See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/354932213

The Effect of Formative Assessment Practices on Student Learning: A Meta-

Analysis Study

Article  in  International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education · October 2021

DOI: 10.21449/ijate.870300

CITATIONS READS

0 137

1 author:

Pınar Karaman
Sinop Üniversitesi
17 PUBLICATIONS   109 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Pınar Karaman on 29 September 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education
2021, Vol. 8, No. 4, 801–817

https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.870300
Published at https://ijate.net/ https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ijate Research Article

The Effect of Formative Assessment Practices on Student Learning: A Meta-

Analysis Study

Pinar Karaman 1,*

1
Sinop University, Faculty of Education, Department of Educational Sciences, Sinop, Turkey

ARTICLE HISTORY Abstract: The main purpose of this meta-analysis study is to investigate how
formative assessment practices promote student learning in Turkey. 32 studies with
Received: Jan. 28, 2021
47 effect sizes that met the specified criteria such as using true experimental or
Revised: Aug. 22, 2021 quasi-experimental design and measuring learning outcomes were included as the
Accepted: Sep. 22, 2021 final analysis in the meta-analytical review method. The overall mean effect size
of the study was obtained as .72 (SE= .07, p< .05). Further investigation through
Keywords: subgroup analysis showed that the effect sizes made a significant difference on
different types of formative feedback. The effect of features of formative
Formative assessment, assessment interventions on student learning indicated that student initiated
Student learning, formative feedback (d=1.16) and mixed feedback (d=.83) had a large effect, which
Meta-analysis. was followed by a medium effect of adult initiated formative feedback (d=.69) and
a small effect of computer initiated formative feedback (d =.42). On the other hand,
education level and publication type had no effect on student academic
performance in the study. These findings support the positive effect of formative
assessment practices on student learning. Such a result suggests that increasing the
number of different types of formative assessment practices in the classrooms
would promise a considerable contribution to student learning.

1. INTRODUCTION
Assessment is an important component of effective teaching and learning (Bransford et al.,
2000; Hargreaves, 2008). Formative assessment strategy plays a crucial role in supporting the
student learning. This assessment strategy provides effective feedback and instructional
correctives in the teaching-learning process to improve students’ learning, motivation, and self-
regulation skills (Black & William, 2009; Cauley & McMillan, 2010; McManus, 2008;
Popham, 2008). Formative assessment also known as assessment for learning, diagnostic
testing, and feedback is an ongoing process used by teachers, students, and students’ peers
(Andersson & Palm, 2017a, 2017b; Bennett, 2011). Teachers can adjust their teaching practices
to increase student learning through formative assessment (Black & Wiliam, 2009; Brookhart,
2009).
Formative assessment has the succeeding three main stages; namely, (1) determining goals, (2)
providing feedback to enhance student performance with these goals, and (3) using feedback to

*CONTACT: Pinar KARAMAN  [email protected]  Sinop University, Faculty of Education,

Department of Educational Sciences, Sinop, Turkey

e-ISSN: 2148-7456 /© IJATE 2021

801
Karaman

improve further learning of students (Brookhart, 2010). One of the most important components
of formative assessment is feedback that helps to provide evidence on student learning
(Andersson & Palm, 2017a). Feedback helps students to understand current status of their
learning to make further progress (Sadler,1989). This feedback to advance student learning
could come from different agents such as teachers, self-assessment, peer assessment, group
assessment, and even computers (Sadler, 1989; Black & William, 1998; Graham et al., 2015;
Wiliam, 2018). Feedback may be given to students in different time periods (instantly or
delayed) (Andersson & Palm, 2017a). Thus, different types of feedback provide different
formative assessment interventions (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). Feedback from teachers and
students has an important role in formative assessment practices due to their significant support
for student learning (Black & William, 2009), self-regulated learning (Andrade & Brookhart,
2016; Butler & Winne, 1995; Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994), and peer-assisted learning
(Gielen et al., 2010). Students’ engagement in self-assessment and peer-assessment for
effective formative assessment strategies promotes their self-regulated learning skills
(Zimmerman, 2002; Weldmeskel & Michael, 2016). In addition to teacher and student initiated
formative assessment, computer initiated formative assessment also provides immediate
feedback to students (Maier et al., 2016; Van der Kleij et al., 2015). These studies showed that
computer-based feedback has an important effect on student learning (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996;
Miller, 2009). However, in comparison to formative feedback from teachers and students,
computer-based formative assessment is more difficult to apply (Maier et al., 2016).
Several meta-analysis research studies have been conducted to investigate the efficiency of
formative assessment strategies. The results of these studies indicate that effect sizes vary with
a considerable range (Black & William, 1998; Fuchs & Fuchs, 1986; Graham et al., 2015; King
& Nash, 2011; Lee et al., 2020). The magnitude of the effect sizes of differences could come
from a variety of the meta-analysis studies that focused on formative assessment types,
feedback procedures, and learning subjects. (Maier et al., 2016). Black and William (1998)
provided meta-analysis of 250 studies on the effect of formative assessment practices and found
positive influence of formative assessment on student achievement with effect sizes ranging
from .40 to .70. They argued that formative assessment intervention is more important than
other educational interventions to improve student learning. Hattie (2009) examined the factors
that were significantly related to student achievement through multiple meta-analysis and found
that one of the most important factors is teachers’ use of formative assessment strategies.
Kingston and Nash (2011), in their meta-analysis research, examined a limited number of
studies (a total of 13 studies) to uncover the effect of formative assessment on K-12 student
achievement and reported the mean effect size as .20. They suggested that more studies are
needed to investigate the relationship between formative assessment and academic
achievement. On the other hand, Graham et al. (2015) investigated the effect of formative
assessment on students’ writing performance and reported a weighted mean effect size of .61.
They also reported the impact of feedback from adults (d=.87), feedback from students (peer
assessment, d=.58 and self-assessment, d= .62), and feedback from computers (d=.38) to
student writing performance. Lee et al. (2020) analyzed 33 studies about K-12 education in the
USA and reported an overall mean effect size of .29. They found the effectiveness of formative
assessment on different subject areas. Moreover, meta-regression analysis denoted that student-
initiated self-assessment was the most effective one (d= .61) among other interventions. In
comparison to informal feedback (d=.52), formal formative assessment feedback was more
effective on student learning. Briefly, although several meta-analysis studies in the literature
concluded that formative assessment has a positive effect on student learning, the effectiveness
of different types of formative assessment interventions was not examined adequately in
previous meta-analysis studies.

