1. Introduction

When discourses of education are reduced to school level, the educational process can be divided into three steps: first is inputs such as teachers, students, management rules, curriculums, and parental anxiety, second is classroom situation where actual interaction of teaching and learning takes place, and the last is outcomes such as students’ competency, teachers’ job satisfaction, and test results. While investing more resources to inputs and evaluating outputs are objective and visible, handling or promoting intercourse between teachers and students varies in every classroom situation, which are because the inputs and outputs are quantitative and classroom situations are qualitative. Thus, responsibilities for dealing with the experiences each student goes through in school lies all on to teachers. Therefore, in order for educational processes to be effective, it is required that further interests are put upon, and adequate investments and aids are provided to every vital interaction that occurs in classroom between students and teachers, or that between students. Assessing students’ development undertaken by teachers, and by students themselves that provide information to be used as feedback to modify teaching and learning activities is referred to as formative assessment(Black and William, 2005). In contrast to the widely spread concept of effective teaching as achieving high standards measured by test outcomes, formative assessment more focuses on continuous development of each students which is locus of learning. Marking high rank in PISA(Programme for International Student Assessment) among OECD(Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries, Korea has become prominent in mathematics for attaining high national standard. However, though it inspired other countries for its noticeable interests in education, the results acquired from the PISA does not lead to the conclusion that students in Korea develop their Mathematical competency in their school environments. Since it is quite common for Korean students to take Math courses in advance to those of public school curriculum, students’ performance cannot be attributed alone to the learning which took place in school. As a result, it is required, in the context of Korea, to analyze the effect of formative assessment, and to investigate how it affects students’ growth.

2. Method

#add image
# blogdown:::insert_image_addin() 

3. Result

4. Discussion

In the analysis which has proceeded without mediators, although it was statistically significant, the effect of “Formative Assessment” on “Test Score” was weak. This result reinforces existing studies that formative assessment is not powerful itself to affect on mathematical performance(Pinger et.al., 2018), rather it is effective in assistance of cognitive activation(Yi & Lee, 2017). In mediation analysis, direct effect of “Formative Assessment” on “Test Score” was 0.922 with standard error 0.946, and indirect effect of “Formative Assessment” on “Test Score” was 0.3711883. This results \[{The Mediation Proportion}=\frac{Indirect Effect}{Total Effect}=0.2818035\]. Therefore there is no mediation effect in this model, which does not support those from exsisting studies.

5. Limitations and Future Directions

Since the effect of Formative Assessment on students’ math performance, further studies are required. Effects of formative assessment on test score in other test subjects need to be compared with this study in order to draw meaningful conclusion. In addition, efforts for discovering some mediators or latent variables which account for test score in Mathematics needs to be proceeded. Lastly, it needs to be investigated whether there is interaction between students’ academic competency and formative assessment on test score, which can be found in longitudinal studies.

Reference

• Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2005). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Granada Learning.

• Boston, C. (2002). The concept of formative assessment. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 8(1), 9.

• Fast L. A., Lewis J. L., Bryant M. J., Bocian K. A., Cardullo R. A., Rettig M., & Hammond K. A. (2010). Does math self-efficacy mediate the effect of the perceived classroom environment on standardized math test performance?. Journal of Educational Psychology. 102(3). 729-740.

• Hughes, J. N., & Chen, Q. (2011). Reciprocal effects of student–teacher and student–peer relatedness: Effects on academic self efficacy. Journal of applied developmental psychology, 32(5), 278-287.

• Pajares, F., & Graham, L. (1999). Self-efficacy, motivation constructs, and mathematics performance of entering middle school students. Contemporary educational psychology, 24(2), 124-139.

• Pinger P., Rakoczy K., Besser M., & Klieme E.. (2018). Implementation of formative assessment – effects of quality of programme delivery on students’ mathematics achievement and interest. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. 25(2). 160-182.

• PISA (2020, June, 20). What is PISA?. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/

• Shepard, L. A. (2005). Linking formative assessment to scaffolding. Educational leadership, 63(3), 66-70.

• Yi H. S., & Lee Y. (2017). A latent profile analysis and structural equation modeling of the instructional quality of mathematics classrooms based on the PISA 2012 results of Korea and Singapore. Asia Pacific Education Review. 18(1). 23-39.