Navigating formative assessment as professional development in digital contexts: insights from teachers’ experiences

ABSTRACT

As digital technology transforms education, investigating shifts in teachers’ formative assessment practices within digital contexts becomes essential. This study explores upper secondary school teachers’ experiences in an 18-month professional development intervention focused on formative assessment in digital contexts. Data from a baseline survey (n = 26) and reflection logs (n = 12) were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Teachers exhibited a preference to provide digital feedback for student learning but expressed uncertainty about its effectiveness. Thematic analysis revealed four main themes: the importance of a shared language for formative assessment; challenges tied to real-time distance learning; the paradoxical nature of digital feedback in fostering dialogue; and strategies for seeking and improving digital feedback. The professional development intervention enhanced teachers’ understanding of formative assessment, including its timing and impact on student learning. The study contributes to the discourse on digital formative assessment, offering insights for educational practices and research.

KEYWORDS:

• Assessment
• feedback
• online learning
• professional learning
• upper secondary school

Introduction

While the potential of digital technology to expedite assessment work is apparent, the critical role of teachers in designing effective formative assessment strategies within digital settings is increasingly recognised (Nieminen, Bearman, and Ajjawi 2023; Yan et al. 2021). Digital technology has enhanced the accessibility and efficiency of assessment work (Casanova, Alsop, and Huet 2021; Dalby and Swan 2019), yet it has concurrently engendered a heightened perception of physical distance and isolation among teachers and students (Bardach et al. 2021; Jensen, Bearman, and Boud 2023). For decades, the practice of teachers in crafting assessment tasks has been relatively stable; however, the swift integration of digital technology has drastically transformed the landscape of assessment design (Bearman, Boud, and Rola 2020). Consequently, there is a compelling need for deeper insights into teachers’ engagement with formative assessment in digital contexts, vital for comprehending the ever-evolving learning environments (Jensen, Bearman, and Boud 2021).

Formative assessment has been widely recognised as an integral part of pedagogy, enhancing a deeper understanding of how assessment serves as a pedagogical tool (Black and Wiliam 2018; Gamlem 2015; Smith 2015). In contrast to summative assessment, which primarily aims to summarise student achievement, formative assessment utilises judgements about students’ work to facilitate learning and progress (Sadler 1989). The purposeful integration of formative assessment into teaching practices has the potential to inspire students’ learning processes and instil confidence in their abilities to succeed (Gamlem et al. 2019; Hattie and Timperley 2007). However, it is evident from previous research that implementing effective formative assessment practices in teacher – student feedback in digital contexts remains a challenge (Jensen, Bearman, and Boud 2023; Vattøy et al. 2022; Winstone et al. 2017).

Feedback is at the core of formative assessment practices, recognised as an ongoing dialogue and dynamic process (Ajjawi and Boud 2018; Black and Wiliam 2009; Gamlem and Smith 2013). Students highly value dialogic feedback interactions with teachers, which tap into their existing knowledge and guide their improvement (van der Kleij et al. 2019; Vattøy et al. 2022). Although digital contexts have shown potential for facilitating feedback dialogues and nurturing learning-centred teacher–student interactions (Harper 2018; Lervik, Vold, and Holen 2018), empirical studies have also indicated that teachers may lack preparation for delivering effective feedback in digital learning contexts (Cooper et al. 2022; Panadero et al. 2022).

Considering the growing importance of the intersection between feedback and digital learning, professional development has emerged as a critical catalyst for teacher learning (Jensen, Bearman, and Boud 2021). Teachers’ self-understanding plays a significant role in shaping their professional development in digital technology (Fransson and Norman 2021). However, teachers often face challenges in interpreting assessment policies and implementing practices when left to navigate their professional development independently (DeLuca, Chapman-Chin, and Klinger 2019). More recent systematic reviews have highlighted the need to understand the characteristics of teachers’ engagement in professional development related to formative assessment (Schildkamp et al. 2020; Yan et al. 2021).

This study aims to explore teachers’ experiences as they participate in a formative assessment intervention centred on practices in digital contexts within upper secondary school. Guided by the following research question, we seek to unravel the intricacies of teachers’ professional development experiences when working with formative assessment in digital contexts over an 18-month period: What are the characteristics of teachers’ professional development experiences when working with formative assessment in digital contexts over an 18-month duration?

