ABSTRACT

ESTILLORE, NORMAN JHORIE M. 2018. Formative Assessment and the

Achievement of Science Learning Outcomes. Bachelor of Secondary

Education (Physical Sciences) Undergraduate Thesis, College of

Education, University of Southern Mindanao, Kabacan, Cotabato. 89 pp.

Adviser: JEAN M. MILLARE

This study was conducted to basically determine the effects of formative

assessment to the achievement of science learning outcomes of the grade eight

students of Matalam High School. Specifically, it aimed to determine the effect

of teacher’s provided written feedback to the students regarding their science

achievement, determine the difficulty of the post-test items and determine the

teacher's and students’ perception towards the used of written feedback and

formative assessment tools in science class.

The study was conducted to the selected science teacher and students

of grade eight regular class. The teacher in the experimental group used

formative assessment and formative assessment tool in teaching lesson about

electricity. Before the start of the lesson, the students of the two teachers took

the pre-test to ensure that their knowledge was of the same level. After the

lesson, the students

took the post-test to see the differences of their learning. Also, the teacher and

student in the experimental group also answered the survey questionnaire

about the use of formative assessment in science class after the lesson. The

results were as follows: There was a significant difference between their post-

test but not on their pre-test and mean gain score. The teacher and students

believed that formative assessment in science class can help to achieve the

science learning outcomes.

 INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

One of the powerful ways of improving students learning that gained

attention in education recently is the use of formative assessment. Some of the

reports showed that formative assessment address the 21st century goals

which is anchored on lifelong learning for the student (Clark, 2012). Another

report by Heritage (2010) states that formative assessment is a part of the

learning process. The term “formative assessment” is not new, but is now being

used in more detailed and specific ways. As this happens, there is a need for

further research and study on formative assessment (Black & Wiliam, 1998).

The function of lifelong learning, is an issue of global interest which is

paralleled by a roaring interest in formative assessment. Hutchinson and

Hayward (2005) describe this trend as a quiet revolution, one which has across

time brought about the trend in education by embedding “the theory of formative

assessment” (Black & Wiliam, 2009) into the policy frameworks of a number of

nations (Organization for Economic Cooperation Development [OECD], 2005;

2008; Educational Testing Service [ETS], 2009).

 Formative assessment is primarily controlled by the individual teacher and

every teacher has different expertise on it. This expertise can be defined as the

frequency of formative assessment they used inside the class. According

to the study of Black and Wiliam (2004), they found out that the teacher who

is conducting formative assessment is a better teacher than the teacher

teaching traditonally. They categorized formative assessment into four

categories namely questioning, feedback, sharing criteria with learners and self-

assessment. They study the frequency of these categories in order to assess of

their effect to the achievement of students in science and mathematics. For

Boaler (2002), investigated the traditional and reform approaches to teaching

and their impact on student learning. He found out that classroom experience

such as the elicit questioning and feedbacking can improve students science

achievement. Recent researches have emphasized the importance of this

assessment and feedback in the learning process, facilitating diagnostic self-

monitoring, developing the ability to evaluate and make judgments and helping

to foster learner self-regulation (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick 2006; Sadler 2010).

Many studies give focus on this assessment especially for the countries in

Western context and literally few in our context so it is important to study this

topic to our own context.

The importance of formative assessment in student learning is generally

acknowledged but it is not well understood in actual education especially to our

context.This observation is confirmed by Volante, Drake, and Beckett (2010),

who asserted that although research has clearly shown that formative

assessment can enhance student success, there is a firm evidence of a

research-practice divide. Moreover, they postulated that many teachers are

failing to utilize the full cadre of formative assessment practices available to

them. Volante and colleagues undertook a three-year longitudinal study in

elementary and secondary schools within Ontario, finding that teachers

continued to over-emphasize summative assessment methods like tests,

quizzes, projects, with only a minority of teachers using formative assessment

techniques on a consistent basis.

Teachers’ capacity to implement formative assessment is an essential

quality to achieve the learning outcomes of the subject. This assessment is used

to gather information, interpret and gain evidence for the students’ achievement

(Black & Wiliam 1998). It is also used to gather information about how effective

a teacher can deliver the curriculum content or simply mean as how effective

one’s curriculum instruction(Marzano 2006). Indeed, this study talks about

teachers’ expertise in formative assessment and how it can affect the

achievement of science learning outcomes.

The study of Keeley et al. (2005) and Marzano (2006) revealed that teacher

conduct formative assessment to his or her class because of the following three

reasons: 1.) to give credit for what has been done to the expected standard, 2.)

to correct what is wrong at that time 3.) and to encourage the students to be

free and to be able to generalize on his/her own by alerting the student regarding
the possibilities which he or she may not have that time. These immediate

responses from teachers can greatly affect the achievement of the learning

outcomes. The skill which the teacher possess at that moment is a critical

determinant for the formative assessment to be productive and to be creative.

If the teachers conduct a formative assessment, he or she can find out that this

instruction is not effective enough for the students to catch up or understand so

the teachers need to change, revise or improve that current instruction.

Time is crucial for achieving the learning outcomes of the subject. It

depends on the teacher whether he or she want to stuck at that intended

learning outcomes by using some ineffective instruction or move on the next

intended learning outcome by changing or improving his or her ineffective

instruction. After all, teacher’s implementation of formative assessment can

greatly affect the achievement of the learning outcomes of the student.

The teachers who used formative assessment in their class are different

from one another because they have their own respective level of expertise.

Their level of expertise on formative assessment can be estimated by

measuring the frequency of formative assessment they used in class. Studying

the effect on the frequency of formative assessment to achievement of students

is needed to see if the new curriculum revision in assessment structure is

effective or not to find out how often teachers will do formative assessment to

raise students achievement. This study will try to find the effect of formative
assessment and the achievement of science learning outcomes of MHS

students.

The central purpose of formative assessment seems simple enough which

is to contribute to student learning through elicited information about

performance. Formative assessment is any kind of data-gathering procedure

whose purpose is to promote students’ learning. It serves to collect evidence of

what students already or can do and what misconceptions or learning needs

students may have, which are used to direct the instructing efforts for both the

teachers and students towards the intended learning outcomes. This type of

assessment can either be formal or informal and are embedded in all aspects

of learning meaning, which can occur many times in the lessons.

In 2012, the Philippine’s Department of Education (DepEd) started the

implementation of a new curriculum known as the K to 12 program. A significant

part of the curriculum reform is an assessment framework that includes

formative approaches to assessment. DepEd found out that in the Philippines,

assessment practices have centered on summative assessments such as

assignment of scores and letter grades to students which is emphasizing results

and grades rather than skill development. As an aid to this, the Department of

Education is adopting the enclosed Policy Guidelines on Classroom

Assessment for the K to 12 Basic Education Program stating that formative

assessment is an integral part of curriculum implementation.

 In the context of education reform in the Philippines, formative

assessment is seen as the use of assessment information by the teacher to

inform teaching instructions. The assessment framework encourages teachers

to use a mixture of formal and informal assessment data to improve student

learning. The goal of the policy on formative assessment is to help teachers

recognize relevant assessment practices that will improve student learning

outcomes. It is well aligned with Black and Wiliam’s 2009 statement, that a

practice is considered formative assessment if evidence about student

achievement is elicited, interpreted, and used by teachers, learners, or their

peers, to make decisions about the next steps in instruction.

This new curriculum reform in the assessment framework raises an

important question for Philippine education. his question focuses on how we can

help the teacher move to a higher level utilizing formative assessment inside

the classroom, and consequently enhance student learning. Indeed, doing

formative assessment inside the classroom is not an easy job for the teacher

especially for those teacher who conducts formative assessment traditionally.

