495
Abstract: This text presents the secondary analysis of application development results of the
Institute's project in the years 2006 to 2009, in which 34 Slovene primary schools participated actively. The new didactic approaches demand teacher's flexibility according to the class subject they teach. Formative accompaniment in the evaluation process, which includes the teacher's feedback about the value of student's knowledge, is one of the basic didactical approaches for introducing the transformative pedagogy to Slovene schools. This approach derives from constructivist principle that emphasizes classes that are student oriented in order to encourage student's learning style. By using the formative assessment, the teacher encourages each and every student to produce autonomous, critical, and creative thinking and to act independently when choosing one's own learning style and interesting learning contents, and encourages him/her to look for the solutions to the problems that may occur at any class subject. Along with the paradigmatic school transformation from mechanical or transmission schools into holistic or transformational, the formative assessment differs in main elements from the traditional assessment. The formative assessment does not permit the student to be fully engaged without the parent's or teacher's help in realizing their individual curriculum, which is accordant with the compulsory national curriculum. This text will show how the individual and social cooperation level can intertwine between the educations participants.
Key words : formative assessment, curriculum, teachers' training, knowledge, transformative learning.
Ph.D. Natalija Komljanc
The National Educational Institute
1000 Ljubljana, Poljanska 28, Slovenia natalija.komljanc@zrss.si
INTRODUCTION
Formative assessment is becoming one of the moving forces of learning process. In this way,
Vygotsky’s theory of proximal development and cooperative learning between teacher, student and schoolmates is confirmed (Vygotsky, 1977 in Komljanc, 2004).
Formative assessment is becoming a focus in the professional development of teachers, and also a focus in policy documents on educational assessment (Bell, Cowie, 2001).
In the national development project was affirmed that the effective feedback is a key element of pedagogic communication within the learning process and/or self-development. The qualitative measuring of learning can essentially contribute to a better learning motivation, to longer schooling and consequently to higher professional education of our citizens (Komljanc, 2010). These theses facilitate as to look more carefully on the benefits of formative assessment for learning, also science.
1

This article documents some description of facilitating formative assessment from “bottom up” strategy approach. There are some characteristics of formative assessment, some definitions and references for more efficient formative assessment in science education.
SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT
Formative assessments have evolved as a means to adapt to student needs. As opposed to a summative assessments designed to make judgments about student performance and produce grades, the role of a formative assessment is to improve learning. As opposed to benchmark tests that are used to predict student performance on other tests (most often state assessments), formative assessments are intimately connected to instruction.
Since a teacher redirects in this phase from the content or discipline focused education to consideration of students’ needs, it signifies that the teacher should be capable to deal with the procedures. Moreover, at the same time (s)he should play a role of an emphatic wise man, who helps students not only to perceive, comprehend but also to test, examine, strengthen and interpret solutions or procedure and to provide sensible procedure positioning in the system.
The formative assessment theory derives from the critic of weaknesses of the existing education and assessment, which were behaviourist oriented, program centred, curricular focused, mechanic and uniformed and whose goal was repetitive knowledge (Komljanc, 2008a). At the same time, formative assessment corresponds to the modern education needs for achieving mutual communication, cooperation between partners, process oriented knowledge and transformative learning.
Formative assessment has a long history. Historically, formative assessments were of instructional units and diagnostic assessments were used for placement purposes. Formative assessments are part of instruction designed to provide crucial feedback for teachers and students. Assessment results inform the teacher of what has been taught well and not so well. They inform students of what they have learned well and not learned so well.
Feedback in formative assessment most drastically interferes in learning instructions. The latter are not only the described steps for single-meaning and unconditional imitation of a function (operation) that has already been excellently performed several times but person-oriented recommendations including not only regulations but also principles for qualitative pro-active existence and successful solving of conceptual plans or well-received innovations and sensible innovation procedures.
Group research has shown that formative on student oriented assessment raises the knowledge level hand generally improves the quality of education because it minds what a student has to say, which influences on the learning process. Therefore, teachers are advised to replace the simple passing of subject contents and “closed” teaching style, which limits communication possibilities, by interactive style, for which they take enough time to think about students’ reactions and leave students enough time to expose these reactions. The most common mistake teachers make, is that they do not give enough time to students to provide them answers and instead teachers answer by themselves as they are more interested in the value of content transmission and not in comprehension of a student.
