Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 21:29:10 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
09 SES 16 A: Ignite Talks: Feedback, Accountability and School Improvement
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
09. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Ignite Talk How has the Field of Educational Accountability Research Evolved Universidad Andrés Bello, Chile Presenting Author:This paper examines the trajectory of research on educational accountability over the past three decades through a systematic review of 105 influential academic articles selected from the Web of Science database (1995–2024). Educational accountability has been a central topic in educational research and policy over the past several decades. This concept—encompassing both the obligation to report and the responsibility for processes and outcomes within the educational field—has undergone a notable evolution. A wide range of studies have examined how accountability systems, particularly those of a performative or market-based nature, interact with education systems and influence student performance, teaching practices, school management, and educational equity, either positively or negatively (MacNeil, Butler & Schnellert, 2023). Accountability is a mechanism with a long-standing presence in the structure of the state. As such, it has undergone various processes of evolution and change and has taken on different forms depending on how questions of what is being accounted for, to whom, and in what manner, are answered (Newmann et al., 1996). Despite these variations, some elements remain relatively constant. These are reflected in Bovens’ (2007) definition of accountability as “a social relationship in which an actor is obliged to explain and justify his or her conduct to another actor, who is entitled to pose questions, pass judgment, and eventually impose sanctions” (p. 450). Public attention and academic interest have largely focused on performative or market-based accountability. This model is one of the ways in which accountability has been implemented in education systems, as outlined in the typology proposed nearly 35 years ago by Darling-Hammond and Ascher (1991), referenced in the previous chapter. Highlighting this historical and conceptual context is essential, as accountability functions as a mechanism of public management that can be implemented through various perspectives and strategies. However, it is also a clear indicator of the political priorities and conceptions of the role of the state and citizenship in society (De Lissovoy, 2015). For this reason, it is important to stress from the outset that the emphasis on performative accountability should not obscure the existence of other designs and possibilities for implementing this mechanism. In light of this conceptual context, this review aimed to identify the main emphases guiding the analysis of accountability and the kinds of results associated with its implementation. Within this framework, the review posed two key questions: What role has performative accountability played in the literature, given its dominance over recent decades? And to what extent have alternative accountability designs been explored across the period under study? Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The methodology for this literature review was based on a systematic search of publications in the Web of Science database, covering the period from 1995 to 2024. Specific selection criteria were applied to ensure the relevance and impact of the articles included in the analysis. These criteria are outlined below. 1. Time frame: The review considered articles published between 1995 and 2024, offering both a historical and contemporary perspective on the topic. 2. Keywords: The search was based exclusively on the term “educational accountability”, focusing on studies that addressed its application at the school level. 3. Type of document: Only scientific documents were considered for this review, in order to analyse the subject matter from a strictly academic perspective. 4. Relevance: Initially, the 100 most relevant articles were selected according to Web of Science search criteria, ensuring thematic alignment with the topic. 5. Refinement process: A second round of selection was conducted to exclude articles that did not directly contribute to the focus of the review—namely, studies that did not analyze educational accountability mechanisms at the school level, whether from a theoretical or empirical perspective. As a result, five articles were excluded from the final sample. As a result of the methodology used, no articles published from 2021 onward initially appeared in the search results. This is likely due to the recency of their publication, which means they do not yet meet the relevance thresholds of the search engine. To address this limitation, a targeted search was conducted for this specific time range, from which the 10 most relevant articles were selected based on the previously defined criteria. In total, 105 articles were included in the final analysis. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The review of the research trajectory on educational accountability reveals clear patterns of both continuity and change. In terms of continuity, the central focus has consistently remained on performative accountability. It was present at the outset of the period and continues to dominate the academic conversation to this day. The vast majority of the reviewed works centered on this model, most of them offering critical rather than favorable perspectives. The literature on performative accountability evolved notably over time. It began with a focus on its effectiveness, particularly in terms of measurable outputs and school or teacher evaluations. Over time, the focus shifted toward understanding its impact on educational actors and institutional dynamics, and later toward theorizing its logic and mechanisms. This evolution reflects a trend toward more holistic and critical analyses, often grounded in a growing consensus about the model’s limited benefits and documented negative consequences. However, this evolution also has clear limits. Most notably, while there is now a relatively well-established diagnosis of what performative accountability is and what its shortcomings are, there has not been equivalent progress in identifying or advancing robust alternatives. That said, alternative proposals and conceptual openings have emerged across nearly all periods of analysis. Although these proposals are often fragmented and lacking a unifying framework, two recurring strands of thought can be observed: (i) Community-based accountability and (ii) Professional accountability. References Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x Darling- Hammond, L. y Ascher, C. (1991). Creating accountability in Big City School Systems. [Digital version] Urban Diversity Series. N° 102. De Lissovoy, N. (2015). Education and Emancipation in the Neoliberal Era. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137375315_3 Newmann, F. M., King, M. B., & Rigdon, M. (1996). Accountability and school performance: Implications from restructuring schools (Final Deliverable). Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools, University of Wisconsin-Madison. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED412631.pdf MacNeil, K. A., Butler, D. L., & Schnellert, L. M. (2023). From accountability to shared responsibility: A case study of a multi-layered educational change initiative. Journal of Educational Change, 24(2), 267-290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-021-09440-4 09. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Ignite Talk ***WITHDRAWN*** The Impact of Formative Assessment on the Academic Achievement of Grade 9 Students in Secondary Schools Nazarbayev Intellectual School in Shymkent, Kazakhstan Presenting Author:This study investigates the impact of formative assessment on the academic achievement of Grade 9 students. Formative assessment has become a central element of contemporary educational reforms across Europe and internationally, particularly within learner-centred and competency-based education systems. European policy documents, including OECD and European Commission reports, emphasise formative assessment as a key strategy for improving learning outcomes, student engagement, and self-regulated learning. In Kazakhstan, formative assessment has been introduced as part of curriculum reforms aligned with international standards. However, classroom implementation remains inconsistent, and empirical evidence on its effectiveness in secondary education is limited. This study seeks to contribute to this gap by providing evidence-based analysis of formative assessment practices and their impact on student achievement. What is the impact of formative assessment on the academic achievement of Grade 9 students? This question is explored through the following sub-questions:
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study adopts a mixed-methods research design, combining quantitative and qualitative approaches in order to examine both the measurable impact of formative assessment on academic achievement and the processes through which this impact occurs. A mixed-methods design is appropriate because formative assessment involves not only observable learning outcomes but also students’ perceptions, engagement, and teachers’ pedagogical practices. The study follows an experimenental design with comparison groups, allowing for systematic analysis of differences in achievement between students exposed to structured formative assessment practices and those taught using predominantly summative assessment.1. Academic Achievement Tests Pre-tests and post-tests will be administered to both groups to measure changes in academic performance. The tests will be aligned with curriculum standards and validated through expert review. 2. Student Questionnaires A structured questionnaire will be used to explore students’ perceptions of: feedback, learning clarity, motivation, engagement. This provides insight into the affective and motivational dimensions of formative assessment. 3. Classroom Observation Non-participant classroom observations will be conducted using an observation protocol based on AfL principles (e.g. feedback quality, questioning techniques, peer assessment). 4. Teacher Interviews Semi-structured interviews with participating teachers will explore: beliefs about assessment, challenges of implementation, perceived impact on students. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The study is grounded in the theory of Assessment for Learning (AfL) (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Wiliam, 2011), which conceptualises formative assessment as a process of using evidence about student learning to adapt teaching and support progress. According to AfL, assessment should function not only as measurement but as an integral part of the learning process. The framework is further informed by constructivist learning theory (Vygotsky; Bruner), which views learning as an active and socially mediated process. From this perspective, formative assessment supports learning by providing timely feedback, scaffolding, and opportunities for reflection within the learner’s zone of proximal development. Additionally, the study draws on self-regulated learning theory (Zimmerman), which emphasises the role of feedback, goal-setting, and metacognitive awareness in academic achievement. Formative assessment is seen as a mechanism for developing students’ autonomy, responsibility, and learning strategies. References 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 Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487 OECD. (2013). Synergies for better learning: An international perspective on evaluation and assessment. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264190658-en OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results (Volume II): Where all students can succeed. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b5fd1b8f-en Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117714 Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Solution Tree Press. Wiliam, D., Lee, C., Harrison, C., & Black, P. (2004). Teachers developing assessment for learning: Impact on student achievement. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 11(1), 49–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594042000208994 Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2 Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. European Commission. (2018). Assessment for learning and skills development. Publications Office of the European Union. | ||