Reasons for teachers’ successful development of a formative assessment practice through professional development – a motivation perspective

Figures & data

Table 1. Teachers’ degree of motivation for implementing formative assessment.

Items in Questionnaire 1	Mean
1. How much of a change would you like to make in your teaching towards a more formative classroom practice (compared to your teaching before the PDP) for your year 4 mathematics class during this school year?	4.1
2. How motivated are you to make these changes?	4.7
3. During the coming school year at times you will have several important things that you need to do at work. To what extent do you plan to prioritise your implementation of a more formative classroom practice during these periods?	4.1

Note: The first column displays the questions in Questionnaire 1 that measure teachers’ motivation. The second column displays the average value of the teachers’ responses to each question on a 5-point scale (1 referring to little extent or small changes, and 5 to large extent or big changes).

Table 2. Teachers’ expectancy and value beliefs about implementing formative assessment.

Items in Questionnaire 1	Belief	Mean
1. To what extent do you think that you have acquired the knowledge of formative assessment you need to feel ready to undertake such teaching in an effective way?	Expectancy of success	4.1
2. To what extent do you feel it is important for you to make changes in your teaching towards a more formative classroom practice?	Attainment value	4.2
3. How much of a positive outcome for yourself do you think the changes you plan on making will lead to?	Utility value	4.2
4. How much of a positive outcome in terms of student learning do you think the changes you plan on making will lead to?	Utility value	4.0
5. How much other positive outcomes for students (e.g. interest or welfare) do you think that the changes you plan on making will lead to?	Utility value	4.1
6. How large costs for you (time, effort, scepticism, other) do you think the changes you plan on making will lead to?	Cost	2.8
Items in Questionnaire 2
I. To what extent does it feel important for you to continue with a formative classroom practice? (Why?)	Attainment value	4.8
II. How much of a positive outcome for yourself have you experienced due to the changes in teaching you have made?	Utility value	4.1
III. How much of a positive outcome in terms of your students’ learning have you experienced due to the changes in teaching you have made?	Utility value	3.6
IV. How much of other positive outcomes for students (e.g. interest or welfare) have you experienced due to the changes in teaching you have made?	Utility value	3.7
V. How large do you experience the costs have been for you (time, effort, scepticism, other) due to the changes in teaching you have made?	Cost	2.9

Note: The first column displays the questions in Questionnaire 1 and 2 that measure the expectancy and value beliefs specified in Column 2. The third column displays the average value of the teachers’ responses to each question on a 5-point scale (1 referring to little extent, and 5 to large extent).

Table 3. Expected positive effect and cost for the three most used activities presented in the PDP.

Activity	Number of teachers	Expected positive effect (value)	Expected cost
Use of mini-whiteboards for student answers	21	4.9 (14)	1.6 (13)
Use of exit passes for evidence of learning	17	3.8 (15)	2.2 (13)
Feedback providing identification of two accomplishments and one suggestion for improvement	17	4.1 (12)	2.9 (9)

^{Note: The second column displays the number of teachers that regularly used each activity during the school year following the PDP (based on an analysis of the teachers’ classroom practice presented in Andersson and Palm, (2017a). . The third and fourth columns display the average value that the teachers assigned, on a 5-point scale in Questionnaire 1, to the positive effect and cost they expected from each activity. The numbers within the parenthesis display the number of teachers these results are based on (only teachers who, in the questionnaire, had submitted the activity as one of the five they had tested the most during the PDP could assign levels of expected value and cost to the activity).}

Table 4. The most important characteristics of the PDP for teacher change, and teacher utterances that exemplify the categorisation.

PDP characteristics	Number of teachers
Availability of activities directly useable in classrooms	11 (50%)
During the PDP the teachers were presented with concrete teaching activities that were directly useable in the classroom. They were also supported to develop new activities
‘it’s fun to get new techniques for ideas that I already had, so to speak. That’s why it’s so easy to sell this, really, for all teachers agree with these ideas. It is obvious that one should not assume what the students know, but to keep track of their understanding. There is no one who would argue with this, but we have not really had the tools to do this.’
Experience the value of formative assessment activities	20 (91%)
The teachers could test the concrete classroom activities presented or developed in the PDP so they could experience the value of this way of teaching and feel comfortable with implementing these activities
‘… possibility to put theory into practice immediately’
Connection between theory and practice	19 (86%)
This characteristic refers to the content of the PDP (formative assessment), as well as the PDP including lectures and relevant literature that, in addition to concrete activities, also focused on the theory of formative assessment that underlies the presented activities. The PDP connected theory and practice, and provided a theoretical structure for the activities
‘[it was] very good that the course structure had a mixture of theory and practice’, ‘it’s a great acknowledgment of some of the thoughts I’ve had in the past, or it is a confirmation of that, and at the same time it has provided a structure of how to handle it’
Knowledgeable support	15 (68%)
Knowledgeable support was expressed by the teachers as the PDP leader being knowledgeable and inspiring, presenting content and learning intentions clearly, and providing useful feedback
‘The way [the PDP leader] explained using examples if we didn’t understand’, ‘[The PDP leader] knows the topic and has been good at inspiring us’
Formative and process-oriented PDP	21 (95%)
The PDP was carried out as a formative practice
‘The form of the training was very well adapted for the purpose. That is, one day a week for one term when we learned about techniques for formative assessment, discussed them, implemented them, and then shared our experiences’
Time	17 (77%)
This characteristic refers to two types of time available for the PDP: (1) time for learning and practising new knowledge and skills, and (2) the duration of time, meaning regular meetings spread over an (for them) unusually long period of time
‘It was also great that we were given time to plan, implement, and then discuss the different strategies.’, ‘Because training was over a long time, it made it possible to introduce strategies and use techniques gradually. We are grateful for the continuity of the training that made it possible to follow each other’s experiences on the way to a formative classroom practice on a deeper level’

Andersson, C., & Palm, T. (2017a). The characteristics of formative assessment that enhance student achievement in mathematics. Education Inquiry, 8(2), 104–122. doi:10.1080/20004508.2016.1275185

 Google Scholar