

No Impact

0

0

0

0

Minimal Impact

0

0

0

0

Moderate Impact

1

3

2

1

Substantial Impact

0

0

1

0

Enormous Impact

0

0

0

0

My perception of how effective technology based
formative assessment is that it will:

Seven teachers in grades four through 12 felt that there was a moderate impact on student
academic achievement when utilizing technology based formative assessment in the classroom at
the conclusion of the research study. One teacher in grades eight through nine felt there was a
substantial impact on student academic achievement when using technology based formative
assessment in the classroom. It will be shown later in this research study that the teacher’s
perception on the effectiveness of technology-based formative assessment will be true.
Comparison of Questionnaire Results
Ultimately the pre and post research questionnaire was designed to help gauge the
understanding of teacher’s use of formative assessment in the classroom as well as the frequency
of use in the classroom. Table 17 shows the pre and post survey data regarding how familiar the
teachers are with formative assessment.
Table 17

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

62

Comparison of Teachers Familiarity with Formative Assessment
How familiar teacher is with formative
assessment

Grades 4- Grades 6- Grades 85
7
9
n=1
n=3
n=3

Grades 1012
n=1

Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

Pre

Post

Not At All Familiar

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Slightly Familiar

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Somewhat Familiar

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Moderately Familiar

1

1

2

1

1

0

0

1

Extremely Familiar

0

0

1

2

2

3

0

0

The teacher in grades fourth through fifth did not change their understanding of formative
assessment between the pre and post survey. The teachers in grades sixth through seven reported
a slight increase in the familiarity with formative assessment at the end of the research period.
One of the teachers in these grades changed from moderately familiar to extremely familiar at the
conclusion of the research study. The data shows that the teachers in eight and ninth grade
experienced a similar increase in familiarity. In general, a majority of teachers increased their
familiarity with formative assessment.
Table 18 shows the comparison of how often the teachers used formative assessment to
gather real time data using the program Clickers.
Table 18
Comparison of Formative Assessment Using Clickers

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

How often teacher uses formative assessment
Gather Real Time Data Using Clickers

63

Grades 4- Grades 6- Grades 8- Grades 105
7
9
12
n=1
n=3
n=3
n=1
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

Do Not Use

0

0

2

1

2

0

1

0

Quarterly

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Monthly

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Once or Twice a Week

1

0

1

1

1

0

0

1

Daily

0

1

0

1

0

3

0

0

The teacher in fourth through fifth grade increased the frequency in which they used clickers to
gather real time data from their students from one or twice a week to daily. In grades six through
seven, there were two teachers that reported they did not use clickers to gather real-time data
from students, as well as one teacher that reported they used clickers once or twice week. When
the research study concluded, there was only one teacher that did not use clickers. In grades eight
through nine, the data shows that at the beginning of the research period there were two teachers
that did not use clickers and 1 teacher that used clickers once or twice a week. All teachers in this
grade range reported that they used clickers daily at the conclusion of the research period. In
grades 10 through 12, the teacher went from not using clickers at the beginning of the research
study to using them once or twice a week at the conclusion of the study. In general, there was an
overall increase in the frequency in which teachers used clickers to gather real-time data from
students.
Teachers were asked on both the pre and post research questionnaire how often they
employed formative assessment in the classroom to gather real time data using a computer
application (Table 19).

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

64

Table 19
Comparison of How Often a Teacher Uses Formative Assessment in the Classroom
How often teacher uses formative assessment
Gather Real Time Data Using an Application

Grades 4- Grades 6- Grades 8- Grades 105
7
9
12
n=1
n=3
n=3
n=1
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

Do Not Use

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

Quarterly

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Monthly

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Once or Twice a Week

0

1

2

3

2

2

1

1

Daily

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

The teacher in fourth through fifth grade reported that they did not use formative assessment
applications to gather real time data using an application prior to the research study. By the
conclusion of the study, the frequency of use increased to at least once or twice a. One teacher in
grades six through seven reported not using formative assessment applications to gather data
using an application prior to the research study. Two teachers reported using formative
assessment applications to gather data at least once or twice a week prior to the research study.
By the end of the research study, two teachers reported utilizing formative assessment to gather
data using an application at least once or twice a week and one teacher used it on a daily basis.
The teachers in eight through ninth grade reported no change in the frequency of use of a
formative assessment application to gather real time data. The teacher in tenth through twelfth
grade reported also reported no change in frequency of us of a formative assessment application
when comparing their pre and post research study questionnaire. Overall, there was a slight
increase in the frequency in which teachers used formative assessment applications over the
period of the research study.

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

65

Table 20 shows the comparison of how often teachers used formative assessment to
adjust sequence and pacing in their classroom to teach lessons.
Table 20
Comparison of Teachers Using Formative Assessment to Adjust Pacing
How often teacher uses formative assessment to
adjust sequence and pacing

Grades 4- Grades 6- Grades 8- Grades 105
7
9
12
n=1
n=3
n=3
n=1
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre

Post

Do Not Use

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Quarterly

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Monthly

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Once or Twice a Week

0

0

1

0

1

0

1

1

Daily

1

1

2

3

2

3

0

0

The teacher in grades four through five reported both prior and at the conclusion of the research
study that they used formative assessment to adjust sequence and pacing in the classroom on a
daily basis. One teacher in grades six through seven reported using formative assessment at least
once or twice a week prior to the research study, and two teachers reported using it on a daily
basis. By the conclusion of the research study, all teachers in the grade range reported using
formative assessment to adjust pacing on a daily basis. One teacher in grades eight through nine
reported using formative assessment at least once or twice a week prior to the research study, and
two teachers reported using it on a daily basis. By the conclusion of the research study, all
teachers in the grade range reported using formative assessment to adjust pacing on a daily basis.
The teacher in grades 10 through 12 reported no change in the frequency of using formative
assessment to adjust sequence and pacing in the classroom. They found themselves adjusting
sequence and pacing once or twice a week consistently. Overall, Table 20 shows that a majority

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

66

of teachers increased the frequency in which they used formative assessment data to adjust
sequence and pacing during the research study.
Teachers were asked how often they utilized formative assessment to target learning gaps
and misconceptions (Table 21).
Table 21
Comparison of Learning Gaps and Misconceptions
How often teacher uses formative assessment to
target learning gaps and misconceptions