In fact, ACTRC researchers found out in their Phase 1 research report that most

of the teacher did not use formative assessment even if there is a policy to

conduct formative assessment. ACTRC researchers found out that formative

assessment in the Philippine classroom is not well utilized. They found out that

many teachers follow a somewhat mechanistic classroom assessment process

which includes a quiz rather than engaging in formative assessment as a

pedagogical process. Also, teacher tended to intervene based on students

behavior, rather than the student level of skill. They found out that students were

not seeking formative feedback regarding their learning from the teachers

because teacher only give feedback or information during the checking of the

correct response. This research report found out that teachers were not ready

to fully adopt the assessment strategy. Thus, there is a need to research about

the formative assessment used by the teachers and its effect to the achievement

of students.

Objectives of the Study

This study was conducted to determine the effect of teacher’s formative

assessment on the achievement of science learning outcomes of Grade 8

students in Matalam High School. Specifically, this study aimed to:

1. determine the level of science achievement of Grade 8 students before

the intervention;

2. determine the level of science achievement of Grade 8 students after

the intervention;

3. compare the difficulty of post-test items of the control and experimental

groups;

4. compare the pre-test scores of the control and experimental groups;

5. compare the post-test scores of the control and experimental groups;

 6. compare the pre-test and post-test scores of the control group;

7. compare the pre-test and post-test scores of the experimental group;

8. compare the mean gain scores of the control and experimental groups;

9. describe how the teacher perceived his experience in implementing

formative assessment; and

10. describe how the students perceived their experience in the teacher’s

use of formative assessment.

Significance of the Study

The findings of the study would be beneficial to the following:

Teachers- The results would help them to become fully aware about the

importance of formative assessment in the classroom and how it could help to

achieve science learning outcomes. Through this study, they could make better

type of formative assessment that is right for the students to achieve science

learning outcomes.

Students- The result would be beneficial to the students so that they would

have a better understanding about their own achievement in science learning

outcomes. Moreover, it could promote their awareness among the students

about the importance of teachers’ formative assessment inside the classroom.

School Administrators- The result would be beneficial to the school

administration so that they would become efficient contributors for the school
instructions like the type or frequency of formative assessment going to be used

in order to improve the curriculum assessment structure

Future Researchers- The results and findings would be beneficial to the future

researcher since it would serve as their guide in conducting studies relating to

assessment.

Scope and Limitations of the Study

This study employed a quasi-experimental design. This study used two

existing Grade 8 classes, in which one was designated as the experimental

group. Generally, the disadvantage of this design is it lacks of random

assignment which can limit the generalizability of the results to a larger

population. Hence, there were reduced internal validity and less definitive

causality. Pre-existing factors and other influences were not taken into account

because variables were less controlled.

The researcher analyzed the teachers’ and students’ perceptions about

the strategy they used. However, evaluation of formative assessment

implementation was beyond the scope of this study. Moreover, all data were

gathered from written responses such as the pre-test, post-test and the survey

questionnaire but there were no interviews and direct observation happened.

The academic achievement of the student was measured only by pre-test and

post-test.
 This study focused on written feedback, text highlighting and entry and

exit pass. Indeed, it did not focus on the other instructional strategies used

during instruction on electricity which may have formative purposes were not

explored .

This study were not focused on personal factors and contextual factors.

The following aforementioned factors may affect teachers implementation of

formative assessment but on teachers implementation of formative assessment

and how these implementation affects achievement of the Science learning

outcome.

Place and Time of the Study

This study will be conducted at the Matalam High School (MHS) from

October to December of S.Y. 2017-2018

Operational Definition of Terms

 Teachers’ Expertise- refers to teacher own way or strategies of

conducting formative assessment inside the classroom. It is an

application of teachers strategies relating to formative assessment that

can affect students learning.

Formative Assessment- refers to the process used by teachers to

recognize and respond to student learning in order to enhance that

learning or during the learning.

Achievement- . In this study, it refers to the achievement which is based

on the score of the students in certain lessons specifically the score on

their post-test.

Learning outcomes- In this study, it refers to the learning outcomes

which is the expected score of the students in certain lesson.

Theoretical Framework

This study was anchored to social-cultural theory and self-regulation

theories which was postulated by a number of researches (Sadler 1989; Black

& Wiliam 1998; Chappuis & Stiggins, 2002), the theories pointed out that the

students have a key-role in the assessment process. The view of assessment

as exclusively a teacher activity was changed due to the influence of formative

assessment (Brookhart, 2011).

 It is not only the definitions used that influences the nature of formative

assessment. Formative assessment will be acted out differently depending on

all the variables in the educational environment. One example is that teachers’

beliefs about learning and mathematics will affect the way teachers take on

formative assessment (Cowie & Bell, 1999; Marshall & Drummond, 2006;

Watson, 2006). Classical test theory has primarily been concerned with

differentiating between individuals who possess certain attributes, or

determining the degree to which they do so.

Thus learning is by definition a social and collaborative activity in which

people develop their thinking together. Learning involves participation and what

is learned is not necessarily the property of an individuals. The outcomes of

learning that are most valued are engaged participation in ways that others find

appropriate. The development of identities is particularly important; this involves

the learner shaping and being shaped by a community of practice (Salomon,

1993).

Assessment For Learning theory stated from the study of Taras (2007)

observes summative assessment tests ‘are designed to judge the extent of

students’ learning of the material for then purpose of grading, certification etc.

and formative assessment is so useful in helping them improve what they wish

to do’ (Wiliam, 2000). The focus in both definitions by Wiliam is on the process;

in the verb ‘to judge’ for summative assessment, and ‘another type of evaluation’

for formative assessment, yet, as shall become evident, when discussing

definitions, it is repeatedly made clear that the distinction is ever only of function

or purpose.

Ideally, formative assessment strategies improve teaching and learning

simultaneously. Instructors can help students grow as learners by actively

encouraging them to self-assess their own skills and knowledge retention, and

by giving clear instructions and feedback. Seven principles which are adapted

from Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick, 2007 with additions can guide instructor

strategies: (1) Keep clear criteria for what defines good performance,

(2)Encourage students’ self-reflection, (3)Give students detailed, actionable

feedback, (4)Encourage teacher and peer dialogue around learning,

(5)Promote positive motivational beliefs and self-esteem, (6)Provide

opportunities to close the gap between current and desired performance and

(7)Collect information which can be used to help shape teaching.

Conceptual Framework

Teacher’s Formative Achievement of Science

Assessment Learning Outcome

Figure 1: Schematic diagram of the Independent and Dependent Variables

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

 Over the past several years, skills and techniques of teachers in school

are improving. One of this techniques used by the teachers is the formative

assessment inside the classroom. Making their teaching performance to the

next level resulting better performance on academic achievement of all

students. Here are some related literature about this study.

Formative Assessment

Black and Wiliam’s (1998) seminal work, and more recent research

provides the “best practices” for evaluating student achievement is through the

use of formative assessment. Black and Wiliam (1998) also defined formative

assessment as “all those activities undertaken by teachers, and/or by their

students, which provide information to be used as feedback to modify the

teaching and learning activities in which they are engaged”

Whereas, the Formative Assessment for Students and Teachers

(FAST) defined formative assessment as a process used during instruction to

provide feedback for the adjustment of ongoing teaching and learning for the

purposes of improving student achievement related to instructional objectives

(Melmer, Burmaster, & James, 2008).

 28

Popham (2006) stated that an assessment is formative to the degree that

the information collected from the assessment is used during the assessed

instruction period to improve instruction to meet the needs of the students

assessed. So the urgency of assessment inside the classroom can determine

the achievement of students in that moment.

Although an assessment may be designed and packaged as a formative

or summative assessment, it is the actual methodology, data analysis, and use

of the results that determine whether an assessment is formative or summative.

For example, Wininger (2005) used a summative assessment as a formative

assessment by providing both quantitative and qualitative feedback about the

results of the exam. However, Wininger still used formative assessment in the

classroom.

Thus, this study proposed that formative or summative assessment data

may be evaluated and used for formative purposes.

