Formative Assessment in LDL: A Teacher-training Experiment

Camilla Spagnolo

, Rita Giglio

, Sabrina Tiralongo

and Giorgio Bolondi

Faculty of Education, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Viale Ratisbona, 16, Bolzano, Italy

ForMATH Project, Via Capraie, 1, Bologna, Italy

Keywords: Mathematics Education, Long-Distance Teaching and Learning, Large-Scale Assessment, Formative

Assessment.

Abstract: The pandemic crisis that overcame us last year still reflects on teacher education. This paper reports a teacher

training experiment focused on the use of large-scale assessment materials in a formative perspective and in

a laboratorial distance teaching setting. In 2020, during the period of long-distance learning, we implemented

a long-distance teachers professional development program addressed to teachers of all school levels. This

program was structured along 16 webinars that involved 2539 Italian teachers. At the beginning of the school

year 2020/2021, a follow-up questionnaire was developed and implemented. One of the purposes of this

questionnaire was to clarify how this experience impacted on teachers beliefs and practices. As a result, we

find that our training program helped resilient teachers in outlining the potential of the technologies.

1 INTRODUCTION

This paper is positioned at the crossroad of three

timely issues of Education, and Mathematics

Education in particular. The first one, is an

institutional-systemic one: how to foster the

integration of the frameworks, the materials and the

results of Large-Scale Assessments (LSA) into the

classroom experience of the teachers. The second

one, is a research perspective: Assessment is an

access key to the teachers’ beliefs and an helpful tool

for the interpretation of teachers’ choices and

behaviours. The third one, is of course a topical issue:

the ongoing pandemic fostered a forced and quick

digitalization of almost all teaching-learning

processes. Hence, not only teaching practices have

been in many cases upset, but also theoretical

constructs used to interpret, analyse, and discuss

educational facts have been reconsidered. In this

perspective, Formative Assessment (FA) is a key

feature of assessment which is particular relevant.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9133-7578

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1888-3695

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7717-0679

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4125-7745

See f.i. the official notes of the Italian Ministry n.297,

march 12th, and n.388, march, 17

The ongoing pandemic crisis that overtook us last

year still reflects on teacher education. In Italy -the

context of our study- there is traditionally a resilience

in the use of technologies. The pandemic forced an

acceleration of their use since most teachers were

forced to use Long-distance learning (LDL) settings.

The fact that digital learning is reshaping

education in many ways (Mulenga & Marbán, 2020a)

has consequences and impacts students and teachers

all over the world and it is a central issue in

Mathematics Education research (Sintema, 2020;

Mulenga & Marban, 2020b; Borba et al., 2016).

The global "lockdown" of educational institutions

has caused in Italy, as elsewhere, discontinuities in

internal assessments, the stop of institutional external

assessments such the INVALSI Italian national tests,

and a lively debate between teachers, experts and

Institutions on the nature, purposes and possible

forms of “genuine” assessment in a LDL situation

This paper reports a teacher training experiment

conducted during the first lockdown period in Italy

(march-june 2020). Schools were adopting Long-

distance teaching and learning modalities, and also

Spagnolo, C., Giglio, R., Tiralongo, S. and Bolondi, G.

Formative Assessment in LDL: A Teacher-training Experiment.

DOI: 10.5220/0010496006570664

In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2021) - Volume 1, pages 657-664

ISBN: 978-989-758-502-9

657

teacher training activities (which in Italy are

commonly activated as in-presence activities) must

be activated in LDL. Hence, teachers were at the same

time experimenting and implementing LDL with their

pupils, and working in LDL as trained people. Both

conditions were new for most of them, and this

situation fostered their reflection and discussions on

their own practices, in particular assessment

practices.

During the period of distance learning, we

implemented a free distance professional

development teaching program addressed to teachers

of all school levels. This program was structured in

16 webinars that involved 2539 Italian teachers.

Six of the webinars were structured by using

questions implemented and applied in standardized

assessments, to create “laboratorial” learning

situations to be proposed in a LDL situation to

students in a formative perspective. These learning

situation were related to assessment tasks proposed in

the National tests, hence solid data about

students’answers were available. Moreover, in some

cases these items had been studied in scientific papers

and the contribution given by these results to our

knowledge of students’ difficulties had been

highlighted.

