Educational Assessment
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/heda20
Developing a Formative Assessment Protocol to
Examine Formative Assessment Practices in the
Philippines
Louie Cagasan , Esther Care , Pamela Robertson & Rebekah Luo
To cite this article: Louie Cagasan , Esther Care , Pamela Robertson & Rebekah Luo (2020):
Developing a Formative Assessment Protocol to Examine Formative Assessment Practices in the
Philippines, Educational Assessment, DOI: 10.1080/10627197.2020.1766960
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2020.1766960
Published online: 24 May 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 82
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=heda20
EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2020.1766960
Developing a Formative Assessment Protocol to Examine
Formative Assessment Practices in the Philippines
Louie Cagasana, Esther Careb, Pamela Robertsonc, and Rebekah Luoc
a
University of the Philippines, Quezon City, Philippines; bThe Brookings Institution, Washington, USA; cUniversity of
Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
ABSTRACT
This paper explores ways of capturing teachers’ formative assessment
behaviors in Philippine classrooms through an observation tool. Early versions of the tool were structured using the ‘Elicit-Student responseRecognize-Use’ ESRU model. To account for the practices observed in the
classroom, the observation tool was resituated to focus on Elicit (E) and Use
(U) components. Both cultural and physical factors that characterize the
Philippine classroom were considered to help ensure that the observation
tool would reflect current practices in classrooms. Data from the tool are
envisioned to inform the Philippines’ Department of Education as they
embark on the development of teacher competencies in formative assessment. The final version of the tool captures the basic practices in a reliable
way. The tool provides a model of increasing competency in formative
assessment implementation that can be used to design teacher training
modules and for professional development.
Introduction
The Philippine government embarked on the implementation of a major education reform in the
school year 2013. In addition to adding a compulsory pre-Grade 1 year, two final years in the
secondary school education system were added, leading to a K – 12, or 13-year education sequence,
similar to many countries worldwide. Aligned with this reform has been a reevaluation of assessment
practices within Philippine classrooms, with an increased focus on teachers’ use of formative
assessment to inform their instructional practices. As part of a program of research to monitor
the implementation of these reforms, there was a need to identify current formative assessment
practices of a large number of teachers through classroom observations. However, no existing
observation tools appropriate to the purpose were found. This paper describes the development of
a tool to capture classroom formative assessment practices for use in the Philippines. The paper
discusses factors that influence the implementation of formative assessment in Philippine classrooms, as well as the practical considerations of in situ coding teacher practices within a classroom
context. Data collected with the tool demonstrate the sequence of increasingly sophisticated formative assessment practices that are demonstrated by teachers in Philippine classrooms.
Formative assessment
Black and Wiliam (2010) defined assessment as “all activities undertaken by teachers … that provide
information to be used as feedback to modify teaching and learning activities” (p. 82). The main
purpose is to improve teaching and learning – two interdependent processes. A practice is considered formative assessment if “evidence about student achievement is elicited, interpreted, and
CONTACT Esther Care
ECare@brookings.edu
© 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
The Brookings Institution, Washington, USA
2
L. CAGASAN ET AL.
used by teachers, learners, or their peers, to make decisions about the next steps in instruction that
are likely to be better, or better founded than the decisions they would have taken in the absence of
the evidence that was elicited” (Black & Wiliam, 2009, p. 9). In this definition, instruction is closely
linked to the intentional collection of evidence and appropriate use of this information to improve
teaching.
Several researchers have described the variety of formative assessment practices in terms of its
formal and informal nature. For example, Yorke (2003) describes formal formative assessment as
something that is undertaken in the context of the curriculum, and constitutes assessment tasks
embedded in the curriculum; that is, students are expected to complete a task, and the teacher is
expected to assess and provide feedback to the student. Informal formative assessment happens in
a spontaneous manner such that as the students take an active role in the learning process, and the
teacher responsively and proactively provides feedback to help them move toward the learning goal.
Ruiz-Primo and Furtak (2007) take the position that formative assessment can be seen on
a continuum from informal to formal approaches, mirroring the same perspective taken on competencies in higher education (Blomeke, Gustafsson, & Shavelson, 2015). They distinguish between
formal and informal formative assessment by looking at the processes involved. They describe the
formal as an Initiation-Response-Evaluation/Feedback (IRE/F) cycle. With the intention of obtaining
evidence of student learning, the teacher initiates activities that have the capacity to demonstrate
what the students can do, say, make, or write. The teacher then takes time to interpret the collected
information and develops an action plan for the next lesson. They propose that the informal focusses
on the conversation level. The process involves an ‘Elicit-Student response-Recognize-Use’ (ESRU)
cycle, where the teacher elicits (E) information, the student (S) responds, then the teacher recognizes
(R) the student’s response and uses (U) the information to inform teaching strategies. Within the
classroom, incomplete cycles (e.g. ES, ESR) are possible; one example would be discussion ending
with the student response, at which point the teacher would proceed to elicit information again.
Where a cycle is completed, it is assumed that formative assessment has been implemented with the
teacher having guided the student toward the learning goal. For the model to be implemented,
teachers must be able to modify the lesson as necessary in real time.
There are several differences between formal and informal formative assessments, as summarized
in Table 1. The formal approach requires teachers to collect all the information before making
a decision, and thence to make changes in the next lesson. The approach follows a planned structure
of events at the class level considering the time available and curriculum coverage. The informal
approach emphasizes the feature of making on-the-spot adjustments to lessons as a result of the
teacher identifying challenges to students proceeding through the learning experience. This approach
is focused on the student–teacher conversation level, and emphasizes the flexible nature of assessment and giving of “just in time” feedback.
Although the notion of formative assessment is broad and can be described in many ways, the
formal-informal conceptualization is a useful structure within which to describe classroom practice.
In turn, this helps to establish what factors influence teachers’ use of the notion. Both collection and
use of information from the students, as well as the links with available time and curriculum
coverage, need to be taken into consideration. This is an important issue to consider in the context
of classrooms that is subject to the pressures of congested curricula, large class sizes, and inadequate
Table 1. Differences between formal and informal formative assessment.
Difference
Formal
Assessment Task Identified prior to the lesson proper
Timing of
Modification
Level and
Structure
Make changes in subsequent lessons
Informal
Spontaneous and arise depending on the
conversations
On-the-spot adjustments of the lesson
Planned structure of events at class level; considers
time and curriculum
Student-teacher conversation level; gives of “just in
time” feedback
EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT
3
physical spaces. There are also cultural considerations when implementing formative assessment
models or practices that are developed in and for the Western culture.