Grades 4- Grades 6- Grades 8- Grades 105
7
9
12
n=1
n=3
n=3
n=1
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

Do Not Use

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Quarterly

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Monthly

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

Once or Twice a Week

0

0

1

1

2

1

1

0

Daily

1

1

2

2

1

2

0

0

The teachers in grades four through five and six through seven reported no change in the
frequency in which they used formative assessment to target learning gaps and misconceptions.
Al teachers in this grade range reported that they consistently used this practice from once or
twice a week to daily. Teachers in grades eight through nine showed an increase in frequency in
which they targeted learning gaps and misconceptions. When comparing the pre and post
research study questionnaire, a majority of teachers went from using the formative assessment
data to targeting learning gaps and misconceptions once or twice a week to doing so on a daily
basis. The teacher in grades 10 through twelve reported a decrease in the frequency in which they
used the data gathered from formative assessments to target learning gaps and misconceptions.
Overall, since one grade range had an increase, and one grade range had a decrease, there was no

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

67

change in the frequency in which teachers used formative assessment data to target learning gaps
and misconceptions when comparing pre and post questionnaire surveys.
Table 22 shows how often teachers used formative assessment to provide descriptive
feedback during instruction.
Table 22
Comparison of Teachers Using Formative Assessment to Provide Feedback
How often teacher uses formative assessment to
provide descriptive feedback

Grades 4- Grades 6- Grades 8- Grades 105
7
9
12
n=1
n=3
n=3
n=1
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

Do Not Use

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Quarterly

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Monthly

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Once or Twice a Week

0

1

2

2

2

1

0

1

Daily

1

0

1

1

1

2

0

0

The teacher in grades four through five initially reported providing feedback to students based on
formative assessment data on a daily basis prior to the research study. Once the research study
concluded, the same teacher reported providing feedback once or twice a week. The teachers in
grades six through seven reported no change in frequency of providing students feedback based
on formative assessment data when comparing the pre and post research study questionnaire. The
data shows that teachers in grades eight through nine and 10 through 12 issued feedback based on
formative assessment data more frequently by the conclusion of the research study. By the
conclusion of the research study, all teachers were providing feedback at least once or twice a
week.

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

68

The teachers were asked how effective they thought technology based formative
assessment would be during their pre research questionnaire and then after the research study.
Table 23 shows their perceptions of how effective technology based formative assessment is in
their opinions.
Table 23
Comparison of Effectiveness of Formative Assessment
My perception of how effective technology based
formative assessment is that it will:

Grades 4- Grades 6- Grades 8- Grades 105
7
9
12
n=1
n=3
n=3
n=1
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

No Impact

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Minimal Impact

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Moderate Impact

1

1

3

3

2

2

1

0

Substantial Impact

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

1

Enormous Impact

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

All teachers in grades four through five, six through seven, and grades eight through nine were
consistent in their response in that they thought that the use of technology-based formative
assessment would have a moderate impact on student achievement. The teacher in grades 10
through 12 initially thought that the use of technology-based formative assessment would have a
moderate impact on student achievement. Once the research study concluded, the same teacher
felt that there was a substantial impact on student achievement. With the exception on one
teacher, most teachers impression of how much of an impact technology-based formative
assessment would have on student achievement did not change by the conclusion of the research
period.
Pre and Post Score Results

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

69

The assessment scores of students in the participating teacher’s classes were examined.
Assessment scores were collected prior to the implementation of technology based formative
assessment in the classroom, as well as at the conclusion of the research study. During the
research study, teachers used Mentimeter at varying frequencies (once a week, twice a week,
monthly, daily) throughout the four-to-six-week timeline. Table 24 shows the average of the pre
and post assessment scores of all students that took the assessment tests.
Table 24
Average of Pre and Post Scores
Student
#

Average of Pre-Formative Assessment
Scores

Average of Post-Formative Assessment
Scores

1

37.50%

75.00%

2

87.50%

56.25%

3

62.50%

37.50%

4

43.75%

87.50%

5

31.25%

87.50%

6

43.75%

68.75%

7

43.75%

43.75%

8

43.75%

50.00%

9

75.00%

56.25%

10

29.50%

26.00%

11

47.67%

64.50%

12

53.33%

90.00%

13

25.67%

56.50%

14

29.00%

37.00%

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
Student
#

70

Average of Pre-Formative Assessment
Scores

Average of Post-Formative Assessment
Scores

15

32.33%

47.00%

16

66.67%

52.67%

17

54.33%

-

18

40.00%

56.67%

19

46.67%

56.67%

20

53.33%

63.33%

21

53.33%

83.33%

22

53.33%

70.00%

23

100.00%

100.00%

24

100.00%

100.00%

25

100.00%

100.00%

26

-

-

27

100.00%

100.00%

28

100.00%

100.00%

29

-

-

30

100.00%

-

31

100.00%

100.00%

32

-

-

33

21.43%

42.86%

34

78.57%

100.00%

35

92.86%

85.71%

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
Student
#

71

Average of Pre-Formative Assessment
Scores

Average of Post-Formative Assessment
Scores

36

50.00%

92.86%

37

100.00%

100.00%

38

35.71%

21.43%

39

42.86%

-

40

7.14%

92.86%

41

71.43%

-

42

21.43%

-

43

57.14%

92.86%

44

50.00%

-

Average

56.67%

72.21%

Note. - is a result of some students missing some assessment scores due to absenteeism for
various reasons.