Professional development of formative assessment

Professional development is an essential prerequisite for the successful implementation of formative assessment (Black and Wiliam 2009; DeLuca, Chapman-Chin, and Klinger 2019; Yan et al. 2021). Both novice and experienced teachers undergo continuous professional development throughout their careers, drawing from formal experiences in pre-service and in-service teacher education, as well as informal learning (Gamlem 2015). Integral to this development is the act of reflecting on their teaching practices through dialogues with colleagues and external support (Borko 2004; Timperley et al. 2007). However, it is crucial to acknowledge that teachers require time to grasp and effectively apply new knowledge for professional development to yield significant impacts (Opfer and Pedder 2011). Hands-on experiences, external support, and time availability have been found to play a pivotal role in shaping teachers’ beliefs and motivation related to their professional development of formative assessment practices (Andersson and Palm 2018).

In the context of pre-service teacher education, the lack of competence among teacher educators regarding formative assessment has been identified as an obstacle to prospective teachers’ professional development (Smith 2011). As teachers engage with formative assessment, they embark on a journey that can best be understood as the development of assessment literacy. Stiggins (1991) initially defined assessment literacy as having a basic understanding of the meaning of high- and low-quality assessment, which can be applied to various measures of student achievement. Building upon this foundation, Smith (2015) expanded the concept of assessment literacy to encompass well-informed and mindful pedagogical practice, necessitating ongoing teacher learning and growth. Hay and Penney (2013) introduced a conceptual framework of assessment literacy, comprising four inter-dependent elements: assessment comprehension, assessment application, assessment interpretation, and critical engagement with assessment. This framework is rooted in Freebody and Luke’s (2003) ‘four roles’ model of literacy, which pertains to pedagogy, curriculum, and assessment.

DeLuca, Chapman-Chin, and Klinger (2019) introduced the concept of assessment for learning implementation as a professional learning continuum. This continuum spans from a procedural understanding (i.e. the letter of assessment for learning) to a more comprehensive pedagogical adoption (i.e. the spirit of assessment for learning). Crossing the letter–spirit threshold entails fundamental shifts in teachers’ conceptualisation of assessment in relation to their teaching. However, challenges persist, particularly in how teachers perceive their roles and responsibilities in the context of formative assessment and teacher learning (Smith 2015). Research findings indicate that teacher resistance often stems from the perception that formative assessment entails additional work for documentation purposes (Gamlem 2015). Timperley et al.'s (2007) cycle of teacher inquiry and knowledge building highlights the importance of identifying students’ learning needs as the first step. This model underscores that professional development is a longitudinal process, demanding sufficient time for teachers to experiment with and integrate new practices (Smith 2011).

Formative assessment in digital contexts

Formative assessment in digital contexts has become increasingly important in contemporary education (Bearman, Boud, and Rola 2020; Harper 2018). Digital technology plays a multifaceted role in facilitating formative assessment to support students’ learning (Dalby and Swan 2019; Jensen, Bearman, and Boud 2021). In a critical review of the literature on authentic assessment, Nieminen, Bearman, and Ajjawi (2023) emphasised that the digital dimension of assessment design has primarily aimed at enhancing efficiency, authenticity, and students’ digital skills, often focusing on instrumental applications. Consequently, Nieminen, Bearman, and Ajjawi (2023) underscored the need for more comprehensive integration of the digital technology within assessment, recognising students’ present and future lives as intertwined within a digitally mediated society. Further, a study by Dalby and Swan (2019) highlighted the importance of rapid assessment, timely feedback, and tracking students’ learning in digital contexts. It stressed that existing pedagogical approaches can be effectively harnessed for digital technology in formative assessment.

Challenges in implementing formative assessment are particularly pronounced in the digital contexts of upper secondary schools, impacting both students and teachers (Sandvik et al. 2021; Vattøy et al. 2022). These challenges are particularly evident in two primary scenarios: onsite and online teaching contexts (Jensen, Bearman, and Boud 2023). The COVID-19 pandemic significantly heightened the prominence of online distance learning as the primary instructional model during lockdowns and periods of homeschooling (Cooper et al. 2022). In the initial stages, distance learning primarily revolved around students completing individual tasks, resulting in disparities in access to qualified teacher support and feedback (Blikstad-Balas et al. 2022). The physical separation inherent in online distance learning posed challenges for teachers’ provision of formative feedback in digital contexts (Jensen, Bearman, and Boud 2021). While the goal of assessment practices in distance learning contexts is to reduce the psychological distance (Bardach et al. 2021), teachers have encountered difficulties in promoting students’ active engagement, even when employing a combination of onsite and online communication methods (Lervik, Vold, and Holen 2018).

Method

The study was conducted at a medium-sized upper secondary school located in a suburban area in Norway (51 teachers; 507 students; M = 24 students per class). This school specialised in academic subjects, preparing students for higher education, and featured high-stakes assessments for certification at the end of the three-year programme. The school offered various courses with an emphasis on general academic studies.

