All Children Reading–Philippines

Online Training on Formative Assessment

for Early Language, Literacy, and
Numeracy (ELLN) in the Philippines
Final Report

Submission Date: November 15, 2021

AID-OAA-TO-16-00017 Number: REQ-ASIA-16-00017

TOCOR: Mitch Kirby

Submitted by: RTI International

3040 East Cornwallis Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-0155
Tel: (919) 541-6000

Authored by: Dr. Amy Berry, Garry Poluan, and Chaula Pradhika (PT ACER
Indonesia)

This document was produced for review by the United States Agency for International
Development.
Acknowledgments
Becoming a Learning Detective: Formative Assessment for Early Language, Literacy, and
Numeracy was successfully delivered as an online training program from September 6 to 10,
2021, reaching 119 participants from all 17 regions in the Philippines. This activity would not
have been possible without the leadership and collaboration of the Philippine Department of
Education’s Bureau of Learning Delivery (BLD), part of the Office of the Undersecretary for
Curriculum and Instruction. We would especially like to thank BLD Director Leila P. Areola,
Teaching and Learning Division Chief Rose V. Villaneza, and those who generously lent us
their time as facilitators during the training: Joseph Randolph Palattao, Jocelyn Tuguinayo,
Nanelyn Bontoyan, Forcefina Frias, Ana Marlaine Litonjua, and Ronnie Baldoz.
We also want to recognize the high-quality and timely effort of the Australian Council for
Educational Research (ACER), which developed and delivered all training content and also
authored this report; in particular, Dr. Amy Berry, who led this activity, as well as Garry
Poluan and Chaula (Yoga) Pradhika from ACER Indonesia.

ii Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines

Table of Contents
Page

Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................. ii

List of Figures .......................................................................................................................iv

List of Tables ........................................................................................................................ v

List of Abbreviations ..............................................................................................................vi

1 Executive Summary................................................................................................... 1

2 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 4

3 The Course—Becoming a Learning Detective ........................................................... 4

3.1 Course objectives .......................................................................................... 4
3.2 Proposed links to Philippine Professional Standards for Teachers ................. 5
3.3 Hybrid modality online learning ...................................................................... 5
3.3.1 Whole group, synchronous plenary sessions...................................... 6
3.3.2 Small group, synchronous workshop sessions ................................... 6
3.3.3 Individual, asynchronous online learning ............................................ 6
3.4 Course outline and sequence ........................................................................ 7

4 Cohort 1 Training ....................................................................................................... 7

4.1 The teaching team ......................................................................................... 8
4.2 Monitoring ...................................................................................................... 8
4.2.1 Engagement in learning experiences.................................................. 8
4.2.2 Facilitation of the workshop program .................................................. 8
4.2.3 Learning ............................................................................................. 8

5 Findings..................................................................................................................... 9
5.1 Access and use of technology........................................................................ 9
5.2 Engagement in learning experiences ........................................................... 12
5.2.1 Engagement in plenary sessions ...................................................... 12
5.2.2 Engagement in workshops and breakout rooms ............................... 14
5.2.3 Engagement in Moodle..................................................................... 16
5.3 Learning assessment tasks .......................................................................... 17
5.3.1 Submission of assigned LATs .......................................................... 17
5.3.2 Responses to the LATs .................................................................... 18
5.4 Participant self-reflections ............................................................................ 21
5.4.1 List 3 things that you know about formative assessment now
that you did not know before............................................................. 21
5.4.2 How do you feel now when you think about formative
assessment? .................................................................................... 21

Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines iii

 5.4.3 Goals for future learning and improvement ....................................... 21
5.5 Post-training survey results .......................................................................... 22
5.6 Facilitation of online workshops ................................................................... 22

6 Discussion and Recommendations.......................................................................... 24

6.1 Online learning and the use of technology ................................................... 24
6.1.1 Challenges of learning online ........................................................... 24
6.1.2 Challenges of teaching online........................................................... 24
6.2 The networked approach ............................................................................. 26
6.3 Next steps for learning—where to next for this cohort? ................................ 26
6.3.1 Putting the ideas into action.............................................................. 27
6.3.2 Developing key skills for formative assessment ................................ 28
6.3.3 Additional instruction and support ..................................................... 29
6.4 Looking ahead—where to next for the training program? ............................. 32
6.4.1 What worked well? ........................................................................... 32
6.4.2 What could be improved? ................................................................. 33
6.4.3 What other evidence do we need? ................................................... 34

References ......................................................................................................................... 36

Appendix A: Course Outline and Sequence ........................................................................ 37

Appendix B: LATs ............................................................................................................... 39

List of Figures
Figure 1. Hybrid modality online learning ...................................................................... 6
Figure 2. Number of plenary sessions attended by participants based on regions ........ 9
Figure 3. Number of workshop days attended by participants based on regions ......... 10
Figure 4. Question: Did you have trouble accessing the Zoom plenary session
during this training?...................................................................................... 10
Figure 5. Question: Did you have trouble accessing the Zoom workshop session
during this training?...................................................................................... 11
Figure 6. Question: Did you have trouble accessing Moodle during this training? ....... 11
Figure 7. Attendance information based on role of participants during five days of
plenary ......................................................................................................... 13
Figure 8. Attendance trend of participants for the plenary sessions, by roles .............. 14
Figure 9. Attendance trend of participants for the workshop sessions, by group ......... 15
Figure 10. Attendance in workshops based on role of participants ................................ 15
Figure 11. Attendance trend of participants for the workshop sessions by roles............ 16
Figure 12. Submitted tasks by role (out of a total of 102) .............................................. 18
Figure 13. Number of submissions by task (out of a total of 119) .................................. 18

iv Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines

List of Tables
Table 1. Cohort 1 training participants ......................................................................... 7
Table 2. Attendance in the Zoom plenary sessions by day ........................................ 12
Table 3. Attendance of participants by roles on each day of plenary sessions ........... 13
Table 4. Attendance in workshop sessions, by group ................................................ 14
Table 5. Attendance of participants by roles on each day of workshops .................... 16
Table 6. Number of tasks submitted to Moodle .......................................................... 17

Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines v

List of Abbreviations
ACER Australian Council for Educational Research
ACR All Children Reading
BLD Bureau of Learning Delivery
COVID-19 coronavirus disease 2019
DepEd Philippines Department of Education
ELLN Early Language, Literacy and Numeracy program
K-3 Kindergarten to Grade 3
LAT learning assessment task
Q&A question and answer
RTI RTI International (registered trademark and trade name of Research
Triangle Institute)
PPST Philippine Professional Standards for Teachers
USAID United States Agency for International Development