802
Int. J. Assess. Tools Educ., Vol. 8, No. 4, (2021) pp. 801–817

For more than a decade, Turkey has given priority to the improvement of assessment for
learning in education programs and offered more support to teachers to encourage them to use
this assessment strategy more frequently in their classrooms (Kitchen et al., 2019; MoNE, 2017,
2020). With the growing importance of using formative assessment strategies in classrooms,
the number of research studies conducted about the effectiveness of the formative assessment
has increased considerably in recent years (Delen & Bellibaş, 2015; Double et al., 2020; Lee et
al., 2020; Ozan & Kıncal, 2018). In parallel to the publication of more research studies, a meta-
analysis research study was developed in the present study. In this regard, the purpose of the
study was to provide a synthesis of the experimental and quasi-experimental studies about the
effectiveness of formative assessment practices on student learning in Turkey. In addition to
the effectiveness of formative assessment in each education level from primary to tertiary,
features of formative assessment interventions and publication types were also examined as
moderator variables in the study.
In this study, how formative assessment practices in Turkey’s education system promote
student learning was investigated through meta-analysis. Therefore, the present study is of high
importance to gain a better understanding of the effect of formative assessment practices on
student learning. Examining the effectiveness of formative assessment and its moderators (i.e.
types of formative assessment interventions, education level) would contribute to the literature.
In this sense, the following research questions were asked in this study:
1) What effect do formative assessment interventions have on student learning according to
the findings of the experimental studies applied in Turkey?
2) Do the findings of the experimental studies applied in Turkey about the effect of
formative assessment interventions on student learning differ significantly according to
moderating variables (features of formative assessment interventions, education level,
and publication type)?
2. METHOD
Meta-analysis method was conducted in the present study. Meta-analysis is more than a
statistical technique that synthesizes a series of research studies answering the same research
question in a systematic way (Borenstein et al., 2009; Glass et al., 1981). This statistical method
called as quantitative research synthesis helps to summarize and compare the results of the
studies. When compared with other research synthesis, meta-analysis focuses on research
outcomes to draw conclusions with effect sizes (Card, 2012). ProMeta3 (professional statistical
software) was used for data analysis in the present study.
Several steps were carried out to perform meta-analysis (Field & Gillett, 2010); namely, (1)
doing a literature review to formulate a problem; (2) specifying inclusion/exclusion criteria; (3)
calculation of effect size for each study; (4) doing meta-analysis; (5) assessing moderator
variables with advanced analysis; (6) doing publication bias analysis; and (7) writing the results.
2.1. Literature Review
First, research studies that investigated the relationship between formative assessment practices
and student learning were collected through a search of databases. Key words were specified in
English and Turkish as “formative assessment” and “biçimlendirici değerlendirme”, and
“experimental” and “deneysel”, respectively. These databases are Google Scholar, PsycINFO,
Turkish Council of Higher Education (YÖK) National Thesis Center, Education Research
Complete, ERIC (2020), Web of Science, ULAKBİM (2020), and EBSCO (2020). Peer-
reviewed journals, master’s theses, and doctoral dissertations were included in the meta-
analysis.

803
Karaman

2.2. Selection Criteria

If studies had to meet the following criteria, they were included in the meta-analysis. These
criteria were as follows: (1) studies that had true experimental or quasi experimental design
with control group and treatment group with formative assessment interventions; (2) studies
that measured learning outcomes; (3) studies with enough information to calculate effect sizes;
(4) students at different education levels (i.e., primary, secondary, and tertiary); and (5) studies
written in English or Turkish language.
A number of 105 records were identified through the search of databases. The number of studies
dropped to 81 after removing duplicates and eliminating studies according to the specified
criteria (i.e. studies that do not have formative assessment intervention, studies that do not have
student learning or academic achievement, and studies that do not have enough statistics).
Ultimately, 32 studies with 47 effect sizes that were unpublished theses and peer-reviewed
articles that had experimental studies about the effectiveness of formative assessment on
student learning were included. A flow chart that summarizes the inclusion of studies through
search in the meta-analysis is given in Figure 1. Therefore, the data included 32 studies as
shown in Table 1.
Table 1. The studies included in the meta-analysis.
Number of Education
Included Study Course
Effect Sizes Level
Arıcı and Kaldırım (2015) 1 Language Tertiary
Atik and Erkoç (2017) 2 Science Secondary
Aydın et al.(2016) 1 Science Secondary
Batıbay (2019) 1 Literacy Secondary
Bayat (2014) 1 Literacy Tertiary
Bayrak et al. (2019) 2 Science Secondary
Baysal (2020) 1 Foreign Language Secondary
Bolat et al. (2017) 1 Computer Science Tertiary
Demirkesen (2019) 1 Foreign Language Tertiary
Elvan (2012) 1 Social Sciences Secondary
Eraz and Öksüz (2015) 1 Mathematics Primary
Güzel (2018) 1 Science Secondary
Hotaman (2020) 1 Teacher Training Tertiary
Kaya and Ateş (2016) 1 Language Primary
Kıncal and Ozan (2018) 1 Measurement and Evaluation Tertiary
Korkmaz et al. (2019) 1 Foreign Language Secondary
Köksalan (2019) 1 Physics Secondary
Kuzudişli (2019) 2 Science Secondary
Müldür and Yalçın (2019) 1 Language Secondary
Ozan and Kıncal (2018) 1 Social Sciences Secondary
Özgür (2016) 1 Computer Education Tertiary
Sever and Memiş (2013) 4 Language Primary
Tavşanlı (2019) 1 Language Primary
Topal (2020) 1 Educational Sciences Tertiary
Turan and Sakız (2014) 2 Science Secondary
Yalaki and Bayram (2015) 1 Chemistry Tertiary
Yaşar (2018) 4 Mathematics Secondary
Yıldız and Kılıç Çakmak (2019) 1 Project Management and Application Tertiary
Yılmaz (2015) 1 Mathematics Secondary
Yorgancı (2015) 1 Mathematics Tertiary
Yurdabakan and Cihanoğlu (2009) 6 Foreign Language Secondary
Yurdabakan and Olgun (2011) 1 Science Primary