We employed an explanatory-sequential mixed-methods design with an intervention to elucidate both quantitative and qualitative dimensions of teachers’ experiences in upper secondary school. In an explanatory-sequential mixed methods design, qualitative data collection succeeds and deepens the initial quantitative data collection and its outcomes (Creswell and Creswell 2018). The design’s intervention-based nature encompassed an initial baseline survey, which informed the professional development intervention consisting of three workshops and two reflection logs for a select group of upper secondary school participants (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Overview of the study’s design: baseline survey, workshops (1–3) and reflection logs (1–2).

Before commencing the study, we obtained approval from the Norwegian Centre for Research Data. Ethical considerations included ensuring that participating teachers were aware of their rights concerning anonymity, confidentiality, and their option to withdraw from the research project at any time. All the participating teachers provided informed consent.

Pre-intervention phase

Quantitative sample and procedure

The baseline survey comprised 26 teachers from an upper secondary school in Norway (M_age = 41.62; SD = 9.47; age range 27–55). All teachers working at the school were invited to participate, and the survey aimed to gather general information about the school’s assessment culture as a foundation for the professional development intervention. A contact person at the upper secondary school facilitated the administration of the survey, which was conducted individually using a paper-and-pen questionnaire in the middle of the autumn term in 2020. Teachers provided informed consent, emphasising the voluntary nature of participation. The response rate was 51%. The gender distribution was evenly split (females: 50%; males: 50%). Teachers’ experience at the upper secondary school ranged from novices to more experienced teachers (M = 7.09 years; SD = 5.74; range: 0–22). They generally reported teaching alone in class (M = 1 teacher available in class; range 0–1). In their main subjects, the teachers averaged about a decade of teaching experience (M = 12.98 years; SD = 8.62; range 1–30). The number of ECTS credits for the subjects they primarily taught varied, with relatively high averages despite a wide range (M = 171.15 ECTS; SD = 97.76; range 52.5–420). Additionally, the participating teachers had diverse levels of ECTS credits related to digital learning and ICT (M = 13.56 ECTS; SD = 42.21; range 0–210).

Quantitative measure

The baseline survey incorporated items from 10 scales of the Assessment Experience Questionnaire (AEQ) (Gibbs and Dunbar‐Goddet 2007), and introduced two additional scales: one focusing on digital teaching resources (Daus, Aamodt, and Tømte 2019) and another related to responsive pedagogy (Gamlem et al. 2019). We utilised an adapted version of the AEQ v. 3.3, featuring a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = unsure, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree) to gauge the teachers’ experiences.

The AEQ, initially designed to measure students’ assessment and feedback experiences in general, underwent several adaptations. First, we changed the phrasing from the past tense, which marked the end of a study programme, to the present tense, reflecting teachers’ ongoing assessment and feedback practices. Second, we adapted the items to focus on teachers’ experiences rather than students’ experiences. Third, we tailored items and scales to emphasise digital contexts where appropriate. For example, an original AEQ1 item read: ‘I used the feedback I received to go back over what I had done in my work’. The adapted D-AEQ1 reflects these changes: ‘I give digital feedback that students use to go back over what they have done in their work’ (see Appendix A). These adaptations allowed us to establish a more specific and relevant baseline for the subsequent reflection logs and teacher professional development intervention.

Quantitative data analysis

The baseline survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics, such as means, standard deviations, minimum and maximum scores, and standard errors. These statistics aimed to gain a comprehensive understanding of teachers’ experiences of formative assessment in digital contexts before the intervention. Mean scores offered averages at both the item and scale levels. Standard deviations measured the score dispersion relative to the mean, indicating agreement among teachers. Minimum and maximum values assessed the utilisation of the Likert scale for each item. Standard error measurements gauged the efficiency, accuracy, and consistency of the responses in the sample.

Intervention phase and reflection logs

Qualitative sample and procedure

The professional development group consisted of seven teachers (six females; one male). The composition of the group reflected their specialisation in different main subjects (English: three teachers; Norwegian: three teachers; ICT = one teacher). The seven teachers willingly participated in both the baseline survey and reflection logs. In the spring of 2021, all seven teachers contributed to the reflection logs. However, in the subsequent year, two teachers were on leave, leaving five who actively participated in the spring of 2022. The reflection logs were administered digitally to the participants after the second and third workshops of the intervention.