There was a total of forty-four students that completed assessments during the research
study. Nine students’ average scores could not be computed because they were absent for various
reasons, including the COVID-19 pandemic. Their average scores were invalid and the researcher
could not determine whether there was an increase in academic achievement for these specific
students. Nineteen students in total showed an increase in their average assessment scores when
comparing their pre-formative assessment scores to their post-formative assessment scores. Seven
students showed a decrease in their overall pre and post assessment scores. Eight students did not
show an increase or a decrease in their scores between their pre and post assessment scores. The
average pre-formative assessment test scores of all 44 students was 56.67%. The average post-

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

72

formative assessment score of all 44 students was 72.21%. Overall, the data suggests that there is
an increase in student academic achievement when comparing pre technology-based formative
assessment scores to post technology-based formative assessment scores regardless of the
frequency.
The same dataset was also analyzed to determine whether the frequency in which the
teachers used technology-based formative assessment had an impact on student achievement.
Table 25 shows the students and whether they received daily assessments or their assessments
once or twice a week.
Table 25
Frequency of Pre and Post Test Assessments
Frequency technology-based
formative assessment was
used

Average PreFormative Assessment
Score

Average PostFormative Assessment
Score

33

Daily

21.43%

42.86%

34

Daily

78.57%

100.00%

35

Daily

92.86%

85.71%

36

Daily

50.00%

92.86%

37

Daily

100.00%

100.00%

38

Daily

35.71%

21.43%

39

Daily

42.86%

-

40

Daily

7.14%

92.86%

41

Daily

71.43%

-

42

Daily

21.43%

-

43

Daily

57.14%

92.86%

44

Daily

50.00%

-

Student
#

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

73

Frequency technology-based
formative assessment was
used

Average PreFormative Assessment
Score

Average PostFormative Assessment
Score

Daily Average

52.38%

78.57%

1

Once or twice a week

37.50%

75.00%

2

Once or twice a week

87.50%

56.25%

3

Once or twice a week

62.50%

37.50%

4

Once or twice a week

43.75%

87.50%

5

Once or twice a week

31.25%

87.50%

6

Once or twice a week

43.75%

68.75%

7

Once or twice a week

43.75%

43.75%

8

Once or twice a week

43.75%

50.00%

9

Once or twice a week

75.00%

56.25%

10

Once or twice a week

29.50%

26.00%

11

Once or twice a week

47.67%

64.50%

12

Once or twice a week

53.33%

90.00%

13

Once or twice a week

25.67%

56.50%

14

Once or twice a week

29.00%

37.00%

15

Once or twice a week

32.33%

47.00%

16

Once or twice a week

66.67%

52.67%

17

Once or twice a week

54.33%

-

18

Once or twice a week

40.00%

56.67%

19

Once or twice a week

46.67%

56.67%

20

Once or twice a week

53.33%

63.33%

Student
#

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

74

Frequency technology-based
formative assessment was
used

Average PreFormative Assessment
Score

Average PostFormative Assessment
Score

21

Once or twice a week

53.33%

83.33%

22

Once or twice a week

53.33%

70.00%

23

Once or twice a week

100.00%

100.00%

24

Once or twice a week

100.00%

100.00%

25

Once or twice a week

100.00%

100.00%

26

Once or twice a week

-

-

27

Once or twice a week

100.00%

100.00%

28

Once or twice a week

100.00%

100.00%

29

Once or twice a week

-

-

30

Once or twice a week

100.00%

-

31

Once or twice a week

100.00%

100.00%

32

Once or twice a week

-

-

Once or twice a week
Average

57.54%

71.28%

Student
#

Note. - is a result of some students missing some assessment scores due to absenteeism for
various reasons.

Out of the forty-four students who participated in the study, twelve students were exposed to
technology-based formative assessments on a daily basis. Of those twelve students, four students’
assessment score averages were invalid because they were absent for one or more of the
assessment days, therefore, providing an invalid calculation. Five students showed an increase in
academic achievement when comparing their average pre and post assessment scores. Two

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

75

students showed a decrease between their pre and post assessment scores. One student did not
show a decrease or an increase between the pre and post test scores. The average test score of
students that ended up receiving daily technology-based formative assessments prior to the actual
implementation of technology-based formative assessment was 52.38%. The average test scores
of the same group of students after they received technology-based formative assessment on a
daily basis was 78.57%. The data suggests that average assessment score increased by 26.19% for
students that received technology-based formative assessment on a daily basis.
Out of the forty-four students who participated in the study, thirty-two students were
given technology-based formative assessments once or twice a week. Of the thirty-two students,
five students assessments were invalid because they were absent for one of the assessment days,
therefore, providing an invalid calculation. Fifteen students from this group showed an increase in
academic achievement when comparing their assessment scores prior to the implementation of
technology-based formative assessment to their assessment scores after technology-based
formative assessments were implemented. Five students showed a decrease between their pre
technology-based formative assessment scores and their post technology-based formative
assessment scores. Seven students did not show a decrease or an increase when comparing their
scores. The average test score of this group of students prior to the implementation of technologybased formative assessment was 57.54%. The average test scores for the same group of students
after the implementation of technology-based formative assessment scores once or twice a week
was 71.28%. The data suggests that average assessment score increased by 13.74% for students
that received technology-based formative assessment on a daily basis.
The difference between the pre and post assessment scores for students that received
technology based formative assessments on a daily basis was 26.19% and the difference between
he pre and post assessment scores for the group of students that received technology-based
formative assessments once or twice a week was 13.74%. The data suggests that students who
received technology-based formative assessments on a daily basis achieved a score that was

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

76

12.4% higher on their test scores compared to the students that received technology-based
formative assessment once or twice a week. The data suggests that the frequency in which
technology based formative assessment is used in the classroom has a direct correlation to student
achievement.
The researcher also wanted to answer what impact the implementation of technologybased formative assessment would have on the range of assessment scores achieved by students
(Table 26).
Table 26
Range of Pre and Post Score Assessment
Assessment
#

Minimum Pre-Formative
Assessment Score

Maximum Pre-Formative
Assessment Score

Range

1

31.25%

87.50%

56.25%

2

20.00%

80.00%

60.00%

3

0.00%

100.00%

100.00%

4

0.00%

80.00%

80.00%

5

30.00%

80.00%

50.00%

6

30.00%

70.00%

40.00%

7

30.00%

60.00%

30.00%

8

100.00%

100.00%

0.00%

9

100.00%

100.00%

0.00%

10

100.00%

100.00%

0.00%

11

7.14%

100.00%

92.86%

Average Range of Pre-Formative
Assessment Scores

46.28%

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
Assessment
#

77

Minimum Post-Formative
Assessment Score

Maximum Post-Formative
Assessment Score

Range

1

37.50%

87.50%

50.00%

2

0.00%

80.00%

80.00%

3

22.00%

42.00%

20.00%

4

79.00%

92.00%

13.00%

5

50.00%

90.00%

40.00%

6

50.00%

100.00%

50.00%

7

40.00%

70.00%

30.00%

8

100.00%

100.00%

0.00%

9

100.00%

100.00%

0.00%

10

100.00%

100.00%

0.00%

11

21.43%

100.00%

78.57%

Average Range of Post-Formative
Assessment Scores

32.87%

There was a total of 11 unique assessments given throughout the research study. Overall, five
assessments showed a decrease in the range between the test scores, meaning that the difference
between the low and high scores was smaller at the conclusion of the research study compared to
test scores prior to the implementation of technology-based formative assessment. Two
assessments showed an increase in the range between the test scores, meaning that the difference
between the minimum and maximum scores was greater at the conclusion of the research study.
Four assessments showed that there was no change in the range between the test scores when
comparing test scores that were achieved prior to the implementation of technology-based
formative assessment against those obtained at the conclusion of the research study once
technology-based formative assessment had been implemented. The average range of pre-