Herman, Osmundson, and Dietel (2010) emphasized that formative

assessment information is mainly for teacher and classroom use, but can serve

different purposes in local educational agencies, and may also be used by

schools and districts to make databased decisions at different levels of the

system.

Similarly, Wolf (2011) indicates that three essential principles of

formative assessment are practical application, feedback, and adjustment of

instruction. Practical application means teachers incorporate formative

 29

assessment into their daily lesson plans by including time for students to

practice skills they have learned or to demonstrate their understanding of a

concept presented in the lesson. Feedback, whereas summative assessments

are mostly one-sided in that the teacher finds out what the students know

through a standardized or written test. On the other hand, formative

assessments are utilized by both the teacher and the student and provides

feedback they can apply immediately and in the future. In addition, just as

students learn differently, they also demonstrate mastery differently. Formative

assessment provides students various opportunities to show whether or not

they have mastered the material beyond their performance on a standardized

or written test based on their abilities.

In the study of NCTE (2010), they found out that high-quality formative

assessment practice takes many forms, but it always does the following:

emphasizes the quality rather than the quantity of student work; values giving

advice and guidance over giving grades; avoids comparing students in favor of

enabling individual students to assess their own learning; fosters dialogues that

explore understandings rather than lectures that present information;

encourages multiple iterations of an assessment cycle, each focused on a few

issues; and provides feedback that engenders motivation and leads to

improvement.
 30

Teachers' Expertise in Formative Assessment

Teachers’ expertise in formative assessment comes in many forms. On

the study of Ruiz-Primo & Furtak (2007), it is stated that differences in teachers’

use of formative assessment strategies is related to their own expertise. Their

study focus on the use of formative assessment strategies such as classroom

questioning within the ESRU model on single science unit will have an effect to

teaching-learning process. ESRU model tested in 3 classrooms but intervention

effects are measured independently for each student in the classes. Model

being tested determined degree to which teachers elicited information,

processed student understanding, and responded. Their model emphasized

classroom conversations and found out that teachers looked for student

understanding, used data and provided feedback to advance learning.

Based on the other study, Rackoczy, Klieme, Burgermesiter and Harks

(2008) stated that teacher’s expertise in evaluating and creating informational

feedback influenced motivation and achievement for secondary level students

will result to more active class and alert students. The teacher used oral

feedback in the classroom while students are working in groups. The teacher

instructional correctiveness were flexible and unplanned so it depends on the

child's response. The indicated teachers’ behaviosr were recorded as corrective

feedback and informational feedback.

 31

Based on the study of Washington (2016) entitled Factors Influencing

the Use of Formative Assessment in the Classroom stated that formative

assessment will improve the quality of teachers’ instruction and improve the

quality of students’ learning and promotes higher quality of education and better

learning outcomes for students. The stated study used Quantitative research

methodology covering 15 Dutch schools 434 teachers, 515 students. The

researchers used a reliable and valid survey for teachers and students and

descriptive and regression analyses for data analysis. The result from this

survey shows that teacher used peer and self-assessment sporadically or low

while feedback, eliciting evidence, learning intentions and data use were

emerging or moderately used. They also used an explorative qualitative

research methodology in 4 high-performing Dutch schools. The researcher

conducted an individual in-depth interviews and used checklists for data

gathering. Descriptive analyses were used for data analysis. They also found

out the five most important prerequisites in effective formative assessment and

these are the following: 1. Positive attitude of teachers towards formative

assessment; 2. Specific feedback provided by assessments; 3. Alignment

between assessments and curriculum; 4. School leaders facilitating formative

assessment use and 5. Teachers’ knowledge and skills to adjust instruction.

The study’s conclusion and discussion shows that attitude is a poor predictor

for the use of formative assessment in classroom. This is probably due to an

average positive attitude in our sample and thus too little variance. Professional
 32

development in formative assessment urgently needed because the teacher’s

knowledge and skills in these formative assessments are prerequisite in

effective implementation of formative assessment..

The study (Kolb,1984) defines learning as the process whereby

knowledge is created through the transformation of experience .Based on the

study of Brookhart, Moss, and Long (2008) that takes place over the academic

year found out that primary teachers participating in extensive professional

development instituted more systematic data collection,record-keeping,

feedback, and data use over an academic year can increase students

engagement and motivation.

Formative Assessment Affecting Student Achievement

Many studies proposed that formative assessment can affect the student

achievement in science.

According to the implementation of No Child Left Behind or NCLB (2002),

there will be no child in school who will be less prioritized and more prioritized

in terms of learning. This implementation led to some educational interventions

to improve student achievement. One of the common methods to improve

student achievement is the use of formative assessments, both to improve the

pedagogical practices of teachers and to provide specific instructional support

for lower performing students. Researches about this method have conclusively
 33

demonstrated that the use of formative assessment facilitates improvement in

instructional practices, identifies “gaps”in the curriculum, and contributes to

increased student performance.

Teachers’ Expertise in Formative Assessment and Achievement of

Students

Formative assessment can be constructed by different teachers.

Teachers who are expert can construct better formative assessment by making

it more efficient and productive than the teachers who are novice.

In article made by Whiting, Van Burgh, and Render (1995) an impressive

seven thousand students and eighteen years of information were reviewed. The

primary issue with this article is that teachers were studied. Other teachers did

utilize formative assessment and was compared to another teachers who did

not use formative assessment. Teachers who used formative assessment were

interviewed and they stated that using formative assessment in class can help

all the students better understand the subject.

Martinez and Martinez (1992) conducted another study which was used

to support the conclusion that formative assessment improves student

achievement. Martinez and Martinez (1992) utilized a two by two experimental

design in which two groups were taught by a novice teacher and the remaining

two were taught by an expert teacher. Each teacher taught one class in which

the students took only one formative assessment per lesson, and the other class
 34

took three formative assessment per lesson. They found out that class taught

by the expert teachers got higher score than the class taught by the novice

teacher. They also found out that class which is taking three formative

assessment in one lesson got higher score than the class which is taking only

one formative assessment in one lesson.

From the study of Tomita (2008), it is stated that the embedded

assessments which were reflective and encouraged students to think and

debate through science concepts, were included in the FAST curriculum to see

if they would result in higher student achievement as compared to a group that

received only the FAST curriculum with no formative experimenter effects.

Some of the findings indicate that students who receive formative

assessment perform better on a variety of achievement indicators than their

peers do. Experts conclude that the practice of assessment for learning shows

promise in its ability to improve student performance.

Black and Wiliam (1998) cite several studies to support their claims of

efficacy. One such example was conducted among 838 which were basically 5‐

year‐old students, primarily from disadvantaged backgrounds, drawn from six

regions in the U.S. Teachers in the experimental group were trained to

implement a system of formative assessment that involved a progression where

students were tested. In addition educational plan was designed based on their

results, students were retested, and additional modifications were made based

on this second set of results. Student performance was measured based on

 35

pre‐ and post‐intervention tests. The researchers found that students were in

the experimental group produced significantly higher scores in reading,

mathematics, and science than the control group.

Hammerness and Beckett (2005) note the difference between ‘routine

experts’ and ‘adaptive experts,’ implying that for students to become effective

learners they need to be taught by teachers who have received initial and

continuing training on instructional methods which help them to adapt their

teaching to meet the needs of their students (Black & Wiliam, 1998a; 1998b;

Vogt & Rogalla, 2009). Routine experts have a range of core competencies

which they consistently deploy across the span of their lifetimes to attain

increasing efficiency. However, adaptive experts have core competencies

which are consonant with Benkler’s adaptive, creative person. They are more

likely to adapt those core competences and innovate new approaches that

better equip them to capitalize on opportunities and solve problems which could

otherwise appear mystifying. Research suggests that for effective formative

assessment to take place, teachers need to develop adaptive expertise—short-

cycle adaptation of teaching to meet the needs of the students being the key to

formative assessment practice (Black & Wiliam, 1998b).