The education context in the Philippines
In the 2008–09 school year in the Philippines, SEAMEO-INNOTECH (2012) reported that 32% of
elementary public schools were multigrade; that is, where different grade levels are combined in the
one class. Classrooms with more heterogeneous populations than those which contain just one age
range pose a particular set of challenges for teachers. In particular, they need to have strategies to
identify very diverse functional levels of their students in order to provide groups within the class
with capacity-appropriate materials and interventions. A more recent survey of 7,952 multigrade
schools was undertaken by DepEd in 2011. The majority of these schools serve students in remote
and disadvantaged areas. Overall, the academic achievement of these schools is lower than nonmultigrade, and the resources and facilities less. Although a considerable proportion of these schools
(37%) had teacher-student ratios of 1:30, around 17% were at 1:40, and 17% at 1:50 – all with
combined classes. Around 60% of teachers surveyed had less than five years’ experience. The
timetabling is such that all students receive instruction in the same subject at the same time. For
example, students across three grade levels would receive instruction in Mathematics simultaneously.
This situation, across such a large proportion of schools, highlights both the need and challenges
inherent in the need, for teachers to use formative assessment as an individualized pedagogical
strategy. Notwithstanding that 82% of surveyed teachers indicated that they used formative assessment, compared with 65% indicating that they used summative assessment; the types of assessment
reported suggest confusion over the meaning of the question: 94% of teachers identified paper and
pencil tests as the most frequent form of assessment, as opposed to activity-based tests (70%) and
inquiry approaches (28%). The use of such strategies is somewhat inconsistent with understandings
of what a comprehensive use of formative assessment strategies implies. It may have been that
teacher understandings of the nature of formative assessment were not well informed (Griffin, Care,
Cagasan, Vista, & Nava, 2016), accounting for these anomalous findings. Regardless, the large
number of students in multi-grade schools in the Philippines requires that methods for implementation of assessment policy are made explicit for these schools.
Bailey and Heritage (2008) point out that teachers need access to several competencies in order to
implement the formative assessment. These include content knowledge, understanding of metacognition, pedagogical knowledge, understanding of student prior knowledge, and literacy in the
assessment. The challenge implied by these requisite competencies for a large proportion of relatively
inexperienced teachers in multigrade classrooms, as well as in single-grade classrooms, is complex.
Griffin et al. (2016) recorded practices observed in mainstream single-grade Philippine classrooms
and found few indications of formative assessment practices. Teachers followed fairly invariant
classroom teaching sequences dictated by lesson plans and demonstrated little flexibility in adapting
lessons according to student progress. Information about student learning was not widely used to
inform instruction; instead, teachers responded to perceived pressure to cover the curriculum. These
observations were recorded in single-grade classrooms where the range of student learning experiences is more homogeneous than in multigrade classrooms. Where there is greater heterogeneity in
classrooms, it can be presumed that more flexibility and individualized instruction practices are
required, so to the degree that multigrade teachers are not provided with training specific to this
context and may be implementing the same practices as in single-grade classes; these results are
concerning.
This state of play needs to be placed in the context of typical challenges to implementation of
formative assessment noted by Krumsvik and Ludvigsen (2013) which include high numbers of
students in classes, time pressures brought about by dense curricula, lack of interactivity due to
teacher classroom management, and resourcing. Winstone and Millward (2012) address the issue of
the viability of formative assessment in large classes, although in the higher education sector. They
4
L. CAGASAN ET AL.
provided examples of activities they used in large classes such as the use of a short quiz and
additional learning tasks. The examples amounted to recall of learning, as well as active learning
strategies rather than the provision of formative feedback, highlighting the point that it is difficult to
implement such practices in large classes even when explicitly attempting to do so.
Large classes that accommodate up to 60 students are common in the Philippines and China
(Watkins, 2008; DepEd Order #40, s. 2008). Watkins (2008) points out the paucity of research with
large class sizes. Clarke et al. (2006) identify large class size as a constraint to teaching and learning,
and identify existing classroom practices in the Philippines as a response to this constraint. They
hypothesize however that the limited repertoire of teachers’ alternative strategies is the real hindrance to student competence.
Formative assessment and culture
In classroom dialogs, there are three stakeholders involved. These are the learner, the co-learner or
peer, and the teacher. These individuals interact with each other and play different roles in
“identifying where the learners are in their learning,” “where they are going,” and “how to get
there” (Wiliam & Thompson, 2008). Table 2 displays these aspects of formative assessment.
Although this model of formative assessment looks modest, in the context of the culture in which
a classroom operates, implementation of strategies may not be straightforward. Hofstede (1986)
proposed four cultural factors that influence teaching and learning. These include:
Individualism-collectivism
This concept pertains to the degree of cohesiveness and identity of individuals in a society. On the
individualist pole, the focus is more on personal interest and individuals are loosely tied with the
people around them. On the collectivist pole, the focus is on the group.
Power distance
This concept refers to perceptions around equality-inequality and power. With large power distance, less
powerful people are considered less equal, and there are presumptions of different behaviors being
appropriate for those at different levels of power. With small power distance, there is a greater
presumption of equality, with consequences for what behaviors are acceptable within a group or society.
Uncertainty avoidance
This concept centers on ways of handling ambiguous situations. Individuals with high uncertainty
avoidance will prefer structured and predictable conditions that are commonly manifested by strict
adherence to rules and guidelines. Those low in this cultural value will be more accepting of
ambiguity and more comfortable with less structure.
Masculinity
This concept pertains to a characterization of culture as subject to two competing social roles, which
are commonly associated with the two biological sexes. Culture characterized as masculine is
Table 2. Aspects of formative assessment, derived from Wiliam and Thompson (2008).
Where the learner is going
Teacher Clarifies and shares learning
intentions and criteria for success
Peer
Understands learning intentions and
criteria for success
Learner Understands learning intentions and
criteria for success
Where the learner is right now
How to get there
Engineers effective discussions, tasks and
Provides feedback that
activities that elicit evidence of learning
moves learners forward
Activates students as learning
resources for one another
Activates students as ownersof their own learning
EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT
5
described as competitive and assertive, while feminine is viewed as more caring and valuing of
interpersonal relations.