804
Int. J. Assess. Tools Educ., Vol. 8, No. 4, (2021) pp. 801–817

Figure 1. Flow chart of inclusion of the studies.

2.3. Formative Assessment Interventions

Formative assessment interventions have several types of feedback. The sources of formative
feedback could come from teachers, self, peers, computers, or mixed (Andrade, 2010; Graham
et al., 2015). In the present meta-analysis study, the studies that have various formative
feedback from adults (teachers), computers, students, and mixed are coded. The studies that
have multiple interventions such as self-assessment, peer assessment, group assessment, adult
feedback, and/or computer feedback were coded as mixed.
2.4. Statistical Analysis of Effect Sizes
In meta-analysis, several standardized effect sizes are used to summarize direction and
magnitude of effects in research studies such as Cohen’s d, Hedge's g or Glass’s g (Başol-
Göçmen, 2004; Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). Hedge’s g also called unbiased d was used to calculate
the standardized mean differences between treated groups that have formative assessment
interventions and control groups. When comparing Hedge's g statistic to Cohen’s d and Glass’g
statistic, Hedge’s g uses the pooled standard deviation (Hedge, 1981). Hedge’s g is preferred
since it is better for small samples (<20) and significant for different sample sizes. Hedge's g,
Cohen's d, and Glass's g statistic results are interpreted in the same way. Therefore, Cohen’s
proposal to classify the magnitude of effects was adopted in the study (Cohen, 1987).
Magnitude of effects is described as small effect (.18), medium effect (.48), and large effect
(.83) in social sciences (Cohen, 1962, 1987).
Two statistical models are used in meta-analysis. These models are fixed effect model and
random effects model (Borenstein et al., 2009; Hedges & Vevea, 1998). It is assumed that only
one true effect size exists for all studies including the meta-analysis with fixed effect model.
On the other hand, true effect shows differences from one study to another study for the random
effects model. Effect size might change due to the differences of studies such as studies that
have different ages, education levels, income levels of participants, or differences of
interventions. (Borenstein et al., 2009; Üstün & Eryılmaz, 2014). Due to the differences of
studies, different effect sizes may occur in these studies. Therefore, estimating the mean
distribution of effects is important for random effects model. Since research studies have
different designs of formative assessment interventions and education levels, differences may
occur from one study to another study in the present meta-analysis. For that reason, random
effects model was employed in the present study. An average weighted effect size was
calculated for the efficacy of formative assessment treatment. To test the heterogeneity in effect
sizes, Q and 𝐼 2 statistic were used. A statistically significant p value for Q statistic means that
the true effects vary (Borenstein et al., 2009). In other words, significant p value means that
there is a significant variability among the effect sizes. 𝐼 2 statistic which gives the amount of

805
Karaman

variance across studies due to heterogeneity was also computed (Higgins et al., 2003;
Schwarzer et al., 2015).
2.5. Publication Bias
To have an accurate synthesis of studies in meta-analysis, assessing publication bias risk in the
studies is important (Borenstein et al., 2009). There are several methods to assess the potential
bias for a meta-analysis study. One of the methods is the funnel plot that gives the relationship
between the observed effect size of each study and its standard error (Schwarzer et al., 2015).
If studies were distributed symmetrically around the mean effect size in the plot, this would be
the evidence of absence of publication bias. Funnel plot was used in the present study to inspect
whether publication bias exists or not (Figure 2).
Figure 2. A funnel plot indicating standard error and observed effect size.

The funnel plot shows that studies were approximately scattered around the mean effect size.
Since the interpretation of funnel plot could be subjective, some of the tests were also used to
assess exactly any risks of bias such as Duval and Tweedie’s Trim and Fill, Rosenthal’s Fail-
safe N test, Begg and Mazumdar Rank Correlation Test, and Egger’s linear regression test
(Begg, & Mazumdar, 1994; Duval, & Tweedie, 2000; Egger et al., 1997; Rosenthal, 1979).
Trim and Fill method was used to remove extreme studies and estimate the effect sizes again
in order to solve the asymmetry in funnel plot. The results of this method showed that trimming
was not performed. Rosenthal’s Fail-safe N test estimates how many missing studies would be
needed to add to nullify the effect (Rosenthal, 1979). Rosenthal (1979) suggested that if the
Fail-safe N test shows that large numbers of studies are needed to nullify the common effect
rather than a few studies (i.e. five or ten), it can be concluded that true effect may not be zero
in the study (Borenstein et al., 2009). In the present meta-analysis, the number of studies was
5681 according to Rosenthal’s method. Therefore, it can be said that the results of the meta-
analysis with 47 effect sizes would not be robust if 5681 studies were added. Besides, Egger’s
linear regression test was not statistically significant (b= -0.66, p=0.155). As a result, Funnel
Plot, Trim and Fill Method, Fail-safe N Test, and Egger’s Linear Regression Test generally
showed a low risk of publication bias that could be negligible.
3. FINDINGS
The number of studies included in the meta-analysis and the characteristics of these studies are
summarized in Table 2. Most of the studies included in the meta-analysis were journal articles
(68.75 %) and master’s and doctoral theses (31.25 %) as publication type. 50 % of these studies
were conducted at secondary school level, 34.37 % at tertiary level, and 15.62 % at primary