Teachers’ interest in a child leads him/her toward listening to student’s reflections on the content and his/her comprehension. Feedbacks in that sense are more frequently content oriented and rarely methodologically oriented (Komljanc, 2004).
“Competing, who will be the first to raise the hand and shoot the correct answer, is meaningless. Even the incorrect answer or “ I don’t know ” answer can be a good starting point for student’s and teacher’s reflections. In the contemporary, dynamic world, frequently not only one correct answer is possible”
(Black, 2009). According to Black, the right learning method upgrades ideas that students already have. That is why teachers should give up the role of a fact presenter and explainer and adapt the role of a research promoter. At Kong’s College in London, a research on the impacts of classic assessment showed that it stimulates only superficial knowledg e and does not mind students’ needs because there is too much emphasis on the quantity and not on the content and quality of knowledge. “Children compete instead of focus on learning” (Black, 2009). Formative assessment, which is constructivist
2

and not behaviourist oriented, encourages learners to learn and teachers to focus on a student and not only directly on the subject discipline.
Teachers should be interested in students’ thinking abilities that are why they have to put more effort in form ing “right” questions instead of searching for the “right” answers. Likewise, they should be aware of the fact that there is no evidence proving that a frequent examination raises the knowledge level. On the contrary, examinations often unnecessarily burden teachers and students. According to
Black and Wiliam (1998), only summative assessment has the negative impacts on learning. Which arguments do they use? We are dealing with school-based formative assessment. Others should be allowed to show their best qualities and respect their good deeds. We are becoming mature by considering also other viewpoints. Even the incorrect answer or the “I don’t know” answer may be a good starting point for creative thinking. Teachers should take time to reflect on students’ reactions.
In the past, schools were mainly interested in transmitting knowledge from generation to generation as faithfully as possible. The school of the 21 st
century is no longer oriented toward imitating but it encourages all education factors to discover (invention) and to update usefully and concretely
(innovating). The classic knowledge assessment is not sufficient even for the so-called corrective purpose, not to mention achieving the goal of encouraging creative thinking and concrete realization of ideas and presenting as well as interpreting findings. Constructivist formative assessment takes into consideration all basic learning forms, which is the most humane and cognitive beside the social constructivism. Creators avoid behaviourist methods, which they use mainly for assuring accuracy when defining the basic notions for comparing and constructing new compositions.
Some definitions of formative assessment
Over the last decade and even more there has been a major interest in a number of countries on assessment for learning or formative assessment. One of the driving forces for this has been work of
Black and Wiliam (1998) from the Assessment Reform Group in London.
Hargreaves (2005) argues that there are various conceptions of assessment for learning as: monitoring students’ performance against targets or objectives, or using assessment to inform next steps in teaching and learning or it means giving feedback for improve ment students’ knowledge or just a kind of control or turning assessment into a learning event.
Bell and Cowie (2001, p. 552) put out in their article titled The Characteristics of Formative
Assessment in Science Education nine characteristics of formative assessment that were identified by the teachers. The characteristics are:
1. responsiveness;
2. the sources if evidences,
3. the tacit process,
4. using professional knowledge and experiences,
5. an integral part of teaching and learning;
6. formative assessment is done both teachers and students;
7. the purpose for formative assessment;
8. the contextualized nature of the process; and
9. dilemmas.
The Slovene teachers have the same response when they were asked about formative assessment in the process of action research. The teachers and students as well as their parents and school leaders’ supports formative assessment even more after the development-applicative project.
Formative assessment is described in the policy document as: … “integral part of the teaching and learning process”. It is used to provide the student with feedback to enhance learning and to help the teacher understand student’s learning. It helps build a picture of a student’s progress, and informs decisions about the next steps in teaching and learning (Ministry of Education, 1994, p.8 in Bell,
Cowie, 2001, p. 538).