vi Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines

1 Executive Summary
RTI International (RTI), under the All Children Reading (ACR)–Philippines project, supported
the Department of Education’s (DepEd) Bureau of Learning Delivery (BLD) in responding to
a need for teacher professional development in the area of formative assessment. ACR–
Philippines is a U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) project, implemented by
RTI, to improve the ability of the USAID/Philippines Mission, DepEd, and development
partners to boost early grade reading outcomes in the Philippines. The content and delivery
of this pilot training program was prepared by the Australian Council for Educational
Research (ACER) under subcontract with RTI.
The program aims to build teacher capacity in accurately identifying and responding to the
learning needs of children in the early grades through the process of classroom-based,
ongoing formative assessment. Importantly, the need to support teachers in their formative
assessment practice goes beyond adjusting assessment practices in response to remote
learning conditions brought on by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. A
more comprehensive program of learning that builds foundational knowledge about
formative assessment, as well as practical strategies that can be used with students in a
range of different learning modalities, is called for.
Becoming a Learning Detective is a 5-day online course that focuses on the design and use
of formative assessment to improve literacy and numeracy outcomes in Kindergarten to
Grade 3 (K–3) classrooms. The emphasis is on classroom-based assessment strategies that
are embedded within daily teaching and learning experiences, involving an active
partnership between teacher and students. The course brings together asynchronous and
synchronous elements, as well as whole group, small group, and individual learning
experiences. Each day follows the same structure: Plenary Presentation (Zoom), Workshops
(Zoom), ending with a self-paced online learning module (Moodle). Participants are asked to
submit a range of Learning Assessment Tasks (LATs) over the course of the week.
The course was implemented for the first time among a small cohort of participants across
17 regions in the Philippines, using an approach that brings together participants at all levels
of the education system to create a more connected network of support for schools as they
strengthen their formative assessment practices. Each region was represented by one
Regional Supervisor, one Division Supervisor, and one school within the region. Participants
from the school consisted of one school head, one Kindergarten teacher, one Grade 1
teacher, one Grade 2 teacher, and one Grade 3 teacher. In total, there were 119
participants. ACER, RTI, and BLD worked closely together to develop and deliver this pilot
formative assessment training, with ACER staff and BLD staff sharing the responsibility for
teaching during the week-long learning program.
A range of data was collected across the week of training to monitor participant engagement,
learning, and the facilitation of the workshop program. While BLD has collected its own
monitoring data, which may provide additional insights into the participants’ experience in
this learning program, the focus in this report will be on ACER and RTI’s monitoring
activities. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected, including Zoom attendance
data, notes from daily debriefing sessions with workshop facilitators, participant reflections,
submitted LATs, and two post-training surveys. BLD and RTI will apply findings and lessons
learned from this initial training to strengthening the course prior to offering it at a larger
scale in the Philippines.
In relation to accessing the online learning program, the following can be said. Along with
initial issues of getting accustomed to the technology and processes used in this online
learning program, and potential issues related to a typhoon that occurred during the training
week, some participants experienced disruptions to their technology access during the
training course that were due to ongoing connectivity issues in the Philippines more broadly.

Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines 1

The results from a Day 5 poll show that roughly a third of participants had no difficulties in
accessing the Zoom sessions, and a quarter had no difficulties in accessing the Moodle
content. The remaining participants had varying degrees of difficulty relating to access. For
most, this was contained to one day of the training. However, roughly 20% of participants
had more persistent access issues over the course of the week. Several workshop
facilitators also reported challenges in using elements in Zoom (e.g., breakout rooms) to
facilitate the workshops and some issues with connectivity during the workshop sessions. A
support person was assigned to each workshop room to help with issues relating to access
and technology.
In general, workshop facilitators reported a high level of engagement in the workshop
activities, and a pattern of rising engagement across the week. The use of breakout rooms
facilitated discussions, and Zoom elements such as the chat and response functions helped
to encourage active participation in the sessions and helped uncover misconceptions and
areas of confusion. Feedback from participants also suggests they valued the opportunity to
share ideas and experiences with colleagues during the sessions.
There were clear differences between teachers and supervisors. Based on attendance rates,
LAT submissions, and anecdotal reports from workshop facilitators, teachers demonstrated
greater engagement in all aspects of the learning program compared with supervisors. The
breakdown of LAT submissions illustrates this difference. While 94% of teachers and 80% of
school heads submitted all six LATs, only 58% of supervisors did so. Feedback from
workshop facilitators indicated that, at times, supervisors had to attend concurrent meetings
during the scheduled workshop, which limited their ability to fully engage in the activities and
discussions. In some cases, supervisors were absent from all or most of the scheduled
workshops.
In relation to learning, responses from the participants indicated that many found the training
useful in improving their understanding of formative assessment. Some described a change
to their understanding from viewing formative assessment as a graded activity that is done at
the end of a lesson toward seeing it as an ongoing process that aims to improve learning.
Many participants found it difficult to reflect on their learning, focusing on recounting topics
that were covered rather than changes to their understanding of those topics. The idea that
formative assessment is a partnership between students and teacher appeared to be new
for many of the participants.
Findings suggest many participants would benefit from further support to help them design
activities that will elicit quality evidence of learning, interpret that evidence, and use that
information to provide useful feedback to students on their learning. In addition, the
participants themselves indicated they would value additional opportunities to learn about
the use of rubrics in formative assessment and ways of involving students in the formative
assessment process.
A limitation of these findings is the lack of evidence we have about any impact the training
might have on teachers’ classroom practice and the learning outcomes of their students.
Understanding this impact would provide valuable information to inform any future iterations
or scaling up of the pilot program.
Key recommendations:
• To address issues with Internet connectivity, hard copies of learning materials and
recorded presentations could be provided to participants in advance of the training.
• To support workshop facilitators in their role, additional training in online facilitation
could be provided along with assigning a co-facilitator to each workshop room.
Restructuring the LATs and reducing the number of tasks would help to alleviate the
burden of marking those tasks.

2 Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines

 • Consider options that would retain the benefits of establishing a connected network
within the region while addressing the different needs and responsibilities of school-
based personnel and supervisors, for example, bringing all participants together for
plenary sessions and then breaking into differentiated workshops that are targeted to
the needs of participants in different roles within the system.
• To facilitate the application of these foundational ideas and strategies beyond the
training program, teachers will need the opportunity to put what they have learned
into practice. During this time, as teachers experiment with formative assessment
and reflect on what they have learned, they will need guidance and access to support
to help them improve. This could be through an online community of practice that will
have to be monitored to address any misconceptions or correct any misinformation
that might be shared.
• To facilitate further improvements to practice, teachers will need additional
opportunities to develop and demonstrate their expertise in formative assessment
and their skills in gathering and analyzing evidence of learning. The Philippine
Professional Standards for Teachers (PPST) can provide a framework for supporting
higher levels of expertise beyond this pilot training program. A possible pathway for
developing and demonstrating increasing expertise might include the following:
− Provide opportunities for teachers to design, implement, and report on a cycle of
formative assessment. This would include information about goals for learning,
curriculum connections, examples of evidence collected, their interpretation of
that evidence, and an explanation of how they used that information to support
improvements in learning and in teaching (as evidence of PPST domains 5.1.2,
5.2.2, and 5.5.2).
− Provide opportunities for teachers to work in collaborative groups to review
different plans for formative assessment, interpret evidence collected, and use
that information to identify the next steps for learning and teaching (as evidence
of PPST domains 5.1.3, 5.2.3, and 5.5.3).
− Provide opportunities for teachers to lead formative assessment initiatives in their
school or region, including evaluating policies and guidelines relating to formative
assessment, mentoring others on the analysis and use of formative assessment
evidence to improve learning, and leading colleagues in using assessment
evidence to improve teaching practices and programs (as evidence of PPST
domains 5.1.4, 5.2.4, and 5.5.4).
• Participants would benefit from additional opportunities to learn about practices and
strategies that involve students as active partners in learning and in formative
assessment. This includes providing students with appropriate and useful feedback
and opportunities for them to reflect on their learning, engage in self-assessment,
and act on feedback to further their progress in learning.
• A consistent message from participants across the week of training was that they felt
a need for greater support and strategies for implementing formative assessment in
remote and offline learning during the pandemic. Support for teachers will have to
provide explicit, developmentally appropriate examples that can be used in offline,
remote learning. This information would need to include not just an idea for an
activity, but also information about what the intended learning focus is, what evidence
would be gathered, and how they might interpret that information and use it to
improve teaching and learning. To support the transition back to school, it would be
helpful to provide information about how these examples could be adapted for
different modalities. This might also help teachers move beyond delivering a
prescribed plan, toward thinking more flexibly about how examples can be modified
and adapted to meet the needs of their students.

Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines 3

2 Introduction
In the Philippines, the recent national early grade reading assessment indicated a decline in
student’s literacy skills in both English and Filipino, including a worrying rise in the number of
children who could not provide any correct responses (USAID, 2019). This was true for both
listening comprehension and reading comprehension. While there are many factors
influencing these results, it remains that something should be done to accurately identify and
respond to the learning needs of children in the early grades, and this requires a classroom-
based approach that integrates assessment into the everyday teaching and learning
program. The Philippines Department of Education (DepEd), through its Bureau for Learning
Delivery (BLD), has identified a need to strengthen teachers’ ability to effectively implement
formative assessment to improve literacy outcomes, both remotely and when face-to-face
classes resume. Other research has also highlighted the need to provide teachers in the
Philippines with additional support to improve their understanding of the concept of formative
assessment and strengthen their implementation of formative assessment in the classroom
(Cagasan, Care, Robertson, & Luo, 2020). Importantly, the concerns around formative
assessment practices and student learning outcomes in the Philippines were evident prior to
the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and go beyond any concerns about
how to adjust assessment practices in response to remote learning conditions brought on by
the pandemic. For this reason, simply providing teachers with strategies that can be
implemented in remote learning situations is unlikely to be enough. A more comprehensive
program of learning that builds foundational knowledge about formative assessment, as well
as practical strategies that can be used with students in a range of different learning
modalities, is called for.
RTI International, under the All Children Reading (ACR)–Philippines project, supported BLD
in responding to this need for teacher professional development in the area of formative
assessment. ACR–Philippines is a U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
project, implemented by RTI International. ACR–Philippines provides knowledge, resources,
and technical assistance to improve the ability of the USAID Mission, DepEd, and
development partners to boost early grade reading outcomes in the Philippines. The content
and delivery of this pilot training program was prepared by the Australian Council for
Educational Research (ACER) under subcontract with RTI.

3 The Course—Becoming a Learning Detective

The 5-day online course focuses on the design and use of formative assessment to improve
literacy and numeracy outcomes in Kindergarten to Grade 3 (K–3) classrooms. The
emphasis is on classroom-based assessment strategies that are embedded within daily
teaching and learning experiences.
The course was first rolled out to a cohort of 119 participants across 17 regions in the
Philippines in September 2021, which will be the focus for this report.

3.1 Course objectives

The main objectives for this course are for participants to:
• Strengthen their understanding of formative assessment, including the purpose of
formative assessment, strategies for formative assessment in K–3 lessons, and using
information gained from formative assessment to provide feedback and make
decisions for future teaching and learning.
• Apply their understanding to develop an activity that will be used to formatively
assess students’ literacy and numeracy development in their classroom. This will

4 Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines

 include links to the curriculum, plans for eliciting evidence of what students know and
can do, and plans for how the evidence will be interpreted and used.
• Practice interpreting and reflecting on evidence gathered from classroom-based
formative assessment using classroom scenarios and student work samples.
• Practice using evidence to provide useful feedback to students on their learning.
• Build a repertoire of formative assessment strategies that can be used in literacy and
mathematics lessons.
• Strengthen their understanding of the role of the student in formative assessment
and the strategies that support students to actively contribute to the process of
formative assessment.

3.2 Proposed links to Philippine Professional Standards for Teachers

Domain 5: Assessment and reporting
• Strand 1: Design, selection, organization, and utilization of assessment strategies
− 5.1.2 Design, select, organize, and use diagnostic, formative, and summative
assessment strategies consistent with curriculum requirements.
• Strand 2: Monitoring and evaluation of learner progress and achievement
− 5.2.2 Monitor and evaluate learner progress and achievement using learner
attainment data.
• Strand 3: Feedback to improve learning
− 5.3.2 Use strategies for providing timely, accurate, and constructive feedback to
improve learner performance.
• Strand 5: Use of assessment data to enhance teaching and learning practices and
programs
− 5.5.2 Utilize assessment data to inform the modification of teaching and learning
practices and programs.
Through the Learning Assessment Tasks (LATs) (see Appendix B), participants are given
the opportunity to design a formative assessment activity for literacy and for numeracy. They
are also asked to describe three possible student responses at different levels of
development, interpret that evidence and use it to decide on the next steps for teaching and
learning, and provide feedback to improve learning. Participants are given the opportunity to
move beyond demonstrating their knowledge of these aspects of assessment (Beginning
Teachers level) and toward applying that knowledge (albeit not in the real world of the
classroom), which is defined as the Proficient Teachers level. While some participants may
be operating at even higher levels, without more opportunities to demonstrate their ability to
collaborate with colleagues over the design and use of formative assessment strategies and
data, it would be difficult to determine this in the current course format.

3.3 Hybrid modality online learning

This online program was delivered through a hybrid of both synchronous (all trainees
participate simultaneously in an online event) and asynchronous (each trainee learns online
at their own pace) modalities through whole group, small group, and individual learning
experiences. Each day follows the same structure, illustrated in Figure 1 and outlined below.

Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines 5

Figure 1. Hybrid modality online learning

• Whole group
Plenary • Synchronous session on Zoom
Presentation

• Small group
Facilitated • Synchronous session on Zoom
Workshop

• Individual
• Asynchronous self-paced learning on
Online module Moodle

3.3.1 Whole group, synchronous plenary sessions

Each day began with a whole group plenary session conducted on Zoom. These sessions
were used to deliver presentations that cover key concepts, give explanations, and provide
examples to illustrate what formative assessment looks like and how it can be used in the
classroom. The sessions ran for approximately one hour each day and included all 119
participants. The sessions were run by ACER staff, with the recorded plenary presentations
uploaded to Moodle to support subsequent independent learning, and the slides from the
presentations were included in the participant’s Learning Manual. From Day 2 to Day 5, each
whole group session commenced with a short Q & A session where common
misconceptions or questions from the previous day’s workshops could be addressed.
The pre-recorded plenary session videos respond to BLD’s interest in ensuring consistency
in the delivery of new training content. Enhanced versions of these videos will be developed
for future iterations of the training and can become a lasting source of reference material for
BLD’s long-term teacher professional development efforts.