806
Int. J. Assess. Tools Educ., Vol. 8, No. 4, (2021) pp. 801–817

school level. The studies with the treatment groups having various formative assessment
interventions were also described in the meta-analysis. The features of formative assessment
interventions showed that 37.5 % of these studies have adult (teacher) initiated feedback,
31.25 % have computer initiated feedback, 15.62 % have student initiated feedback, and
15.62 % have mixed feedback (including peer assessment, group assessment, teacher’s
feedback, and/or computer feedback).
Table 2. Characteristics of the studies included in the meta-analysis.
Frequency (f) Percent (%)
Study type Thesis (master’s and doctoral) 10 31.25
Article 22 68.75
Education level Primary 5 15.62
Secondary 16 50
Tertiary 11 34.37
Features of formative Adult initiated feedback 12 37.5
assessment interventions Student initiated feedback 5 15.62
Computer initiated feedback 10 31.25
Mixed feedback 5 15.62

As summarized in Table 3, the meta-analysis shows the overall effect size as .79 with standard
error of .03 in the fixed model. Heterogeneity test was used to investigate the heterogeneity in
effect size. The Q value was 188.91 with 46 degrees of freedom, and p value under .05 showed
heterogeneity among the studies. In other words, true effect size may have varied across studies.
Besides, 𝐼 2 statistic was estimated as 75.65% indicating that the percent of variance due to
between-subject factors was large. The results revealed that the impact of formative assessment
on student learning varied from one study to another. By using random effects model, overall
meta-analysis showed that there was a significant effect of formative assessment on student
learning (g= .72, SE= .07, 95% CI= .59; 85, p<.05).
Table 3. Overall effect sizes and heterogeneity results related to the effectiveness of formative
assessment practices.
Mean Lower Upper Heterogeneity
Model k SE
ES Limit Limit p Q value df p 𝐼2
Fixed 47 .79 .03 .74 .84 .00 188.91 46 .00 75.65
Random 47 .72 .07 .59 .85 .00
*p<.05; k= number of effects; ES= effect size

In Figure 3, the forest graph demonstrating the effect size of each study based on the random
effects model is presented. 3253 participants were involved in the analysis (𝑁1 = Experimental
group and 𝑁2 = Control group). It can be seen that overall effect size in random effects model
across studies has a moderate level in favor of the experimental group (g= .72, p < .05).
As mentioned in Figure 3, heterogeneity test showed that the effectiveness of formative
assessment practices varied from one study to the other. To investigate this variation, subgroup
analysis was conducted in the present study. It is hypothesized that this variation may be
explained with the studies that used various formative assessment interventions applied to
different education levels and publication types. Mixed effect analysis based on random effects
weights within subgroups was used to test the model. The results are presented for the features
of formative assessment interventions in Table 4.

807
Karaman

Figure 3. The forest graph showing the effect size of each study in meta-analysis.

Table 4. Results of the subgroup analysis for features of formative assessment interventions.
Mean Lover Upper
k SE p Q value df p
ES Limit Limit
Adult initiated feedback 20 .69 .09 .50 .87 .000
Student initiated feedback 10 1.16 .17 .83 1.49 .000
Computer initiated
12 .42 .14 .14 .71 .003
feedback
Mixed feedback 5 .83 .19 .46 1.21 .000
Heterogeneity test 11.54 3 .009
*p < .05; k= number of effects; ES= effect size; SE= standard error

Mean effect size for each group was estimated by the mixed effects model. The effect sizes for
each formative assessment interventions that varied between 1.16 and .42 were statistically
significant. The results of the subgroup analysis might suggest that student initiated formative
feedback (d=1.16, p<.05) and mixed feedback (d=.83, p<.05) had a large effect followed by a
medium effect of adult feedback (d=.69, p<.05), and a small effect of computer feedback
(d=.42, p<.05) on student academic performance. To compare the effect size for the subgroups,
heterogeneity test was used. Total between tests (Q=11.54, df=3, p<.05) showed that the effect
size might have varied by formative assessment intervention subgroups. In other words,
features of formative assessment interventions such as adult initiated, student initiated,
computer initiated, and mixed formative assessment differed significantly in the magnitude of
effects.

808
Int. J. Assess. Tools Educ., Vol. 8, No. 4, (2021) pp. 801–817

In Table 5, mixed effects analysis was also used to estimate the effect size of groups in terms
of their education levels (primary, secondary, and tertiary). The mean effect sizes that were
estimated at different education levels ranged between .89 and .64 and were statistically
significant. The results showed that the effect size at primary level had a large effect (d=.89,
p<.05), while it had a medium effect on student academic performance at secondary level
(d=.71, p<.05) and tertiary level (d=.64, p<.05). The results of the heterogeneity test yielded
that comparison of subgroups at different education levels did not make a significant
contribution to the variance (Q=.66, df=2, p= .71).
Table 5. Results of the subgroup analysis for education level.
%95 Confidence
Heterogeneity
Interval
Education Mean Lover Upper
k SE p Q value df p
Level ES Limit Limit
Primary 8 .89 .27 .37 1.41 .00
Secondary 28 .71 .07 .56 .86 .00
Tertiary 11 .64 .14 .36 .92 .00
.66 2 .71
*p < .05

The studies that included the meta-analyses were grouped in terms of publication type: articles,
and theses (master’s and doctoral) (see Table 6). Mixed effect analysis showed that effect sizes
according to these groups ranged between .78 and .57 and were statistically significant. The
magnitude of effect size showed that articles have higher effect (d=.78, p<.05) than that of the
theses (d=.57, p<.05). Heterogeneity test also showed that effect sizes of subgroups according
to their publication type did not make a significant contribution to the variance (Q=2.27, df=1,
p= .13). In other words, the distribution of effect sizes of studies according to publication type
was homogeneous.
Table 6. Results of the subgroup analysis for publication type.
%95 Confidence
Heterogeneity
Interval
Lover Upper
k Mean ES SE p Q value df p
Limit Limit
Article 33 .78 .08 .63 .94 .00
Thesis 14 .57 .11 .35 .80 .00
2.27 1 .13
*p < .05