3

Along with the formative assessment development, the project group in Slovenia came up with three definitions of formative assessment regarding the development of participants’ abilities to implement changes in the school-based evaluation (Komljanc, 2009):
1. Formative assessment is a form of prior knowledge development on higher levels (Komljanc, 2007);
2. Formative assessment is a form of mental development – ability to comprehend, judge and behave
(Komljanc, 2008);
3. Formative assessment is a feedback for better knowledge (Komljanc, 2009).
In the initial phase of evaluation innovation, performers dedicated their attention mostly to diagnostics and forms of pedagogic communication for attaining higher knowledge levels. The cognitions on the motivation quality have impact on the development of definition in the sense of developing the teaching quality for offering the possibilities to comprehend and not only for receiving information regarding the prior knowledge. All together gradually brought teachers to the conditions required for the implementation of process oriented education. To achieve this, most teachers spent at least three years intensively working on their methods, actively following counselling on how to develop one’s own practice, pedagogic communication, how to cooperate and motivate students, who are an essential element in learning process.
The new communicative didactic approaches demand teacher’s flexibility in the teaching process, especially in diagnosing the student’s prior knowledge, creating education strategies and evaluating achievements. Formative assessment of the learning and teaching development, which includes the teacher’s feedback on student’s knowledge value and student’s information on teaching value, is one of the basic didactic principles for the implementation of transformative pedagogy in Slovenia. The formative assessment originates from the constructivist principle of the student oriented learning process for the development of learning style of an individual student within a social learning group. By introducing formative assessment, a teacher accustoms each student to an autonomous, critical and creative thinking, as well as to the selfinitiative choice of student’s own learning style and interesting contents. Moreover, it encourages a student to find solutions to the problems at every school subject.
The constructivist formative assessment stimulates cooperation and efficient dialogue between learners. With the adult’s help (parents, teachers and other experts), children develop self-regulative pattern when choosing their learning style. Thus, the self-regulation is the base for implementing transformation. At the formative evaluation, student cannot be entirely engaged without the parents’ and teachers’ help in crating individual curriculum, which is consistent with the compulsory national curriculum. The school is actually optimal only when it enables student’s personal development which, in a certain development phase and environment, (s)he could not attain without the help of adults. This is in fact the point of schooling.
Feedback for better knowledge is the same aim like in definition of assessment knowledge in New
Zealand Ministry definition- progress. This can fits also for science teachers and students. The definitions of the formative assessment recognize the benefits in the process students learning and teacher support (Cowie, Bell, 1996 in Bell Cowie, 2001).
Some others definition of formative assessment underlined some important didactical component as:
1. formative assessment is dynamic process,
2. formative assessment is a form to help student in his or her learning process,
3. formative assessment is continues services of instructions,
4. formative assessment is a form of accompany,
5. formative assessment is improving the didactical dialogue between learners and teachers and also parents,
6. formative assessment is a form of arrangement learning data for future planning of learning and teaching,
7. formative assessment is an approach for selecting learning aims,
8. formative assessment is a strategy for regulation education process,
9. formative assessment is an archive of the achievements …(Komljanc, 2004).
4

Some benefits of formative assessment for assessing science knowledge
As in New Zealand also in Slovenia we had in the past different didactic approaches for better measurement in education, but all of them were very much oriented on continuous summative assessment. The most popular feedback had been grads and external examinations.
The response to these criticisms can be summarized as a need to assess a wider range of science learning outcome, such as performance of investigation skills (Johnson, 1989 in Bell, Cowie, 2001, p.
537) and multiple forms of thinking (Gardner, 1985 in Bell, Cowie, 2001, p. 537). There are also proposals for using wider range of assessment tasks or instruments and performance-based assessment. Assessment knowledge must be integrated with the curriculum and assess in more open, humanistic and constructivist way.
Slovenian teachers who were supported by advisers in project of the National Education Institute were used a guiding instrument with main orientation on diagnosing the prior knowledge, awareness on teaching aims and learning outcomes and also on process of learning and teaching and because of that on students’ learning style. The instrument leads teachers in process to rich the optimal achievements of each student in learning group.