At the beginning of the school year 2020/2021, a

follow-up questionnaire was developed by a team

composed by the trainers and experts from the Free

University of Bozen-Bolzano who had been

previously involved in the preparation, administration

and analysis of the national tests. One of the purposes

of this questionnaire was to clarify how it was

possible to consolidate this experience with the

processes of teacher education in the post-covid era.

The questionnaire specifically investigated if and

how the items from the standardized assessments

presented during the webinars were known by

teachers, if their results were known, and if this had

an influence on their practices and beliefs from the

perspective of formative assessment.

The questionnaire was administered to all teachers

who attended the webinars and so far nearly 509

responses have been recorded.

The study is currently a work in progress and the

first feedback allowed to clarify the reasons for which

the activities proposed during the courses were (or

were not) used by teachers. Our research hypothesis

is that “assessment” is a crucial issue that helps the

researchers by making “transparent” teachers’

behaviours and allows teachers’ attitudes and beliefs

to emerge.

2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 Formative Assessment

On the concept of formative assessment (term

originally coined by M. Scriven in 1967) has

developed over the years a fierce debate at

international level, characterized by different

positions, albeit with some consensus points.

According to Domenici (2003), who introduced this

construct in Italy, assessment is an essential part of

the teaching/learning processes and is the act of

conferring a value on something or someone. In the

current educational context, the importance of

learners' acquisition of key competencies is

increasingly central, therefore, assessment should

ensure a quality education and training system in this

direction. Within this perspective, assessment

processes increasingly take on the connotation of a

formative function. Certainly, formative assessment

is not only part of teaching/learning processes, but

often regulates their functioning as well. The central

role of assessment with formative functionality is the

identification, in an analytical manner, of the

strengths and weaknesses of student learning. This

allows teachers to draw insights and, if necessary,

modify or supplement their teaching practices, giving

feedback to students that in turn influences

motivation and learning processes. These processes,

in addition to encouraging the establishment of

dialogues between students and teachers, often allow

for actions that are functional to learning.

Indeed, an assessment can be defined as formative

when it involves students in the analysis of their own

mistakes and abilities in order to promote self-

evaluation, peer evaluation and active participation in

the teaching/learning process. It should also promote

the learning of all students through differentiated

instruction to ensure that each student has different

rhythms and differentiated strategies within their

personal learning process. A distinctive feature of

formative assessment, therefore, is to provide

information that is projected into the future of

individual learners. In our context, several studies

highlighted that despite this long tradition of research

on the topic, formative assessment is neither entered

in a systemic and stable way in teachers’ professional

development activities, nor an aware classroom

practice (Bolondi, Ferretti & Giberti, 2018).

CSEDU 2021 - 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

658

2.2 Teacher Training Focused on the

Use of Standardized Assessments

In the Italian National Indications (2012), assessment

is entrusted to teachers, individual educational

institutions and ministerial institutions. Among the

latter, INVALSI (www.invalsi.it) is the research

organization that, according to the legislation in force,

carries out, among other tasks, periodic and

systematic tests on students' knowledge and skills and

on the overall quality of the educational offer, also in

the context of lifelong learning (in particular, it

manages the National Assessment System SNV).

There is a strong endorsement in the literature

regarding the close connection that there should be

between standardized assessments and each country's

National Indications (Meckes, 2007; Looney, 2011).

In particular, the Italian SNV standardized

assessments answer this need. Nevertheless, these

tests should increasingly become tools in the hands of

teachers that can incorporate and, in some way,

"enhance" each teacher's own assessment expertise

(Di Martino & Baccaglini Frank, 2017). Moreover,

results from LSA can be very useful for clarifying the

extent of a didactic phenomenon (Bolondi & Ferretti,

2021). Using the results of standardized tests

appropriately and efficiently is fundamental in any

educational system. This may help for instance in

clarifying in a given particular context the specific

phenomenology of known didactic problems

(Bolondi, Ferretti and Giberti, 2018).

This is an institutional issue, of course, but it is

also an important individual issue for each teacher.

This integration of LSA tools (frameworks, results,

released items, studies…) into classroom practice

cannot be achieved without a specific attention to the

teacher’s professional development.

2.3 Standardized Assessments from a

Formative Perspective

First of all, standardized assessments can provide

teachers with tools and benchmarks for their

diagnostic assessment. As Harlen (2000) suggests,

diagnostic assessment involves discovering what

students have and have not achieved, as well as their

strengths and weaknesses related to different content

areas. Through this analysis of students' abilities and

capabilities, it is possible to implement educational

pathways and define appropriate standards (teaching

and assessment methods) in accordance with learners'

actual needs (Gipps, 1994; Qassim, 2008). Diagnostic

assessment requires a basis that is as objective and

shared as possible, in order to understand what is

really being assessed and what information will

actually be returned; in this direction, standardized

assessments can provide significant help.