3.3.2 Small group, synchronous workshop sessions

The plenary session was followed by small group workshops in Zoom to enable more active
engagement with the content and the opportunity to interact with fellow participants. Each
workshop session was planned to last one hour, and each group had 19–20 participants led
by a facilitator. The facilitator was accompanied by at least one support person to assist with
the technology and management of participants, allowing the facilitator to focus on
interacting with the participants. Facilitators were provided with slides for each workshop and
a manual containing detailed facilitation notes for each session. The workshops made
frequent use of breakout rooms of 2–4 participants to encourage active discussion and
sharing of ideas and experiences prior to whole group facilitated discussions. The
‘Reactions’ and ‘Chat’ features in Zoom were also used to uncover common misconceptions
and remaining questions that could be addressed in the next day’s plenary session.

3.3.3 Individual, asynchronous online learning

Following the synchronous sessions, participants proceeded to the Moodle platform for
further learning activities that complemented the focus of that day. The Moodle content

6 Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines

included the recorded plenary presentation for that day, a revision of the key ideas,
additional resources and information related to the day’s focus, and instructions for the LAT
for that day. Discussion boards were also set up for groups to upload their planned formative
assessment activities and share with others.

3.4 Course outline and sequence

Each day of the course had its own focus, moving from a higher-level introduction to the
broad concept of formative assessment, then going deeper into specific aspects of the
process and its use in K–3. The focus for each day was as follows:
• Day 1 – Becoming a Learning Detective
• Day 2 – Becoming a Literacy Learning Detective
• Day 3 – Becoming a Mathematics Learning Detective
• Day 4 – Thinking Like a Rubric
• Day 4 – Students as Learning Detectives
Please refer to Appendix A for a more detailed course outline.

4 Cohort 1 Training
BLD expressed a desire to take a holistic approach to delivering this training, one that brings
together participants at all levels of the education system, in order to create a more
connected network of support for schools as they strengthen their formative assessment
practices. This contrasts with the more traditional model where non-school-based
supervisors are trained and then expected to take the training back to their region where it
filters down to the schools. ACER, RTI, and BLD worked closely together to develop and
deliver this first online formative assessment training, with ACER staff and BLD staff sharing
the responsibility for facilitation during the week-long learning program.
In this first phase, participants came from 17 regions across the Philippines. Each region
was represented by a Regional Supervisor and a Division Supervisor, as well as school-
based personnel from one school (see Table 1).

Table 1. Cohort 1 training participants

Number of Distribution
Role participants across regions
Regional Supervisor 17 1 per region
Division Supervisor 17 1 per region
School Head 17
Kindergarten Teacher 17
1 school in each
Grade 1 Teacher 17 region
participated
Grade 2 Teacher 17
Grade 3 Teacher 17
Total participants 119

According to BLD, the schools were selected based on recommendations from the Regional
Supervisor in charge of the Early Language, Literacy and Numeracy (ELLN) program. Their
recommendations were guided by the school’s active engagement in previous ELLN

Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines 7

activities and data suggesting the school could benefit from additional support in ELLN-
related practices such as formative assessment.

4.1 The teaching team

In this first rollout of the training, ACER staff took responsibility for delivering the plenary
presentations and question and answer (Q&A) sessions each day. Four subject matter
experts were involved in developing the content for each day of the program and in
delivering the plenary presentations each day. The team provided expertise in the areas of
early literacy and numeracy, pedagogy and assessment in the early years, and teacher
professional learning. BLD staff from the Teaching and Learning Division acted as workshop
facilitators, implementing the small group workshop sessions each day. These facilitators
were also responsible for grading the daily LATs in Moodle and providing feedback to ACER
on the workshops each day.

4.2 Monitoring
ACER collected a range of data across the week of training to monitor participant
engagement and learning, as well as the facilitation of the workshop program. While BLD
has collected its own monitoring data, which may provide additional insights into the
participants’ experience in this learning program, the focus in this report will be on ACER’s
monitoring activities.

4.2.1 Engagement in learning experiences

Participants’ attendance for both the plenary and workshop sessions were recorded in Zoom
allowing us to collect information about participant access to the workshop and plenary
programs across the week and to investigate patterns in attendance by role, by region, and
by day.
Anecdotal information about participant engagement in discussions during the workshop
sessions was collected in the teaching team’s daily debrief sessions, and saved chat
messages from Zoom provided additional information about participants’ engagement in the
content of the learning program.
Finally, participants’ responses in the Day 5 self-reflection task provided information about
their experience in the training and their emotional engagement in learning about formative
assessment.

4.2.2 Facilitation of the workshop program

To monitor the facilitation aspect of the learning program, ACER conducted daily debriefing
sessions with the workshop facilitators, as well as a post-training debrief session to follow up
during the marking of assessment tasks. These sessions allowed ACER to gather
information about the planned activities (e.g., the proposed timing of activities), the
facilitation of the planned activities, and the usefulness of the Facilitator Manual.

4.2.3 Learning
To monitor participant learning during the training program, ACER gathered information from
the workshop facilitators during the daily debrief sessions in relation to common
misconceptions and questions arising in the workshops that might need to be addressed in
the next day’s plenary session. In addition to this information, ACER reviewed the participant
responses in the LATs from Day 5 to identify common areas of need that might have to be
targeted in the future.

8 Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines

5 Findings
5.1 Access and use of technology
All participants and facilitators were provided access to Zoom for the plenary and workshop
sessions and Moodle for the self-paced online learning. Some participants had difficulty with
Zoom due to poor connectivity. One potential barrier to access was a typhoon that occurred
during the week of training, which may have caused connectivity issues for some of the
participants. The regions most affected by the typhoon at the beginning of the week were
Regions VI, VII, VIII, and parts of IV-B. Toward the end of the week it was Regions I and II.
To investigate the potential impact of the typhoon on attendance, we examined the Zoom
attendance data by region.
Figure 2 and Figure 3 show there were variations in Zoom attendance patterns both across
regions and within regions themselves. There were also a few participants who did not
participate in any of the plenary or workshop sessions, specifically from Regions I, II, V, VI,
and XII. The patterns suggest that while there may have been some impact on participant
attendance, there were other factors at play beyond the typhoon influencing the attendance
of some participants. For example, we saw fluctuating attendance in regions not affected by
the typhoon and participants who had no attendance across the 5 days.

Figure 2. Number of plenary sessions attended by participants based on

regions

Attendance of Plenary Sessions Based on Regions

5 days 4 days 3 days 2 days 1 days 0 day

6
Number of Participants

Regions

Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines 9

Figure 3. Number of workshop days attended by participants based on
regions

Attendance of Workshop Sessions Based on Regions

5 days 4 days 3 days 2 days 1 days 0 day

6
Number of Participants

Regions

Along with initial issues of getting accustomed to the technology and processes used in this
online learning program, and potential issues related to the typhoon, some participants
experienced disruptions to their technology access during the training course that were due
to ongoing connectivity issues in the Philippines more broadly. To capture more information
about the extent of these access issues and their potential impact on the learning
experience, ACER administered a short poll in the Day 5 plenary session, gathering a total
of 106 responses for each question. The results are shown in Figures 4–6 below.

Figure 4. Question: Did you have trouble accessing the Zoom plenary
session during this training?

Trouble Accessing Zoom During Plenary Sessions

40
40
37

35

30 28
Number of Participants

25

20

15

10

5
1
0
Never Only one day On several days Every day
Frequency

10 Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines

Figure 5. Question: Did you have trouble accessing the Zoom workshop
session during this training?