Not just in Slovene and in New Zealand but also in other countries like UK, Australia, Singapore, Hong
Kong teachers are aware on difference between formative and summative assessment knowledge
(Komljanc, 2009).
With formative assessment can students have some benefits, such as;
1. developing divergent thinking,
2. using reflection as a sort of analysis,
3. opportunities for searching different methods of observing and interpreting data,
4. planning the process of learning and teaching together,
5. constructing various research questions,
6. orientation on process for developing prior knowledge,
7. integration more often different content,
8. using different sources,
9. developing not just actual but also reference knowledge,
10. more autonomous study with orientation on self-regulation,
11. discovery approach, with definition the hypotheses, and
12. experiences and theoretical knowledge use.
When teachers start with formative assessment they ask for help with question how to start reformed the assessment system. In Slovenia The National Education Institute help them by offering three principles instead of classical roles and five recommendations for reconstructing an innovative school measurement system. They accept also two indicators. There is briefly presentation of each of them.
Three principles of knowledge assessment were very well accepted, and they are (Komljanc, 2008):
1. “Assessing strong and weak knowledge.”
This principle wasn’t so often used at began. Only 3% of the project members use diagnostic approach, but after work in project team in three year work 98% teachers except prior knowledge in planning the system.
2. “Assuring contact between learning levels”.
Nobody was oriented at personal learning. Almost all were use the classical teaching style.
After three year using the instrument for formative assessment 76% of teachers transformed teaching style for more personalized teaching approach.
3. “Assuring actual feedback on the knowledge development.”
5

At staring point 17% teachers were aware how important is useful feedback, but in the end of the project 96% of teachers confirm, that they are very much oriented on the effective positive feedback in learning process which is, that the teacher and student have improving their learning and teaching.
All three principles can be also useful for students and teachers for science.
Teachers found help in the suggestions or recommendation for realizing principles. There are
(Komljanc, 2010):
1. Exchanging information between the education factors for balancing needs and abilities and curriculum requirements
2. Counseling on how to eliminate weaknesses in prior knowledge – learning on higher level
3. Directing learning process for (co) influencing of factors
4. Control mechanism in the form of feedback for balanced learning and teaching
5. Summative assessment on the basis of complete information collection on student’s prior knowledge and improvement which is compared with reference measurement (the expected outcome)
For the teachers is beneficial especially the first and the fourth recommendation and also the last one.
The biggest improvement was reached with the first principle (7% at the beginning, 68% in the middle of the project, and 95% in the end). We can recognize that the Slovenian teachers are improved formative assessment knowledge with better dialogue between teachers and students. There are now much more beneficial feedback is used in the learning process (7% at the beginning, 68% in the middle of the project, 95% in the end). Because of that we could concluded that the summative assessment is also more valid and reliable (14% at the beginning, 25% in the middle, 78% in the end).
Reliability in sense of repeating the same response and validity in the sense of how good or correct the comparison between actual and reference level of knowledge was done. There are still some possibilities for improving teaching methods and style. Teachers should give more often personal instructions which are needed (29% at the beginning of the project, 78% in the middle, 73% in the end). They can be also more oriented on so called sensible learning and on learning measurements or reference level of knowledge (14% at the beginning of the project, 25% at the middle, 78% in the end).
In order for the teachers to perceive successful reactions in the upgrading of evaluation system, we have created two indicators. The first one pointed out the successful implementation of a lesson and the second signalized that the student has a greater knowledge than before (Komljanc, 2008). Both indicators directed the teacher and the student toward the qualitative inner control of learning and outcomes.