Teacher/student and student/student interactions may vary depending on the level of these
cultural dimensions. Table 3 plots possible differences in terms of consequence for classroom
interactions against cultural dimensions. The table contents are re-structured and adapted from
Hofstede (1986) and Wiliam and Thompson (2008) to demonstrate the possible interactions
dependent on cultural context.
It is evident that culture may well interact with formative assessment practices. In the world of
summative assessment with its examinations and classroom tests, the cultural impact may not be
evident – notwithstanding claims in some countries that they are self-consciously examinationoriented (Berry, 2011). In the world of formative assessment, differences across countries, as well as
across classrooms, become more evident.
Al-Wassia, Hamed, Al-Wassia, Alafari, and Jamjoom (2015) point out that formative assessment
drives student learning and teacher instruction, but that there is little published about its use in
developing countries. In their study of attitudes toward formative assessment among teachers and
students in a medical faculty, they identified four categories of challenges to formative assessment
implementation – political and strategic, economic and resources, social and religious, and technical/
development. They found that 33% of faculty and 43% of students believed that there were social and
religious challenges to the practice. The questionnaire items contributing most to this finding
addressed power differences that meant students would not be able to debate issues with faculty.
There were also concerns that the interaction between opposite-sex students and faculty was counter
to religious rules. Apart from these concerns, issues of teacher pedagogical expertise were raised.
Berry (2011) discussed the difficulties faced when attempting to implement formative assessment
in an examination culture, making the claim that the Chinese history dating back to the 11th century
Table 3. Differences in classroom interaction.
Actors in
Formative
Assessment
Teacher
Peer
Learner
Individualist/Small Power Distance/Low Uncertainty
Avoidance Societies
Collectivist/Large Power Distance/High Uncertainty
Avoidance Societies
T1. Teacher should respect the independence of his/
her students. B
T2. Students are allowed to contradict or criticize
teacher. B
T3. Teacher expects students to initiate
communication B
T4. Teachers are allowed to say “I don’t know”. C
T5. Teachers interpret intellectual disagreement as
a stimulating exercise.C
P1. Stress on impersonal “truth” which can in
principle be obtained from any competent person. B
L1. Students may speak up spontaneously in the
class. B
L2. Individuals will speak up in large groups. A
L3. Teacher expects students to find their own paths.
T1. Teacher merits the respect of his/her students. B
T2. Teacher is never contradicted nor publicly
criticized. B
T3. Students expect teacher to initiate
communication. B
T4. Teachers are expected to have all the answers. C
T5. Teachers interpret intellectual disagreement as
personal disloyalty. C
B
B
L4. Students expect to learn how to learn. A
L5. Students feel comfortable in unstructured learning
situations: vague objectives, broad assignments, not
timetables. C
Environment/
A1. Confrontation in learning situations can be
Assumptions/ salutary; conflicts can be brought into the open. A
A2. Face-consciousness is weak.
Values
A3. Effectiveness of learning related to amount of
two-way communication in class. B
P1. Stress on personal “wisdom” which is transferred
in the relationship with a particular teacher (guru). B
L1. Students speak up in class only when invited by
the teacher. B
L2. Individuals will only speak up in small groups. A
L3. Students expect teacher to outline paths to follow.
L4. Students expect to learn how to do. A
L5. Students feel comfortable in structured learning
situations: precise objectives, detailed assignments,
strict timetables. C
A1. Formal harmony in learning situations should be
maintained at all times. A
A2. Neither the teacher nor any student should ever
be made to lose face. A
A3. Effectiveness of learning related to excellence of
the teacher. B
Adapted from Hofstede’s (1986) cultural dimensions A = Collectivism-Individualism, B = Power Distance, and C = Uncertainty
Avoidance
6
L. CAGASAN ET AL.
established a perception that summative assessments are the natural means of establishing future
pathways, and that the influence of the British in Hong Kong was aligned with this perception.
Attempts in the last decade of the 20th century to implement assessment for learning met with
resistance from parents due to this historical and cultural context. The government renewed these
efforts from 2001 onward but continued to find schools, parents, and students skeptical about
school-based assessment and assessment for learning approaches. Brown, Kennedy, Fok, Chan,
and Yu (2009) analyzed Hong Kong teacher data to show that the teachers saw the use of assessment
for learning primarily as accountability measures, maintaining strong support for an examinations
culture. Brown et al. suggest that these findings mirror the Confucian values long established in
Chinese societies, with teachers responding to parents’ requirements that students are continually
challenged. Evidence for such challenge includes the regular summative assessment. The degree to
which the resistance to formative assessment in Hong Kong is associated with culture is highlighted
by Carless (2005) who notes that assessment has historically been seen as measurement, rather than
as an aid to learning. Assessment, learning, and teaching have been seen as quite independent aspects
of education.
Of interest in exploring the degree to which assessment practices might be associated with
historical practices rather than primarily cultural values, Ratnam-Lim and Tan (2015) describe the
“meritocracy” principle underpinning the Singaporean system. They propose that an examinationsbased assessment approach has had primacy due to the perception that this ensures fairness in
progression. This view represents a socio-cultural, rather than cultural, perspective on difficulties
experienced in introducing formative assessment into the education system, notwithstanding the
support for this from the government authorities.
Ghazarian and Youhne (2015) also focus on the implications of the Confucian tradition for
assessment in the Korean classroom. They implicitly adopt the perspective that formative assessment
practices go counter to traditions of respect and obedience, and draw attention to the concept of
power distance. In cultures where small differences in power are assumed between teachers and
students, there is an implicit assumption that formative assessment will be more acceptable. In much
of the literature, there appears to be an equating of discussion between teacher and student within
the teaching and learning process with lack of respect. Whether this assumption is reasonable does
not appear to have been contested.
Reflecting characterizations of teacher–student interaction styles across cultures, Liem, Nair,
Bernardo, and Prasetya (2008) note clear differences in classroom interaction between the
Indonesian and Australian higher education contexts. They refer to the early work of Hofstede
(1986) and the collectivist–individualist dichotomy as well as power distance. Liem et al. hypothesized that Australian, Filipino, Singaporean, and Indonesian students would endorse these two
dimensions differently, and of relevance to this study, that Filipinos – together with Singaporeans
and Indonesians – would prove more deferential to teachers and be more collaborative with peers
than Australians. Liem et al. were interested in the actual values that might account for the
hypothesized dimension differences and studied how the former might impact on classroom social
interactions of Year 10 students in schools in Sydney, Singapore, Manila, and Jakarta. Although most
differences across the groups were consistent with the collectivist–individualist dichotomy, there
were some exceptions for classroom social interactions. For example, Filipino and Singaporean
students showed a higher tendency to conform to their classmates than Australians.