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

78

technology-based formative assessment scores was 46.28%. The average range of posttechnology-based formative assessment scores was 32.87%. An analysis of the data shows that
there was an overall decrease of 13.41% in the range of average scores when comparing
assessments that were administered prior to the implementation of technology-based formative
assessment to assessments that were administered after the implementation of technology-based
formative assessment. The data suggests that technology-based formative assessment does
positively shrink the range of assessment scores obtained by students.
Summary & Transition
The data presented above provides answers to the proposed research questions in this
research study. However, it is important to keep in mind that the students and type of facility
researched is difficult and not a typical school environment. Therefore, while this study presents
data from this type of setting, the researcher will make generalizations in the next chapter that
could be applicable to all classroom settings.
The data collected included a questionnaire completed by teachers prior to the research
study, an additional questionnaire completed at the end of the research study, anonymized student
assessment data prior to the implementation of technology-based formative assessment, and
anonymized student assessment data after the implementation of technology-based formative
assessment.
In the following chapter, the researcher will reach conclusions pertaining to the original
three research questions based off of the quantitative data that was presented in this chapter. In
addition, the next chapter will outline additional areas that would warrant further research. Lastly,
the next chapter will cover recommendations for Colonial Academy to consider relating to how
technology-based formative assessment could impact student achievement.

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

79

CHAPTER V
Conclusions and Recommendations
Introduction
This past year has been tumultuous for educators. Educators were faced with challenge
after challenge and had to quickly adapt their teaching strategies to try and meet the needs of our
students. This research study helped to identify that technology-based formative assessment is
beneficial and resulted in increased student achievement. Performing this research study during
the pandemic was challenging. While it would have been ideal if the entire student population, it
was not feasible to do so in the educational environment that we found ourselves in as a result of
COVID-19. This was due to a variety of reasons including constant teacher and student
absenteeism, whole classes changing between virtual instruction and in person instruction, not
having enough laptops for everyone to operate in a completely remote environment, teachers
simply being overwhelmed with teaching in the environment that COVID-19 created for
everyone, and the stress of COVID-19 on everyone’s mental health.
With increased pressure from the school districts and the Pennsylvania Department of
Education to score a certain percentage on the PASA (Pennsylvania Alternate System of
Assessment) for special education students, teachers are forced to keep up with pacing guidelines.
For students with varying disabilities this is an extremely difficult task. Teachers have to be
creative in coming up with ways to teach and engage these students so they will comprehend the
information being presented. This research study sought to explore the possibility of using
technology based formative assessment to try to enhance students' academic achievement.
Conclusions
After analyzing the quantitative data collected during this research study, the researcher
was able to conclude that the implementation of technology-based formative assessment
positively impacts student achievement. Different pieces of data were collected and analyzed to
answer each of the research questions. For each of the questions, the data showed that there was

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

80

significant improvement in student achievement. In addition to the anonymized student
assessment data that was collected, the pre and post formative assessment questionnaire provided
invaluable data that helped to identify that student achievement increased, more frequent
technology based formative assessments yields greater student achievement, and the achievement
gaps shrinks when technology-based formative assessment is implemented.
While the data generally shows there is a positive impact on student achievement when
technology-based formative assessment is implemented, there are still some students in which
this instructional strategy didn’t yield a positive result. The administrators and teachers at
Colonial Academy are continually working on innovative ways to drive student success. I am
confident that the staff at this school will implement this strategy for those students that show
increased student achievement. If a specific population of students don’t seem to benefit from
this strategy, I am confident that alternative methods will be identified that will help all students
succeed.
Once Mentimeter continues to be shown to be successful and it garners a positive
reputation, more program supervisors and teachers will be eager to implement this instructional
strategy themselves. From an organization perspective, it is critical that we communicate the
success of our staff and students to our community. Doing so demonstrates the ongoing
commitment we have to continually being innovative and developing ways to increase student
achievement.
Research Question 1
The first question posed in this research study is “Does the use of technology based
formative assessment lead to increased student achievement?” The assessment data that was
collected prior to the implementation of technology-based formative assessment in conjunction
with the assessment data that was collected after technology-based formative assessment was
implemented suggests this instructional strategy does result in increased student achievement.
When comparing the assessment scores of students prior to and after receiving technology based

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

81

formative assessments, the average of the student assessment scores increased by 15.54% when
compared to assessments scores prior to the implementation of formative assessment in the
classroom. This is a relatively large increase and will be very impactful. Many of the students at
Colonial Academy are behind grade level, and the average increase of 15.54% is especially
substantial for many of the students.
The pre and post technology-based formative assessment questionnaire showed that most
teachers felt that the implementation of this instructional strategy would have a moderate impact
on student achievement with some teachers expressing that they felt the impact would be
substantial. The data shows that these teachers hypothesis on how effective technology-based
formative assessment would be for their students was rather accurate.
The data also shows that teachers became more familiar with Mentimeter as time elapsed
during the research study. While not a research question in this project, the possibility exists that
how familiar a teacher is with technology-based formative assessment could impact student
achievement. More research and data would need to be collected to accurately answer this
question.
Over half of the students that had calculable average assessment scores experienced an
increase in student achievement. The students that experienced this increases were affiliated with
all teachers involved in the research study as well as all grade levels.
Research Question 2
“How does the frequency of using formative assessment affect student achievement” was
the second research question answered. The researcher had to analyze multiple sources of data to
answer this question. Assessments that were completed by the students prior to and after the
implementation of technology-based formative assessment had to be compared against the post
research study questionnaire that the teachers completed.
The students that were affiliated with teachers that ended up implementing Mentimeter
on a daily basis originally had average assessment scores of 52.38% prior to the implementation

