Using scaffolding strategies to improve formative assessment practice in higher education

Figures & data

Figure 1. The formative assessment cycle (Gulikers and Baartman 2017).

Figure 2. Practical example used in first training session.

Figure 3. Practical example of using scaffolding strategies, used in second training session.

Table 1. Constructs measured with the Perceived Adaptivity Questionnaire.

Construct	Items	Description	Example question
Adaptive
More support	6	Teacher provides more support when this is needed	When we really cannot continue our work, this teacher helps us along.
Challenge	5	Teacher provides more challenge when this is needed	When we get a good grasp of the material, this teacher makes it a bit more difficult.
No support	3	Teacher provides no support when no support is needed	When we understand the assignment well, this teacher lets us get started on our own.
Non-adaptive
More support	6	Teacher provides more support when this is not needed	When we are on a roll working on an assignment, this teacher still shows us how to do it.
Challenge	4	Teacher provides more challenge when this is not needed	When we are not able to do something yet, we still have to continue with the next assignment.
No support	3	Teacher provides no support when support is needed	When we find an assignment very difficult, this teacher lets us figure it out for ourselves.

Table 2. Goodness-of-fit indicators of models for perceived adaptivity (n = 173).

Model	χ^2	df	χ^2 diff	TLI	CFI	RMSEA	SRMR
Pre-test
Six factor	496.06	309		.84	.86	.06	.09
Two factor	1017.06	323	521.00***	.44	.48	.11	.13
One factor	1048.89	324	31.83***	.41	.46	.11	.13
Post-test
Six factor	502.57	309		.85	.87	.06	.08
Two factor	968.86	323	466.28***	.53	.57	.11	.12
One factor	1039.72	324	70.86***	.48	.52	.11	.13

Note. TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; SRMR = Standardised Root Mean-Squared Residual.

***p < .001.

Table 3. Average adaptivity pre-test and post-test scores for the non-training, training group, and total (n = 173).

	Non-training group						Training group						Total
	Pre-test		Post-test		Total		Pre-test		Post-test		Total		Pre-test		Post-test
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Adaptive
More support	3.99	.52	3.81	.60	3.90	.05	4.13	.55	4.04	.59	4.08	.05	4.06	.04	3.93	.05
Challenge	2.84	.76	2.99	.75	2.92	.08	2.92	.77	3.12	.78	3.02	.07	2.88	.06	3.06	.06
No support	3.82	.54	3.78	.54	3.80	.05	4.05	.55	4.09	.56	4.07	.05	3.94	.04	3.94	.04
Non-adaptive
More support	2.68	.55	2.74	.53	2.71	.06	2.70	.57	2.69	.60	2.70	.05	2.69	.04	2.71	.04
Challenge	2.68	.71	2.83	.57	2.75	.07	2.69	.69	2.73	.70	2.71	.06	2.68	.05	2.78	.05
No support	2.37	.64	2.57	.65	2.47	.07	2.39	.73	2.47	.76	2.43	.06	2.38	.05	2.52	.05

Note. Range = 1–5 for all variables.

Table 4. MANOVA results over time and across groups (n = 173).

	MS	df	F	p	Partial η^2
Time
Adaptive
More support	1.55	1	9.09	.003	.05
Challenge	2.67	1	13.56	<.001	.07
No support	.00	1	.00	.975	.00
Non-adaptive
More support	.03	1	.26	.611	.00
Challenge	.73	1	4.21	.042	.02
No support	1.59	1	6.49	.012	.04
Group
Adaptive
More support	1.46	1	6.20	.014	.04
Challenge	.51	1	1.04	.310	.01
No support	3.17	1	13.82	<.001	.08
Non-adaptive
More support	.01	1	.03	.866	.00
Challenge	.08	1	.21	.650	.00
No support	.07	1	.19	.660	.00

Figure 4. Estimated marginal means of perceived adaptivity scales (n = 173).

Gulikers, J. T. M., and L. K. J. Baartman. 2017. Doelgericht professionaliseren. Formatieve toetspraktijken met effect! Wat doet de docent in de klas? (405-15-722). https://edepot.wur.nl/440065

 Google Scholar