Before the project commenced, the participating teachers had expressed their desire to be a part of professional learning activities aimed at enhancing formative assessment practices in digital contexts, both for their professional development and for the school’s benefit. These teachers were members of a school development team responsible for facilitating the development of the school’s assessment culture, based on a cascade model (Gardner et al. 2008). The study adopted a bottom-up approach due to the voluntary recruitment and initiative from the teachers. After the initial contact from the teacher group, one of the researchers organised an information and planning meeting with the contact person for the teacher group and the school’s principal. This approach aligns with research emphasising the involvement of school leadership and administration in teachers’ professional development (Borko 2004; Gamlem et al. 2019; Smith 2011).

Intervention design

The intervention drew upon Opfer and Pedder’s key characteristics of teacher learning, including field and classroom experiences, opportunities for reflection, opportunities for understanding oneself in a secure environment under challenging or novel circumstances, and applied knowledge about teaching and learning (2011, 389–390). First, participating teachers were encouraged to base their discussions on their own classroom experiences. Second, opportunities for reflection were fostered through active dialogues and guided discussions. Third, a considerable amount of time was devoted to developing rapport and creating a safe professional learning atmosphere. Fourth, recent literature on formative assessment and digital learning informed the intervention design.

The initial workshop was informed by the baseline survey results, which revealed that teachers were actively providing digital feedback but remained uncertain about its effectiveness. The prevalent assessment culture prioritised exam preparation. Consequently, the researchers focused on practical strategies for improving formative assessment practices within the context of an upper secondary education. Workshops were held at different venues, including the school and external meeting rooms. Researchers presented key topics, and teachers raised additional subjects and questions for discussion. Each workshop explored essential concepts related to teachers’ formative assessment work in digital contexts.

In the first workshop, teachers were introduced to relevant literature on assessment for learning (Gamlem and Smith 2013; Hattie and Timperley 2007), and online teaching tools for distance learning, in addition to teachers sharing challenges in current assessment practices. In the second workshop, teachers presented their work and perceptions about progress since the first session, and they were exposed to literature on assessment (Gamlem 2015; Sadler 1989; Smith 2015) and digital learning (Lervik, Vold, and Holen 2018). Teachers engaged in discussions on enhancing student engagement with assessment and feedback in both distance learning and traditional teaching. The final workshop introduced teachers to the IEAN's (2020) work on learning progression, curriculum, and assessment. During this session, teachers also shared their professional work from the lead-up to the workshop.

To ensure equitable participation, both teachers and researchers took turns presenting on various topics. Researchers shared external expertise and different perspectives, while teachers selected topics related to formative assessment and digital technology from their classroom experiences. The intervention’s design emphasised empowering teachers to enhance their practices through dialogue with researchers, following a bottom-up approach (Gamlem et al. 2019), and focusing on current assessment practices and student learning (Timperley et al. 2007).

Qualitative measure

The researchers provided guidance for teachers’ reflection logs to encourage in-depth reflection on their experiences (see Appendices B and C). These guides followed a semi-structured format with an introductory text and questions related to assessment and feedback in digital contexts. The guides were informed by teacher feedback during the workshops, along with insights from formative assessment (Gamlem and Smith 2013; Hattie and Timperley 2007) and digital learning (Bearman, Boud, and Rola 2020). Due to teachers’ specific interest in assessment and digital learning, heightened by the pandemic restrictions and homeschooling, Reflection Log Guide 1 focused on distance teaching and learning. Reflection Log Guide 2 emphasised feedback in digital contexts and tracked teachers’ progress over the 18-month period. Each teacher composed and submitted their reflection logs individually.

Qualitative data analysis

The text data from the logs underwent thematic analysis with multiple phases of condensation (Braun and Clarke 2006). Initially, data were horizontally coded using each reflection question as a starting point, employing constant comparison principles (Boeije 2002). Different codes were distinguished using distinct colours in the text. Subsequently, all codes were compiled into a table for further analyses. The initial codes were then condensed into subthemes during vertical coding to focus on differences in teacher reflections. Subthemes from Reflection Logs 1 and 2 were cross-compared to assess changes among the five teachers who participated in both sets (e.g. ‘Digital feedback is faster and more readily available’). Finally, these subthemes were synthesised into main themes. Teachers’ responses were marked with personal tags (Teacher A–Teacher G) for transparency and anonymity.

Results

Results from the baseline survey

The descriptive statistics for all items and scales in the survey are provided in Appendix A. The teachers, to some extent, acknowledged that they provided students with digital feedback on how to learn and improve. However, there was more uncertainty regarding whether this feedback effectively contributed to students’ increased engagement with their tasks (Digital Feedback Engagement; M = 3.63; SD = .76). Further, teachers agreed to providing digital feedback with the intention that students would actively use it (Use of Digital Feedback, M = 3.95; SD = .64). Nonetheless, there was variation in terms of how much digital feedback each teacher provided (Quantity and Quality of Digital Feedback, M = 3.67; SD = 1). In general, there appeared to be an expectation that students should invest a significant amount of time in preparation for their schoolwork and exams (Quantity of Effort; M = 4.15; SD = .70). However, teachers exhibited more uncertainty regarding the necessity for students to cover the entire syllabus to achieve success (Coverage of the Syllabus; M = 3.33; SD = .92).

