1) The document discusses several empirical studies on formative assessment and how it can improve student achievement when integrated into teaching. 2) One study from 1992 found that frequent testing led to better results for students taught by inexperienced teachers. However, the study had limitations as it only involved two teachers. 3) Other research emphasized the importance of using assessment to diagnose student learning difficulties and provide feedback to support learning improvements.

1. Chapter – 2
2.1 Empirical researches in the field of educational assessment
Formative assessment is a planned process during which the teacher and students use
assessment-based evidences to adjust ongoing learning and instruction. Malika Tridane et al
(2015) elaborated summative assessment through a numerical mark remains unable to properly
assess the level of achievement of students, which can be monitored and controlled via rather
a Formative assessment well-built and well-studied and not freeze to remain typical modes to
learn about the conceptual development of students. We therefore draw that Formative
assessment can help teachers anticipate in advance to fill the gaps and change the methods in
the learning process. Meanwhile, Martinez and Martinez (1992) was another study used to
support the conclusion that Formative assessment improves student achievement. Martinez and
Martinez (1992) utilized a two by two experimental design in which two groups were taught
by a novice teacher and the remaining two were taught by an expert teacher. Each teacher
taught one class in which the students took only one test per chapter, and the other class took
three tests per chapter. The total sample size consisted of 120 college algebra students, which
resulted in small numbers of participants in each of the four sub-groups (less than 30 students
each). Results indicated that the only statistically significant differences in achievement were
seen between the control group (one test per chapter) and the treatment group (three tests per
chapter) in the novice teacher group. The authors concluded that frequent assessment is more
important in novice teachers’ classrooms. This, again, does not account for teacher affects as
only two teachers were investigated. Moreover, this study looked at the importance of
frequency of assessment. No information was given as to the nature of the assessment or of
feedback provided from the assessment, both of which Black and Wiliam (1998) use to define
Formative assessment. The use of this study to support the conclusion that Formative
assessment improves student achievement may also be inappropriate.Gardner et al., (2008) said
in his research that It is to integrate assessment with teaching in a view to first diagnose the
students` achievements in terms of their learning, what are their learning difficulties and then
suggest ways to address and improve their learning through teachers’ constructive feedback.
Siddiqui (2007) Explained “A good student or learner in this paradigm is the one who sits in
the class quietly, behaves nicely, never disagrees with the teacher, hardly asks any question
and has a sharp memory to repeat what the teacher has taught” ((2007 p.62). in this regard
Klenowski, et.,al (2002, 2006) experienced, In the last two decades, forms of assessment have

2. been revisited from a more quantitative to a more qualitative approach as approaches to
teaching are changing from transmission models to more constructivist and co-constructivist
approaches. Goolsby (1995) Expressed, various terms came to the forefront in the 1990s such
as “authentic assessment”, “alternate Assessment”, “performance assessment” and “direct
assessment” He opines that amongst them the alternative assessment is more generic and best
describes those methods of assessment that greatly differ from the traditional standardized tests.
He argues that through alternative assessment, students are examined through tasks that are
related to real life issues outside the schools and are of more value than the standardized tests
(see. p. 39). There is evidence that weak and unequal learning outcomes are widespread; for
this reason, the global demand from education stakeholders to measure student learning
outcomes is steadily increasing as it presents evidence on quality of teaching and learning.
Kellaghan et. al. (2009) recommended a series of actions that can help avoid the underuse of
assessment results and improve the overall quality of the assessment system: ‘integrate the
assessment activity into existing structures, policy, and decision making processes; involve all
relevant stakeholders in design and implementation of an assessment; make provision in the
budget for the dissemination, plan activities, and prepare a number of reports tailored to user
needs; ensure that the assessment team has the required technical competence and that relevant
stakeholders are involved from the outset; increase the likelihood of making findings public by
holding regular stakeholder discussions; integrate national assessment activity into policy and
managerial activities, and review findings to determine implications and strategies; [finally]
ensure adequate communication of findings to schools, review findings and devise strategies
to improve student achievement, and provide ongoing support for implementation’ (pg. 22).
Pryor & Torrance, (1997) recorded Formative assessment, as it is now conceptualized and has
come to incorporate notions of identifying progress and providing feedback to students through
the use of Assessment methods which will support and promote deep rather than surface
learning. Shepard (1995) has maintained that the introduction of an innovation such as
Formative assessment, will not necessarily improve learning. She has argued that to move
Formative assessment from rhetoric to reality every effort must be made to gain the support,
cooperation and commitment of teachers in its use. Of significance, are findings from other
studies which have shown that while teachers wanted help to translate Assessment principles
into practice. According to Gipps & James, (1996), generally they have been expected to
implement Formative assessment strategies with little support and few additional resources to
assist them in the process. According to (Broadfoot, Osborne, Panel & Pollard, 1996;
Mavromattis, 1996). As Willis and Bourke (1998) have argued, the quality of the leadership

3. provided to teachers is a key factor in the promotion of educational change. The effectiveness
of those initiating change is critical, for as agents of change, they are the mediators between
Government policy and classroom practice.Much has been written in recent times about the
Formative and summative functions of Assessment (Bell & Cowie, 1997; Black, 1993; Crooks,
1988; Gipps, 1994, 1995; Harlen & James, 1997; Pryor & Torrance, 1997; Torrance & Pryor,
1995). Considerable debate has occurred within the literature about their relative roles and
merits (Broadfoot, 1988; Gipps, 1990; Torrance, 1993). Theoretically, each has a different role
to play (Harlen & James, 1997) and each should therefore have quite different properties and
qualities from the other (Black, 1986; Gipps, 1994). As Sadler (1989) has stated, many of the
principles appropriate for summative Assessment is not necessarily transferable to Formative
assessment. He has argued that Formative assessment requires a distinctive conceptualization
and technology of its own if it is to contribute directly to helping children learn. (Black &
Wiliam, 1998) define Assessment broadly to include all activities that teachers and students
undertake to get information that can be used diagnostically to alter teaching and learning.
Under this definition, Assessment encompasses teacher observation, classroom discussion, and
analysis of student work, including homework and tests. Assessments become Formative when
the information is used to adapt teaching and learning to meet student needs. When teachers
know how students are progressing and where they are having trouble, they can use this
information to make necessary instructional adjustments, such as reteaching, trying alternative
instructional approaches, or offering more opportunities for practice. These activities can lead
to improved student success (Sawyer, Graham, & Harris, 1992).