4. DISCUSSION and CONCLUSION

In the meta-analysis study, 32 studies with a total of 47 effect sizes that met the inclusion criteria
were estimated. The results of the study showed the overall mean effect size of .72. The overall
mean effect size was consistent with previous meta-analysis results that effect sizes of the
effectiveness of formative assessment ranged between .40 and .70 (Black & William, 1998;
Graham et al., 2015). Besides, subgroup analysis was used to estimate whether the mean effect
size was influenced by the features of formative assessment interventions, education level, and
publication type.
The meta-analysis results showed how effective the features of formative assessment
interventions were on student learning. The impact of different types of formative assessment
interventions on student learning varied. The feedback from the students had the largest effect

809
Karaman

but the feedback from the computers had the smallest effect on student learning. Moderator
analysis showed that the effect sizes made a significant difference as to different types of
formative feedback. Variation in effect sizes may be related to the features of formative
assessment interventions in the present study. The impact of features of formative assessment
interventions on student learning was examined in a few meta-analysis studies (Graham et al.,
2015; Klute et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2020). Lee et al. (2020) examined various formative
assessment feedback by using meta-regression. They found a similar result that the effect of
student-initiated formative assessment feedback was significantly higher than teacher’s
formative assessment feedback and mixed feedback from both students and teachers. They
implied that learner’s active role is important for successful formative assessment based on their
findings. Graham et al. (2015) examined four types of formative assessment feedback and found
that feedback that came from teachers had the largest impact, but the feedback that came from
computers had the smallest impact on student learning. In addition, by using meta-regression
they also found that the effect size was not statistically related to grade level, types of formative
feedback, or study quality. The present study generally shows similar results with the previous
meta-analysis studies. It suggests that various formative assessment interventions in classrooms
were effective. When comparing the formative assessment practices, the effect of student
initiated formative interventions such as self-assessment, peer assessment, and group
assessment was significantly higher than the other formative assessment interventions.
Teachers, learners, and peers all have a crucial role for effective formative assessment (Black
& William, 2009). The findings specifically indicated that learners’ active role is very important
for successful formative assessment (Clark, 2012; Lee et al., 2020).
The present study investigated that how mean effect size was in different education levels.
While the highest mean effect size was found at primary school level, the lowest mean effect
size was found at tertiary level. Mixed effects analysis was used to examine whether group
differences were significant or not. The results showed that education level did not make a
significant contribution to the variance. Likewise, King and Nash (2011) found that grade level
did not make a difference on the effect of formative assessment on student learning. It can be
interpreted that formative assessment is effective for all levels of education (Black & William,
1998; King & Nash, 2011). Therefore, the number of using formative assessment in classrooms
should be increased in all levels of education.
Lastly, the studies included in the meta-analysis were categorized into two groups (published
articles versus theses). Heterogeneity test showed that effect sizes of studies according to their
publication type were homogeneous. The magnitude of the effect size did not significantly
differ between the published articles and unpublished theses. It can be concluded that this
finding was resistant to file drawer treat (publication bias) (Rosenthal, 1979).
Briefly, the present meta-analysis synthesized research studies conducted in Turkey showed
that formative assessment interventions have a positive impact on student learning for all
education levels. Assessment for learning rather than assessment of learning has been more
emphasized in Turkey’s curriculum since the 2005 educational reform. Assessment for learning
strategies that curriculum requires has become widespread from primary schools to universities
(MoNE 2013, 2017, 2018, 2020, YÖKAK 2018, 2019). The present study could give evidence
regarding the effectiveness of formative assessment on student learning in Turkey’s education
system. Besides, there are only a few studies that examined the effectiveness of formative
assessment interventions types. Therefore, it suggests that more meta-analysis studies should
be conducted on this area (Lee et al., 2020). The present meta-analysis study is promising to
provide a significant contribution to literature regarding the effectiveness of formative
assessment interventions types. That is why more empirical studies are needed to have evidence
regarding the effectiveness of formative assessment practices. Increasing different types of

810
Int. J. Assess. Tools Educ., Vol. 8, No. 4, (2021) pp. 801–817

formative assessment practices especially encouraging learners to have an active role in this
process (i.e. self-assessment, peer-assessment, and group-assessment) is crucial. Since the
results suggest that use of formative assessment strategies is effective for all education levels,
implementation of formative assessment activities efficiently in classrooms is also important.
Thus, providing all teachers and college scholars with professional development as to how to
use formative assessment tools is highly needed.
The findings of this meta-analysis study were limited by the number of studies on formative
assessment conducted in Turkey. Another limitation in the study was examining a few
moderator variables such as education level, types of formative assessment interventions, and
publication types. In further meta-analysis research, investigation and comparison of more
variables such as subject areas, formality of formative assessment, feedback procedures, and
feedback time are needed.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests and Ethics
The author declares no conflict of interest. This research study complies with research
publishing ethics. The scientific and legal responsibility for manuscripts published in IJATE
belongs to the author.
ORCID
Pinar Karaman https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2218-2701
5. REFERENCES
Andersson, C., & Palm, T. (2017a). The impact of formative assessment on student
achievement: A study of the effects of changes to classroom practice after a
comprehensive professional development programme. Learning and Instruction, 49, 92-
102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.12.006
Andersson, C. & Palm, T. (2017b). Characteristics of improved formative assessment practice.
Education Inquiry, 8 (2), 104-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2016.1275185
Andrade, H. (2010). Students as the definite source of formative assessment: Academic self-
assessment and the self-regulation of learning. In G. J. Cizek & H. L. Andrade (Eds.),
Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 90–105). Routledge Publishing.
Andrade, H., & Brookhart, S. M. (2016). The role of classroom assessment in supporting self-
regulated learning. In D. Laveault & L. Allal (Eds.), Assessment for learning: Meeting
the challenge of implementation (pp. 293–309). Springer Publishing.
Başol-Göçmen, G. (2004). Meta-analizin genel bir değerlendirmesi [A general revision of
meta-analysis]. Sakarya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7, 186–192.
Begg, C.B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994). Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for
publication bias. Biometrics, 50, 1088–1101. https://doi.org/10.2307/2533446
Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: a critical review. Assessment in Education:
Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2010.513
678
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education:
Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational
Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-
008-9068-5
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to
meta-analysis. John Wiley and Sons Publishing.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: brain, mind,
experience, and school (expanded ed.). National Academy Press.
Brookhart, S. M. (2009). Exploring formative assessment. ASCD Publishers.