Trouble Accessing Zoom During Workshop Sessions

45 42

40 37

35
Number of Participants

30
25
25

20

15

10

5 2

0
Never Only one day On several days Every day
Frequency

Figure 6. Question: Did you have trouble accessing Moodle during this
training?

Trouble Accessing Moodle

50
50

45

40
Number of Participants

35
31
30

25 23

20

15

10

5 2
0
Never Only one day On several days Every day
Frequency

The results from the Day 5 poll show that roughly a third of participants had no difficulties
accessing the Zoom sessions, and a quarter had no difficulties in accessing the Moodle
content. The remaining participants had varying degrees of difficulty relating to access. For

Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines 11

most, this was contained to one day of the training. However, roughly 20% of participants
had more persistent access issues over the course of the week.
Reports from workshop facilitators and staff supporting on Zoom indicated that some
participants had difficulty accessing Zoom workshop sessions and using the breakout rooms
during those sessions. In general, these issues diminished as the week progressed and
everyone became more familiar with the process. Similarly, there were also issues with
accessing Moodle in the early part of the program. Some of these were due to problems with
email addresses and login details.
A number of the workshop facilitators also expressed some challenges in familiarizing
themselves with the use of breakout rooms in Zoom and trying to manage the technology
while also facilitating the session. A technology support person was assigned to each
workshop group to address this challenge, and the facilitators reported that this was a very
useful (if not essential) resource to consider in future trainings.

5.2 Engagement in learning experiences

Participant engagement in the planned learning experiences will be discussed in relation to
their attendance in plenary and workshop Zoom sessions, anecdotal reports from the
workshop facilitators about the level of participation within the workshops, and the
participants’ engagement in Moodle.

5.2.1 Engagement in plenary sessions

Attendance in the plenary sessions across the week can be seen in Table 2.

Table 2. Attendance in the Zoom plenary sessions by day

Number of
participants
Day attending
Day 1 – Becoming a Learning Detective 107
Day 2 – Becoming a Literacy Learning Detective 111
Day 3 – Becoming a Mathematics Learning 111
Detective
Day 4 – Using Rubrics in Formative Assessment 108
Day 5 – Students as Learning Detectives 96

Participation within the plenary sessions was limited to the use of the chat function in Zoom.
This was primarily used to greet each other when entering the session, but on occasion
participants shared their experiences, knowledge, and questions via the chat. Day 4 saw the
highest level of interaction in the chat in relation to the use of rubrics. The interest in rubrics
carried over into the workshop sessions on Day 4 (see below) and led to a follow-on short
presentation on rubrics on Day 5. The topic was further extended by adding an additional
forum to Moodle for participants to continue the discussion.
Given the number of participants, the time constraints for the plenary session and the fact
that the presentations were pre-recorded, active participation in these sessions was limited.
Attendance based on role of participants
There were clear differences in the attendance of supervisors and school-based personnel in
the plenary sessions (see Figure 7). Regional supervisors had the lowest rate of attendance
in plenary sessions, followed by division supervisors. There were four supervisors who did
not attended any of the plenary sessions across the week, and two who attended only one

12 Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines

session. Less than half attended all five days of plenary presentations. In contrast, the
majority of school-based personnel attended all five days, and the rest attended four of the
five days. The one exception was one Grade 2 teacher who attended three of the five
sessions.

Figure 7. Attendance information based on role of participants during five

days of plenary

Attendance of Plenary Sessions Based on Roles

5 days 4 days 3 days 2 days 1 days 0 day

16

14
Number of Participants

12

10

8
15
14
6 13 13
12

4 8
7
2

0
Division Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Kindergarten Regional School Head
Supervisor Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Supervisor
Roles

Table 3 shows that attendance of division and regional supervisors gradually decreased
throughout the days of the plenary sessions. Overall attendance was highest on Day 3 and
lowest on Day 5. In each day, division and regional supervisors had the lowest attendance
rate. Figure 8 shows the trend of attendance in the plenary sessions for each role.

Table 3. Attendance of participants by roles on each day of plenary

sessions
Plenary attendance Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5
Division Supervisor 16 15 15 11 10
Grade 1 Teacher 16 16 17 17 14
Grade 2 Teacher 14 17 17 16 17
Grade 3 Teacher 17 17 17 17 15
Kindergarten Teacher 16 17 16 17 15
Regional Supervisor 12 13 13 13 9
School Head 16 16 16 17 16

Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines 13

Figure 8. Attendance trend of participants for the plenary sessions, by roles

Daily Plenary Attendance Based on Roles

Division Supervisor Grade 1 Teacher Grade 2 Teacher
Grade 3 Teacher Kindergarten Teacher Regional Supervisor
School Head

17

16
Number of Participants

15

14

13

12

11

10

9
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5
Sessions

5.2.2 Engagement in workshops and breakout rooms

There was some confusion among participants on Day 1 in relation to which group they were
allocated to and how to enter the workshop session. This was addressed by reinforcing a
naming convention in subsequent days, asking participants to rename themselves in the
plenary session by putting the number of their group before their name (e.g., 1_Amy Berry).
This made it easier for Zoom administrators to direct participants to the correct workshop
group.
Attendance in the workshop sessions can be seen in Table 4. Group 1 had 19 participants
enrolled, and all the other groups had 20 participants. Group 1 had consistently lower
numbers across the week. While there was a drop in attendance in the Day 5 plenary
session, the same was not true for the workshop sessions. Figure 9 shows the trend of
attendance per group in the workshop sessions.

Table 4. Attendance in workshop sessions, by group

Group Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5

Group 1 14 16 15 14 14
Group 2 18 19 20 19 20
Group 3 16 18 16 16 16
Group 4 19 17 19 18 19
Group 5 19 19 20 17 19
Group 6 16 19 16 17 17

14 Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines

Figure 9. Attendance trend of participants for the workshop sessions, by
group

Daily Workshop Attendance Based on Workshop Group

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Group 6

20

19
Number of Participants

18

17

16

15

14
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5
Sessions

Attendance based on role of participants

Similar to the attendance data for the plenary sessions, the supervisors had lower rates of
attendance in the workshop sessions compared to school-based personnel (Figure 10).
There were seven supervisors who did not attend any of the training workshops, and another
two who attended only one workshop. The majority of teachers and school heads attended
all five workshops.

Figure 10. Attendance in workshops based on role of participants

Attendance of Workshop Sessions Based on Roles

5 days 4 days 3 days 2 days 1 days 0 day

16

14
Number of Participants

12

10

8 17
15 15
6 13
11
4 9
7
2

0
Division Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Kindergarten Regional School Head
Supervisor Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Supervisor
Roles

Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines 15

Looking at the attendance pattern across the week, for each day of the workshops, division
and regional supervisors again had the lowest attendance rate (Table 5, Figure 11).

Table 5. Attendance of participants by roles on each day of workshops

Workshop attendance Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5
Division Supervisor 11 13 12 11 13
Grade 1 Teacher 16 17 16 16 17
Grade 2 Teacher 17 17 17 17 17
Grade 3 Teacher 17 16 17 17 16
Kindergarten Teacher 16 16 17 17 15
Regional Supervisor 10 13 11 9 11
School Head 15 16 16 14 16

Figure 11. Attendance trend of participants for the workshop sessions by

roles.

