Abstract :

Background/purpose – This study delves into the landscape of formative assessment practices within Maldivian government primary schools. It aims to explore the strategies teachers employ, identify challenges faced in implementation, and investigate the relationship between professional development and effective formative assessment practices.

Materials/methods – Drawing on a quantitative survey involving 316 primary school teachers, the research utilizes structured inquiries to gather insights. The study reveals the prevalent use of questioning techniques and classroom observations, emphasizing interactive and observational methods. Variability in the adoption of quizzes, projects, and portfolios suggests a need for further exploration of teachers’ preferences.

Results – The findings showcase a widespread application of interactive and observational methods such as questioning techniques and classroom observations. However, variability in using quizzes, projects, and portfolios points to potential variations in teacher preferences. The study identifies challenges related to managing large class sizes, professional development, and meeting parental expectations, emphasizing critical areas for intervention.

Conclusion – A positive correlation is observed between teachers’ formative assessment strategies and their perceived adequacy of professional development. This underscores the significance of ongoing training initiatives. The study acknowledges potential limitations, including self-reporting bias and limited generalizability to other contexts.

---

Keywords :

Formative Assessment Strategies, Maldivian primary schools, professional development, challenges, parental engagement

---

References :

1. Black P, Wiliam D. Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards through Classroom Assessment. Phi Delta Kappan. 2010;92(1):81-90. doi:10.1177/003172171009200119

2. Schneider MC, Johnson RL. Using Formative Assessment to Support Student Learning Objectives. Using Formative Assessment to Support Student Learning Objectives. Published online January 1, 2018:1-168. doi:10.4324/9781315625805
3. Andrade HL, Heritage M. Using Formative Assessment to Enhance Learning, Achievement, and Academic Self-Regulation. 1st ed. Routledge; 2017. doi:10.4324/9781315623856
4. Bennett RE. Formative assessment: a critical review. Assess Educ. 2011;18(1):5-25. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678
5. Elwood J. Formative assessment: Possibilities, boundaries and limitations. Assess Educ. 2006;13(2):215-232. doi:10.1080/09695940600708653
6. Erickson F. Some Thoughts on “Proximal” Formative Assessment of Student Learning. Vol 106.; 2007. doi:10.1111/J.1744-7984.2007.00102.X
7. Lui AM, Andrade HL. The next black box of formative assessment: A model of the internal mechanisms of feedback processing. Front Educ (Lausanne). 2022;7. doi:10.3389/feduc.2022.751548
8. Yan Z, Xiao Y, Sin KF, Yang L, Guo WY. Formative Assessment Practices in Special School Classrooms With the Support of E-Books: A Case Study. Front Educ (Lausanne). 2021;6:674869. doi:10.3389/FEDUC.2021.674869/BIBTEX
9. Abdulla A, Whipp PR, Teo T. Teaching physical education in ‘paradise’: Activity levels, lesson context and barriers to quality implementation. Eur Phy Educ Rev. 2021;28(1):225-243. doi:10.1177/1356336X211033696