Dixon and Williams (2001) of Auckland University in New Zealand

presented a paper at the Annual Conference of the British Educational

Research Association. The timing of the paper establishes a useful baseline for

where formative assessment was in terms of effective use among practitioners

 36

at the turn of the 21st century. Their findings were introduced as follows:

Formative assessment is not well understood by teachers and is weak in

practice. Their research supports the view that conceptually teachers are

confused about the nature, purpose and effect of formative assessment. (Dixon

& Williams, 2001, p1). Dixon and Williams (2001) found that teachers attributed

great importance to formative assessment and its potential to enhance

instruction and develop essential lifelong learning competencies among

students. However, when asked to articulate their practice in more detail,they

were not able to explain clearly how they used the assessment information

gained to enhance children's learning. If practitioners are to conceptualize

formative assessment practices as creative and participatory, they need time to

translate theory into practice . This transformation will only occur through

programs of “development and dissemination which are matched to the capacity

of teachers to take ownership of change, and at the same time to rebuild their

theories in a form that supports and gives coherence to practice” (Black, 2000).

Formative Assessment Expertise and Science Learning Outcome

There are many instructional factors affecting science performance. One

of the study stated that instructional factors can be categorized into four: (a)

quality of instructor, (b) quality of learning activity, (c) learning support, and (d)

study workload. In terms of instructor quality, instructor’s command of subject

 37

matter and ability to make clear and understandable presentations during class

were frequently cited among studies (Lim, 2002).

Researchers also have examined several salient instructor variables

such as the use of more applicable learning examples during lectures (Axtell,

Maitlis, & Yearta, 1997), inclusion of general rules and principles for learners to

apply to the learned content (Goldstein, 1986), and a greater specificity of

instructional content to be applied in other settings (Clark & Voogel, 1985).

Concerning improvement in the quality of learning activities, research

studies have suggested several instructional strategies that include: (a) planned

goal-setting prior to the learning experience (Wexley & Nemeroff, 1975), (b)

utilization of action planning methods (Foxon, 1997), and (c) the inclusion of

various instructional methods like application examples in various contexts, the

use of analogies, and the usage of computer simulations during the learning

process (Garavaglia, 1993).

As an indicator of quality of learning activities, research involving

students’ satisfaction with instructional programs has indicated seven

instructional areas influence satisfaction. Those areas include: satisfaction with

instructor, instructional methods/activities, learning objectives, logistical

matters, topics/content, planned action/transfer, and course materials

(Sanderson, 1995).

Finally, study workload, has been empirically examined as an

instructional design construct in a few studies. In comparing students’ study time

 38

between online versus classroom instruction, Oh and Lim (2005) found that

online students spent more time completing one week’s course workload than

those with classroom-based courses.

Science teacher develop formative assessment expertise via

interpretation of students work. Constructivist accounts help us understand that

teachers assimilate new ideas to prior knowledge and practices (Goldsmith &

Schifter, 1997) and only gradually reconstruct what they know and do. In one

study, teachers who tried out new assessment tasks often graded student

responses as correct/incorrect , while other teachers continued using old

assessment tasks but invited students to explain their reasoning (a new

function; (Saxe, Gearhart, Franke, Howard, & Crockett, 1999). Davis (2003)

showed how an elementary science teacher gained expertise with inquiry

teaching as she progressively added, linked, distinguished, and reconciled old

and new ideas. Taking these research approaches together, it is assumed that

teachers build expertise with interpretation of student work and the relevant

assessment concepts when they repeatedly confront the need to align old and

new understandings and practices (Goldsmith & Schifter, 1997). Teachers

argue that a synthesis of all three cases supports the need for both quality

embedded assessment resources and professional development can support

the growth of assessment expertise.

Macintyre, Buck and Beckenhauer (2007) believe that the process

described by Eisner is integral to scientific inquiry. Inquiry is a creative

 39

enterprise, resisting imposed routine, demanding reason alongside ongoing

judgments, consideration of alternatives, openness, and inventiveness. Such

qualities are integral to formative assessments, prompting and furthering

learning.

METHODOLOGY
 40

This chapter presents the research design, respondents of the study,

sampling procedure, research instruments, data gathering procedure and

statistical analysis.

Research Design

The study used a quasi-experimental design. This study used the pre-

test and post-test approach to obtain information on the level of achievement of

the students before and after the intervention. Firstly, the comparison of the pre-

test and post-test scores of the experimental and control groups was done.

Secondly, the pre-test scores of the two groups compared. Thirdly, the post-

test scores of the two groups and comparing the mean gain scores of the two

groups were conducted. A pre-test were conducted on control and experimental

groups to ensure that level of knowledge were similar and comparable from the

start. On the other hand, the post-test was conducted to find out their differences

in terms of knowledge at the end.

In addition, mixed methods were utilized in order to gather information

about the teacher’s perception to his experience in implementing formative

assessment and students’ perception in relation to their experience in the

teacher’s use of formative assessment. Qualitative and quantitative data were

collected separately at the same time and were then brought together, or

merged. Researcher use this model when they want to compare results or to

validate, confirm, or corroborate quantitative results with qualitative findings.

Respondents of the Study

The respondents of this study were the grade 8 science teachers of

Matalam High School (MHS) in the year 2018-2019 that have a class in grade

8 regular sections. Also, the students of those teachers were considered also

as respondents. To be specific, only the students of the control group were

included but not the teacher; while, on experimetal group, both the teacher and

students were included.

Sampling Procedure

The researcher used purposive sampling technique that included

convenient sampling method to conduct the study on heterogeneous sections

of grade 8 students as participants. The convenience sampling was used for the

selection of teacher in grade 8 regular class. Convenience sampling also known

as availability sampling is a specific type of non-probability sampling method.

The teachers who served as the respondents were selected because of their

convenient accessibility and proximity in the part of the researcher.

Research Instruments

The researcher used self-report inventories and a test in science.

To determine the teacher's and students’ perception towards the used of

written feedback and formative assessment tools in science class, Teacher and

Student questionnaire were used. These questionnaires were developed with

the help of CBAM-LoU or the Concerns-Based Adoption Model Level of Use

tool.This tool was developed by a team of researchers at the Research and

Development Center for Teacher Education. The CBAM-LoU tool were

commonly used to help leaders, evaluators, and researchers understand,

monitor and guide the complex process of implementing new and innovative

practices. The developed questionnaire of the researcher were composed of

eight (8) open-ended questions. Four of the question were related to the written

feedback used by the teacher and the other four were related to formative

assessment tools used by the teacher in his science class

To see the effect of teacher’s formative assessment and formative

assessment tool to the achievement of science learning outcome, pre-test and

post-test were conducted. The pre-test and post-test items were conducted

through the help of curriculum guide. The items were focused on the expected

learning competency.
Data Gathering Procedures

Initially, a letter of permission to conduct this study was personally sent

to the school’s principal prior to the distribution of questionnaires to the teacher.

Then, after the approval of principal, the teachers were asked if they were

available to participate on the study. Teachers who were available to become

respondents were asked to complete the consent form. The teachers of the

experimental and control group conducted a pre-test to their class before they

introduced the lesson about electricity and post-test after they finished the

lesson about electricity and they recorded the scores or the data of the study.

The researcher also gave the open-ended survey to the experimental group

after they took the post-test.

All the data were kept and ensured by the teacher until the researcher

personally viewed it.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive analysis such as weighted mean, frequency, standard

deviation and percentage were used to determine the level of science of

achievement before and after the intervention, specifically, it is used to

determine difficulty index of the items in the post-test of the control and

experimental group, to describe the use of formative assessment in the

experimental group, and to describe how the teacher and students perceived

his experience in formative assessment.

The researcher used t-test for independent variables to determine the

significant difference on the pre-test to the post-test of the experimental and

control group.

Moreover, the researcher used t-test for independent variables to

determine the significant difference between the pre-test of the experimental

and control group.

Furthermore, the researcher used t-test for independent variables to

determine if there was a significant difference between the post-test of the

experimental and control group.