811
Karaman

Brookhart, S.M. (2010). Formative assessment strategies for every classroom (2nd ed.). An
ASCD Action Tool Publishers.
Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical
synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245-281. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346
543065003245
Card, N. A. (2012). Applied meta-analysis for social science research. The Guilford Press.
Cauley, K.M. & McMillan, J.H. (2010). Formative assessment techniques to support student
motivation and achievement. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies,
Issues and Ideas, 83 (1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650903267784
Clark, I. (2012). Formative assessment: Assessment is for self-regulated learning. Educational
Psychology Review, 24(2), 205–249.
Cohen, J. (1962). The statistical power of abnormal-social psychological research: a review.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65, 145–153.
Cohen, J. (1987). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Delen, I., & Bellibas, M. S. (2015). Formative assessment, teacher-directed instruction and
teacher support in Turkey: Evidence from PISA 2012. Mevlana International Journal of
Education, 5(1), 88-102. http://dx.doi.org/10.13054/mije.15.01.5.1
Double, K., McGrane, J. & Hopfenbeck, T. N. (2020). The impact of peer assessment on
academic performance: A meta-analysis of control group studies. Educational
Psychology Review, 32 (2), 481–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09510-3
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing
and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56, 455–463.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected
by a simple, graphical test. Bmj, 315(7109), 629-634.
Field, A.P., & Gillett, R. (2010). How to do a meta-analysis. British Journal of Mathematical
and Statistical Psychology, 63, 665–694. https://doi.org/10.1348/000711010X502733
Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation on student
achievement: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199-208. https://doi.org/10.11
77/001440298605300301
Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Struyven, K. (2010). Improving the
effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 304-315.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.007
Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Sage
Publications.
Graham, S., Hebert, M., & Harris, K.R. (2015). Formative assessment and writing. The
elementary school journal, 115 (4), 523-547.
Hargreaves, E. (2008). Assessment. In G. McCulloch, & D. Crook (Eds.), The routledge
international encyclopedia of education (pp. 37–38). Routledge Publishing.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 metaanalyses relating to
achievement. Routledge Publishing.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research,
77(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Hedges, L.V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass' estimator of effect size and related
estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6(2), 107–128.
Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998). Fixed-and random-effects models in meta-analysis.
Psychological Methods, 3(4), 486-504. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.486
Higgins, J., Thompson, S.G., Deeks, J.J., & Altman, D.G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in
meta-analyses. BMJ, 327, 557–560. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557

812
Int. J. Assess. Tools Educ., Vol. 8, No. 4, (2021) pp. 801–817

Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2011). Formative assessment: A meta-analysis and a call for
research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(4), 28-37. https://doi.org/1
0.1111/j.1745-3992.2011.00220.x
Kitchen, H., Bethell, G., Fordham, E., Henderson, K., & Li, R.R. (2019). OECD reviews of
evaluation and assessment in education: student assessment in Turkey, OECD reviews of
evaluation and assessment in Education, OECD Publishing. Retrieved August 17, 2021
from https://doi.org/10.1787/5edc0abe-en
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A
historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory.
Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
Klute, M., Apthorp, H., Harlacher, J., & Reale, M. (2017). Formative assessment and
elementary school student academic achievement: A review of the evidence (REL 2017–
259). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences,
National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational
Laboratory Central. Retrieved January 15, 2021 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/E
D572929.pdf
Lee, H., Chung, H.Q., Zhang, Y., Abedi, J., & Warschauer, M. (2020). The effectiveness and
features of formative assessment in US K-12 education: systematic review. Applied
Measurement in Education, 33(2), 124-140. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2020.173
2383
Lipsey, M., & Wilson, D. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Sage Publications.
Maier, U., Wolf, N., & Randler, C. (2016). Effects of a computer‐assisted formative assessment
intervention based on multiple‐tier diagnostic items and different feedback types.
Computers & Education, 95, 85– 98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.12.002
McManus, S., Ed. (2008). Attributes of effective formative assessment. Council of Chief State
School Officers.
Miller, T. (2009). Formative computer-based assessment in higher education: the effectiveness
of feedback in supporting student learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 34 (2), 181-192. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930801956075
MoNE (2013). Early childhood education program [Okul öncesi eğitim programı], Ministry of
National Education, Ankara. https://tegm.meb.gov.tr/dosya/okuloncesi/ooproram.pdf
MoNE (2017). The topics of in-service training activities in the last five years, 2012-2016 [Son
5 yılda düzenlenen (2012-2016) hizmetiçi eğitim faaliyetleri konuları], Ministry of
National Education, Ankara.
MoNE (2018). Geography curriculum [Coğrafya dersi öğretim programı], Ministry of National
Education, Ankara. https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Dosyalar/2018120203724482-
Cografya%20dop%20pdf.pdf
MoNE (2020). Strengthening teacher capacity based on school and classroom-based
assessment. Social Studies Lesson Teacher's Guide Booklet [Okul ve sınıf tabanlı
değerlendirmeye dayalı öğretmen kapasitesinin güçlendirilmesi. Sosyal Bilgiler Dersi
Öğretmen Rehber Kitapçığı], Ministry of National Education, Ankara
Ozan, C., & Kıncal, R. Y. (2018). The effects of formative assessment on academic
achievement, attitudes toward the lesson, and self-regulation skills. Educational Sciences:
Theory & Practice, 18, 85–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.1.0216
Popham, W. J. (2008). Transformative assessment. Association of Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results, Psychological
Bulletin, 86(3), 638-641. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638
Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems.
Instructional Science,18 (2),119–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00117714