10. Abdulla A, Whipp PR, McSporran G, Teo T. An interventional study with the Maldives generalist teachers in primary school physical education: An application of self-determination theory. PLoS One. 2022;17(5):e0268098. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268098
11. Nishan F, Mohamed A. Emerging stronger: Policy directions for COVID-19 and beyond for public schools in the Maldives. Fulbright Review of Economics and Policy. 2021;1(2):266-285. doi:10.1108/frep-10-2021-0060
12. Sodiq A, Di Biase R. “We cannot do away with exams: Parents believe in them, so does the wider community”. Reimagining the examination system in the Maldives. Prospects (Paris). 2022;51(4):701-719. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-022-09613-w
13. Black P, Wiliam D. In praise of educational research: Formative assessment. Br Educ Res J. 2003;29(5):623-637. doi:10.1080/0141192032000133721
14. Stover K, Yearta L, Harris C. Formative Assessment in the Digital Age. Read Teach. 2016;69(4):377-381. doi:10.1002/TRTR.1420
15. Meusen-Beekman KD, Brinke DJ Ten, Boshuizen HPA. Developing young adolescents’ self-regulation by means of formative assessment: A theoretical perspective. Cogent Education. 2015;2(1):1071233. doi:10.1080/2331186X.2015.1071233
16. Mehendale A. School Education Systems and Policies in South Asia. Published online 2020:1-18. doi:10.1007/978-981-13-3309-5_49-1
17. Jeynes WH. The Relationship Between Parental Involvement and Urban Secondary School Student Academic Achievement. http://dx.doi.org/101177/0042085906293818. 2007;42(1):82-110. doi:10.1177/0042085906293818
18. Ministry of Education. Maldives Education Sector Analysis. Ministry of Education; 2019. Accessed May 30, 2023. https://www.globalpartnership.org/content/maldives-education-sector-analysis-2019
19. National Institute of Education. The National Curriculum Framework.; 2016. Accessed January 6, 2023. https://www.moe.gov.mv/assets/upload/National_Curriculum_Framework_English.pdf
20. Creswell JW. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. 4th ed. Pearson; 2012. Accessed April 30, 2023. http://repository.unmas.ac.id/medias/journal/EBK-00121.pdf
21. Ministry of Education. School Statistics 2020.; 2020. Accessed December 4, 2022. https://www.moe.gov.mv/assets/upload/School_Statistics_20201.pdf
22. Adam AM. Sample size determination in survey research. J Sci Res Rep. 2020;26(5):90-97. doi:10.9734/JSRR/2020/V26I530263
23. Eva N, Islami FN, Zidansyah Dwi Atmajav M, Atmaja D, Annisa W. Body image as a predictor of psychological well-being in early adolescent girls. KnE Social Sciences. 2022;7(18):212-227. doi:10.18502/KSS.V7I18.12389
24. Ikehi ME, Onu FM, Ifeanyieze FO, et al. Survey on Sample Sizes of Postgraduate Theses in Agricultural Education and Extension in Universities of Nigeria. Journal of Extension Education. 2019;31(1):6200. doi:10.26725/JEE.2019.1.31.6200-6208
25. Okon JS, Vitus UU, D LT, et al. Impact of militancy on human security in Niger delta: Evidence from food and environmental security. https://wjarr.com/sites/default/files/WJARR-2022-1213.pdf. 2022;16(2):514-523. doi:10.30574/WJARR.2022.16.2.1213
26. Sarki ZM, Saat GAM. Exploring the perception of forensic science among police investigators in Nigeria: The role of sociodemographic markers. https://doi.org/101177/14613557211019761. 2021;23(3):265-278. doi:10.1177/14613557211019761
27. Momenpour Y, Choobchian S, Sadighi H, et al. Factors Affecting Wheat Producers’ Water Conservation Behavior: Evidence from Iran. Water 2021, Vol 13, Page 3217. 2021;13(22):3217. doi:10.3390/W13223217
28. Hai N Van. Vietnamese English teachers’ views on formative assessment management and suggestions to improve student motivation. Linguistics and Culture Review. 2021;6(S1):363-379. doi:10.21744/lingcure.v6ns1.2054
29. Ghaicha A, Oufela Y. Moroccan EFLl secondary school teachers’ current practices and challenges of formative assessment. Canadian Social Science. 2021;17(1):1-15. doi:10.3968/12015
30. Stratton SJ. Likert Data. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018;33(2):117-118. doi:10.1017/S1049023X18000237
31. Norman G. Likert scales, levels of measurement, and the “laws” of statistics. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2010;15(5):625-632. doi:10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y
32. Stupnisky RH, Larivière V, Hall NC, Omojiba O. Predicting Research Productivity in STEM Faculty: The Role of Self-determined Motivation. Res High Educ. 2023;64(4):598-621. doi:10.1007/S11162-022-09718-3/FIGURES/3
33. Eachempati P, Ramnarayan K. Ten Maxims of Formative Assessment. Adv Physiol Educ. 2019;43:99-102. doi:10.1152/advan.00173
34. Research Online G. Teachers’ perceived understanding of formative assessment and how it impacts their classroom practice: A case-study investigation Author. Published online 2019. doi:10.25904/1912/3516
35. Chism NVN, Angelo TA, Cross KP. Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers. J Higher Educ. 1995;66(1):108. doi:10.2307/2943957
36. Kibble JD. Voluntary participation in online formative quizzes is a sensitive predictor of student success. https://doi.org/101152/advan000532010. 2011;35(1):95-96. doi:10.1152/ADVAN.00053.2010