Each teacher has his or her own epistemology and

implicit philosophy (Speranza, 1997) regarding the

teaching/learning process and this applies to

assessment as well. The implicit framework has a

deep impact on both the definition of the actual

implemented curriculum and the choice of teaching

tools and practices. Thus, standardized assessments

can help in making explicit and gaining awareness

about these implicit factors; matching one's beliefs to

explicit frames of reference and comparing one's

student outcomes to different benchmarks is a crucial

step in a teacher's professional development. Finally,

discussions among colleagues about systemic and

their own students' outcomes are critical in the

process of making explicit their own implicit

philosophies (Bolondi, Ferretti & Spagnuolo, 2014).

Furthermore, standardized assessments can help

in understanding the demands of the National

Education Documents, as they provide examples of

standard attainment. This requires creating a close

link between the goals and objectives of the National

Indications and the planning and organization of

teaching; it also requires work on teaching materials

(e.g., textbooks), which are still, in Italy, the main

source from which teachers take inspiration for

classroom and homework activities. Moreover,

standardized tests, together with other teaching

practices, such as questions and classroom

discussions, can help to understand not only the final

product, but also the process of learning. Within our

courses, we have therefore tried to build learning

situations from standardized assessment tests.

2.4 The “Laboratory of Mathematics”

in the Italian School Tradition

A key element of the program was the idea of

“Laboratory of Mathematics”. Mathematics is not

learned by contemplation. The fact that the active

involvement of the learner is an essential component

of any healthy teaching-learning process is taken for

granted today, whatever the body of knowledge with

which one is dealing. In mathematics, however, this

is also closely related to the nature of the discipline

itself. This idea is deeply-rooted in Italian tradition,

since the pioneering work of Emma Castelnuovo

(Castelnuovo, 1963). She formulated the iconic idea

that it is the whole classroom that must be a laboratory

of mathematics: in it must be available materials for

experimentation and construction.

Formative Assessment in LDL: A Teacher-training Experiment

659

The laboratory does not need to have its own

dedicated physical space: however, it does need to

have its own well-defined time, its own physiognomy

that distinguishes it from normal school hours.

Whatever form it takes, it must succeed in involving

the students: necessary condition for this to happen is

that the teachers are the first to challenge themselves,

investing their energies, their inventiveness, and even

their own faces. So, Castelnuovo’s approach is

suitable also for LDL.

In the period of pandemic and distance learning,

many teachers abandoned laboratory teaching

because they could not design it. The course we

structured was designed to provide tools to do

laboratory teaching and maintain formative

assessment activities even at a distance.

What are the tools that a teacher has available

today to help his or her students do mathematics? The

word "laboratory" seems to promise to change and

perhaps break the chains of tacit or explicit contracts

that within the walls of schools bind students,

teachers, institutions, families... We set some

characteristics of the way to carry out a mathematics

laboratory. This will allow for further clarification on

what topics, what tools, and what methodologies a

teacher can conduct a laboratory in the particular

context in which he or she is working.

We specify below some of the fundamental

characteristics of the mathematics laboratory that we

used for structuring our proposal (Bolondi, 2006).

L1) In a laboratory there are things to

understand: data, facts, situations to observe, study,

reproduce, and arrange. Students enter the lab

because they want to understand something (personal

involvement);

L2) In a laboratory students start from the

problem, not from its solution. This is a particularly

crucial point for us (as mathematicians). The final

point of any mathematical research is the construction

of a formal theory, possibly general, crystalline and

essential in its logical-deductive organization, of

which all the concrete situations we encounter are

only particular cases, but this is the point of arrival of

the work of mathematicians, of work in mathematics,

and can never be the starting point for our students.

When you learn, when you discover, when you try to

understand, there is also work to be done that cannot

be delegated to others (epistemological involvement);

L3) It is not possible to know a priori what

students will need to understand the proposed

situation (inquiry approach);

L4) In a laboratory, work is never only

individual. Collaboration between different people

can take place on many levels and in many forms, but

this can only happen by working on concrete

problems, which involve the students and the teacher

as real challenges (social involvement);

L5) In laboratory work there is no clear dividing

line between theory and practice: every observation

made in the field, every concrete situation can

become the starting point for a theoretical

construction.