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

82

of Mentimeter. At the conclusion of the research study, the same group of students scored and
average of 78.57% on an assessment after Mentimeter had been implemented on a daily basis.
The other group of students were affiliated with teachers who used Mentimeter in their
classroom one to two times per week. This group of students scored an average of 57.54% on
assessments that were administered prior to the implementation of Technology-based formative
assessments. The same group of students scored an average of 71.28% on assessments that were
administered after the implementation of Mentimeter in the classroom.
The data suggests that the more frequent technology based formative assessment is used,
the greater the level of achievement is. Students that were in classrooms in which teachers used
technology based formative assessment more frequently ended up with higher assessment scores
when compared to other students that participated in formative assessments less frequently.
Students in classes where the teachers used Mentimeter on a daily basis experienced and average
increase in scores of 26.19%. Students in classes where the teachers used Mentimeter once or
twice a week experienced and average increase in scores of 13.74%. The data suggests that
students that received technology based formative assessments on a daily basis achieved scores
on assessments that were 12.4% higher on average than of those students who received
technology-based formative assessments once or twice a week.
This finding is rather significant as it identifies that a higher level of student achievement
can be obtained if this instructional strategy is tightly integrated into the teacher’s instructional
practices and used on a daily basis. It is imperative that teachers are provided with ample
professional development on the effective use of technology-based formative assessment tools
like Mentimenter. Without meaningful professional development, teachers will not have the
knowledge necessary to effectively use this tool with the students.
Research Question 3
The last research question asked, “Does the use of technology based formative
assessment narrow the range of achievement when comparing high scores against low scores?”

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

83

Some schools refer to this as the achievement gap. Multiple data sources needed to be analyzed
to answer this question. For all assessments that were administered prior to Mentimeter, the
researcher had to identify the minimum score obtained for each unique assessment administered,
as well as the maximum score obtained for each of those same assessments. The researcher then
needed to identify the minimum and maximum scores for assessments that were administered
after Mentimet was implemented.
For each period in time, the range of scores was identified. The average range of
assessment scores that were achieved prior to the implementation of Mentimer was 46.28%. This
means that on average, the difference between the lowest score and the highest score on
assessments that were administered prior to the implementation of formative assessment was
46.28%.
The average range of assessment scores that were achieved after the implementation of
Mentimer was 32.87%. This means that on average, the difference between the lowest score and
the highest score on assessments that were administered prior to the implementation of formative
assessment was 32.87%, which is lower than the range of scores from assessments prior to the
implementation of Mentimeter
The data suggests that the range of assessment scores of students decreased after
receiving formative assessments. Not only did the range of scores decrease, but the scores
themselves also increased simultaneously. There was a 13.41% decrease in overall range. This
means that when comparing the range of scores of assessments prior to the implementation of
technology based formative assessment against the range of scores of assessments after the
implementation of technology based formative assessment, the range of scores decreased. It is
important to note that in this case, a lower number is desirable, as the lower a number is, the
smaller the achievement gap is.
Fiscal Implications

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

84

Mentimeter is a web-based application that allows teachers to quickly engage all students
in class and collect feedback from all students at once. A Mentimeter educational basic license
will provide teachers with the ability to have an unlimited number of students when presenting,
an unlimited number of slides in their presentation, and an unlimited number of quizzes in their
presentation. Mentimeter licenses currently cost $ 83.88 per license. A license is needed for each
teacher that will be using Mentimeter. Licenses are not needed for students.
Professional development on the effective use of Mentimeter in the classroom will cost
$2,841.40 per 100 teachers. Training will cover topics including creating quizzes, increasing
engagement, and using the application in a digital classroom. This cost will cover 4 sessions of
professional development for 25 teachers in each session.
Teachers can participate in professional development on days previously designated as
such by the local school district. Paper instructional materials will also be needed for those that
express a need for a paper instructional packet. A conference room equipped with a projector,
laptop, remote presenter, microphone, and speakers will be needed to facilitate the workshop. In
addition, each teacher / participant must have their own device (laptop / tablet) to create and
participate in the learning exercises.
Alternative Education Setting
This research study proved to be beneficial in the alternative education setting. It proves
that academic achievement increased using technology based formative assessment in an
alternative education setting. As shown by the post survey results, most teachers increased their
use of technology based formative assessment in the classroom and had a positive outlook of its
effectiveness. Even with the impact of COVID-19, the teachers that were willing to participate in
the research study took on the challenge and successfully implemented this instructional strategy.
When speaking with teachers after the study, it was expressed how valuable the tool was and how
much more they felt the students were engaged.

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

85

A majority of students grow up with a device in their hands at such a young age but there
is such a fight in the educational setting to get and keep these devices in their hands for
educational purposes with some staff. It is essential that schools get a dedicated device in every
child’s hand so they have an equal opportunity to benefit from this amazing chance to grow
academically. It is also essential that every teacher get professional development to learn how to
implement technology based formative assessment. The challenge always has been, is, and will
likely be in the future, when and how to implement the professional development as teachers are
already inundated with so much already. In addition, I have seen professional development hours
end up on the negotiating table when trying to settle new teacher contracts. Administrators need
to continually work with teachers and their union leadership to establish how important
professional development is.
To introduce one more initiative to many teachers creates discord and angst among the
teachers. The results of this research study could be used to demonstrate that the implementation
of technology-based formative assessment is worth the effort and truly does result in increased
student achievement. My hope is that the results that were obtained in this research study will
give teachers and administrators the confidence they need to implement this strategy and
ultimately allow students the achieve higher levels of success.
Future Directions for Research
This research study helped the researcher to uncover valuable data that impacts the
alternative education setting at Colonial Academy in regards to academic achievement. This
researcher would like to use this information to help expand the strategy to all classrooms in
Colonial Academy. This researcher would like to continue to research the effect on academic
achievement when using technology based formative assessment and suggests the following
research topics.
Suggested Future Research Topics

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

86

This researcher feels it would be valuable to conduct this study again when the world is
not in a pandemic. The researcher believes that a larger data set (more participants and more
teachers) could be involved in a future study and there would be fewer invalid results. Those
invalid results occurred due to participants being absent due to COVID-19 as well as schools and
classes temporarily closing.
The researcher would like to expand the study to all school districts, and not just to an
alternative education setting. This study can easily be applied to all classrooms K-12 in any
building. Prior to doing so, the researcher should make sure every child has a device and that
teachers receive professional development on technology based formative assessment.
The researcher would like to see what effect a leaderboard has on student achievement as
it relates to technology-based formative assessment. Would students be more motivated, more
engaged, more focused if they can see a leaderboard and be able to compare themselves to their
classmates or would they become more depressed, less engaged, more frustrated? Does it provide
enough feedback for the student and are the results meaningful?
Lastly, the researcher would like to identify or measure student engagement and
satisfaction. Are students actively engaged more? Do they answer questions and interact more
with the teacher and each other? Do they feel like they get more attention than they did prior to
introducing technology based formative assessment? Are they more satisfied with the instruction
taking place?
Conclusion
This research study supports the need for technology based formative assessment to help
grow student academic achievement. This data suggests that Colonial Academy look at
implementing professional development for their teachers to learn formative assessment to help
children with disabilities improve their academic success.