These different perspectives on barriers to implementation of formative assessment in several
Asian cultures present a complex picture of the factors that might impact on how the assessment
practices can be implemented in classrooms. Cultural issues may be more pivotal for the implementation of informal rather than formal formative assessment strategies. For example, a common
medium for informal formative assessment is through discussions inside the classroom. This may
function effectively in individualistic societies with weak power distance due to the perception that
students and teachers are equal participants in the process, notwithstanding that they have different
roles. Depending on individual school and teacher, of course, there tends to be a culture in which
EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT
7
students can discuss and ask a wide range of questions of their teachers, and where initiative is
encouraged. However, in collectivist societies with large power distance, students may hesitate to
converse with the teacher due to conventions associated with formal respect, and based on the
inequality of power. This may restrict discussion and favor teacher-directed dialogs. Citing the work
of Carless (2011), Black (2015) proposed that it is difficult to establish oral dialogs when students are
expected to be passive and obedient.
Rationale for this study
As discussed above, Griffin et al. (2016) were able to identify very few formative assessment practices
in mainstream single grade classrooms in the Philippines. However, that study relied on lesson
narratives from 61 classrooms, which were qualitative descriptions of the flow of the class, to analyze
and identify the extent and nature of formative assessment practices in the classroom. That method
of investigation is unrealistic if the goal is to assess or “measure” formative assessment practice at
a larger scale. A more efficient method is needed. The aim of this study was to develop an
observation instrument that:
●
●
●
●
can be used at a large scale without the need for video recording;
can provide a reliable measure of formative assessment practice;
requires minimum training of observers;
takes into account cultural considerations relevant to the Philippine classrooms.
Method
Tool development
Phase 1
An observation tool was developed to enable in situ coding of informal formative assessment
practice within classrooms. The initial intent was to develop a tool based on the ESRU cycles of RuizPrimo and Furtak (2007) who used assessment conversations as an approach to explore teachers’
questioning practices in the context of scientific inquiry teaching in the United States. They
described assessment conversations as consisting of four-step cycles, where the teacher elicits (E)
a question, the student responds (S), the teacher recognizes (R) the student response, and then uses
(U) the information collected to improve student learning. The aim of the tool was to capture the
frequencies of both complete and incomplete cycles of these four components and, where possible,
the nature of the ESRU components such as the types of eliciting (E) techniques or student responses
(S). Given that the Philippines is perceived as having large power distance (Hofstede, 1986),
examples of these teacher-orchestrated ‘elicit’ (E) and ‘student response’ (S) are that: a teacher
would ask the student to read visuals posted on the board; then students would read it as instructed;
or, a teacher would tell a student to stand up, read an item from a set of questions posted on the
board, and ask the student to provide the correct answer. Questioning followed by class response is
another common pattern and was therefore included in the coding system. Clarke, Xu, and Wan
(2013) would call this student action a choral response, which is also common in Shanghai and
Seoul.
The tool consisted of a template and a series of codes to be used during a lesson to record the
nature of verbal interactions between the teacher and students. Preliminary checking of the tool was
undertaken using a video of class sessions. This was also informed by back-checking against the
observation data collected in Griffin et al. (2016). Video footage was used for observer training.
The template and codes were then piloted in a range of classrooms in public schools in metropolitan
Manila. Eight lessons were observed in both Mathematics and English classes in Grades 2, 5, and 8. All
lessons were recorded simultaneously by two observers to allow for the identification of codes or
8
L. CAGASAN ET AL.
behaviors that defied reliable coding. For example, where a particular coding was systematically not
mirrored across two observers, this would indicate a problem with distinguishing the particular
behavior or with interpreting it within the coding system. The research team identified several issues
with this initial version of the observation tool. First, it was too challenging for observers to make certain
coding decisions on the spot. This led to a low observer agreement. Second, the parameters and
definitions of the ESRU components were insufficient to enable reliable recording and coding. The
overlapping ESRU components and coding categories, in particular, warranted a major overhaul to the
tool. Third, the data collected using the ESRU tool required a substantial amount of post-observation
decoding and analysis. This would not be suitable for use at large scale.
Phase 2
Tool development was re-situated, acknowledging the learnings from the Phase 1 observations and the
need for an instrument that can be used at large scale. As specified in DepEd Order Number 8 (2015),
formative assessment is described as a process that involves “teachers using evidence about what learners
know and can do to inform and improve their teaching” (p. 2). Formative assessment can occur at any
time during the teaching and learning process, and involves providing students with feedback. The two
main ideas about formative assessment that are consistently mentioned in the literature and in DepEd
Order Number 8 are that information about student learning is elicited and is used by teachers, peers, or
learners themselves. Consequently, the focus of the observation tool development was narrowed to how
teachers elicit behavior and use the elicited information to inform and improve student learning.
The observation tool, the Classroom Observation of Formative Assessment (COFA) was developed to focus on Elicit (E) and Use (U) components. The two main capabilities are ‘elicit evidence of
student learning to determine what students know and can do’ and ‘use evidence of student learning
to move toward the learning goal.’ Figure 1 shows the COFA.
COFA consists of seven statements of indicative behaviors, each focusing on an aspect that is
representative of either eliciting or using informal formative assessment. Associated with each
indicative behavior is a set of practices. Using COFA, observers can indicate whether the indicative
behaviors are present during the class. When a particular type of formative assessment behavior is
Figure 1. Classroom observation of formative assessment (COFA).
EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT
9
observed during a lesson, observers are required to indicate the presence of this practice using a ‘✔’
symbol in the third column. Observers were not required to make counts of each behavior, only to
indicate whether it was observed during the lesson. In the last column of the tool, observers can note
down evidence for their ratings or examples of practices. Note that these notes were not included in
any subsequent analysis.
Capability 1: elicit evidence of student learning
This capability is comprised of three indicative behaviors (Figure 1).