813
Karaman

Schwarzer, G., Carpenter, J. R., & Rücker, G. (2015). Meta-analysis with R. Cham: Springer.
Üstün, U., & Eryılmaz, A. (2014). A research methodology to conduct effective research
syntheses. Education and Science, 39(174), 1-32.
Weldmeskel, F.M., & Michael, D.J. (2016). The impact of formative assessment on self-
regulating learning in university classrooms. Tuning Journal for Higher Education, 4 (1),
99-118. https://doi.org/10.18543/tjhe-4(1)-2016pp99-118
Wiliam, D. (2018). Feedback: at the heart of –but definitely not all of–formative assessment. In
A. A. Lipnevich & J. K. Smith (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of instructional
feedback (pp. 3–28). Cambridge University Press.
Van der Kleij, F., Feskens, R., & Eggen, T.J.H.M. (2015). Effects of feedback in a computer-
based learning environment on students’ learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Review of
Educational Research 85(4), 1-37. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314564881
YÖKAK (2018). Yükseköğretim değerlendirme ve kalite güvencesi 2017 yılı durum raporu
[2017 higher education evaluation and quality Assurance Status Report], Ankara: YÖK.
https://yokak.gov.tr/Common/Docs/Site_Activity_Reports/2018DurumRaporuv2.pdf
YÖKAK (2019). Yükseköğretim değerlendirme ve kalite güvencesi 2018 yılı durum raporu
[2018 Higher Education Evaluation and Quality Assurance Status Report], Ankara: YÖK.
Zimmerman, B. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated student: An overview. Theory into Practice
41(2), 64-70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2
Zimmerman, B., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course
attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31(4), 845-862. https://doi.org/10.
3102/00028312031004845

814
Int. J. Assess. Tools Educ., Vol. 8, No. 4, (2021) pp. 801–817

6. APPENDIX

Studies included in the meta-analysis marked with an *

*Arici, A.F., & Kaldirim, A. (2015). The effect of the process-based writing approach on
writing success and anxiety of pre-service teachers. Anthropologist, 22(2), 318-327.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09720073.2015.11891883
*Atik, A.D., & Erkoç, F. (2017). The impact of formative tests on student achievement. Journal
of Theory and Practice in Education, 13(4), 670-692.
*Aydın, S., Ural Keleş, P., & Ürün, N. (2016). Süreç değerlendirme yönteminin 7. Sınıf
öğrencilerin güneş sistemi ve ötesi: uzay bilmecesi ünitesinde akademik başarıları ve
kalıcılık düzeylerine etkisi [The effect of formative assessment on the achievement and
retention levels of 7th grade students at the unit of solar system and beyond: mystery in
space]. Türk Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi (TURKEAD), 1(1), 11-17.
*Batıbay, E.F. (2019). Web 2.0 Uygulamalarının Türkçe dersinde motivasyona ve başarıya
etkisi: kahoot örneği [The impact of Web 2.0 applications on motivation and success in
Turkish course: the example of kahoot] [Master’s thesis]. Haccettepe University.
*Bayat, N. (2014). The effect of the process writing approach on writing success and anxiety.
Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(3), 1123-1141.
*Bayrak, N., Çalık, M., & Doğan, S. (2019). The effects of smart formative assessment system
on academic achievement and course process. Hacettepe University Journal of
Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2019056742.
*Baysal, H. (2020). Altıncı sınıf İngilizce dersinde kavram karikatürleri kullanımının öğrenci
başarısına, konuşma becerisine ve motivasyonuna etkisi [The effect of using concept
cartoons on students’ achievement, speaking skill, and motivation in the sixth grade
English] [Master’s thesis]. Balıkesir University.
*Bolat, Y.İ., Şimşek, Ö., Ülker, Ü. (2017). Oyunlaştırılmış çevrimiçi sınıf yanıtlama sisteminin
akademik başarıya etkisi ve sisteme yönelik görüşler [The impact of gamified online
classroom response system on academic achievement and views about this system].
Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(4), 1741-1761.
*Demirkesen, B. (2019). The effects of a mobile phone application on Turkish EFL students’
grammar learning [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Necmettin Erbakan University.
*Elvan, Ö. (2012). Sosyal Bilgiler öğretiminde çalışma yaprakları kullanılmasının kavram
yanılgılarını gidermeye etkisi [The effect of the usage of worksheets for resolving
misconceptions in teaching social studies] [Master’s thesis]. Ahi Evran University.
*Eraz, G., & Öksüz, C. (2015). Effect of primary school teachers’ feedback on students’
extracurricular mathematics activities. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi
Dergisi, 36, 105-119.
*Güzel, Z. (2018). Fen bilimleri öğretiminde öz ve akran değerlendirme uygulamalarının yer
aldığı probleme dayalı öğrenme yaklaşımının öğrencilerin başarı ve tutumlarına etkisi
[The effects of problem based approach practiced trough self and peer assessment on
student achievement and attitudes in science teaching] [Master’s thesis]. Necmettin
Erbakan University.
*Hotaman, D. (2020). The effect of formative assessment on the academic achievement levels
of prospective teachers. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 9(3), 33-44.
*Kaya, B., & Ateş, S. (2016). The effect of process-based writing focused on metacognitive
skills oriented to fourth grade students’ narrative writing skill. Education and Science,
41(187), 137-164. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2016.6752