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

87

References
Ahmedi, V. (2019). Teachers’ attitudes and practices towards formative assessment in primary
schools. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 10(3), 161-175.
Ateh, C. M. (2015). Science teachers' elicitation Practices: Insights for formative assessment.
Educational Assessment, 20(2), 112-131.
Azevedo, R., & Bernard, R. M. (1995). A meta-analysis of the effects of feedback in computerbased instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 13(2), 111-122.
Bahati, B., Fors, U., Hansen, P., Nouri, J., & Mukama, E. (2019). Measuring learner satisfaction
with formative e-assessment strategies. International Journal of Emerging Technologies
in Learning 14(7), 61-79. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i07.9120
Baig, M., Gazzaz, Z. J., & Farooq, M. (2020). Blended learning: The impact of blackboard
formative assessment on the final marks and students’ perception of its effectiveness.
Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences, 36(3). https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.36.3.1925
Baran-Łucarz, M. (2019). Formative assessment in the English as a foreign language classroom in
secondary schools in Poland. Report on a mixed-method study. Journal of Education
Culture and Society, 10(2), 309-327. https://doi.org/10.15503/jecs20192.309.327
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2003). In praise of educational research: Formative assessment. British
Educational Research Journal, 29(5), 623-637.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192032000133721
Bloom, B. S., Hastings, J. T., & Madaus, G. F. (1971). Handbook on formative and summative
evaluation of student learning (ED049304). ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED049304

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

88

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(2), 417-436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.012
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
Cornelius, K. E. (2013). Formative assessment made easy templates for collecting daily data in
inclusive classrooms. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(5), 14-21.
Dalby, D., & Swan, M. (2019). Using digital technology to enhance formative assessment in
mathematics classrooms. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(2), 832-845.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12606
Dobrovolny, J. L., & Fuentes, S. C. G. (2008). Quantitative versus qualitative evaluation: A tool
to decide which to use. Performance Improvement, 47(4), 7–14.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.197
Elmahdi, I., Al-Hattami, A., & Fawzi, H. (2018). Using technology for formative assessment to
improve learning. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 17(2), 182188.
FindLaw Staff. (2019, January 1). Pennsylvania Statutes Title 24 P.S. Education § 19-1901-C.
Definitions. FindLaw. https://codes.findlaw.com/pa/title-24-ps-education/pa-st-sect-24-191901-c.html.
Frey, B. B., & Schmitt, V. L. (2010). Teachers' classroom assessment practices. Middle Grades
Research Journal, 5(3), 107-117.

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

89

Furtak, E. M., Circi, R., & Heredia, S. (2018). Exploring alignment among learning progressions,
teacher-designed formative assessment tasks, and student growth: Results of a four-study.
Applied Measurement in Education, 31(2), 143-156.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2017.1408624
Herbert, K., Demskoi, D., & Cullis, K. (2019). Creating mathematics formative assessments
using LaTeX, PDF forms and computer algebra. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 35(5), 153-168. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.4539
Hirsh, Å. (2020). When assessment is a constant companion: Students’ experiences of instruction
in an era of intensified assessment focus. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational
Policy, 6(2), 89-102. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2020.1756192
Kazragytė, V., & Kudinovienė, J. (2019). Formative assessment in arts education lessons:
Episodic or integrated with effective teaching? Pedagogika, 131(3), 217-232.
https://doi.org/10.15823/p.2018.43
Ketabi, S., & Ketabi, S. (2014). Classroom and formative assessment in second/foreign language
teaching and learning. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(2).
https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.2.435-440
Klenowski, V. (2009). Assessment for learning revisited: An Asia-Pacific perspective.
Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16(3), 263-268.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940903319646
Lekwa, A. J., Reddy, L. A., Dudek, C. M., & Hua, A. N. (2019). Assessment of teaching to
predict gains in student achievement in urban schools. School Psychology, 34(3), 271–
280. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000293

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

90

Lyon, C. J., Wylie, E. C., Brockway, D., & Mavronikolas, E. (2018). Formative assessment and
the role of teachers' content area. School Science and Mathematics, 118(5), 144-155.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12277
Marsh, C. (2006, November 28-30). A critical analysis of the use of formative assessment in
schools [Conference session]. APERA Conference 2006, Hong Kong, China.
http://edisdat.ied.edu.hk/pubarch/b15907314/full_paper/1926551038.pdf
Mertler, C. A. (2019). Introduction to educational research (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Ng, E. M. (2018). Are students receptive to formative assessment when authoring wiki projects?
Ubiquitous Learning: An International Journal, 11(3), 1-15.
https://doi.org/10.18848/1835-9795/cgp/v11i03/1-15
Pozzi, F., Persico, D., DeBarger, A. H., Schank, P., Harris, C. J., & Penuel, W. R. (2011).
Teaching Routines to Enhance Collaboration Using Classroom Network Technology. In
Techniques for fostering collaboration in online learning communities: Theoretical and
practical perspectives (pp. 224–244). Information Science Reference.
Robertson, S. N., Humphrey, S. M., & Steele, J. P. (2018). Using technology tools for formative
assessments. Journal of Educators Online, 16(2).
Robinson, J., Myran, S., Strauss, R., & Reed, W. (2014). The impact of an alternative
professional development model on teacher practices in formative assessment and student
learning. Teacher Development, 18(2), 141-162.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2014.900516
Roschelle, J., & Pea, R. (2002). A walk on the wild side. International Journal of Cognition and
Technology, 1(1), 145-168. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijct.1.1.09ros