Teachers expressed a greater concern for fostering students’ understanding rather than placing undue emphasis on rote memorisation and testing (Appropriate Assessment; M = 4.44; SD = .67). A consensus among the teachers indicated their inclination towards in-depth assessment work over a mere focus on repetition (Deep Approach; M = 4.23; SD = .62; and Surface Approach; M = 2.66; SD = .89). While the teachers felt confident about what they expected from students, they harboured more uncertainty about the goals and criteria for assessment tasks in general (Clear Goals and Standards; M = 3.86; SD = .67). Further, teachers remained ambivalent about the extent to which exams contributed to student learning beyond mere testing (Learning from the Examination; M = 3.33; SD = .79). In terms of their digital teaching, teachers reported moderate satisfaction (Satisfaction with Digital Teaching; M = 3.54; SD = .81). They also indicated some level of agreement concerning the positive impact of digital technology on their teaching (Teaching Impact of Digital Development; M = 3.94, SD = .73) and the potential of digital resources in the teaching process (Digital Resources in Teaching; M = 4.05; SD = .63).

Results from the reflection logs

The importance of a shared language for digital formative assessment

One prominent theme was the importance of developing a shared language of digital formative assessment. Over the course of the intervention, the teachers evolved a more nuanced understanding of the various aspects of digital formative assessment, including the timing of feedback, levels of digital feedback, and dialogic feedback interactions. One teacher particularly reflected on the challenges of digital feedback at the task level: ‘A problem here might be that very similar types of tasks in a subject might decrease the transfer value for students’ (Teacher D). Another teacher highlighted the significance of real-time feedback using digital collaborative writing tools: ‘I have been working with digital real-time feedback. I have become more aware of the timing of feedback and initiating dialogue rather than monologue’ (Teacher B). The focus on feedback levels were primarily concerned about the task and process levels, rather than self-regulation and self-level. Teachers also became more attentive to designing formative assessment processes where students received feedback before, rather than after, grades. This shift reflected a growing awareness of the assessment’s purpose and its role in the learning process. One teacher emphasised changes in feedback timing, moving from providing feedback and grades simultaneously to offering feedback while students were still in the learning process (Teacher G). Additionally, some teachers, while not significantly altering their assessment and feedback practices, demonstrated an increased awareness of the importance of discussing assessment criteria and fostering a learning-centred approach with their students.

Challenges tied to real-time distance learning

The teachers identified several barriers and difficulties when working with students in distance learning contexts. One of the most prominent barriers was the challenge of student engagement, particularly because the reduced face-to-face interactions and limited feedback opportunities. Many teachers expressed a sense of diminished wellbeing during real-time distance learning due to the absence of physical, in-person interactions with students. For instance, Teacher A voiced missing the group dynamic and direct interactions with students, which negatively impacted their professional satisfaction. Additionally, teachers encountered challenges related to the General Data Protection Regulation Law, which prohibited them from mandating the use of web cameras during distance learning sessions. This resulted in many students having black screens during real-time video conferencing. The absence of visual clues and the physical presence of students intensified feelings of alienation and isolation among teachers. Some teachers also noted that students appeared differently in online contexts, which raised new challenges in understanding and engaging with their students.

A significant issue that emerged was the lack of personal contact and dialogue with students in distance learning settings. This limitation made it difficult for teachers to assess whether students truly understood the material and effectively engaged in the lessons: ‘I think the lack of dialogue is the biggest weakness of distance learning. The teacher has control over what is presented to the students, but it is difficult to know what they have actually understood’ (Teacher F). In contrast, ordinary teaching contexts were perceived as less daunting and more natural for teachers, with digital technology being an integrated and seamless part of classroom feedback and assessment. In traditional, face-to-face settings, teachers enjoyed immediate opportunities to ensure that students comprehended the feedback they provided. Some teachers even emphasised that they did not distinguish between digital and analogue teaching because digital technology was an integral and inseparable part of everyday teaching practices.