815
Karaman

*Kincal, R.Y. & Ozan, C. (2018). Effects of formative assessment on prospective teachers’
achievement, attitude and self-regulation skills. International Journal of Progressive
Education, 14(2), 77-92. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2018.139.6
*Korkmaz, Ö., Vergili, M., Çakır, R., & Uğur Erdoğmuş, F. (2019). Plickers Web 2.0 ölçme
ve değerlendirme uygulamasının öğrencilerin sınav kaygıları ve başarıları üzerine etkisi
[The impact of plickers Web 2.0 assessment and evaluation tool on exam anxiety and
academic succes of students]. Gazi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 5(2), 15-37.
https://dx.doi.org/10.30855/gjes.2019.05.02.002.
*Köksalan, S. (2019). Sorgulamaya dayalı öğretimde kullanılan biçimlendirici
değerlendirmenin öğrencilerin Fizik dersine yönelik tutumlarına ve kavramsal
öğrenmelerine etkisinin incelenmesi [Investigation of the effect of formative assessment
used in inquiry-based instruction on students' attitudes towards physics lesson and
conceptual learning] [Master’s thesis]. Marmara University.
*Kuzudişli, H. (2019). Video-içi biçimlendirici değerlendirme ortamında öğrenen
değerlendirme etkileşimlerinin incelenmesi [Investigating of interaction between learner-
assessment in the video formative assessment environment] [Master’s thesis]. Haccettepe
University.
*Müldür, M., & Yalçın, A. (2019). Öz düzenlemeye dayalı yazma eğitiminin ortaokul
öğrencilerinin bilgilendirici metin yazma becerisine, yazmaya yönelik öz düzenleme
becerisine ve yazma öz yeterlik algısına etkisi [The effect of self-regulated writing
instruction on middle school students’ informative writing skills, self-regulated writing
skills, and self-efficacy perception]. Ilkogretim Online, 18(4), 1779-1804.
https://dx.doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2019.639323
*Ozan, C., & Kıncal, R. Y. (2018). The effects of formative assessment on academic
achievement, attitudes toward the lesson, and self-regulation skills. Educational Sciences:
Theory & Practice, 18, 85–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.1.0216
*Özgür, P. (2016). Facebook sosyal ağına entegre e-portfolyo yazılımının akademik başarı ve
öğretim sürecinde kullanımına yönelik tutuma etkisi [The effect of e-portfolyo software
integrated to facebook social network on academic success and attitudes towords its use
in teaching process]. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 6(1), 38-56.
*Sever, E., & Memiş, A. (2013). Süreç temelli yazma modellerinin ilkokul dördüncü sınıf
öğrencilerinin yazım–noktalama becerisine ve yazma eğilimine etkisi [The Effects Of
Process-Based Writing Models On Primary School 4th Grade Students' Spelling-
Punctuation Skills And Writing Dispositions]. Karadeniz Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 5(9),
243- 259.
*Tavşanlı, F. (2019). Süreç temelli yazma modüler programının ilkokul 2. sınıf öğrencilerinin
yazmaya ilişkin tutum, yazılı anlatım becerisi ve yazar kimliği üzerine etkisi [The effect
of process writing modular program on 2nd grade elementary school students’ towards
attitudes, writing skills and their author identity] [Doctoral dissertation]. Uludağ
University.
*Topal, M. (2020). Oyunlaştırma ile zenginleştirilmiş çevrimiçi öğrenmenin başarı, çevrimiçi
bağlılık ve öğrenme motivasyonu üzerinde etkisi [The effect of online learning enchanced
with gamification on student’s engagement to online learning environment, academic
achievement and learning motivation] [Doctoral dissertation]. Sakarya University.
*Turan, M.A., & Sakız, G. (2014). Fen ve teknoloji dersinde portfolyo kullanımının öğrenci
başarısı ve kalıcılığa etkisi [The influence of portfolios on student success and retention
level in science and technology class]. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of
Education, 10(3), 48-63.

816
Int. J. Assess. Tools Educ., Vol. 8, No. 4, (2021) pp. 801–817

*Yalaki, Y. & Bayram, Z. (2015). Effect of formative quizzes on teacher candidates’ learning
in general chemistry. International Journal of Research in Education and Science
(IJRES), 1(2), 151- 156.
*Yaşar, C. (2018). Geri bildirimin verilme zamanının matematik başarısına etkisi [The effect
of feedback time on mathematics achivement] [Master’s thesis]. Hasan Kalyoncu
University.
*Yıldız, G., & Kılıç Çakmak, E. (2019). Zenginleştirilmiş e-değerlendirme sisteminin ders
başarısına etkisi ve öğrenci memnuniyetinin incelenmesi [The effect of enriched e-
assessment system on course success and review of student satisfaction]. Gazi Journal of
Education Sciences (GJES), 5, 106-139.
*Yılmaz, N. (2015). Cebir öğretiminde yazma etkinliklerini kullanmanın ortaokul 7. sınıf
öğrencilerinin başarılarına etkisi [The impact of using writing activities in teaching
algebra on seventh grade middle school students’ achievement]. Abant İzzet Baysal
Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(1), 356-376.
*Yorgancı, S. (2015). Web tabanlı uzaktan eğitim yönteminin öğrencilerin matematik
başarılarına etkileri [The effects of web based distance education method on students’
mathematics achievements]. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 23(3), 1401-1420.
*Yurdabakan, İ., & Cihanoğlu, M. O. (2009). Öz akran değerlendirmenin uygulandığı işbirlikli
okuma ve kompozisyon tekniğinin başarı, tutum ve strateji kullanım düzeylerine etkisi.
[The effects of cooperative reading composition technique with the applications of self
and peer assessment on the levels of achivement, attitude, strategy use]. Dokuz Eylül
Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 11(4), 105-123.
*Yurdabakan, İ., & Olgun, M. (2011). The influence of peer and self-assessment on learning
and metacognitive knowledge: Consequential validty. International Journal on New
Trends in Education and Their Implications, 2(4), 44-57.

817

View publication stats