Nurgabyl D, Shaken M. Assessing schoolchildren’s 21st century cognitive and behavioural development. Sci Herald Uzhhorod Univ Ser Phys. 2024;(56):1228-1239. DOI: 10.54919/physics/56.2024.122du8
Assessing schoolchildren’s 21st century cognitive and behavioural development
Duisebek Nurgabyl, Marat Shaken
https://doi.org/10.54919/physics/56.2024.122du8
Abstract
Relevance. The study of effective methods for developing cognitive skills among schoolchildren is extremely relevant. This is crucial to ensure their proper preparation for the challenges of the modern world, which is characterized by rapidly changing transformations and the dominance of digital technologies.
Purpose. The purpose of the research is to determine the degree of effectiveness of approaches to formative assessment of the development of cognitive skills among schoolchildren of the 21st century.
Methodology. A system of scientific research methods was used, including analysis, synthesis, comparison, surveys, mathematical statistics, and observations.
Results. The study showed that using the results of residual, activity, local, and modular assessment contributes to improving the quality of education and developing students’ communicative and reflective abilities. Model examples of item-by-element assessment of tasks for schoolchildren during formative assessment are provided. An algorithm for conducting formative assessment within one academic period has been developed. The analysis of tasks performed by schoolchildren during formative assessment showed that test tasks must be developed differently for each content component.
Conclusions. The results obtained during the research should be used in developing methodological materials for teachers. These materials should address the organization of the educational process and approach to the formative assessment of the cognitive skills of schoolchildren.
Keywords: final certification; academic results; quality learning; mental skills
Suggested citation
References
- Threlfall J. The formative use of assessment information in planning – The notion of contingent planning. Brit J Educ Stud. 2005;53(1):54-65.
- Meng XT, Chen WJ, Liao L, Li T, Qin W, Bai S. Analysis of the teaching effect of the normal human morphology with mixed teaching mode and formative evaluation in China. Int J Morphol. 2019;37(3):1085-1088.
- Chen QX. Localized representation of formative assessment in China: A regional study from a sociocultural perspective. Front Educ China. 2017;12:75-97.
- Clark I. Formative assessment: ‘There is nothing so practical as a good theory’. Aust J Educ. 2010;54(3):341-352.
- Cumming JJ, van der Kleij FM, Adie L. Contesting educational assessment policies in Australia. J Educ Policy. 2019;34(6):836-857.
- Allal L. Involving primary school students in the co-construction of formative assessment in support of writing. Ass Educ Princ Pol Prac. 2021;28(5-6):584-601.
- Hondrich AL, Hertel S, Adl-Amini K, Klieme E. Implementing curriculum-embedded formative assessment in primary school science classrooms. Ass Educ Princ Pol Prac. 2016;23(3):353-376.
- Guo WY, Yan Z. Formative and summative assessment in Hong Kong primary schools: students’ attitudes matter. Ass Educ Princ Pol Prac. 2019;26(6):675-699.
- Štefanc D, Šebart MK. Reflections on the relationship between formative and summative assessment. Sod Ped. 2020;71(1):10-31.
- Taras M. Assessment – Summative and formative – Some theoretical reflections. Brit J Educ Stud. 2005;53(4):466-478.
- Cisterna D, Gotwals AW. Enactment of ongoing formative assessment: Challenges and opportunities for professional development and practice. J Sci Teach Educ. 2018;29(3):200-222.
- Xiang XQ, Yum SC, Lian R. Teachers’ self-efficacy and formative assessment of students: Moderating role of school goal structure. Soc Behav Pers Int J. 2020;48(6):1-13.
- Shmigirilova IB, Rvanova AS, Grigorenko OV. Assessment in education: Current trends, problems and contradictions (review of scientific publications). Educ Sci. 2021;23(6):43-83.
- Faber JM, Luyten H, Visscher AJ. The effects of a digital formative assessment tool on mathematics achievement and student motivation: Results of a randomized experiment. Comput Educ. 2017;106:83-96.
- McCallum S, Milner MM. The effectiveness of formative assessment: Student views and staff reflections. Ass Eval High Educ. 2021;46(1):1-16.
- Abekova ZhA, Oralbaev AB, Ermakhanov MN, Dzhakipova AS. Improving the educational process with criterion-based assessment, its main advantages and features. Adv Mod Nat Sci. 2015;5:295-296.
- Iskakova RK, Azhigenova SK, Zengin Zh. A modern assessment of students in schools in the education system of Kazakhstan. Bul Univ Kar Ped Ser. 2018;2(90):155-161.
- Leenknecht M, Wijnia L, Kohlen M, Fryer L, Rikers R, Loyens S. Formative assessment as practice: The role of students’ motivation. Ass Eval High Educ. 2021;46(2):236-255.
- PISA 2021 Mathematics Framework; 2018. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/sitedocument/PISA-2021-mathematics-framework.pdf
- Decree of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 726 “On approval of the State Program for the Development of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan for 2020-2025”; 2019. https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/P1900000988
- Bloom BS, Hastings J, Madaus GF. Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1971.
- Black P, Wiliam D. Assessment and classroom learning. Ass Educ Princ Pol Prac. 1998;5(1):7-74.
- Newton PE. Clarifying the purposes of educational assessment. Ass Educ Princ Pol Prac. 2007;14(2):149-170.
- Weurlander M, Söderberg M, Scheja M, Hult H, Wernerson A. Exploring formative assessment as a tool for learning: students’ experiences of different methods of formative assessment. Ass Eval High Educ. 2012;37(6):747-760.
- Lin C. Mathematics learning and intellectual development of elementary school students. In: Intellectual Development and Mathematics Learning (pp. 195-232). Singapore: Springer; 2023.
- Ozcakir B, Cakiroglu E. An augmented reality learning toolkit for fostering spatial ability in mathematics lesson: Design and development. Eur J Sci Math Educ. 2021;9(4):145-167.
- Sugianto R, Darmayanti R, Vidyastuti AN. Stage of cognitive mathematics students development based on Piaget’s theory reviewing from personality type. Plus J Pen Mat. 2022;2(1):17-26.
- Sutama, Anif S, Prayitno HJ, Narimo S, Fuadi D, Sari DP, Adnan M. Metacognition of junior high school students in mathematics problem solving based on cognitive style. Asian J Univ Educ. 2021;17(1):134-144.
- Yayuk E, As’ari AR, Subanji. Primary school students’ creative thinking skills in mathematics problem solving. Eur J Educ Res. 2020;9(3):1281-1295.
- Bicer A, Lee Y, Perihan C, Capraro MM, Capraro RM. Considering mathematical creative self-efficacy with problem posing as a measure of mathematical creativity. Educ Stud Math. 2020;105:457-485.