The paradoxical nature of digital feedback in fostering dialogue

The teachers highlighted several advantages of digital feedback, such as speed, efficiency, and the ease with which it could be stored and accessed for future reference. For instance, the teachers noted that digital comments remained available to students, allowing them to review and benefit from the feedback at their convenience. Additionally, digital technology facilitated more real-time feedback in collaborative writing contexts. However, despite these advantages, the teachers identified a paradoxical aspect of digital feedback. While digital tools were designed to enable quicker and more personalised feedback, some teachers experienced the opposite effect, where opportunities for dialogue and communication were diminished. The issue of teachers closely monitoring students’ writing processes emerged as a potential hindrance to creative and spontaneous writing. Teachers were concerned that feedback given too early in the writing process inadvertently halted the students’ learning and exploration. The quality and depth of digital feedback interactions also raised challenges: ‘The biggest challenge with such digital interaction, I think, is the immediate response that one does not receive from students. The classroom conversation is not the same’ (Teacher G). This dichotomy between digital and face-to-face interactions presented its own set of challenges for teachers.

Strategies for seeking and improving digital feedback

In the reflection logs, teachers initially found the concept of feedback seeking challenging, with a prevalent emphasis on students primarily being interested in knowing their grades and whether their answers were correct. However, in the second log, while the importance of students seeking information about grades persisted, more teachers stressed the necessity of training students in effective digital feedback seeking: ‘The students are probably not so socialised in seeking feedback, but I am working on it’ (Teacher E). Several teachers had actively worked on training their students in effective digital feedback seeking using specific feedback requests and modelling the types of questions students could ask. For instance, Teacher F mentioned that students primarily sought advice that could enhance the quality of their work, emphasising that students were encouraged to ask specific, task-related questions rather than open-ended queries. Further, one teacher’s reflection indicated a significant shift in their understanding of formative assessment practices, stating: ‘I have had my eyes opened to what is meant by “collecting information” about learning. I now consistently use different forms of self-assessment and different meta-questions about learning when planning student work’ (Teacher G). This teacher’s reflection demonstrates their growth in conceptualising formative assessment practices as a means of gathering information about student learning and employing various self-assessment strategies to enhance the learning experience.

Discussion

The objective of this study was to examine the characteristics of teachers’ professional development experiences when working with formative assessment in digital contexts over an 18-month period. The baseline survey results suggested that while teachers were providing digital feedback, they had uncertainties regarding its usefulness and its ability to engage students, which aligned with evidence from previous studies (Casanova, Alsop, and Huet 2021; Dalby and Swan 2019; Jensen, Bearman, and Boud 2021). The survey results also revealed that teachers had clear expectations for students to dedicate time to studying and exam preparation, as well as a solid understanding of what was required of them. However, the clarity of correspondence between assessment tasks and criteria remained a point of uncertainty among teachers. These results suggested that the teachers perceived the implementation of formative assessment as challenging, which coincided with trends identified in previous reviews of formative assessment (Hattie and Timperley 2007; Schildkamp et al. 2020; Yan et al. 2021).

One of the most daunting challenges encountered by the teachers in this study was fostering feedback engagement in real-time online distance learning settings. As students could not be compelled to activate their web cameras, the digital contexts were characterised by a lack of dialogue and face-to-face digital interactions. This coincided with the findings of Sandvik et al. (2021), where silence and limited student involvement characterised distance learning in upper secondary schools during the initial COVID-19 lockdown. This sudden transition to a new distance learning context appeared to disrupt the teachers’ prior understanding of communication and dialogue possibilities in online teacher–student feedback interactions. It underscored the importance of ongoing development of digital formative assessment practices in distance learning, despite substantial challenges noted in previous research concerning the absence of in-person interactions between teachers and students (Cooper et al. 2022; Lervik, Vold, and Holen 2018; Panadero et al. 2022). This suggests that teachers require more hands-on experience in adapting to new online environments for their professional development related to formative assessment, which aligns with previous research (Andersson and Palm 2018).

Digital feedback posed a dialogic paradox for the teachers, as digital technology promised faster and more personalised feedback, but communication tended to become less personal and interactional in teacher–student interactions. This paradox highlighted a central challenge in transitioning to a new, more dialogic paradigm of feedback (Ajjawi and Boud 2018; Winstone et al. 2017). In this study, most teachers recognised the immediate advantages of digital feedback in terms of accessing, storing, and revisiting feedback regarding students’ learning processes. This finding aligned with the results of Casanova, Alsop, and Huet (2021) which emphasised the link between digital feedback storage and formative feedback. According to the teachers in this study, students were better prepared to use previously provided formative feedback in various situations due to the convenience of storage options. However, a recurring issue was that digital feedback often ended up being stored and forgotten, resulting in missed opportunities for feedback and digital learning. One teacher explicitly focused on developing formative assessment practices that involved real-time feedback provision and dialogue within collaborative writing platforms. The primary advantage of this practice was the opportunity for real-time feedback dialogues during learning processes. Nevertheless, a major challenge noted by this teacher was the risk of interfering in students’ creative writing processes at an early stage, potentially diminishing the potential of digital feedback.