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

91

Skordis-Worrall, J., Batura, N., Haghparast-Bidgoli, H., & Hughes, J. (2015). Learning online: A
case study exploring student perceptions and experience of a course in economic
evaluation. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 27(3),
413-422.
Stewart, T. A., & Houchens, G. W. (2014). Deep impact: How a job-embedded formative
assessment professional development model affected teacher practice. Qualitative
Research in Education, 3(1), 51-82. https://doi.org/10.4471/qre2014.36
Stiggins, R., & Dufour, R. (2009). Maximizing the power of formative assessments. Phi Delta
Kappan, 90(9), 640-644. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170909000907
Swathi, R. R., Fox-Turnbull, W., Earl-Rinehart, K., & Calder, N. (2020). Development of
formative assessment tool for a primary, technology classroom. Design and Technology
Education: An International Journal, 25(2), 101-116.
Whitcomb, J. (2013). Learning and pedagogy in initial teacher preparation. Handbook of
Psychology, 7, 533-556.
Wiliam, D. (2014, April). Formative assessment and contingency in the regulation of learning
processes [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
Youhasan, P., & Raheem, S. (2019). Technology enabled formative assessment in medical
education: A pilot study through kahoot. Education in Medicine Journal, 11(3), 23-30.
https://doi.org/10.21315/eimj2019.11.3.3

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

92

Appendix A. IRB Approval Letter

Institutional Review Board
California University of Pennsylvania
Morgan Hall, 310
250 University Avenue
California, PA 15419
instreviewboard@calu.edu
Melissa Sovak, Ph.D.
Dear Thomas,
Please consider this email as official notification that your proposal
titled “Education Administration and Leadership” (Proposal #19-089)
has been approved by the California University of Pennsylvania
Institutional Review Board as submitted.
The effective date of approval is 9/19/20 and the expiration date is
9/18/21. These dates must appear on the consent form.
Please note that Federal Policy requires that you notify the IRB
promptly regarding any of the following:
(1) Any additions or changes in procedures you might wish for your
study (additions or changes must be approved by the IRB before they
are implemented)
(2) Any events that affect the safety or well-being of subjects
(3) Any modifications of your study or other responses that are
necessitated by any events reported in (2).
(4) To continue your research beyond the approval expiration date of
9/18/21 you must file additional information to be considered for
continuing review. Please contact instreviewboard@calu.edu
Please notify the Board when data collection is complete.
Regards,
Melissa Sovak, PhD.
Chair, Institutional Review Board

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

93

Appendix B. Participant Consent Form
Dear Faculty Member,
As an educational professional at the Colonial Academy Alternative Education Program,
you are being asked to participate in a research study to examine how the use of
technology based formative assessment tools impacts student achievement . Your
participation in this study will help the researcher learn how familiar teachers are with
formative assessments and how often they use formative assessments in their daily
lessons.
What will I be asked to do if I take part in this study?
If you agree to participate in this study, you will be asked to (1) complete one pre Google
Form electronic survey questionnaire (2) participate in professional development on
formative assessments, (3) use the techniques that you learned in your professional
development in the classroom, and (4) complete one post Google Form electronic
survey questionnaire.
The pre- and post-questionnaire will ask you questions about your background in
teaching and using formative assessments.
Where will this study take place?
The surveys will be available via an online survey tool (Google Forms) using a secure
website. Professional development will occur at the Colonial Academy Alternative
Education facility. The teaching will occur at Colonial Academy Alternative Education
facility.
How long will the study last?
The study is projected to last approximately 8 weeks. Total participation time will vary.
The pre- and post-surveys may take up to 30 minutes each or 60 minutes total to
complete. Each teaching lesson will vary depending on the class. Each professional
development will vary depending on the level of need of the participants.
What happens if I don’t want to participate?
Your participation is voluntary; you can choose whether you want to participate in the
study or not. There will be no penalty if you choose not to participate.
Can I quit the study before it ends?
You can withdraw from the study at any point by notifying the researcher. There will be
no penalty should you choose to withdraw. The researcher will not ask you why you
opted to withdraw.
What are the risks?
There is minimal risk involved for the participants, as the pre and post surveys will only
seek the participants to rate their knowledge of and frequency of use of technology
based formative assessment strategies. Participants are reminded that they are not
required to answer any questions of which they choose. Participants can also stop their
participation at any time without question.

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

94

How will I benefit from participating?
If you decide to be in this study, you will assist the researcher in better understanding
whether using formative assessments impacts student achievement.
Will my responses be kept confidential and private?
Identifying information will not be collected from participants. All electronic responses
will be password protected and will additionally be protected by two factor
authentication. No names or other personally identifying information will be collected or
shared. Only the researcher will have access to the responses.
Who do I contact if I have questions about this study?
If you have questions about this study, please contact the researcher, Thomas Kalinoski,
at kal1795@calu.edu or at 484-293-1607. If you would like to speak with someone other
than the researcher, please contact Dr. Todd Keruskin, Assistant Professor at California
University of Pennsylvania, at keruskin@calu.edu.
I have read this form. Any questions I have about participating in this study have been
answered. I agree to take part in this study, and I understand that taking part is
voluntary. I do not have to take part if I do not wish to do so. I can stop at any time for
any reason. If I choose to stop, no one will ask me why.
By signing below, I agree to participate in this study. By doing so, I am indicating that I
have read this form and had my questions answered. I understand that it is my choice to
participate and I can stop at any time.
Signature:
_____________________________________________________________________
Date:
______________________________________________________________________
___
Approved by the California University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board. This
approval is effective 09/19/2021 and expires 09/18/2021.