L6) In the laboratory, all that students can

contribute to make sense, even mistakes, and

contributes to building the meaning of the body of

knowledge within which you work.

L7) In order to solve the problems posed by

concrete laboratory situations, intuition is combined

with rigor, imagination with method, inventiveness

with craftsmanship. This is particularly important for

mathematics: mathematical reasoning is so formative,

so important, so "beautiful" because it is not abstract

logic from symbolic calculation software.

Mathematical activity also requires a capacity for

visualization that must be developed with the

appropriate tools, and the laboratory is a place to do

this.

3 METHODOLOGY

We designed a teacher training program focused on

the functional use of standardized assessments within

each teacher's personal Mathematics laboratory

practices in the LDL setting, followed by a

questionnaire. The trainers had a previous experience

(since 2010) of presential programs with the same

background and purposes. The design of the program

had been improved since then through repeated

implementations and validation of the original

project. The challenge was to transform these

experiences into a LDL program, designed to support

LDL activities with the classrooms.

This course, delivered via webinar, was structured

into meetings that would highlight the following

aspects:

• Theoretical references to formative

assessment, to large-scale assessment, and to

their relationships and interfaces;

• Analysis of items from Italian large-scale

assessments and critical look to their relation

with the national curricula;

• Analysis of assessment situations and

design/implementation of laboratorial

teaching activities to be performed during the

lockdown period through the use of

technologies (videos, platforms, padlets,…)

CSEDU 2021 - 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

660

• Emphasis on the fact that the results of the

standardized assessment, which highlight

macro-phenomena often already studied in the

literature and referred to in the tools available

to teachers, allows teachers to intervene

punctually, during the teaching action, on the

critical aspects of the learning process in a

formative way.

The training experience we carried out was

centred on laboratory activities designed starting

from items of large-scale assessment test, whose

results could help the teachers in a formative

assessment perspective. The topic was not

standardized tests, but we aimed to propose teaching

materials designed from standardized tests to do

laboratory activities. These activities were developed

vertically, so that teachers of all school levels could

use them.

In the presential modality, the training was carried

out with small groups of teachers (20-30), who had

the opportunity to take part in activities and discuss

them. Digitization made it possible to reach many

more teachers at the same time, but at distance the

possibility of interaction during the training sessions

was almost entirely limited to chat because of the high

number of participating teachers (an average of 1000

teachers per webinar). To overcome the lack of

discussion, we fostered the discussion in the chats

during the webinars and we implemented a final

questionnaire that was designed to give teachers the

opportunity to express their reflections by simulating

what was happening in the presence. The purpose of

the questionnaire was also to validate this teacher

experiment.

The design of the questionnaire intended to make

explicit how standardized assessments impact on

teacher expertise and how standardized assessments

impact on teacher assessment.

Therefore, there were several sections inside the

questionnaire, each with a specific purpose:

• Section 1: designed to investigate whether

teachers were familiar with the questions from

the standardized assessments used by trainers

during the webinars;

• Section 2: designed to investigate whether

teachers knew the results of the questions from

the standardized assessments used by the

trainers during the webinars;

• Section 3: designed to investigate whether

teachers recognized the evidence of macro-

phenomena highlighted by the results of the

standardized assessments;

• Section 4: aimed at investigating whether

teachers had used some of the suggested

activities in the classroom to explicite the

presence of some of the misconceptions

highlighted by the results of the standardized

tests;

• Section 5: aimed at investigating whether the

reflections that emerged during the webinars

had changed some of the teachers' practices or

some of the ideas related to assessment.

The questionnaire consists of 19 closed-ended

questions.

The questionnaire was sent to all the teachers who

took part in the webinars and we received responses

from 509 teachers. In the chat recorded some

hundreds of comments and remarks were collected.

4 DISCUSSION AND FIRST

RESULTS

The new context triggered by the covid-19 pandemic

has put us in a very special situation. The situation of

distance learning is necessarily on two levels:

teachers with students and trainers with in-service

teachers. As a matter of fact, the majority of the

teachers involved in this teaching training experiment

had never looked for distance learning before this

event.

In the following we comment on two types of

results collected: the elements that emerged in chat

and the results of the questionnaire.