The results from the reflection logs indicated that, during the 18-month intervention period, the teachers became more conscious of the timing and levels of digital feedback, and they increasingly focused on dialogic feedback interactions. These findings are consistent with prior research emphasising the importance of timing in formative assessment and digital feedback (Dalby and Swan 2019; Jensen, Bearman, and Boud 2023). The participating teachers reported the development of a shared language of formative assessment in digital contexts, aligning with research that highlights the significance of a common feedback language in upper secondary schools (Jónsson, Smith, and Geirsdóttir 2018). Further, the teachers mentioned an improved ability to critically evaluate their assessment practices, aligning with the fourth dimension of assessment literacy by Hay and Penney (2013). Thus, it appeared that the teachers were progressing toward a deeper understanding of formative assessment, reflecting the adoption of formative assessment principles (Black and Wiliam 2009; DeLuca, Chapman-Chin, and Klinger 2019).

However, there were indications that the teachers may require more extended, longitudinal professional development efforts focused on formative assessment in digital contexts to become proficient in modelling more effective professional learning, consistent with research that has stressed sufficient time to lead formative assessment processes (Andersson and Palm 2018; DeLuca, Chapman-Chin, and Klinger 2019). Similarly, the teachers in this study may not have yet attained a level of formative assessment that aligns with Timperley et al.'s (2007) model. This finding is consistent with critiques that professional development does not always yield the desired effects in teachers’ formative assessment practices (Schildkamp et al. 2020). The teachers in this study tended to use themselves as a starting point for professional development, although research has suggested the relevance of focusing on students’ learning outcomes as the primary consideration (Gamlem 2015; IEAN 2020; Smith 2011). Nevertheless, the workshops provided a secure space for self-reflection and understanding of their assessment practices, in line with Opfer and Pedder’s (2011) characteristics of teacher learning.

A central challenge faced by the teachers in this study was the limited face-to-face interactions in real-time distance learning settings, as web cameras were seldom used. The complexities of distance learning, exacerbated by COVID-19 restrictions and homeschooling, aligned with recent findings in secondary education (Blikstad-Balas et al. 2022; Cooper et al. 2022; Sandvik et al. 2021). The absence of physical proximity and student dialogue due to black screens during online teaching sessions had a negative impact on the teachers’ wellbeing and self-efficacy concerning their formative assessment practices. Teachers generally preferred traditional, in-person teaching situations where non-verbal and physical communication provided immediate opportunities to respond to students’ actions and contributions. It appeared that conventional teaching environments offered teachers more support and structure to apply pedagogical sensitivity, reminiscent of what Black and Wiliam (2009) described as ‘moments of contingency’.

While previous research has recognised the pivotal role of students in deciding when and where to seek digital feedback (Nieminen, Bearman, and Ajjawi 2023; van der Kleij et al. 2019; Winstone et al. 2017), the findings of this study revealed that several teachers initially struggled with the concept of digital feedback seeking by their students. This finding indicated that feedback was primarily seen as something provided by the teacher, lacking dialogic elements or active involvement from students. Moreover, the teachers placed emphasis on the idea that students mainly sought information regarding their grades and the correctness of their work. Previous research has underscored the significance of shared responsibility in feedback processes, discouraging the attribution of blame (Nash and Winstone 2017). In the second reflection log, several teachers underlined the crucial role of equipping students with necessary skills for actively seeking digital feedback, thus placing stronger emphasis on fostering students’ assessment literacy and agency. This shift highlighted a more pronounced sense of shared responsibility in both providing and receiving digital feedback.

Limitations

This study has some limitations that should be addressed. The study was conducted with a group of teachers from a single upper secondary school. Given the low participation rate of the baseline survey, the quantitative results should be viewed as a partial mapping of the teachers’ assessment contexts and professional learning activities. Consequently, these findings should not be generalised to account for larger populations but rather understood within the specific local context. The qualitative insights derived from the reflection logs should also be interpreted cautiously, as they represent only a small sample of teachers’ reflections regarding formative assessment in digital contexts. However, the longitudinal nature of this study, involving two reflection logs at different time points in the teachers’ developmental trajectories, allowed for cross-comparisons and deeper insights. Additionally, there might be disparities between the teachers’ statements and reflections, on one hand, and their actual feedback and assessment practices in digital classroom settings, on the other. While the reflection log data carried these limitations, they provided valuable descriptions of the participating teachers’ beliefs and understandings, which hold relevance for other contexts.