Daily Workshop Attendance Based on Roles

Division Supervisor Grade 1 Teacher Grade 2 Teacher
Grade 3 Teacher Kindergarten Teacher Regional Supervisor
School Head

17

16
Number of Participants

15

14

13

12

11

10

9
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5
Sessions

Anecdotal evidence collected in the daily debrief sessions with the workshop facilitators
indicated that, overall, the active engagement of the participants increased over the course
of the week. However, facilitators did report that some supervisors were present in sessions
but involved in concurrent meetings, limiting their ability to become actively engaged in
activities and discussions during the session.

5.2.3 Engagement in Moodle

There were 12 participants (all supervisors) who had limited to no engagement with the
material in Moodle at all. The submission of learning tasks gives some indication of
participants’ engagement in Moodle, and this is looked at in detail in the next section. Other
evidence of engagement can be found in the activity in the discussion forums. In total, 30
participants shared their plans for formative assessment in the two discussion forums, and

16 Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines

22 participants posted their thoughts and experiences with rubrics in the discussion forum
that was added on Day 5. These discussion forums were not facilitated, and interaction
between participants was very limited. Generally, the participants did not comment or post a
reply to the posts of others and their contributions were limited to posting a response to the
prompt.

5.3 Learning assessment tasks

There were six LATs that participants were asked to complete and submit via Moodle. The
tasks were as follows:
1. Day 1 – Self-reflection in relation to formative assessment
2. Day 2 – Plans for a literacy formative assessment
3. Day 3 – Plans for a mathematics formative assessment
4. Day 4 – Rubric for their planned literacy assessment
5. Day 5 (1) – Feedback to a student
6. Day 5 (2) – Post-training self-reflection
LATs for each day are provided for reference in Appendix B.

5.3.1 Submission of assigned LATs

While the vast majority of participants completed all assigned tasks, there were variations
across the group in terms of how many tasks were submitted (see Table 6). Notably, there
were 12 participants who did not submit any of the assigned LATs (7 Regional Supervisors
and 5 Division Supervisors).

Table 6. Number of tasks submitted to Moodle

Number of tasks Number of
submitted participants

6 tasks 85 participants

5 tasks 6 participants

4 tasks 5 participants

3 tasks 4 participants

2 tasks 4 participants

1 task 3 participants

0 tasks 12 participants

Consistent with the attendance data, looking at the differences between school-based
personnel and supervisors, it is clear that the teachers (and to a lesser degree school heads)
had higher levels of submission than Regional and Division Supervisors (see Figure 12). All
17 Grade 1 teachers submitted all tasks (for a total of 102 submitted tasks).

Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines 17

Figure 12. Submitted tasks by role (out of a total of 102)
Number of submitted tasks by role
102
100 97
93 93
90
82
80

70
62
60 56

50

40

30

20
Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 School Head Division Regional
Teachers Teachers Teachers Teachers Supervisor Supervisor

There was some decline in the number of submitted tasks across the week, as shown in
Figure 13.

Figure 13. Number of submissions by task (out of a total of 119)

Number of participant submissions by task
110

105 105
105
101
100
Number of submissions

95 93
91
90 88

85

80

75
Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Task 4 Task 5 Task 6

5.3.2 Responses to the LATs

Looking at the participant responses in the LATs some patterns emerged that may be
important to consider when deciding on the next steps to take beyond this first training. The
Day 5 LAT (1) asked participants to explain their plans for formative assessment, describe a
student’s (child’s) response, interpret that response to identify the next steps for learning,

18 Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines

and construct feedback for the student. As it brings together elements from Day 1, 2, 3 and
5, it was used as a focus for our monitoring activities. Day 5 LAT #1 is available for reference
in Appendix B.
Difficulties constructing student feedback
Participant responses to the Day 5 LAT indicate that many of them needed further support to
help them construct useful and accessible feedback for students. Interestingly, some
participants were unable to separate feedback for learning and plans for teaching. That is,
when asked what feedback they would give to a learner to help them progress, the
participant instead explained what the teacher should do next.
Examples:
“Addition of single digit using one to one correspondence. Allow the child to use
other concrete object.”
“Pupil has still the struggle to count and add quantities 1 to 10. Remedial
lessons must be given to him.”
“The pupil will be provided remediation on the above cited difficulty for at least 3
months based on the result of his assessment.”
Another pattern seen in the LATs was the tendency to attribute lack of progress with a lack
of effort on the student’s part. Feedback to the student was to tell them to work harder, keep
doing more of the same, or pay more attention rather than provide specific information about
what the student has shown they can do and what the next thing is that they are working
toward. The examples below also illustrate an emphasis on answering correctly and getting
a high score, rather than a focus on specific improvements in understanding or skill related
to learning something.
Examples:
“The learner needs to learn to follow instructions and be able to answer it
correctly with word clue.”
“Okay! Thank you for answering. That’s a nice try. Next time, listen carefully so
that you will get the right answer.”
“It is ok to get the score of 2 out of 5. All you have to do is to practice more on
reading so that next time, you can answer it with passing score of 4 or much
better perfect 5.”
“Good! You’re almost there, you can do it perfectly if you listen more to teacher
instruction.”
Finally, when feedback was provided to the student, much of it lacked any detail about
learning, instead focusing on self-level feedback (e.g., “Great work!”) and information about
what the teacher would be doing next (e.g., “You are ready to move on to the next unit.”).
Examples:
“You’re good! That’s awesome!”
“Great job, boy! Now you are ready to learn more on addition.”
“Very good! Let’s go back to the instruction again and write the correct answer
with the word clue given. I’ll help you.”
“I strongly believe that with few more practice your Mama would be surprised
how great you are in reading.”

Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines 19

Challenges in interpreting evidence of learning
To be able to provide useful feedback for learning, teachers need to have good evidence of
learning and be able to analyze and interpret that evidence to identify the current level of
development and the next steps for learning. Responses to the Day 5 (1) LAT indicate that
many participants were thinking about evidence in a surface-level way (e.g., number of
correct responses) and making vague or narrow interpretations of the evidence, rather than
going deeper into the evidence to determine what it tells them about the individual student’s
level of development (what they understand and can do) and the next steps on their learning
path. The responses also suggest that some were struggling to connect the evidence from a
specific assessment task/activity to broader goals for learning.
Examples:
Participant response: “He got only 2 out of 5 questions.”
What is the next learning goal? “Give more reading passages to read in order to
develop his reading comprehension.”
“Can answer the easy items but needs improvement in the harder items.”
Participant response: “When adding 4 hearts and 3 hearts, the student draws 8
hearts instead of 7.”
What is the next learning goal? “The learner will be able to combine 4 hearts
and 3 hearts with the result of 7 hearts in the box.” [That is, get the correct
answer on the same question rather than linking with the underlying skill
involved in getting the answer (e.g., counting and a specific counting principle
that might need to be mastered)].
Participant response: “One of the students was able to fill in the graphic
organizer but the answers were not properly placed on its correct element. The
answers were interchanged.” What is the next learning goal? “The graphic
organizer with the correct answer will be shown to the learners. Then the
student will eventually know that his/her answers were interchanged.”
Persisting misconceptions and misunderstandings about formative assessment
Some misconceptions and misunderstandings about formative assessment persist, for
example, referring to scores as evidence of learning rather than describing what
understanding or skill the student has demonstrated in the evidence, as well as
misconceptions about feedback.
Examples:
“It is the student output of the activity, showing evidence of their learning.
Student 1 – got 3 correct answers, Student 2 – got 0, Student 3 – got 5 correct
answers.”
“Give the child praises on the words he has read successfully and on the
questions he has answered partially correct. Never give him feedback on the
skills that needs to be improved.”
There is also evidence that some are confused about formal, standardized diagnostic
assessment tools and continuous formative assessment. While a diagnostic assessment can
produce evidence that might be used for formative purposes (to adjust and target
instruction), it is unlikely that you would give individual student feedback in relation to the
student’s performance on a standardized diagnostic test (as one participant did).

