Conference Agenda

Formative assessment (FA), also known as assessment for learning, is understood as an instructional practice in which evidence of student learning is continuously elicited, interpreted, and used to adapt teaching and learning to students’ needs (Cauley & McMillan, 2010). By supporting ongoing instructional adjustment and addressing diverse learning needs, FA has become a central pedagogical approach for promoting inclusive, learning-oriented classroom practices. Within this framework, formative peer and self-assessment (PASA) are regarded as particularly powerful practices, as they actively involve students in assessment processes and extend opportunities for feedback and reflection beyond teacher-led assessment (Black & Wiliam, 2018).

Numerous studies demonstrate that FA enhances both cognitive and noncognitive outcomes, including academic achievement, motivation, self-efficacy, and self-regulation (e.g. Granberg et al., 2021; Rakoczy et al., 2019; Yan et al., 2022). However, evidence from mathematics education also points to mixed effects of FA and PASA on student learning outcomes, which are commonly attributed to variation in implementation quality (Maskos et al., 2025). These findings highlight the pivotal role of teachers, as the learning effectiveness of FA depends largely on how assessment practices are planned, enacted, and used within classroom instruction.

This challenge is further reflected in observational research. FA is often only partially and inconsistently implemented in classroom practice and frequently with limited instructional quality (Buholzer et al., 2020; Gotwals et al., 2015), particularly with regard to PASA. Accordingly, teachers play a central role in FA by interpreting evidence of student learning and using this information to adapt instruction and provide feedback that supports further learning (Narciss et al., 2020). In the context of PASA, professional demands increase further, as teachers are required to design suitable tasks, establish transparent criteria, scaffold assessment processes, and orchestrate classroom interaction (Wanner & Palmer, 2018). Consistently, empirical research identifies teachers’ limited assessment literacy—understood as teachers’ knowledge and skills related to the design, implementation, interpretation, and use of assessment information to support student learning—as a central constraint for the learning-effective implementation of FA and PASA (Xu & Brown, 2016).

To address these issues, a targeted professional development program (FORMA) was designed. Drawing on research on effective teacher professional development, key design features were identified through a review of the teacher education literature and integrated into the program (Oeksuez et al., 2024). FORMA focused on formative PASA in Grades 4–5 mathematics and was implemented as a short multimodal course consisting of three two-hour sessions over three weeks, combining face-to-face and synchronous online formats with asynchronous activities.

Building on this framework, the study examines (1) to what extent participation in the FORMA program enhances teachers’ assessment literacy regarding the design, purposes, and perceived benefits of formative PASA, and whether this effect is influenced by teachers’ epistemological beliefs; and (2) to what extent participation in the program enhances the instructional quality of formative peer- and self-assessment in teachers’ mathematics classrooms and whether this relationship is mediated by teachers’ assessment literacy.

Physics is a compulsory component of many undergraduate pharmacy and health-science programmes, yet assessment practices in these courses often prioritise abstract problem formats that are weakly aligned with students’ professional contexts. From an assessment perspective, this raises a central validity concern: whether observed achievement reflects students’ understanding of physics concepts or primarily reflects their ability to respond to decontextualised task formats. Contemporary validity theory emphasises that the meaning of assessment outcomes depends on the plausibility of the interpretations and uses made from test scores, given the specific tasks, contexts, and intended purposes of assessment (Kane, 2016).

This study examines topic-specific assessment outcomes in an undergraduate physics course for pharmacy students, focusing on how performance varies across assessments with different contextual characteristics. The analysis contrasts a midterm examination centred on foundational mechanics with a final examination assessing applied physics topics relevant to pharmaceutical contexts. Rather than treating physics achievement as a single, generalisable construct, the study adopts a context-based assessment perspective, in which performance is understood as situated within specific task contexts and representational demands. Context-based assessment is understood as creating opportunities for resonance between classroom tasks and societal or professional fields, thereby shaping how students mobilise disciplinary knowledge in assessment situations (Bellocchi et al., 2016).

The study addresses the following research questions:

1. How does pharmacy students’ performance differ across physics topics assessed in foundational versus applied assessment contexts?
2. To what extent does performance on foundational physics topics predict achievement on applied, context-based physics topics?
3. What assessment profiles emerge when topic-level performance data are analysed across different assessment contexts?

The primary objective of the study is to contribute to the interpretation and validity of assessment outcomes in interdisciplinary higher education. In line with argument-based approaches to validity, assessment results are treated as evidence supporting particular interpretive claims about student achievement, rather than as direct indicators of stable or general ability (Kane, 2016).

By retaining topic-level scores rather than relying on aggregated exam totals, the study aims to provide a more nuanced account of what physics assessments capture in service-course contexts. Authentic assessment in higher education has been characterised by tasks that prioritise conceptual understanding, problem solving, and disciplinary relevance over procedural recall, particularly in STEM fields (Schultz et al., 2022).

Empirical work at the university level also indicates that context-based testing can reveal aspects of students’ conceptual understanding that remain obscured in conventional assessments, especially for non-science majors. Within this framework, different physics topics are treated as distinct assessment domains associated with varying symbolic, procedural, and contextual demands. Consequently, variation in student performance across topics is interpreted as meaningful assessment information rather than as measurement error.

The international relevance of the study lies in its focus on pharmacy education, a domain in which physics plays a foundational yet often under-recognised role. Recent work highlights the importance of aligning physics instruction and assessment with pharmaceutical applications to support systems thinking and professional relevance in pharmacy curricula (Dhina et al., 2024; Sakallı, 2024). By empirically examining how assessment context shapes observable achievement within a single course, this study contributes to broader discussions on assessment validity, contextual alignment, and fairness in interdisciplinary higher-education programmes.

The use of supporting materials in examinations remains a contested issue in educational assessment, particularly in quantitatively demanding disciplines such as statistics. While closed-book exams are traditionally associated with academic rigor, alternative formats including formula sheets and open-book exams are increasingly adopted to reduce cognitive load and support conceptual understanding. However, empirical evidence comparing different types of support materials within the same assessment context remains limited.

This study investigates how different examination formats influence student achievement and assessment experience in an undergraduate introductory statistics course. Specifically, it compares four conditions: closed-book exams, instructor-prepared formula sheets, student-prepared formula sheets, and fully open-book exams. The research addresses two main questions: (1) Do different types of supporting materials affect students’ exam performance and pass rates? and (2) How do these formats influence students’ perceptions of usefulness and preferences regarding assessment design?

Grounded in theories of cognitive load and assessment validity, the study conceptualizes supporting materials as tools that may shift assessment focus from memorization to application and reasoning. By examining both performance outcomes and student perceptions, the research contributes to ongoing debates regarding fairness, rigor, and pedagogical effectiveness in assessment practices. The international relevance of this work lies in its implications for higher education instructors seeking evidence-based flexibility in exam design across diverse educational contexts.