(1) Teacher elicits response/s from individuals to determine what student/s know and can do
(focus on depth of evidence gathered)
(2) Teacher elicits response/s from the class to determine what student/s know and can do
(focus on the generality of evidence gathered)
(3) Teacher uses techniques to elicit student responses (focus on flexibility of techniques)
The first two Indicative Behaviors are derived from the Griffin et al. (2016) and Phase 1 classroom
observations. For both behaviors, a distinction is made between two types of student data: the
individual and the class. Indicative Behavior 1.1 is divided into three practices that are distinguished
according to the purpose of the data collection – matching student answer against the correct
response, identifying the method or process used, and understanding the student mental model.
Indicative Behavior 1.2 can be classified as a context-based factor as this may be particular to
Philippine setting. Its practices involve collecting data from the class; however, inferences about
student learning cannot be linked back to the individual students. It is a more general gauge of the
class as a whole. An example of this would be the entire class responding in unison to the question of
the teacher. The second practice includes strategies that elicit student data from the entire class but
with information being able to be linked back to individual students. One common note in the
observations is the use of “drill boards” (small whiteboard or illustration board) on which the
students write their answers to teacher’s question. Students raise their boards so that the teacher can
scan across the responses from all students. Indicative Behavior 1.3 under the Elicit component
centers on the variation on the method and flexibility. The first practice involves teachers having
planned the eliciting method (or assessment tasks) and maintaining this plan. The second practice
entails teachers making adjustments and using different eliciting techniques depending on the
situation. These were identified through a comparison of the teacher’s lesson plan and what was
actually implemented in the lesson.
Capability 2: use evidence of student learning
This capability is comprised of four indicative behaviors (Figure 1).
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Teacher gives feedback based on student response
Teacher uses the information to inform instructional decisions
Peer gives feedback
Students self-assess (at group or individual level)
Indicative Behavior 2.1 has four practices associated with it that range from acknowledging that the
response is correct/incorrect through to giving feedback focused on supporting students to evaluate
their own process (see Figure 1, practices 2.1.1 to 2.1.4). This Indicative Behavior combines aspects
of the Recognize and Use components of the ESRU model and the practices that describe quality in
feedback are consistent with those discussed by Hattie and Timperley (2007).
Indicative Behavior 2.2 captures how the needs of the students are addressed. The first practice
(2.2.1) indicates that the teacher is able to acknowledge the gap between the lesson and student level,
but the teacher is not able to address it fully. The second practice (2.2.2) shows that the subsequent
10
L. CAGASAN ET AL.
teaching actions are matched with the level at which students are operating. During a lesson,
observers made ratings based on teachers’ use of information from students in retaining or modifying the lesson plan to match students’ level. Lesson plans were supplied to the researchers so that any
deviations from the plan could be identified. It is important to note observers’ ratings reflect what
occurred within a lesson and not across lessons.
The last two Indicative Behaviors (“peer gives feedback” and “students self-assess”) are supported
by the DepEd policy documentation and formative assessment literature.
Field trial
A field trial was conducted to evaluate the properties of COFA. In particular, the aim of the trial was
to check the reliability of the tool and its ability to capture the range of formative assessment
practices present in Philippine classrooms.
Participants
Participants for the field trial involved two groups, the observers and teachers. The observers were
five individuals, all of whom had a background in education and/or research. Observers were
provided with a three-hour training session which consisted of a brief explanation of the study
and the tool, a session of trying out the instrument using a video, and a post discussion of the entire
experience that involves quality and assurance checking to standardize coding procedures. The
observed teachers (N = 28) taught at Grades 2, 5 and 8, in DepEd schools in National Capital
Region and Northern Mindanao. Lesson observations were then undertaken of English and
Mathematics lessons, as shown in Table 4. Each lesson was coded by two observers. One (constant)
observer was present during all lessons (N = 28) and an additional observer for each lesson was one
from the pool of four trained observers. The constant observer was involved in the development of
the tool and thus was most familiar with the tool and observation process. He was present at all
classroom observations and was paired with another observer to help explore inter-rater reliability.
Analysis
Twenty-eight classes were each rated by two observers. The rationale for having two observers was to
undertake a comparison of the ratings and establish the inter-rater reliability. The percent of times
the two observers agreed on the identification of a practice as present or absent was calculated.
Guttman analysis (Griffin, Robertson, & Hutchinson, 2014; Guttman,1950) was used to determine
the suitability of COFA to measure the formative assessment construct. The benefit of a Guttman
analysis is that it can identify (i) the ability of an item to discriminate between participants with
different levels of abilities; and (ii) the ordering of items based on their difficulty. The information
indicates how well the items go together and may provide evidence on how the items represent the
degree of sophistication or behavioral manifestation of the construct. Guttman analysis can be applied
to datasets that are too small for item response theory to be applied. The hypothesis was that some
practices would represent more sophisticated or expert practices than others. A Guttman chart is
produced based on the presence–absence data from each observer. First, a table of ratings is created
where the rows represent each observed lesson, and the columns are each practice. A total across the
columns for each row provides a score which indicates the number of observed practices. A column
total provides a score that represents the number of times a particular practice was observed. The table
Table 4. Lesson observations for field trial.
Lesson Observations
Math
English
Total
Grade 2
6
5
11
Grade 5
5
6
11
Grade 8
3
3
6
Total
14
14
28
EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT
11
can be sorted both by rows and by columns so that the rows are ordered, with the lessons involving the
most proficient formative assessment practices appearing at the top of the chart and the lessons
involving the least proficient formative assessment practices appearing at the bottom of the chart.
Similarly, the columns are ordered so that the practices that are observed in the most lessons, which are
interpreted as easiest to achieve, appear at the left of the chart and those that are observed in fewest
lessons, which are interpreted as most difficult to achieve, appear at the right. The order of the columns
and the totals for each indicate whether the relative difficulties of practices observed were suitable to
capture the range of practices present within the sample of lessons observed. It allows the suitability of
the tool to assess the range of proficiencies within the sample to be established. The pattern of ones and
zeros within the chart provides a visual representation which indicates qualitatively the degree to
which the items go together and how the items represent the construct.
Results
Inter-rater consistency
In terms of observer agreement with the constant or master observer, there was agreement on the
presence-absence of each one 90% of occasions. Across four observer pairs, the spread of agreement
was from 78% to 96% as shown in Table 5.
