The coding scheme.
| Code | Guideline |
Performance standards or success criteria
(only one option possible) | No | Teachers were not given written descriptions of formative assessment (strategies) of high quality that they could use to self-regulate their learning. |
Yes | Teachers were given written descriptions of formative assessment (strategies) of high quality that they could use to self-regulate their learning. | |
Partly | Teachers were given written descriptions of some formative assessment (strategies) of high quality that they could use to self-regulate their learning. | |
Modelling
(multiple options possible)
| No modelling | No forms of modelling were used to clarify what “good” formative assessment (strategies) looks like. |
Material | Materials, such as worked lesson plans, were used as examples for teachers, to demonstrate (parts of) what “good” formative assessment looks like. | |
Teaching examples | Teaching examples (in the form of video recordings or live examples) of other teachers using (parts of) formative assessment were used to demonstrate what “good” formative assessment looks like. | |
Narratives | Narratives (i.e., written scripts) of other teachers using (parts of) formative assessment were used to demonstrate what “good” formative assessment looks like. | |
Monitoring
(multiple options possible)
| No monitoring | Teachers’ (lack of) progress regarding the identified performance standards was not monitored (informally) during the TPD. |
Qualitative | Teachers’ (lack of) progress regarding the identified performance standards was monitored informally through qualitative monitoring techniques, for example, only through oral assessment (i.e., discussions and questioning) during the TPD. | |
Quantitative | Teachers’ (lack of) progress regarding the identified performance standards was monitored through quantitative monitoring techniques, for example, through written assignments or scored lessons during the TPD. | |
Self-assessment | Teachers monitored their own (lack of) progress regarding the performance standards provided during the TPD. | |
Peer-assessment | Teachers monitored each other’s (lack of) progress regarding the performance standards provided during the TPD. | |
Trainer or teacher leader assessment | Trainers or teacher leaders monitored teachers’ (lack of) progress regarding the performance standards provided during the TPD sessions. | |
Encouragement of self-regulation
(multiple options possible)
| No encouragement of self-regulation | Teachers were in no way encouraged to self-regulate their learning for formative assessment. |
Goal-setting | Teachers were stimulated to set their own goals, within the broader framework of formative assessment. | |
Evaluation | Teachers were stimulated to evaluate their progress regarding formative assessment. | |
Reflection/planning | Teachers were stimulated to plan their efforts regarding formative assessment in their own lessons, based on the reflection results. | |
Activating prior knowledge
(multiple options possible)
| No activation of prior knowledge | Teachers’ prior knowledge was not activated by either experts or peer teachers during the TPD sessions before any new content was addressed. |
With resources | Teachers’ prior knowledge was activated by either experts or peer teachers with the help of resources, before any new content was addressed during the TPD sessions. For example, teachers were shown models of formative assessment and asked to think of how their own teaching practice related to (aspects of) formative assessment models. | |
Without resources | Before the first TPD session, teachers’ prior knowledge was activated by either experts or peer teachers without the help of resources. For example, teachers were asked to recall their own teaching practice regarding (elements of) formative assessment at the start of the first TPD session. | |
Retrieval practice
(only one option possible) | No retrieval practice | Teachers’ declarative knowledge of learning content offered on formative assessment (strategies) was never recalled later on. |
Once | Teachers’ declarative knowledge of learning content offered on formative assessment (strategies) was recalled only once. | |
Multiple times | Teachers’ declarative knowledge of learning content offered on formative assessment (strategies) was recalled multiple times. | |
Representativeness of learning tasks
(multiple options)
| No | Teachers worked on learning tasks that were not representative of formative assessment as intended. |
Yes | Teachers worked on learning tasks that were representative of formative assessment as intended. | |
Partly | Teachers worked on learning tasks that each focused on a single formative assessment strategy (learning goals – assessment – feedback use – self/peer assessment). | |
Progression | Teachers worked on learning tasks that each included an increasingly complex combination of formative assessment strategies. For example, the focus of the learning task was first only strategy 1, while a consecutive learning task focused on both strategy 1 and strategy 2, etc. | |
Integrated whole | Teachers worked on learning tasks that each focused on an integration of all formative assessment strategies (learning goals – assessment – feedback use – self/peer assessment). | |
Spaced practice
(only one option possible) | No practice | Teachers were required to practice formative assessment (strategies) over time during the TPD intervention. |
Low intensity | Teachers were required to practice formative assessment (strategies) only once. | |
Moderate intensity | Teachers were required to practice formative assessment strategies more than once, but not more than 5 times over time. | |
High intensity | Teachers were required to practice formative assessment (strategies) more than 5 times over time. | |
Classroom feedback
(multiple options possible)
| No class feedback | Teachers did not receive feedback on their formative assessment teaching practice. |
Class feedback | Teachers received feedback on their formative assessment teaching practice while teaching, or directly after teaching. | |
Peer | Teachers received feedback on their formative assessment teaching practice from a peer. | |
Trainer | Teachers received feedback on their formative assessment teaching practice from a trainer or teacher leader. | |
Open-ended | The feedback on their formative assessment teaching practice was not related to the performance standards provided. | |
Benchmarked | The feedback on teachers’ formative assessment teaching practice was related to the performance standards provided. | |
Differentiation
(multiple options possible)
| No differentiation | The TPD interventions were in no way adapted to meet teachers’ varying needs. |
Content | The content of the TPD intervention was adapted to meet teachers’ varying needs. | |
Tasks/assignments | The learning tasks of the TPD intervention were adapted to meet teachers’ varying needs. | |
Feedback | The individual feedback given during the TPD intervention was adapted to meet teachers’ varying needs. | |
TPD goal
(multiple options possible) | Inquiry approach | The focus of the TPD was mostly on promoting teachers’ (and students’) use of quantitative and qualitative assessment results to make medium-term decisions regarding their teaching (and learning) efforts. |
Measurement approach | The focus of the TPD was mostly on promoting teachers’ use of quantitative assessment results to make medium-term decisions regarding their teaching efforts. | |
TPD content
(multiple options possible)
| Declarative knowledge (knowing what) | The TPD sessions provided teachers with declarative knowledge on formative assessment (e.g., the strategies). This means that the focus was especially on factual knowledge regarding formative assessment, such as what FA is precisely and, for example, information about its effectiveness. |
Procedural knowledge (knowing how to) | The TPD sessions provided teachers with procedural knowledge on formative assessment (the strategies). This means that the focus was on the “how” of formative assessment | |
Source of TPD content
(only one option possible) | Expert-driven | What was learned was determined largely by the expert. |
Teacher and expert-driven | What was learned was determined by both teachers and experts. | |
Teacher-driven | What was learned was determined largely by the teachers. | |
Alignment of TPD goal, content, method and context | Low alignment | The content and method of the TPD were inconsistent with the TPD goal and characteristics of the context. For example, the number of practice opportunities was inconsistent with the complexity of becoming competent in using formative assessment in the classroom or the entry level of teachers participating in the TPD. |
Medium alignment | The content and method of the TPD were consistent with the TPD goal and characteristics of the context. For example, teachers were given enough practice opportunities, which was consistent with the complexity of becoming competent in using formative assessment, but did not take into account the entry level of teachers participating in the TPD. | |
High alignment | The content and method of the TPD were consistent with the TPD goal and characteristics of the context. For example, teachers were given enough practice opportunities, which was consistent with the complexity of becoming competent in using formative assessment, and took into account the entry level of teachers participating in the TPD. |