This experience challenged some beliefs that

teachers had about distance learning and that also

emerged from some comments written in chat by

teachers during the webinars.

One teacher writes "I was sure that I couldn't do

laboratory activities at distance and now I changed

my mind!".

Many teachers, during the period of distance

learning, started working in the new situation by

simply reproducing in front of a camera their

classroom traditional lectures, because they were

convinced they could not implement laboratory

activities. The course gave them the opportunity to

see that they could do laboratory activities and with

which tools.

The chat comments reveal another of the concerns

of the teachers during this time period: assessment. A

common teachers' initial belief was the idea that

assessment must be, at the end of the story, nothing

else than a score. Hence “formative assessment” was

just a formal expression in official documents, with a

Formative Assessment in LDL: A Teacher-training Experiment

661

weak relation with “real” assessment (which is, in

their idea, summative assessment). This is reported in

several comments, including the following: "How can

we assess our students without limiting ourselves to

formative assessment? I am currently putting positive

or negative annotations, but never assessments

because I think it is impossible to assess objectively

at a distance." We remark that summative

assessment, in Italian schools, is mainly performed

through oral questions and written individual tasks.

Teachers' worries on the topic of assessment were

many, since these modalities were actually difficult to

be implemented in the LDL situation.

To the questionnaire answered 351 primary

teachers (from grade 1 to 5), 106 middle school

teachers (from grade 6 to 8) and 52 high school

teachers (from grade 9 to 13).

Despite teachers' initial difficulties, the course had

a strong impact on the teacher's implementation of

distance learning. This became evident thanks to the

answers given by the teachers to some of the

questions in the questionnaire.

One question asked, "Before attending our

webinars, had you ever used video to implement

classroom activities?"

Figure 1: Results of the question “Before attending our

webinars, had you ever used video to implement classroom

activities?”.

There were 3.4% (17 teachers) who responded

"Systematically," 21.2% (108 teachers) who

responded "Often," 45.6% (232 teachers) who

responded "Rarely”, and 29.8% (152 teachers) who

responded "Never".

All respondents who answered "Systematically"

were found to be secondary school teachers (from

grade 6 to grade 13). In fact, all of the primary

teachers and most of the secondary teachers

subscribed to the webinars had not previously used

videos or other such materials before the training

course.

Another important question was the following:

"When you return completely in presence do you plan

to continue using the materials offered during the

webinars or elements of this experience?"

Figure 2: Results of the question “When you return

completely in presence do you plan to continue using the

materials offered during the webinars or elements of this

experience?”.

There were 47.8% (243 teachers) who answered

"Definitely yes", 50.4% (257 teachers) who answered

"Probably yes", 1.4% (7 teachers) who answered

"Probably not", and none who answered "Definitely

not" (0,4% -2 teachers- choose the answer “Other”).

One of the conclusions is that these teachers did

not use materials of this type before the course, while

after the course they say that even when they return

to in presence they will probably or definitely use and

continue to use these materials. So they think that the

use of these materials can be valid also in presence

and does not replace by the teaching in presence,

which gives other things.

One of the aspects highlighted during the

webinars was the development of synchronous and a-

synchronous activities. In presence a teacher can only

do activities in synchronous, while -with these

materials developed in a-synchronous- the activity

can continue also outside the classroom. This aspect

is one of those highlighted as a positive of distance

learning.

5 CONCLUSIONS

We have shown how the theme of turning large-scale

assessment into a tool for doing formative assessment

is significant. We also made explicit what themes

were involved during the teacher training webinars.

CSEDU 2021 - 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

662

A first analysis of the answers given by teachers

to the questionnaire allows us to claim that the

activities presented during the webinars can actually

offer multiple opportunities to work at distance with

students and with the class as a whole.

The course was designed to provide tools for

implementing laboratories in the sense outlined in our

framework and to support formative assessment

(even at a distance). In fact, our focus on laboratory

activities was designed to maintain formative

assessment activities even at a distance.

The project has been developed in an emergency

situation and in a context where the use of technology

for distance learning was very limited in Italy and the

assessment basically summative in practice. Working

alongside teachers to provide tools and materials with

a theoretical background in mathematics didactics

research in order to carry out distance learning of a

laboratory type (always in an emergency) with

particular attention to the dynamics of formative

assessment that could be applied in this situation has

allowed teachers to understand that

• It is possible to do laboratory activities at a

distance;

• Assessment is not only summative, indeed

formative assessment is fundamental in the

teaching-learning process;

• Specific training is necessary to use these

materials properly;

• Large-scale standardized assessments can help

us to highlight macro-phenomena that might be

reflected in every classrooms.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thanks all the trainers and the tutor who

participated in the program for their helpful

suggestions and the work done for collecting and

commenting the chats.