Guttman chart
A Guttman chart was produced based on presence-absence data as shown in Figure 2. This was
created by collapsing the data from the two observers. In the Guttman chart, a formative assessment
practice is marked as present or “1” if both observers noted it; the same consistency criterion applies
for practices not observed or “0”. When observers do not agree, a practice is coded as “0”. The top
two rows of Figure 2 show the cases with the most proficient formative assessment practice. The first
Mathematics teacher (case C01) scored a total of 12 out of 15. Presence of ‘1ʹ in all the columns
except 1.2.2, 2.3.1, and 2.4.1 means that this teacher displayed all of the other 12 practices, but was
not observed identifying individual student responses from whole-class responses, nor was any selfassessment or peer assessment observed for this lesson.
At the bottom of the Guttman chart, four English teachers (case C25 to C28) scored 5 out of 15 as
can be seen by the number of 1’s in those rows. The observations of these teachers resulted in the
fewest formative assessment practices observed.
The Guttman chart also identifies the easiest practices in the instrument as these are present in all
observed lessons (i.e., a 1 on 1.1.1 and 2.1.1), whereas the most difficult practices were not observed
in any of the lessons (i.e., 2.3.1 and 2.4.1). This order gives insights on the possible levels of
sophistication. The spread of coded behaviors between these extremes also provides preliminary
evidence that the instrument was suitable for capturing the range of formative assessment teacher
actions observed in all 28 lessons.
The frequency of demonstration of practices is indicative of the ease or difficulty of the practices
relative to the other practices within the instrument. Only one practice does not fit well with the
Table 5. Inter-rater consistency.
Coders
A and B
A and C
A and D
A and E
TOTAL
N observations
18
6
2
2
28
Presence–absence data are based on 13 individual judgments.
Proportion of Agreement
0.92
0.78
0.96
0.92
0.90
12
L. CAGASAN ET AL.
Figure 2. Guttman chart based on presence-absence data.
pattern. Indicative Behavior 1.2.2 “Teacher can identify individual responses from all class members”
has an irregular pattern across the Guttman chart, signifying that teachers who generally scored
higher on the tool as a whole did not exhibit this behavior more frequently than teachers who had
a lower overall score. For example, a teacher who had an overall score of 11 did not exhibit behavior
1.2.2, but several teachers who scored 6 overall did. This can indicate that the behavior is not part of
the same construct as the other behaviors that the description is poorly worded, or that there were
difficulties in collecting accurate data.
The final point of interest from the Guttman chart is the spread of difficulties from each of the
capabilities being assessed, eliciting, and using evidence, with practices from each of the capabilities
being mixed across the chart. This shows that the use of more sophisticated methods of eliciting and
using evidence develop together. In contrast, unobserved Indicative Behaviors (2.3 and 2.4) were
within the capability related to the use of evidence, indicating that these are the skills least likely to
be developed by teachers. Note that these two practices are related to self and peer assessments which
are influenced by culture and context, and may sometimes lie beyond teacher control.
EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT
13
The sample for these data contained both English and Mathematics lessons. The ordering of the
rows in the chart shows the relative sophistication of formative assessment behaviors that were
observed. Those rows closer to the top of the chart are for lessons in which more sophisticated
formative assessment practices were present and vice versa. It can be seen from the distribution of
subjects from top to the bottom of the chart, that the lower and middle sections of the chart contain
a mixture of both Mathematics and English lessons. However, the top of the chart contains mainly
Mathematics lessons. This may indicate that Mathematics lessons provide greater opportunity for
demonstration of sophisticated practices than lessons in other subjects; that the instrument is not as
good at capturing sophisticated practices within English lessons; or that of the sample of teachers
observed, the Mathematics teachers happened to be more sophisticated in their use of strategies.
Further investigation is required to determine the cause of this finding.
Levels of formative assessment practice
Based on consistent patterns in the Guttman chart, these practices can be summarized into four
levels of formative assessment. The increasing sophistication of strategies is displayed in Table 6. The
levels of practice were determined by analyzing how the items go together quantitatively and
qualitatively. Divisions between the levels are generally determined by the changes in the patterns
within the chart in Figure 2 and a significant jump in total score from one practice to another (see
bottom row of Figure 2). For example, the sharp change in the number of lessons in which the
higher level practices were observed determined the placement of the cutpoint between those levels.
Most of the classes observed were operating in Levels 1 and 2. There were isolated cases observed
where teachers demonstrate awareness of students not progressing in alignment with the prescribed
curriculum and consequently adapt their actual teaching (Level 3). No teacher was observed
implementing practices at Level 4.
Although the tool is based on the “elicit” and “use” components, sophisticated forms of eliciting
would involve using student evidence, and having an understanding of the mental model of the
student. The asking of good questions needs to target the student perspective. The four levels capture
Table 6. Levels of formative assessment practices and sequence of strategies.
Characterization of set of strategies
Strategies from most to least frequently observed
Level 1: Teaches at class level and attends only to prescribed
lesson delivery; provides direction at times for the students
to complete tasks
Teacher elicits responses to match a pre-conceived “correct”
response.
Data collected can only be interpreted at class level (e.g.
chants, self-report quiz totals)
Teacher has main mode/s of eliciting responses
Teacher indicates if response is correct/incorrect
Teacher gives information specific to the task or product
Level 2: Acknowledges discrepancies between intended lesson Teacher attempts to bridge or partially bridges the gap
and student responses; provides additional information to
between the lesson and the student level
students
Teacher elicits responses to identify the method or process
used by the student/s
Level 3: Acknowledges and responds to student progress;
Teacher is flexible and adapts modes to the situation
adjusts teaching strategies and provides feedback about
Teacher matches lesson with elicited evidence of student level
process and conceptual understanding to address identified Teacher gives feedback about the main process used to
discrepancy between the intended lesson and student
understand/perform the task
responses
Teacher elicits responses to identify the mental model/
conceptual understanding of the student/s
Level 4: Teaches students how to become evaluators of their Teacher gives feedback focused at supporting the student to
own learning processes and to support the evaluation
evaluate their own process
processes of peers
Teacher provides opportunities for students to give each other
feedback (beyond just correcting responses or giving marks)
Teacher provides opportunities for students to assess
themselves (beyond just correcting responses or giving marks)
The item, “Teacher can identify individual responses from all class members” is omitted from this analysis due to its poor fit.
14
L. CAGASAN ET AL.
Table 7. Possible teacher response based on the FA levels.
FA
Scenario 1: Student gives an incorrect
Levels
response
Level
1
Teacher says to the student incorrect;
gives details related to the problem;
and calls another student to answer.