In addition, the researcher used t-test for independent variables to

determine if there was a significant difference between the mean gain score of

the experimental and control group.

 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the findings of the study entitled “Formative

Assessment and the Achievement of Science Learning Outcomes.” The

teacher in the experimental group implemented formative assessment in the

form of written feedback, text highlighting, as well as entry and exit pass during

instruction on electricity, in which the teacher in the control group did not.

The results discussed include levels of science achievement before and

after the intervention, between group comparison of pretest and posttest scores,

as well as gains in scores for both the experimental and control groups. The

discussion also includes the teacher’s and students’ perceptions on the

formative assessment implemented.

 34

Science Achievement Before Intervention

In order to determine the science achievement before intervention, both

the students from the control and experimental group took the pre-test about

the topic on electricity. The pretest was conducted to proved that the two groups

were comparable to each other or not. The pretest was composed of 25

multiple-choice items and focused on the topic regarding electricity. The control

group got a pretest mean score of 10 and for the experimental group it got

11.17.

Table 1. Pretest Results of Control and Experimental Groups

Control Experimental (n=35)

(n=39)
Score Description f % x f % x

21-25 Very high

16-20 High 2 5.71 4 11.43

11-15 Average 13 33.33 10 14 40 11.17

6-10 Low 20 51.28 14 40

1-5 Very low 4 10.26 3 8.57

Based on the table above, in the control group, consisting of thirty-nine

(39) students, two (2) obtain high scores (5.71%), thirteen (13) obtain average

scores (33.33%), twenty (20) obtain low scores (51.28%) and four (4) got very
 35

low scores (10.26%). The pretest results reveal that majority of the students in

the control group (51.28%)

 60

scored low, that is between 6 and 10. The mean score shows that the level of

knowledge of the control group students before the intervention was low.

In the experimental group, consisting of thirty-five (35) students, four (4)

got high scores (11.43%), fourteen (14) got average scores (40%), fourteen (40)

got low scores (40%) and three (3) got very low scores(8.57%). The pretest

results reveal that majority of the students in experimental group (80%) got

scores between 6 and 15, which belong to the low and average categories.The

mean score shows that the level of knowledge of the experimental group

students before the intervention was average.

Science Achievement After Intervention

In determining the science achievement of the students after the

intervention posttest was used. The posttest used was just similar as the pretest

used before the intervention. The posttest was conducted in order to proved that

the two groups were significantly different to each other at the end of the lesson.

The results find out that the control group has a mean gain score of 13.64 and

in experimental group of 16.63.

Table 2. Post-test Results of Control and Experimental Groups

 61

Control Experimental (n=35)

(n=39)
Score Description f % x f % x
21-25 Very high 2 5.71
16-20 High 13 33.33 18 51.43
13.64 16.63
11-15 Average 18 46.16 12 34.29
6-10 Low 8 20.51 3 8.57
1-5 Very low

Based on table, in the control group, consisting of thirty-nine (39)

students, thirteen (13) got high scores (33.33%), eighteen (18) got average

scores (46.16%) and eight (8) got low scores (20.51%). The posttest results

reveal that majority of the students in the control group (79%) got scores

between 11 and 20, which belong to the average and high categories. The mean

score projects that the level of knowledge of the control group students after the

intervention is average.

In the experimental group, consisting of thirty-five (35) students, two (2)

got very high scores (5.71%), eighteen (18) got high scores (51.43%), twelve

(12) got average scores (34.29%) and three (3) got low scores (8.57%). The

posttest results project that majority of the students in the experimental group

(51.43%) scored high, that is between 16 and 20.The mean score project that

the level of knowledge they have after the intervention of the experimental group

students is high.
 62

Difficulty of Test Items

The posttest was analyzed in terms of difficulty of the items in order to

find out the difference between control and experimental groups students level

of understanding of the topic after the intervention.

Table 3. Comparison of Posttest Item Difficulty (p)

Number of Items (n=25)

Description Control Experimental

Easy 9 15

Average 4 8

Difficult 12 2
 63

The results show that there were more easy items for the experimental

than the control group (15 vs 9). The same is true for the items with average

difficulty (8 vs 4). Around half of the number of items (12) were difficult for the

control group and just two items for the experimental group. In terms of

instruction, these findings suggest that the concepts and ideas about their

lesson electricity were known more by the experimental group students than

the control group students. Indeed, the students of the experimental group have

learned the concepts and ideas better than the control group.

Experimental Group and Controlled Group Pretest Comparison

The pretest was conducted to proved that the two groups were

comparable to each other or not. T-test for independent samples was used to

prove if the pretest of the control and experimental groups was significantly

different to each other. The result shows that there was no significant difference

(t= 1.32) between their pretest scores meaning the two groups were comparable

to each other.

Table 4. Comparison of Experimental Group and Controlled Group Pretest

scores

Groups Mean SD Mean t Df p-

Difference value

EXPERIMENTAL 34
(n=35) 11.17 4.14
 64

1.17 1.32ns 0.19

CONTROL
(n=39) 10 3.48 38

ns-not significant at 5% level of significance

Table 4 shows the mean score difference between the experimental and

control group pre-test. The pre-test of experimental group has mean score of

11.17 with a standard deviation of 4.14 and in the control group with the mean

score of 10 and a standard deviation of 3.48. The mean score of the two groups

pre-test was compared using t-test for independent samples. This table shows

the calculated t-value of 1.32 with a probability of 0.19. The difference between

the two groups mean scores shows that both of the students has almost the

same in terms level of knowledge and understanding of the subject matter

before the lesson. The calculated t-value of 1.32 shows that there is no

significant differences between the pre-test of experimental group and

controlled group at 5% level of significance before the intervention.

Experimental Group and Controlled Group Posttest Comparison

The posttest was conducted in order to proved that the two groups were

significantly different to each other at the end of the lesson. The result shows
 65

that posttest scores of control and experimental groups were significantly

different to each other with the t-value of 3.8.

Table 5. Comparison of Experimental Group and Controlled Group Posttest

scores

*significant at 5% level of significance

Groups Mean SD Mean t Df p-value
Difference

EXPERIMENTAL 34
(n=35) 16.63 3.87
2.99 3.8* 0.0003
CONTROL
(n=39) 13.64 2.87 38

The comparison of experimental group and control group posttest is

projected on the table. The mean score of experimental group is 16.63 with a

standard deviation of 3.87; while, in the control group mean score is 13.64 with
 66

a standard deviation of 2.87. The students score of the experimental group is

farther than the students score of the control group. The table also shows that

they have the t- value of 3.8 with the probability of 0.003. The t-value can be

interpreted that the result is significant at 5% level of significance. The

experimental group posttest score description is high; while, in the control

group, posttest description is average meaning the intervention is successful or

has an effect on science learning of the students.

Comparison of the Pre-test and Post-test Score of the Control Group

The pretest and posttest scores of the control group were compared to

find out the how much they learned by the end of the lesson without the

intervention. The result shows that even without using formative assessment

their pretest and posttest were significantly different (t= -5.04).

Groups Mean SD Mean t Df p-value

Difference

Pre-test 38
10 3.48
 67

3.64 -5.04* 0.00001

Post-test
13.64 2.87 38

Table 6. Pre-test and Post-test score comparison of the Control Group

*significant at 5% level of significance

Table 6 shown the difference on the mean score of the pre-test and post-

test of the control group. The pre-test mean score of the control group is 10 with

the standard deviation of 3.48 and post-test of 13.64 with the standard deviation

of 2.87. The mean gain score of the control group was 3. 64 which signifies that

they have learned something about the topic regarding electricity without using

the intervention. The table also shows that they have a t-value of -5.04 with the

probability of 0.00001. The t-value means that there is a significant difference

between the pre-test and post-test of the control group at 5% level of

significance.

Comparison of the Pre-test and Post-test Score of the Experimental

Group

The pretest and posttest scores of the experimental group were

compared to find out how much they learned by the end of the lesson with the

intervention. The results show that using formative assessment their pretest and

posttest were significantly different (t= -5.7).