Implications and recommendations for future research

The findings of this study carry important implications for educational practice and offer directions for future research. First, it is crucial to recognise that teachers should not be expected to develop their digital formative assessment practices in isolation. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, with its abrupt shift to distance learning and physical isolation, underscored the necessity of involving teachers in professional learning activities to enhance their knowledge and implementation of formative assessment (Cooper et al. 2022; Sandvik et al. 2021). This study highlights the significance of affording teachers sufficient time and well-structured processes to cultivate a shared language of digital formative assessment. Professional development for teachers is not a linear progression but rather a recursive journey involving multiple phases of work and reflection. Therefore, professional learning initiatives that enable teachers to transition between different stages of their professional development can empower them to embrace the spirit of digital formative assessment. Further, the professional development journey appears to align with the transition from an old to a new feedback paradigm, emphasising sense-making, feedback dialogues and partnerships between teachers and students (Jensen, Bearman, and Boud 2023; Winstone et al. 2017). Nevertheless, future research is warranted to investigate the characteristics of students’ feedback-seeking behaviours in dialogic interactions. Understanding how teachers’ professional learning can be enriched by students’ responses over an extended period is a valuable avenue for future inquiry.

Second, there is need to develop a new understanding of the complex situation faced by upper secondary school teachers in the context of evolving digital learning environments. The teachers in this study expressed feelings of isolation and a sense of being left to navigate the challenges on their own when delivering feedback in real-time distance learning settings. It is imperative to provide teachers with opportunities to engage in discussions and reflections regarding these common challenges, ultimately enhancing their formative assessment practices within these new digital contexts. The establishment of professional learning communities, where teachers can collaborate and share experiences, may prove instrumental in fostering a more profound pedagogical adoption of formative practices in digital environments. While the intervention of this study functioned as a professional learning community for 18 months, further research is required to investigate how teachers can sustain their learning and extend these practices into professional learning communities within schools and among colleagues.

Third, this study underscores the significance of training, not only for teachers but also for students, to facilitate effective digital feedback seeking. This highlights the necessity of placing a stronger emphasis on fostering students’ assessment literacy and agency, especially in the context of digital feedback. It is essential to conceptualise feedback in digital contexts as a dynamic and interactive process that empowers students to take a more active role in their own learning. Teachers should equip students with strategies to actively seek feedback from teachers, peers, and digital tools in the classroom. While the present study proposed one format of training a group of teachers through a formative assessment intervention, further research that involves classroom trials where teachers model feedback-seeking strategies to their students in online settings is needed.

Finally, teachers’ professional engagement with formative assessment in digital contexts can serve as a bridge between teaching and teacher education. Professional learning communities have the potential to foster innovative ideas and shape formative assessment practices for both teachers and teacher educators (Andersson and Palm 2018; Timperley et al. 2007). On the one hand, teachers need a robust theoretical framework to develop their digital formative assessment practices, which can be achieved through awareness raising and training. On the other hand, teacher educators must gain a thorough understanding of teachers’ everyday challenges and situations regarding formative assessment within digital contexts. Therefore, teacher educators should have opportunities for professional learning activities that are closely aligned with actual teaching practice. Future research that explores the relationship between pre-service and in-service teacher education regarding the professional development of formative assessment is crucial to comprehensively understand teachers’ ongoing professional development throughout their careers.

Conclusion

This study explored the professional development experiences of upper secondary school teachers during an 18-month intervention focusing on formative assessment in digital contexts. The results from the baseline survey indicated that while teachers engaged in providing digital feedback to students, they harboured uncertainty about its effectiveness. This served as a crucial foundation for designing the intervention, which comprised a series of workshops, alongside teachers’ independent development work within their classrooms and the recurrent creation of reflection logs. The analysis of these reflection logs unveiled four main themes characterising teachers’ encounters with formative assessment: the significance of a shared language for digital formative assessment; challenges posed by real-time distance learning; the paradox of digital feedback in fostering dialogue; and strategies for seeking and improving digital feedback. In summary, the insights gleaned from the reflection logs elucidated the evolving professional development journey undertaken by the participating teachers, as they transitioned from a more mechanistic understanding of formative assessment towards a deeper pedagogical adoption.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2024.2382956.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Kim-Daniel Vattøy

Kim-Daniel Vattøy PhD, is an Associate Professor at Volda University College, Norway. His research focuses on assessment and feedback in a variety of educational contexts. Vattøy has professional experience working in schools and teacher education.

Siv M. Gamlem

Siv M. Gamlem PhD, is a Professor at Volda University College, Norway. Her research focuses on feedback, assessment, learning processes, and professional development. Gamlem has professional experience working in schools and teacher education.