Level
2
Teacher calls another student then
reminds the class about the concept
behind the task; at times the teacher
would try to identify the process used
by the student.
Teacher probes further to understand
the level at which the student is
operating and tries to address the
misconceptions.
Level
3
Scenario 2: No student answers the
question
Scenario 3: Student gives an
incomplete response
Teacher answers the question; gives
Teacher calls another student to
more information about it; and moves complete the response; gives clues
to the next task.
on how to answer it; then moves to
the next task.
Teacher answers the question and
Teacher calls another student and
reminds the students how to get to
explains the things the student
the right answer
missed in the process.
Teacher changes the question and tries
to understand the reason why
students can’t answer it. After that the
teacher addresses the identified gap.
Teacher keeps the conversation going
and tries to identify why the student
couldn’t give the complete answer.
The teacher then addresses any
misconception.
and describe the increasing sophistication of formative assessment practice. The notable source of
variation across the four levels of formative assessment practice is the degree to which student data
are used to inform instruction. To give a snapshot of the specific use of student data across the levels
in the event of incorrect, incomplete, or null student response, three scenarios are displayed in
Table 7. These scenarios provide an illustration of the specific actions of teachers operating across
the first three levels of formative assessment practices. No teachers were observed at Level 4
competence which therefore remains hypothesized.
Discussion
The purpose of the observation tool is to obtain information about patterns of practice which can be
used to inform teacher and system in the context of improving pedagogical practices. The initial
versions of the instrument were strictly based on the Elicit-Student Response-Recognize-Use (ESRU)
model and had conversation patterns as the unit of analysis. However, the Phase 1 pilot of the tool
identified some challenges and the need to better take into account the realities of classroom
practice. COFA captures the general picture of the eliciting techniques and the use of studentgenerated data. It provides information about the range of practices that teachers are employing.
Although it lacks detail of the specific Eliciting-Using techniques, the particular functioning level
signals where teachers need support.
This research identified four levels of increasing competence in formative assessment practices.
This provides a framework for teachers to evaluate their current practice and determine where they
should be heading. The progression gives them a means to calibrate their pedagogy and philosophy
as each level reflects a more sophisticated understanding of how teaching and learning should
happen. The observed teachers for this study are mostly assessed to be in Levels 1 and 2. This can
be explained in part by the cultural context as characterized by its particular power distance, and
focus on the group rather than the individual. Beyond this perspective, it is reasonable to assume
that the pressure of curriculum delivery and large class sizes make it difficult to respond to
individual student need.
Policy implementation: formal and informal formative assessment
Filipino teachers are more familiar with conceptualizations of formative assessment as a formal
process. For example, if they note a need for change in instruction, this is more likely to be
implemented in the next class. The stimulus for moving onto the next topic is the completion of
a short quiz at the end of each class. Although DepEd has issued an order at the policy level that
EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT
15
formative assessment must be implemented in the classrooms, implementation of that policy is
challenging. It is important that there are rich descriptions of what these expected formative
assessment practices look like and professional development/other support for teachers in order to
make changes to classroom practices. In particular, all forms of assessment are typically seen as
formal, so to shift teachers’ perception of formative assessment to its identity as an instructional
strategy is challenging.
The observation tool together with its levels of formative assessment practice offers a structure
that could be used to guide teachers to elicit information from the students and use this information
to help the students move toward the learning goal. Training documentation or video exemplars
could be developed to provide guidelines on how to implement informal formative assessment
strategies, with examples of different techniques for eliciting and use of student responses. Such
guidelines need to be developed in the context of diverse learners (particularly for multigrade) and
large class sizes.
There are noteworthy Elicit patterns observed in the observations data. Although it is anecdotally
observed that students rarely ask questions of their teachers, COFA’s design does not allow for
systematic collection of Student response data. However, as seen in the Guttman chart, the capacity
of teachers to identify individual student responses is anomalous. This may be an artifact either of
the capabilities of the teachers observed or of the reluctance of students to initiate responses that
could be acted on by the teachers. Hence, the issue may be a function both of teacher capability and
student “opportunity.” Power distance is a possible explanation for the latter with students occupying a lower status role than the teacher in the Philippine classroom. The consequence of this is that
the student does not see it as appropriate to question the teacher, which limits the opportunities for
the teacher to provide the students with more insight into what is being learnt.
There are two issues that arise from the findings. One of these is cultural and the other physical.
First, educators need to identify methods to engage students in the classroom which are not in
conflict with the culture; this means that structures within which both teachers and students feel safe
need to be instituted so that students can ask questions and express opinions. Current classroom
structures are clearly defined but do not permit much individualization. The solution lies in teachers’
hands through their encouragement of student initiative. It is important for teachers to engineer
environments that facilitate open communication and activate students to be responsible agents of
their learning. Without this step, teachers are less likely to be able to collect the information they
need to address student needs. Second, the size of classes needs to be factored into how facilitating
structures can be implemented. The use of group work may be an obvious solution, taking into
consideration Liem et al.’s (2008) findings on the positive orientation toward collaboration among
Filipino students. However, the facilitation of group work also needs to take into account physical
space in the classroom – often at a premium in the Philippines.
The tool used for data capture to describe formative assessment was developed to reflect teacher
behaviors. In addition, the results reflect teacher baseline behaviors, prior to large-scale professional
development activities intended to equip teachers to adopt stronger formative assessment
approaches. The degree to which the tool has the capacity to capture more sophisticated behaviors
than is the pattern from this small set of observations remains to be established.
It is possible that the opportunity for formative assessment practices may vary according to the
subjects, and even the topics, which are the focus of lessons. The slight differences between practices
observed across the Mathematics and English classes found in this study need to be explored in
depth with multiple observations per teacher. Although large-scale use of the tool might clarify if
there are stable differences across disciplines, more at issue would be the factors that account for
such differences. Such factors could include the manner in which curricula for different disciplines
are written, and the style of textbooks that support the curricula. In other words, the way a subject is
conceptualized, and the way support materials are designed, will set parameters around the teaching
and learning environment. These parameters may circumscribe the autonomy of the teacher to
adjust the teaching style.