37. Krasne S, Wimmers PF, Relan A, Drake TA. Differential effects of two types of formative assessment in predicting performance of first-year medical students. Advances in Health Sciences Education. 2006;11(2):155-171. doi:10.1007/S10459-005-5290-9/METRICS
38. Gamage SHPW, Ayres JR, Behrend MB, Smith EJ. Optimising Moodle quizzes for online assessments. Int J STEM Educ. 2019;6(1):1-14. doi:10.1186/S40594-019-0181-4/FIGURES/11
39. Singh A, Gupta A, Peres KG. Writing Quantitative Research Studies. In: Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences. Springer Singapore; 2019:985-997. doi:10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_117
40. Pool AO, Debbie · A, Jaarsma C, et al. Student perspectives on competency-based portfolios: Does a portfolio reflect their competence development? Perspect Med Educ. 2020;9(3):166-172. doi:10.1007/S40037-020-00571-7
41. Baturay MH, Daloǧlu A. E-portfolio assessment in an online English language course. Comput Assist Lang Learn. 2010;23(5):413-428. doi:10.1080/09588221.2010.520671
42. Lee H, Feldman A, Beatty ID. Factors that Affect Science and Mathematics Teachers’ Initial Implementation of Technology-Enhanced Formative Assessment Using a Classroom Response System. J Sci Educ Technol. 2012;21(5):523-539. doi:10.1007/S10956-011-9344-X/METRICS
43. Prastikawati EF, . W. Technology-based Formative Assessments Implemented by Secondary School English Teachers During Remote Learning. KnE Social Sciences. 2022;2022:180-190-180–190. doi:10.18502/KSS.V7I14.11967
44. Beatty ID, Gerace WJ. Technology-enhanced formative assessment: A research-based pedagogy for teaching science with classroom response technology. J Sci Educ Technol. 2009;18(2):146-162. doi:10.1007/S10956-008-9140-4/METRICS
45. Black P, Wiliam D. Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educ Assess Eval Account. 2009;21(1):5-31. doi:10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
46. Heritage M. Formative assessment: What do teachers need to know and do? Phi Delta Kappan. 2007;89(2):140-145. doi:10.1177/003172170708900210/ASSET/003172170708900210.FP.PNG_V03
47. Wiliam D. What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation. 2011;37(1):3-14. doi:10.1016/J.STUEDUC.2011.03.001
48. Sodiya OO, Hajiyeva S. Pilot study: Impact of school director-led workplace professional development training for in-service teachers. Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn). 2022;16(1):1-15. doi:10.11591/EDULEARN.V16I1.20371
49. Waheed Z, Tham J, Keat OB. A systematic review of teachers’ perspectives on formative assessment practices in primary schools: Conceptions, challenges, and influential factors. The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Organizational Studies. 2023;18(1):1177-1198. doi:http://doi.org/10.18848/2324-7649/CGP
50. Zulauf CA, Zinsser KM. Forestalling Preschool Expulsion: A Mixed-Method Exploration of the Potential Protective Role of Teachers’ Perceptions of Parents. https://doi.org/103102/0002831219838236. 2019;56(6):2189-2220. doi:10.3102/0002831219838236
51. Levinthal C, Kuusisto E, Tirri K. Finnish and Portuguese Parents’ Perspectives on the Role of Teachers in Parent-Teacher Partnerships and Parental Engagement. Education Sciences 2021, Vol 11, Page 306. 2021;11(6):306. doi:10.3390/EDUCSCI11060306
52. Fisher Y, FitzGerald AM, Olson A. What Do Teacher-Education College Students Know about Parental Involvement: A Comparative Study between the U.S. and Israel. https://doi.org/101177/00131245211026685. 2021;54(6):714-730. doi:10.1177/00131245211026685
53. Stroetinga M, Leeman Y, Veugelers W. Primary school teachers’ collaboration with parents on upbringing: a review of the empirical literature. Educ Rev (Birm). 2019;71(5):650-667. doi:10.1080/00131911.2018.1459478
54. Levinthal C, Kuusisto E, Tirri K. How Finnish and Portuguese Parents’ Implicit Beliefs About Learning Actualize at Home. Front Educ (Lausanne). 2021;6:635203. doi:10.3389/FEDUC.2021.635203/BIBTEX
55. Polikoff MS. How Well Aligned Are Textbooks to the Common Core Standards in Mathematics? http://dx.doi.org/103102/0002831215584435. 2015;52(6):1185-1211. doi:10.3102/0002831215584435
56. Listiani H, Subali B. The Learning Continuum of Biological Resource Management Aspects Reviewed From the Difficulty Levels Based on Elementary School Teachers’ Opinions. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Research, Implementation, and Education of Mathematics and Sciences (ICRIEMS 2020). 2021;528:100-106. doi:10.2991/ASSEHR.K.210305.016
57. Moyo SE, Combrinck C, Van Staden S. Evaluating the Impact of Formative Assessment Intervention and Experiences of the Standard 4 Teachers in Teaching Higher-Order-Thinking Skills in Mathematics. Front Educ (Lausanne). 2022;7:771437. doi:10.3389/FEDUC.2022.771437/BIBTEX
58. Andersson C, Palm T. Characteristics of improved formative assessment practice. Education Inquiry. 2017;8(2):104-122. doi:10.1080/20004508.2016.1275185
59. Andersson C, Palm T. The impact of formative assessment on student achievement: A study of the effects of changes to classroom practice after a comprehensive professional development programme. Learn Instr. 2017;49:92-102. doi:10.1016