 68

Table 7. Pre-test and Post-test score comparison of the Experimental Group

*significant at 5% level of significance

Groups Mean SD Mean t Df p-value

Difference

Pre-test 38
11.17 4.14
5.46 -5.7* 0.00001
Post-test
16.63 3.87 38

Table 7 shows the difference on the mean score of the pre-test and post-

test of the experimental group. The pre-test mean score of the experimental

group is 11.17 with the standard deviation of 4.14 and post-test of 16.63 with

the standard deviation of 3.87. The mean gain score of the control group was

5.46 which means that they have learned something about the topic electricity

with the used of intervention. The table also shows that they have a t-value of -

5.7 with the probability of 0.00001. The t-value means that there was a

significant difference between the pre-test and post-test of the experimental

group at 5% level of significance.

Experimental and Controlled Group Mean Gain Score Comparison

The mean gain scores of the control and experimental groups were

compared to find out if there was significant difference between their mean gain
 69

scores. The result shows that the mean gain score of control and experimental

group were not significant (t= -0.63) to each other.

Table 8. Comparison of Experimental and Controlled Group Mean Gain Score

Groups Pre- Post- Mean t p-value

test test Difference

EXPERIMENTAL 5.46
(n=35) 11.17 16.63
-0.63ns 0.2955
CONTROL
(n=39) 10 13.64 3.64

ns-not significant at 5% level of significance

Table 8 shows the comparison of the mean gain score of the control and

experimental group. The experimental group pre-test mean score is 11.17 and

post-test mean score is 16.63 with a mean gain score is 5.46 while the control

group pre-test mean score of 10 and post-test mean score is 13.64. The

experimental group mean gain score was higher than the control group mean

gain score which means that the experimental group who had the intervention

learned better than the control group who do not have the intervention. The table

also shows that they have the t-value of -0.63 with the probability of 0.2955. The

t-value means that there is no significant difference between the mean gain

score of the experimental and control group at 5% level of significance.

 70

Teacher's Perception Towards his Experience in Implementation of

Formative Assessment

Table 9 shows the answers in survey questionnaire of the teacher who

took the given intervention. The survey was conducted at the end of the

intervention to see the perception of the teacher about the intervention. The

survey questionnaire was composed of eight (8) questions which was divided

by two parts. The first part pertained to questions regarding teacher used of

written feedback in science activities and the second part pertained to questions

regarding teacher’s use of formative assessment tools in science class.

Table 9A: Teacher’s perception to his experience in providing written feedback

Written Feedback

Questions Answer

Did providing written feedback on

Yes it will boost their motivation to learn
your students’ output motivate them
the concepts well and will encourage
to extend their learning? Why or why
them to study the related concepts
not?

Do you think that providing specific

written feedback helped your
Yes by doing written feedback they can
students elaborate their own
have more detailed understanding and
understanding or interpretation of
better interpretation
ideas in more detail in the next
activities?
 71

Which type of written feedback do

you perceive as being most helpful Activity Performance it will allow them to
to the students: feedback see if their answers are correct, lack
commented on their activity something or wrong. If correct you can
performance or feedback praise them and if wrong you can point
commented to extend their learning? out why their answers are wrong.
Please explain your answer

What changes did you experience in

Extra time time for writing feedback on
your teaching when you did the
their science activities
written feedback?

Table 9A shows the answers of the first part of the survey questionnaire.

In question number one (1) Did providing written feedback on your students’

output motivate them to extend their learning? Why or why not? This question

was to see if the teacher believes that doing written feedback in science

activities will encourage his students to extend their learning at home. The

answer of the teacher in this question was: Yes! it will boost their motivation to

learn the concepts well and will encourage them to study the related concepts.

The teacher clearly believed that writing feedback in his science activities will

motivate the student to extend their learning at home.

As for question number two (2) Do you think that providing specific

written feedback helped your students elaborate their own understanding or

interpretation of ideas in more detail in the next activities? Why or why not? The

answer of the teacher was: Yes! by doing written feedback they can have more
 72

detailed understanding and better interpretation. The teacher believed that

writing feedback in his student science activities will make the students

elaborate their own understanding and interpretation of ideas and concepts

more detailed on the next activity.

The question number three (3) Which type of written feedback do you

perceive as being most helpful to the students: feedback commented on their

activity performance or feedback commented to extend their learning? Please

explain your answer. The answer of the teacher for this question was: Activity

Performance because it will allow them to see if their answers are correct, lack

something or wrong. If its correct, you can praise them and if its wrong, you can

point out why their answers are wrong. Truly, the teacher perceived that the

most helpful for the students was the feedback commented on their activity

performance.

The question number four (4) What changes did you experience in your

teaching when you did the written feedback? Is intended to find out the changes

in actual teaching of the teacher during the intervention. The answer of the

teacher was for the question was: I need to have extra time for writing feedback

on their science activity. Hence, the teacher needs more time in order to

accomplish written feedback to further improve the performance of the students.

 73

Table 9B: Teacher’s perception to his experience in using formative

assessment tools.

Formative Assessment Tools

Questions Answer

Did providing formative assessment Yes, they can now learn while having
tools in science classes help students fun. They will have better understanding
have a better understanding of ideas because they are now more motivated to
that were taught? In what way? learn.

Which type of teachers formative

assessment technique do you perceive Entry and Exit Pass, It will help them to
as being most helpful: Text Highlighting, easily understand and remember the
Entry and Exit Pass or others? Please concepts and ideas in fun way.
explain your answer
 74

What do you think about the students

using drawings, diagrams, charts, and
graphs to illustrate science ideas and Yes, they can easily understand the
concepts? Do you think that creating relationship between concepts and can
them will help your student to easily remember.
understand the ideas and concepts? In
what way, please explain

What changes did you experience in extra time for planning and preparing
your teaching when you used the formative assessment techniques
formative assessment tool?. revision of lesson plan

Table 9B shown the answers of the second part of the survey

questionnaire. In Question number one (1) which is Did providing formative

assessment tools in science classes help students have a better understanding

of ideas that were taught? In what way? This question was to see if the teacher

believes that doing formative assessment techniques such as text highlighting

and entry and exit pass in science class can improve students understanding

of ideas and concepts. The answer of the teacher in this question was: Yes!

They will have better understanding because they are now more motivated to

learn. They can now learn while having fun. Hence, the teacher believed that

having formative assessment techniques in science class will motivate the

students because they are able to learn while having fun.

As for question number two (2) Which type of teachers formative

assessment technique do you perceive as being most helpful: Text Highlighting,

 75

Entry and Exit Pass or others? Please explain your answer. As for this question

the answer of the teacher was: Entry and Exit Pass. It will help them to easily

understand and remember the concepts and ideas consistently. Hence, for the

teacher he believed that using formative assessment technique such as entry

and exit pass was the most helpful for the student.

For question number three (3) What do you think about the students

using drawings, diagrams, charts, and graphs to illustrate science ideas and

concepts? Do you think that creating them will help your student to understand

the ideas and concepts? In what way, please explain. The teacher’s answer for

this question was: Yes! They can now easily understand the relationship

between concepts and can easily remember. The teacher believed that using

drawings, charts, and graphs to illustrate science ideas and concepts will help

the students to understand the concepts as well as the relationship of the

concepts.

The question number four (4) What changes did you experience in your

teaching when you used the formative assessment tool?. The teacher answered

were: His time which he need extra time for planning and preparing formative

assessment techniques and his lesson plan in which it needs revision. The

teacher pointed out that the changes in his teaching life during the intervention

were the extra time he needs to prepare the formative assessment techniques

as well as the revision of his lesson plan.

 76

Students' Perception Towards the Teacher's Used of Written Feedback in

Science Class

The following tables shows the answers in survey questionnaire of the

students who took the given intervention. The survey was conducted at the end

of the intervention to see the experience of the students about the intervention.