16
L. CAGASAN ET AL.
Conclusion
The combination of the recent adoption of formative assessment approaches to pedagogy, cultural
factors in the Philippines which influence teacher–student interactions, and large class sizes, present
challenges to effective implementation of formative assessment strategies. Notwithstanding, there are
clear patterns in implementation demonstrated by the use of a tool adapted to the Philippine
classroom. These patterns provide a framework in which particular strategies can be seen to be
sequenced from more common, and presumably easier to implement; to those which are seen less
frequently, and imply more difficulty in implementation. The findings are clear in identifying
a developmental sequence in these practices, and therefore provide a useful framework for the
development of teacher training modules. The Classroom Observation of Formative Assessment tool
provides a facility for the collection of formative assessment practices in a way that describes
increasing levels of formative assessment capacity. These levels, in turn, provide a resource that
can be used for the professional development of teachers in this set of instructional strategies.
References
Al-Wassia, R., Hamed, O., Al-Wassia, H., Alafari, R., & Jamjoom, R. (2015). Cultural challenges to implementation of
formative assessment in Saudi Arabia: An exploratory study. Medical Teacher, 37(1), S9–S19. doi:10.3109/
0142159X.2015.1006601
Bailey, A. L., & Heritage, M. (2008). Formative assessment for literacy, Grades K-6: Building reading and academic
language skills across the curriculum. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage/Corwin Press.
Berry, R. (2011). Assessment trends in Hong Kong: Seeking to establish formative assessment in an examination
culture. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 18(2), 199–211.
Black, P. (2015). Formative assessment – An optimistic but incomplete vision. Assessment in Education: Principles,
Policy & Practice, 22, 161–177.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation,
and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31. doi:10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2010). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta
Kappan, 92(1), 81–90. doi:10.1177/003172171009200119
Blömeke, S., Gustafsson, J., & Shavelson, R. J. (2015). Beyond dichotomies: Competence viewed as a continuum.
Zeitschrift Für Psychologie, 223(1), 3–13. doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000194
Brown, G. T. L., Kennedy, K. J., Fok, P. K., Chan, J. K. S., & Yu, W. M. (2009). Assessment for student improvement:
Understanding Hong Kong teachers’ conceptions and practices of assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles,
Policy and Practice, 16(3), 347–363.
Carless, D. (2005). Prospects for the implementation of assessment for learning. Assessment in Education: Principles,
Policy and Practice, 12(1), 39–54.
Carless, D. (2011). From testing to productive student learning: Implementing formative assessment in Confucianheritage settings. Abingdon, Oxfordshire: Routledge.
Clarke, D. J., Shimizu, Y., Ulep, S. A., Gallos, F. L., Sethole, G., Adler, J., & Vithal, R. (2006). Cultural Diversity and the
Learner’s Perspective: Attending to Voice and Context. Chapter 3-3. In F. K. S. Leung, K.-D. Graf, & F. J. LopezReal (Eds.), Mathematics Education in Different Cultural Traditions – A Comparative Study of East Asia and the
West: The 13th ICMI Study (pp. 353–380). New York, USA: Springer.
Clarke, D. J., Xu, L., & Wan, M. E. V. (2013). Choral response as a significant form of verbal response in
Mathematics classrooms in seven countries. In A. M. Lindmeier & A. Heinze (Eds.). Proceedings of the 37th
Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 2, Kiel, Germany: PME,
pp. 201–208.
DepEd (2008). General Guidelines for the Opening of Classes. (DepEd Order No. 40, s. 2008). Manila, The Philippines:
Department of Education, Republic of The Philippines.
DepEd (2015). Policy Guidelines on Classroom Assessment for the K to 12 Basic Education Program (DepEd Order
No. 8, s. 2015). Manila, The Philippines: Department of Education, Republic of the Philippines.
Ghazarian, P. G., & Youhne, M. S. (2015). Exploring Intercultural Pedagogy: Evidence From International Faculty in
South Korean Higher Education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 19(5), 476–490. doi:10.1177/
1028315315596580
Griffin, P., Robertson, P., & Hutchinson, D. (2014). Modified Guttman analysis. In P. Griffin (Ed..), Assessment for
Teaching. Port Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Cambridge University Press.
EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT
17
Griffin, P., Care, E., Cagasan, L., Vista, A., & Nava, F. (2016). Formative assessment in the Philippines. In D. Laveault
& L. Allal (Eds.), Assessment for Learning: Meeting the Challenge (pp. 75–92). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Springer.
Guttman, L. (1950). The Basis for Scalogram Analysis. In S. A. Stouffer, L. Guttman, E. A. Suchman, Lazarsfeld, P. F.,
Star, S. A., & Clausen, J. A., Measurement and Prediction (pp. 60–90). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. doi:10.3102/
003465430298487
Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10
(3), 301–320. doi:10.1016/0147-1767(86)90015-5
Krumsvik, R. J., & Ludvigsen, K. (2013). Theoretical and methodological issues of formative e-assessment in plenary
lectures. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 8(2), 78–92. doi:10.5172/ijpl.2013.8.2.78
Liem, A. D., Nair, E., Bernardo, A. B. I., & Prasetya, P. H. (2008). The influence of culture on students’ classroom
social interactions. In D. M. McInerney & A. D. Liem (Eds.), Teaching and Learning: International Best Practice (pp.
377–404). Charlotte, NC: IAP.
Ratnam-Lim, C. T. L., & Tan, K. H. K. (2015). Largescale implementation of formative assessment practices in an
examination-oriented culture. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 22(1), 61–78.
Ruiz-Primo, M., & Furtak, E. (2007). Exploring teachers’ informal assessment practices and students’ understanding in
the context of scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 57–84. doi:10.1002/tea.20163
SEAMEO-INNOTECH (2012). Profile of multigrade schools in the Philippines.
Watkins, D. (2008). Western Educational Research: A basis for educational reforms in Asia? In O. Tan,
D. M. McInerney, G. A. D. Liem, & A. G. Tan (Eds.), What the West can learn from the East: Asian perspectives
on the psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 59–76). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Wiliam, D., & Thompson, M. (2008). Integrating assessment with instruction: What will it take to make it work? In
C. A. Dwyer (Ed.), The future of assessment: Shaping teaching and learning (pp. 53–82). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Winstone, N., & Millward, L. (2012). Reframing perceptions of the lecture from challenges to opportunities:
Embedding active learning and formative assessment into the teaching of large classes. Psychology Teaching
Review, 18(2), 31–41.
Yorke, M. (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of
pedagogic practice. Higher Education, 45(4), 477–501. doi:10.1023/A:1023967026413