This indicators are very similar to the third trend of formative assessment to match the views of learning, which recognize that each learner has to construct an understanding for her - or himself, using both incoming stimuli and existing knowledge, and not merely absorbing transmitted knowledge
(Berlak, 1992; Gipps, 1994 in Bell, Cowie, 2001, p. 538). Central part of this teaching is dialogue with students to clarify their existing ideas and to help them construct the scientifically accepted ideas what is very important for science teaching (Scott, 1999 in Bell, Cowie, 2001, p. 538). Formative assessment is crucial component in teaching science and also others subjects as well what think also
Bell (Bell, 1995 in Bell and Cowie, 2001). The essential part of formative assessment is feedback or a dialogue because it can modify a learning effectiveness. It is also important that the feedback provide a generalization of the data what can be also very useful in science teaching. Students have in that way the opportunities for rethinking and because of that dipper understanding the science learning problem. Learning, teaching and assessment are with feedback tightened interconnected. The process of teaching is never running with ought student’s involvement. Their reflections are part of research work and also a part of the interpretation their recognitions. As Gitomer &Duschl, 1995, p.
307 in Bell Cowie, 2001 said was that assessment is a continuous process that facilitates instructional decision making in the classroom.
6

CONCLUSION
The compilation between Slovene and New Zealand experiences in classrooms show as that the formative assessment is increasingly becoming a focus in the professional development teachers and also headmasters. It is more supported by policy documents on educational assessment. The National
Educational Institute has a web site with recommendations. There are three booklets in the last three years. Seminars are also supported by government and they are very well except by teachers. The
National Education Institute was established a net for compulsory schools with continuous supports teachers in developing formative assessment knowledge in practice who are engaged in the project.
The most benefited is changing purpose from standard to multiple purposes and because of those teachers with students develops different measures. Different measures can help also in raising standards of science field.
If we have an opportunity for comparing and in the same time for improving standards with expected outcomes then we have really an opportunity for developing standards of knowledge in some culture area. In the same time we also improve personal learning aims of each student. In this way we actualize the actual and reference level of knowledge.
From policy point of view constructivist formative assessment “improving learning, reporting progress, providing summ ative information and improving programs” what was recognised also in New Zealand
(Bell, Cowie, 2001, p. 538).
Both formative and summative assessment influence on learning but in different ways when the formative assessment improve learning with fulfilling the learning gaps and correct misunderstanding, the summative assessment gives an external force for improving students knowledge, but more or less without precise instructions. From research perspective the formative assessment is more valuable for developing knowledge basic on research questions. Because of the past experiences in summative assessment is need to contribute in research more in the future in formative assessment knowledge, especially to recognise the benefits.
Our evaluation system does not follow the example of formative system in other countries as much as it should. Other countries actually achieve good results at the international knowledge measurements.
Besides, contemporary tendency is suggesting more profound work with students and the development of more complex knowledge. Countries which support formative assessment emphasis the role of internal evaluation or prior knowledge developed control and therefore, assessment for learning more that learning assessment. Thus, teachers’ trainings are focused on searching for evidences of learning and on different forms of learning encouragement.
Formative assessment does not suppose that a grade should only be the teacher’s matter in order to inform a student about it. It is formed by a mutual dialogue, which presumes that a student selfevaluates first. Teacher communicates well with students for improving the quality of education. This could be achieved by developing his/her personal abilities to engage more perception channels, multipresentation, multidimensional thinking and focus on students’ personal growth as well as by assessing multiple forms of knowledge, which is not only objective but also subjective. We should mind what to include in communication and what to exclude from it, and what to take into consideration and what not, as well we should consider the well being. The form of communication indicates whether a teacher is interested mainly in student’s permanent knowledge resulting in fundamental changes in student’s personality or only in superficial and short-term knowledge.
Likewise, it can be observed whether a teacher acts as student’s partner, assistant, in short whether
(s)he performs all four teaching types according to Delors.
7

REFERENCES
Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2001). Formative assessment and science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers http://www.d.umn.edu/~bmunson/Courses/Educ5560/readings/BellSciEd01-85-
536.pdf
Black, P. (2009). A value of feedback information for learning and teaching. 11., 12. March 2009,
Celje. The National Education Institute.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2): pp. 139-149.
Komljanc, N. (2004). Values of feedback in formative assessment knowledge. Dissertation. Faculty of art in Ljubljana.
Komljanc, N. (2009). Formative assessment for learning. Didactic of assessment knowledge. The
National Education Institute Ljubljana.
Komljanc, N. (2010). Exceeded expectation. Didactic of assessment knowledge. The National
Education Institute Ljubljana.
8