The survey questionnaire was composed of eight (8) questions divided by two

parts. The first part pertains to the questions regarding the teacher usage of

written feedback in science activities and the second part pertains to the

questions regarding teacher usage of formative assessment techniques in

science class.

Table 10. Students answer on survey question number one. Did receiving
written feedback from your teacher motivates you to extend your
own learning? Why or why not?

Answer Frequency Percent

Yes it encourage me to 12 34.29

study more
19 54.28
Yes I like to review my
right and wrong answers

No I am lazy 2 5.71

No I am contented with 2 5.71

my learning
 77

Table 10 shows the students different answers on survey question

number one part one which is: Did receiving written feedback from your teacher

motivates you to extend your own learning? Why or why not? The students have

different answers wherin 19 out of 35 students (54.38%) answered that written

feedback of the teacher on their science activities motivated them to extend their

learning by reviewing their right and wrong answers, 12 out of 35 students

(34.29) answered Yes for written feedback encourage me to study more, 2 out

of 35 (5.71) students answered No for written feedback of the teacher doesn’t

motivate me to extend my learning because they just don’t want to study more

or lazy and 2 out of 35 (5.71) students answered No for they were contented on

their learning and written feedback of the teacher does not motivate them to

extend their learning. Most of the students believed that receiving written

feedback motivates them to extend their learning by reviewing their right and

wrong answers.

Table 11: Students answer on survey question number two. Do you think that
receiving specific written feedback in your science activities helped
you elaborate your understanding or interpretation of ideas in more
detail in next activity? Why or why not?

Answer Frequency Percent

Yes, it encourage me to think and 13 37.14

answer
Yes, it allows me to understand 16 45.71
better
No, it doesn’t help me 1 2.86
 78

No, my groupmates answered 5 14.29

most of the questions

Table 11 shows the students different answers on survey question

number two which is under part one. The survey question number two is: Do

you think that receiving specific written feedback in your science activities

helped you elaborate your understanding or interpretation of ideas in more detail

in next activity? Why or why not? The students have different answers wherin

16 out of 35 (45.71%) students answered that written feedback of the teacher

allows them to understand better; 13 out of 35 (37.14) students answered that

written feedback of the teacher encourages them to think and answer, 5 out 35

(14.29%) students answered No, written feedback of the teacher on our science

activities doesn’t help me because my groupmates answered most of the

questions in the activities and 1 out of 35 students answered No, it doesn’t help

me. Hence, most of the students believed that receiving written feedback in their

science activities helped them elaborate their understanding or interpretation of

ideas in more precised, elaborate and specific for the next activity.

Table 12: Students answer on survey question number three. Which type of
written feedback do you perceive as being most helpful: feedback
commented on your activity performance or feedback commented
to extend your learning? Please explain your answer
 79

Answer Frequency Percent

Activity Performance, It allows me to see

if my answers are correct or not. It also 24 68.57
motivates me to answer carefully.

Extend Learning it allows me to extend

my learning. It also motivates me to 11 31.43
study more.

Table 12 shows the students different answers on survey question

number three part one. The survey question number three was: Which type of

written feedback do you perceive as being most helpful: feedback commented

on your activity performance or feedback commented to extend your learning?

Please explain your answer. and the students have different answers. 24 out

of 35 (68.57%) students answered written feedback to their activity performance

was the most helpful for them because it allows them to see if their answers

are correct or not. It also motivates them to answer carefully and 11 out 35

(31.43%) students answered that the written feedback on their activity to extend

their learning was the most helpful for them because it allows them to extend

their own learning and it also motivates me to study more.

Table 13: Students answer on survey question number four. What changes did
you experience in your learning and school life when you start
receiving written feedback?
 80

Answer Frequency Percent

Extend Learning, I studying more . I am

now studying related topics of our 15 42.86
activities
Activeness, I am answering the activity 6 17.14
well
Risk taker, I can now answer freely. I am 8 22.86
not afraid to answer wrong
Social, I am comfortable with my teacher 6 17.14

Table 13 shows the students different answers on survey question

number four part one. The survey question number four was: What changes did

you experience in your learning and school life when you start receiving written

feedback? and the students have different answers. 15 out of 35 (42.86%)

students answered that when they start receiving feedback they were able to

extend their learning, they are studying more by studying related topics of their

recent activities, 8 out of 35 (22.86%) students answered that they are now risk

taker because they can now answer freely and they are not afraid to have their

answer wrong, 6 out of 35 (17.14%) students answered they are more active

now and participating more on their science activities and 6 out of 35 (17.14%)

students are now more comfortable to their teacher. Most of the students

observed that the change to their learning when they start receiving written

feedback was their emphasis to extend their learning.

 81

Students' Perception Towards the Teacher's Used of Formative

Assessment Tools in Science Class

Table 14: Students answer on survey question number one. Did receiving
formative assessment tools of the teacher in science classes help
you to have a better understanding of ideas that were taught?
How?

Answer Frequency Percent

Yes, I can now remember well the 13 37.14

concepts and ideas
Yes, I’m having fun and as well as better 14 40
learning

Yes, I can compete with my classmate 5 14.29

3 8.57
No, no advantage

The table 14 shown the students different answers on survey question

number one part two. The survey question number one was: Did receiving

formative assessment tools of the teacher in science classes help you to have

a better understanding of ideas that were taught? How? and the students have

different answers. A total of 14 (40%) students answered that they are having

fun and as well as better learning so teaching techniques of the teacher during

science classes and activities help them to have better understanding of ideas,

13 (37.14%) students answered that teaching techniques of the teachers makes

 82

them remember well the concepts and ideas, 5 (14.29%) of the students

answered they can better understand now and can compete with their

classmate and the remaining 3 (8.57%) students answered there’s no

advantage in using teaching techniques in science classes and activities. Most

of the students believed that receiving formative assessment tools of the

teacher in science classes help them to have a better understanding of ideas

that were taught.

Table 15: Students answer on survey question number two. Which type of
teachers technique do you perceive as being most helpful: Text
Highlighting, Entry and Exit Pass or others? Please explain your
answer

Answer Frequency Percent

16 45.71
Text highlighting its fun to learn with
these and i can learn in my own

19 54.29
Entry and exit pass, I can now remember
well the concepts and ideas

Table 15 shows the students different answers on survey question

number two part two. The survey question number two was: Which type of

teachers technique do you perceive as being most helpful: Text Highlighting,

Entry and Exit Pass or others? Please explain your answer, and the students
 83

have different answers. A total of 19 (54.29%) students answered that using

entry and exit pass was the most helpful teaching technique and they can now

remember well the concepts and ideas by this technique. The remaining 16

(45.71%) students answered that the most helpful teaching technique was the

text highlighting because its fun to learn with these and they can learn on their

own.

Table 16: Students answer on survey question number three. What do you
think about using drawings, diagrams, charts, and graphs to
illustrate science ideas and concepts? Do you think that creating
them helped you to understand the ideas and concepts? In what
way, please explain

Answer Frequency Percent

Yes It’s fun to made these and you can 17 48.57

easily learn
Yes I can easily memorized these and 12 34.29
the concepts behind these
No I cannot easily connect it to the 3 8.57
concept

No waste of time 3 8.57

Table 16 shows the students different answers on survey question

number three part two. The survey question number three was: What do you

think about using drawings, diagrams, charts, and graphs to illustrate science

ideas and concepts? Do you think that creating them helped you to understand
 84

the ideas and concepts? In what way, please explain, and the students have

different answers. A total of 17 (48.57%) students answered it’s fun to made

these and they can easily learn by creating these, 12 (34.29%) students

answered they can easily memorized these and the concepts behind, 3 (8.57%)

students answered no, they cannot easily connect it to the concept and the

remaining 3 (8.57%) students answered No. just waste of time.

Table 17: Students answer on survey question number four. What changes did
you experience in your learning when you received the formative
assessment tools of the teacher?

