Come and Review Exciting Research Explaining Formative Assessment
Location
Boston 1
Session Format
Presentation
Abstract
Can formative assessment increase learning among students? Meta-analysis evidence supports this practice. Karaman (2021) explained that with 32 studies and 47 effect sizes, an overall effect size of .72. While Kingston and Brooke (2011) showed smaller effect sizes in a meta-analysis covering 300 studies, effects of .30 and .28 were found for formative assessment-based on professional development and computer systems providing formative assessment. Lee et al., (2020) detailed 126 effect sizes from 33 studies with effects for mathematics, .34, literacy, .33, and arts, .29. The effect for student-initiated self-assessment was larger at .61. Yao et al., (2024) supplied results from 258 effect sizes from 118 published studies as an overall effect size of .25. Hemphill (2003) supplied quantitatively based guidelines from two meta-analyses to explain an effect size of .30 and above to be large. Xuan et al., (2022) define formative assessment as an active process. This active process and the significance of these various findings and implications for future K-12 instruction and research will be discussed.
This proposal was submitted and accepted for last year's confernce. Regretfully, the storm kept me from attending. Dr. Massey explained this could be sent for consideration for this year's conference.
Keywords
meta-analysis, formative assessment, effective instruction
Professional Bio
Curriculum and Instruction Ed.D. University of San Francisco, 1990 Elementary Regular Education and Special Education teacher, full-time,1968-1991 Armstrong State Univeristy and Georgia Southern Univeristy Faculty member 1991-Present, Professor
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Recommended Citation
Hobe, John, "Come and Review Exciting Research Explaining Formative Assessment" (2026). Georgia Educational Research Association Conference. 79.
https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/gera/2026/2026/79
Come and Review Exciting Research Explaining Formative Assessment
Boston 1
Can formative assessment increase learning among students? Meta-analysis evidence supports this practice. Karaman (2021) explained that with 32 studies and 47 effect sizes, an overall effect size of .72. While Kingston and Brooke (2011) showed smaller effect sizes in a meta-analysis covering 300 studies, effects of .30 and .28 were found for formative assessment-based on professional development and computer systems providing formative assessment. Lee et al., (2020) detailed 126 effect sizes from 33 studies with effects for mathematics, .34, literacy, .33, and arts, .29. The effect for student-initiated self-assessment was larger at .61. Yao et al., (2024) supplied results from 258 effect sizes from 118 published studies as an overall effect size of .25. Hemphill (2003) supplied quantitatively based guidelines from two meta-analyses to explain an effect size of .30 and above to be large. Xuan et al., (2022) define formative assessment as an active process. This active process and the significance of these various findings and implications for future K-12 instruction and research will be discussed.
This proposal was submitted and accepted for last year's confernce. Regretfully, the storm kept me from attending. Dr. Massey explained this could be sent for consideration for this year's conference.