REFERENCES

Bolondi, G. (2006). Metodologia e didattica: il laboratorio.

Rassegna, 29, 59-63.

Bolondi, G., Ferretti, F., & Spagnuolo, A. (2014). Le prove

INVALSI con Geogebra: trasformare la valutazione

standardizzata in valutazione formativa. Milano:

Ledizioni.

Bolondi, G., Ferretti, F., Giberti, C. (2018). Didactic

contract as a key to interpreting gender differences in

maths. Journal of Educational, Cultural and

Psychological Studies, 18, 415-435.

Bolondi, G., Ferretti, F., Gimigliano, A., Lovece, S.,

Vannini, I. (2018). The Use of Videos in the Training

of Math Teachers: Formative Assessment in Math

Teaching and Learning. In P.G. Rossi, & L. Fedeli,

Integrating Video into Pre-Service and In-Service

Teacher Training. Hershey, USA: IGI Global.

Bolondi, G., & Ferretti, F. (2021). Quantifying Solid

Findings in Mathematics Education: Loss of Meaning

for Algebraic Symbols. International Journal of

Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education,

29(1), 1-15.

Borba, M. C., Askar, P., Engelbrecht, J., Gadanidis, G.,

Llinares, S., & Aguilar, M. S. (2016). Blended learning,

e-learning and mobile learning in mathematics

education. ZDM, 48(5), 589-610.

Castelnuovo, E. (1963). Didattica della Matematica.

Firenze: La Nuova Italia.

Di Martino, P. & Baccaglini-Frank, A. (2017). Beyond

performance results: analyzing the informational and

the developmental potentials of standardized

mathematics tests. For the Learning of Mathematics,

37(3), 6-11.

Domenici G. (2003). Manuale della valutazione scolastica.

Bari: Editori Laterza

Engelbrecht, J., Llinares, S., & Borba, M. C. (2020).

Transformation of the mathematics classroom with the

internet. Zdm, 1-17.

Gipps, C. (1994). Beyond testing: Towards a theory of

educational assessment. London: The Falmer Press.

Harlen, W. (2000). Teaching, learning and assessing

science, 5-12 (3rd ed.). London: Paul Chapman

Publishing.

Looney, J. W. (2011). Integrating Formative and

Summative Assessment: Progress Toward a Seamless

System? OECD Education Working Papers, No. 58,.

Paris: OECD Publishing.

Meckes, L. (2007). Evaluación y estándares: Logoros y

desafíos para incrementar el impacto en calidad

Educativa. Rev. Pensamiento Educativo, 40(1), 351-

371.

MIUR (2012), Ministero dell’Istruzione, Università e

Ricerca Indicazioni nazionali per il curricolo della

scuola dell’infanzia e del primo ciclo di istruzione.

Roma: MIUR.

Mulenga, E. M., & Marbán, J. M. (2020a). Is COVID-19

the Gateway for Digital Learning in Mathematics

Education. Contemporary Educational Technology,

12(2), ep269.

Mulenga, E. M., & Marbán, J. M. (2020). Prospective

teachers’ online learning Mathematics activities in the

age of COVID-19: A cluster analysis approbach.

EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and

Technology Education, 16(9), em1872.

Qassim, J. A. S. (2008). Teachers’ perceptions of current

assessment practices in public secondary schools in the

State of Qatar (Doctoral dissertation, The University of

Hull).

Reimers, F., Schleicher, A., Saavedra, J., & Tuominen, S.

(2020). Supporting the continuation of teaching and

Formative Assessment in LDL: A Teacher-training Experiment

663

learning during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Oecd, 1(1),

1-38.

Scriven M. (1967). The metodology of evaluation, in R.E.

Tyler, R.M. Gagnè and M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspecive

of curriculum evaluation, Chicago: AERA Monograph

Series in Education.

Sintema, E. J. (2020). Effect of COVID-19 on the

performance of grade 12 students: Implications for

STEM education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics,

Science and Technology Education, 16(7), em1851.

Speranza F. (1997). Scritti di Epistemologia della

Matematica. Bologna: Pitagora.

CSEDU 2021 - 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

664