Answer Frequency Percent

Extend learning , I can now summarized 16 45.71

the ideas and concepts I already learned
Activeness, I am now active in class 14 40

Social, I am now comfortable with my 5 14.29

teacher

Table 17 shows the students different answers on survey question

number four part two. The survey question number four was: What changes did

you experience in your learning when you received the formative assessment

tools of the teacher? and the students have different answers. A total of 16

(45.71%) students answered they can extend their own learning by

summarizing the ideas and concepts they have already learned, 14 (40%)
 85

students answered that they are now more active in science class and the

remaining 5 (14.29%) students answered they are now more comfortable with

their teacher.
 86

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This study was conducted to determine formative assessment and the

achievement of science learning outcomes of Grade 8 Students. Specifically

this study aims to: determine the level of science achievement of Grade 8

students before the intervention, determine the level of science achievement of

Grade 8 students after the intervention, compare the difficulty of post-test items

of the control and experimental group, compare the pre-test score of the control

and experimental groups, compare the post-test score of the control and

experimental groups, compare the pre-test and post-test score of the control

group, compare the pre-test and post-test score of the experimental group,

compare the mean gain scores of the control and experimental groups,

describe how the teachers perceived his experience in implementing formative

assessment, and describe how the students perceived their experience in the

teacher’s use of formative assessment.

The data were gathered through the use of pre-test and post-test of the

experimental and control group. The pre-test and post-test were made by the

help of curriculum guide to ensure that the items were aligned to learning

competencies of the lesson. After the intervention, the researcher personally

gave the teacher’s questionnaire and students’ questionnaire to the

experimental group. These questionnaires were developed with the help of

 17

CBAM-LoU or the Concerns-Based Adoption Model Level of Use tool.

This tool was developed by a team of researchers at the Research and

Development Center for Teacher Education. The CBAM-LoU tool were

commonly used to help leaders, evaluators, and researchers understand,

monitor and guide the complex process of implementing new and innovative

practices. The developed questionnaire of the researcher were composed of

eight (8) open-ended questions. Four of the question were related to the written

feedback used by the teacher and the other four were related to formative

assessment tool used by the teacher in his science class.

The findings are as follows:

1. The control group was consisted of thirty-nine (39) students, two (2)

obtained high scores (5.71%), thirteen (13) obtained average scores

(33.33%), twenty (20) obtained low scores (51.28%) and four (4) obtained

very low scores(10.26%). The mean score of the control group is 10 which

means they belong to low scorers. The experimental group was consisted

of thirty-five (35) students, four (4) obtained high scores (8.57%), fourteen

(14) obtained average scores (40%), fourteen (40) obtained low scores

(40%) and three (3) obtained very low scores(8.57%). The mean score of

the control group is 11.17 which means that they belonged to average

scorers.

2. The control group was consisted of thirty-nine (39) students, thirteen (13)

obtained high scores (33.33%), eighteen (18) obtained average scores

 18

(46.16%) and eight (8) obtained low scores (20.51%). The mean score of

the control group was 13.64 which means that they belonged to average

scorers. The experimental group was consisted of thirty-five (35) students,

two (2) obtained very high scores (5.71%), eighteen (18) obtained high

scores (51.43%), twelve (12) obtained average scores (34.29%) and three

(3) obtained low scores (8.57%). The mean score of the experimental group

was 16.63 which means that they belonged to high scorers.

3. In control group the post-test item no. 1, 2, 9, 10, 14, 16,19, 20 and 23 were

easy for the students to answer; item no. 3, 6, 21, and 25 were in average

category and items 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 22, and 24 were in

difficult category. In experimental group, item no. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 16,19,

20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 were easy for the students to answer, items 4, 5,

7, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 18 were in average category and only item no. 9 and

17 were in difficult category.

4. The pre-test of experimental group had a mean score of 11.17 with a

standard deviation of 4.14 and in the control group with the mean score of

10 and a standard deviation of 3.48. The mean score of the two groups pre-

test was compared using t-test for independent samples. Thes table

showed the calculated t-value of 1.32 with a probability of 0.19. The

difference between the two groups mean scores showed that both of the

students has almost the same in terms level of knowledge and

understanding of the subject matter before the intervention. The calculated

 19

t-value of 1.32 showed that there was no significant differences between

the pre-test of experimental group and controlled group at 5% level of

significance before the intervention.

5. The mean score of experimental group is 16.63 with a standard deviation

of 3.87; while, in the control group the mean score was 13.64 with a

standard deviation of 2.87. The students score of the experimental group

was higher than the students score of the control group. The table also

showed that they had the t- value of 3.8 with the probability of 0.003. The t-

value implied that the result was significant at 5% level of significance.

6. The pre-test mean score of the control group was 10 with the standard

deviation of 3.48 and post-test of 13.64 with the standard deviation of 2.87.

The mean gain score of the control group was 3. 64 meaning they have

learned something about the topic electricity without using the intervention.

The table also showed that they had a t-value of -5.04 with the probability

of 0.00001. The t-value means that there was a significant difference

between the pre-test and post-test of the control group at 5% level of

significance.

7. The pre-test mean score of the experimental group was 11.17 with the

standard deviation of 4.14 and post-test of 16.63 with the standard deviation

of 3.87. The mean gain score of the control group was 5.46. It implied that

they have learned something about the topic electricity with the used of

intervention. The table also showed that they had a t-value of -5.7 with the
 20

probability of 0.00001. The t-value implied that there was a significant

difference between the pre-test and post-test of the experimental group at

5% level of significance.

8. The experimental group pre-test mean score of 11.17 and post-test mean

score of 16.63 with a mean gain score of 5.46; while the control group pre-

test mean score of 10 and post-test mean score of 13.64. The experimental

group mean gain score was higher than the control group mean gain score

means that the experimental group who had the intervention learned better

than the control group who do not have the intervention. This table also

showed that they have the t-value of -0.63 with the probability of 0.2955.

The t-value implied that there were no significant difference between the

mean gain score of the experimental and control group at 5% level of

significance.

Conclusion

Based on the data gathered the following conclusion are drawn.

1. The control group mean score belonged to the low scorers while

experimental group mean score was belonged to the average scorers

before the intervention;

2. The control group mean score was belonged to the average scorers

while experimental group mean score was belonged to the high scorers

after the intervention;

 21

3. The controlled group identified more difficult items on the posttest than

the experimental group. The experimental group identified more easy

items than the control group. The control group had more difficulty in

answering the post-test than the experimental group.;

4. The difference between the two groups mean scores in the pretest shows

that both of the students had almost the same in terms level of knowledge

and understanding of the subject matter before the lesson in electricity;

5. The difference between the two groups mean scores in the posttest

showed that the experimental and controlled group students were

significantly different in terms level of knowledge and understanding of

the subject matter after the lesson in electricity;

6. The difference between the pre-test and post-test mean scores of the

controlled group students showed that they were significantly different in

terms level of knowledge and understanding of the subject matter before

and after the lesson in electricity;

7. The difference between the pre-test and post-test mean scores of the

experimental group students showed that there were significantly

different in terms level of knowledge and understanding of the subject

matter before and after the lesson in electricity;

8. The difference between the mean gain score of the control and

experimental group showed that there was no significant difference in

 22

terms of level of knowledge and understanding gained before and after

the lesson in electricity;

9. The teacher believed that providing formative assessment in his science

class could help his student to achieve the science learning outcomes;

and

10. The students believed that receiving formative assessment in science

class could help them to achieve the science learning outcomes.

Recommendations

Based on the findings and conclusion of the study the following are

recommended.

1. A similar study should be conducted using more number of items of

pre-test and post-test so the test can cover all the learning

competencies of the lesson;

2. A similar study should be conducted using different formative

assessment other than written feedbacl;

3. A similar study should monitor the used of formative assessment for

both teachers from experimental and control group; and

4. A similar study should be conducted using different survey questions

that are not answerable by yes or no so future researcher can get

more detailed answers.