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

95

Appendix C. Colonial Academy Pre-Research Study - Formative Assessment

5/5/2021

Colonial Academy Pre-Research Study - Formative Assessment

Colonial Academy Pre-Research Study - Formative
Assessment
The purpose of this survey is to gather information regarding which formative assessment practices teachers use
in their respective subject areas and which are found to be most effective. Certainly, no one teacher will find all
formative instructional practices appropriate for his or her setting. The information gathered from this survey is for
a capstone project and should provide educators with a more realistic understanding of what formative assessment
practices fit best into different subject areas. All the information from this survey will be reported anonymously. The
responses will be collected using Google Forms and will be password protected. This software will not collect any
names, email, or other identifiable information. No one will be able to identify the participant or determine if one did
or did not participate in this survey. Participation in this survey is voluntary. Participants can end the survey at any
time without consequence. Completing and submitting this anonymous survey will be considered written consent.
There are no foreseeable risks to the participant. This survey is just a reflection on educational practices. This
survey was derived in part by Dr. Scott Evan Goggin, as a part of his dissertation. Permission to use this survey was
secured on July 2, 2020. If you have questions about the survey, please contact Thomas Kalinoski at
kal1795@calu.edu. Concerns can also be directed to the Human Subject Review Board at California University of
Pennsylvania at instreviewboard@calu.edu. This survey should take from 5 to 10 minutes to complete. Thank you in
advance for participating in this survey.
* Required

1.

I teach students in the following grade band(s). (Select all that apply.) *
Check all that apply.
Kindergarten - 1st Grade
Second - Third Grade
Fourth - Fifth Grade
Sixth - Seventh Grade
Eighth - Ninth Grade
Tenth - Twelfth Grade

2.

I teach the following subject(s). (Please check all that apply.) *
Check all that apply.
Art
English/Language Arts
Mathematics
Music
Physical Education Science
Social Studies
World Language(s)
Other:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1MeNYZo5UP5X51XcBH-7AAd0Y0Y1uMmJRQFoEzwqDFTg/edit

1/4

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

5/5/2021

3.

96

Colonial Academy Pre-Research Study - Formative Assessment

On average, I teach the following number of students each day: *
Mark only one oval.
1 - 20
21 -25
26 - 30
31 - 40
41 - 60
60 or above

4.

The majority of my students can best be described as follows. *
Please choose the single option that generally applies to the highest percentage of your students.

Mark only one oval.
Typically developing students
Students identified as needing special education
Students identified as gifted and talented
Students identified as second language students
My students are diverse; there is not a major type of any type.
Other:

5.

One a scale of one to five, one being not familiar with formative assessment as all and five being
formative assessment is continually integrated into your teaching strategies, how would you rate your
familiarity with formative assessment? *
Mark only one oval.
1
not familiar

2

3

4

5
continually integrated into my teaching strategies

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1MeNYZo5UP5X51XcBH-7AAd0Y0Y1uMmJRQFoEzwqDFTg/edit

2/4

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

5/5/2021

6.

97

Colonial Academy Pre-Research Study - Formative Assessment

My perception of how effective technology based formative assessment is that it will: *
Mark only one oval.
Have no impact of student achievement
Have minimal impact on student achievement
Have moderate impact on student achievement
Have substantial impact on student achievement
Have enormous impact on student achievement

7.

Please briefly provide your definition of formative assessments. *

8.

What technology based tools do you currently use for formative assessment? *

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1MeNYZo5UP5X51XcBH-7AAd0Y0Y1uMmJRQFoEzwqDFTg/edit

3/4

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

98

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

99

Appendix D. Colonial Academy Pre-Research Study - Formative Assessment
5/5/2021

Colonial Academy Post-Research Study - Formative Assessment

Colonial Academy Post-Research Study Formative Assessment
The purpose of this survey is to gather information regarding which technology based formative assessment
practices teachers use in their respective subject areas and which are found to be most effective after receiving
training and given some time to implement them. Certainly, no one teacher will find all formative instructional
practices appropriate for his or her setting. The information gathered from this survey is for a capstone project and
should provide educators with a more realistic understanding of what formative assessment practices fit best into
different subject areas. All the information from this survey will be reported anonymously. The responses will be
collected using Google Forms and will be password protected. This software will not collect any names, email, or
other identifiable information. No one will be able to identify the participant or determine if one did or did not
participate in this survey. Participation in this survey is voluntary. Participants can end the survey at any time
without consequence. Completing and submitting this anonymous survey will be considered written consent. There
are no foreseeable risks to the participant. This survey is just a reflection on educational practices. If you have
questions about the survey, please contact Thomas Kalinoski at kal1795@calu.edu. Concerns can also be directed
to the Human Subject Review Board at California University of Pennsylvania at instreviewboard@calu.edu. This
survey should take from 5 to 10 minutes to complete. Thank you in advance for participating in this survey.
* Required

1.

I teach students in the following grade band(s). (Select all that apply.) *
Check all that apply.
Kindergarten - 1st Grade
Second - Third Grade
Fourth - Fifth Grade
Sixth - Seventh Grade
Eighth - Ninth Grade
Tenth - Twelfth Grade

2.

I teach the following subject(s). (Please check all that apply.) *
Check all that apply.
Art
English/Language Arts
Mathematics
Music
Physical Education Science
Social Studies
World Language(s)
Other:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1Ez2mWVZHQcBr5BVlVYmohbGsv1bNsHZXWYSizRs1_Zo/edit

1/4

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

5/5/2021

3.

100

Colonial Academy Post-Research Study - Formative Assessment

On average, I teach the following number of students each day: *
Mark only one oval.
1 - 20
21 -25
26 - 30
31 - 40
41 - 60
60 or above

4.

The majority of my students can best be described as follows. *
Please choose the single option that generally applies to the highest percentage of your students.

Mark only one oval.
Typically developing students
Students identified as needing special education
Students identified as gifted and talented
Students identified as second language students
My students are diverse; there is not a major type of any type.
Other:

5.

One a scale of one to five, one being not familiar with formative assessment as all and five being
formative assessment is continually integrated into your teaching strategies, how would you rate your
familiarity with formative assessment after receiving professional development? *
Mark only one oval.
1
not familiar

2

3

4

5
continually integrated into my teaching strategies

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1Ez2mWVZHQcBr5BVlVYmohbGsv1bNsHZXWYSizRs1_Zo/edit

2/4

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

5/5/2021

6.

101

Colonial Academy Post-Research Study - Formative Assessment

My perception of how effective technology based formative assessment is that it *
Mark only one oval.
Had no impact of student achievement
Had minimal impact on student achievement
Had moderate impact on student achievement
Had substantial impact on student achievement
Had enormous impact on student achievement

7.

What technology based tools did you use for formative assessment? *

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1Ez2mWVZHQcBr5BVlVYmohbGsv1bNsHZXWYSizRs1_Zo/edit

3/4

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

102