20 Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines

5.4 Participant self-reflections
On Day 1 and Day 5, participants were asked to reflect on their knowledge and feelings
about formative assessment and identify a goal for their own development. Focusing on the
Day 5 reflection, the following can be said.

5.4.1 List 3 things that you know about formative assessment now that you did not
know before
Some participants just listed topics that we looked at during the week (e.g., feedback or
using rubrics), rather than describing any changes to thinking or understanding in relation to
those topics. Others simply restated ideas that were presented in the materials. This
suggests that participants may not be used to reflecting deeply on their thinking or
monitoring their own understanding of concepts. For those who were able to communicate a
change in their thinking or understanding, the most common responses focused on the
following:
• Formative assessment is a partnership between students and the teacher.
• Formative assessment is about improving learning rather than giving grades.
• Formative assessment provides useful information for both teachers and students.
Some examples of more reflective responses include:
“Formative assessment before for me was just a mere activity every after a
lesson but now it is very important that I learned that formative assessment is
focused on measuring what the child can do and where the child is going in
his/her learning path.”
“It was easy for me to forget that formative assessments are for learning.”
“Formative assessment doesn’t end with the results, it is just the beginning.”

5.4.2 How do you feel now when you think about formative assessment?
In general, a number of participants found it difficult to identify the feelings they were having
about formative assessment or the formative assessment training they were taking part in.
Instead, many wrote about ideas or concepts related to formative assessment (e.g.,
evidence). This may mean that participants were not used to reflecting on or communicating
their feelings about learning and changes to their practice.
For those who did describe their feelings about formative assessment, the vast majority of
responses were positive. Most commonly, participants described feeling:
• Motivated
• Excited
• Happy
• Interested
• Confident
• Challenged
There were no responses indicating negative feelings (e.g., frustrated, anxious).

5.4.3 Goals for future learning and improvement

When identifying areas for improvement or things they would like to learn more about, by far
the most common responses were a desire to learn more about creating and using rubrics in

Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines 21

formative assessment and a need to improve their skills in collecting, interpreting, and using
evidence. Other frequently identified goals were:
• Learning more about how students can be partners in formative assessment and
learning
• Improving their skills in designing formative assessment activities
• Learning more about how to engage in formative assessment in the ‘new normal’
• Learning more about how to use formative assessment to identify and support
learners with diverse learning needs
• Improving their feedback to students
• Applying these ideas and practicing these skills in their school
A small number of participants identified goals that suggest they may have had ongoing
misconceptions about formative assessment. For example, one wanted to learn more about
“test construction” and another wanted to “improve my test construction considering the kind
of pupils I am handling,” suggesting they have yet to understand the embedded, authentic
nature of formative assessment.
Other responses suggest there may have been some tension between traditional, teacher-
centered approaches and the learner-centered approach presented in the training program.
For example:
“Additional strategy so that the learner will be attentive if the teacher is teaching
the lesson.”
“In about my teaching skills I would like to improve that by using formative
assessment through practicing this assessment to become my class session
would be effective especially in our country. I use traditional teaching, which is
first I will ask some students if they have any idea about our lesson; afterward I
will discuss the lesson to them then I give some questions to evaluate them if
what they learn about the lesson.”

5.5 Post-training survey results

A survey was conducted with the training participants to identify their view of the overall 5-
day training session. Out of the 99 survey participants, consisting mostly of teachers (61 out
of 99), there was an overwhelmingly positive reception.
At least 80 survey participants responded with the highest score of 5 regarding whether the
training improved their knowledge on the subject, gave them practical strategies that could
be applied at work, and increased their familiarity with virtual training delivery platforms such
as Zoom and Moodle. The qualitative responses also provided positive feedback, identifying
their intentions for using the lessons learned in practice. Like the participant reflections in the
Day 5 LAT (2), several responses indicated they would like more support for implementing
formative assessment in the offline remote learning situation. Many also indicated they
valued the sharing of ideas and experiences during the workshops and would like more time
to engage in discussions with their colleagues.
When asked which day of the training they found useful, 83 out of the 99 survey participants
selected all 5 days. Day 5 had the highest number of people identifying it as a useful session
(94 people), while Day 1 had the least but still with a strong majority (86 people).

5.6 Facilitation of online workshops

The daily debrief sessions with the workshop facilitators proved to be very useful in
identifying aspects of the program that worked well and elements that might need to be
improved, and in collecting useful information about the learning needs of the participants.

22 Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines

The discussions were loosely structured around a Plus, Minus, Interesting (PMI) protocol,
with each facilitator sharing their experience in the day’s workshop.
The feedback from facilitators indicates that the use of breakout rooms, while challenging to
manage at times, was very effective in getting participants actively engaged in the activities
and discussions. At times, it was reported that the participants wanted more time in the
breakout rooms to continue their discussions. The workshops were designed to allow
participants time to discuss in small groups before returning to the larger group and sharing,
with the idea that this might encourage more active participation of all. While it was seen as
a positive that participants were eager to contribute to the whole group discussion, managing
those contributions proved to be a challenge for facilitators in terms of time. This contributed
to workshop sessions that went well over the scheduled 1 hour time frame, particularly on
Day 1. As the week went on, facilitators experimented with and shared different strategies
for managing the time while also providing the opportunity for sharing. For example, having
some participants share in via the chat and others via their microphone. Another strategy
was to call on some groups to respond to one part of a question, and then other groups
respond to the next part of the question. These strategies appeared to be effective in
bringing the time of the workshop down.
Feedback from facilitators was that the Facilitator Manual was quite helpful, and they
appreciated the explicit instructions provided for each activity. There were instances where
some felt that not enough time was allocated for an activity, but it remains unclear if this was
due to issues with technology (e.g., time spent coming in and out of breakout rooms), issues
with facilitation (e.g., managing time and sharing sessions), or issues of not allowing enough
time for participants to complete a set task.
In general, facilitators were positive about the opportunity to bring together diverse
perspectives through the networked approach within regions. They reported that teachers
were sharing their on-the-ground experiences of teaching and assessment, and supervisors
and school heads had their own perspectives to offer. this diversity was seen as a positive
by many facilitators. In the final debrief session, one facilitator expressed his hope that the
connections made within regions during the training might provide a stronger network of
support to the school as they moved to implement the practices in their school. However,
this approach was not without its challenges. Information shared in the debrief sessions
indicates that supervisors were often less engaged due to concurrent meetings, and some
did not attend the workshops at all or had inconsistent attendance.
The response from facilitators on Day 4 and 5 suggests these days were noticeably more
manageable due to the smaller number of activities planned on those days. On these days,
participants were asked to share their plans for formative assessment, and this took up half
of the allotted time. One facilitator suggested that these sharing sessions could be improved
by asking participants to share their screen as they explained their plans to make it easier for
the audience to understand and follow along.
Finally, the demands of marking daily assessment tasks and facilitating daily workshops
were not realistic. ACER was able to offer some support in marking, but there remained a
substantial number of tasks still to be marked. Although the marking was simply Pass/Fail,
and the tasks were in the form of structured templates, it still required time to read through
each one and respond with feedback. This will need to be addressed in any future iterations.

Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines 23

6 Discussion and Recommendations
The aim of formative assessment is to gather information and use that information to identify
next steps and facilitate improvement. Similarly, the findings from this first training provide a
number of insights that can be used to support planning for the next steps in building
formative assessment capacity within the Philippines and using formative assessment to
facilitate improved learning outcomes for students in the Philippines.

6.1 Online learning and the use of technology

This training program was initially and intentionally conceived as an online activity, building
upon encouraging evidence from the ELLN Digital pilot from 2017 (Oakley, King, &
Scarparolo, 2018), and the recent success of the USAID/Philippines Advancing Basic
Education in the Philippines (ABC+) project in implementing online teacher trainings at scale
in Regions V and VI. This comes with both benefits and challenges. One of the benefits of
the online approach is the ability to easily bring together participants, presenters and
facilitators from different regions and different countries. Using a learning management
system such as Moodle also provides the opportunity for participants to work at their own
pace through the content, revisit recorded presentations as needed, and extend
conversations and collaborations with colleagues beyond the workshop sessions through
discussion forums.
Working online does present a number of challenges for both teaching and learning. These
include challenges of access and technology use, challenges of facilitating in the online
environment, and challenges of learning online.

6.1.1 Challenges of learning online

Based on our findings, most participants experienced either no difficulty in accessing the
online learning program or difficulty only on one day of the program. There were some initial
difficulties logging into Moodle and joining the Zoom sessions, but these were addressed.
However, there was a large group of participants (up to 25%) that reported more significant
and persistent difficulty in accessing the online program.

Recommendation:
To better support participant access to the learning program, you
could provide hard copies of the Moodle material and recordings of
the plenary presentations. The workshops themselves require
synchronous participation and a level of interactivity that could be
replicated in face-to-face (in-person) sessions when current
restrictions allow that to happen.

6.1.2 Challenges of teaching online

Teaching online is not the same as teaching in person, especially if the aim is to facilitate an
interactive and actively engaging learning experience for participants (as opposed to a more
passive experience of watching a presentation). In the daily debrief sessions, some
facilitators took the lead early on in sharing strategies they were using to manage time and
participant contributions during discussions. This included using the chat feature during
discussions so that some participants contributed via chat message and others via their
microphone. While it is possible to build some of these suggestions into the facilitator notes,
such a prescriptive approach does not address the need for facilitators to be able to monitor
time, engagement, and learning needs during sessions and respond to those needs as they

24 Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines

arise. For this reason, we would advocate for a capacity-building approach to preparing
future workshop facilitators for their role.

Recommendations:
To better prepare workshop facilitators for their role, additional
training in online facilitation and the use of Zoom features might be
offered to them prior to the training. A number of the learnings from
this first training could be shared, including time management
strategies, flexible approaches to seeking input from participants
during discussions, and encouraging participants to use screen
sharing during discussions to better communicate their ideas and
plans.
A second recommendation would be to assign co-facilitators to
each workshop session. This was identified by facilitators in the first
training as an important factor in helping them to successfully
manage the planned activities, manage the participant contributions
during the workshops, and the movement in and out of the Zoom
room.

Administrator-account-device balance
In this first training, there were six workshops being conducted simultaneously each day with
only two administrators responsible for these workshops. The administrators were from
ACER and had access to the ACER Indonesia Zoom accounts created for this training. The
account information was not shared externally to avoid any safety and privacy risks. Each
administrator handled three workshops using three separate devices. This presented a real
challenge for the administrators, one that was managed but raises issues that will need to be
considered for future trainings.

Recommendation:
Future trainings will need to consider how many Zoom accounts will
be needed to run the workshop sessions, who will act as
administrator/s for those accounts, and what the role of the
administrator will be. If facilitators are given direct access to a
Zoom account, they might be able to take on the role of
administrator themselves.

Technical issues with facilitator devices

In one of the workshops, a facilitator experienced technical difficulties where she was not
able to activate her microphone. The issue was eventually resolved, but not before taking up
teaching and learning time during the workshop.

Recommendation:
To avoid issues relating to the devices used by facilitators, these
should be tested out before the training commences. Having a
back-up device might be necessary if problems are identified but
not easily solved in time for the training.

Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines 25

6.2 The networked approach
As explained earlier, BLD opted for a ‘networked’ approach when selecting participants for
this first training cohort. This approach is appealing for a number of reasons, but the results
of this first training uncovered challenges as well that are worth considering before moving
forward. Based on the attendance in Zoom and the submission of assessment tasks in
Moodle, teachers were more actively engaged than supervisors in the learning program.
This was further backed up by anecdotal reports during our debriefing sessions, where
facilitators noted that some supervisors were scheduled to have concurrent meetings and
activities at the same time as the workshop, thus limiting their ability to actively participate in
breakout rooms and group discussions.
There are obvious potential benefits of having a network of support within the region that can
help facilitate the successful implementation of formative assessment within the school. For
one, when all levels of the system have the same understanding of formative assessment
this helps prevent a situation where teachers are getting mixed messages about what to do
and how to do it. For example, if those in leadership have a misconception that rubrics must
involve a scoring or grading element, this could hinder the school’s attempts to create a
more qualitative and descriptive rubric that will be needed for formative assessment. Another
potential benefit is in the opportunity for schools and supervisors to think together about how
to move forward on a path of continuous improvement in the use of formative assessment so
that schools and teachers are provided with the support and resources that they need.

Recommendation:
It may be possible to retain the potential benefits of the networked
approach while trying to address the challenges faced by
supervisors in terms of time and other commitments. One option is
to have all participants come together at key points in the training
(e.g., the plenary presentations) to ensure everyone receives a
consistent message, and then have different programs for school-
based personnel and supervisors. This will allow the supervisors to
receive support that is more targeted to their role in supporting
formative assessment within their region and will also allow
different regions and districts to come together and share
experiences—creating another network for supporting formative
assessment in the Philippines. If this approach is taken, it would
still be important to keep the groups connected and thinking along
the same path, rather than heading in opposite directions. For
example, challenges and ideas that emerge in the discussions with
teachers and school heads could be taken to the supervisor
workshops for discussion.

6.3 Next steps for learning—where to next for this cohort?

Learning is an ongoing process and mastering formative assessment will take time and
practice. In this 5-day training program, participants were introduced to the fundamental
aspects of formative assessment and its role in supporting K–3 literacy and numeracy
development. We also looked at examples of strategies and activities that might be used to
support formative assessment in these contexts. Based on data collected during the first
rollout of the training and existing evidence about what works best in teacher professional

26 Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines

learning programs, a number of recommendations can be made to support the first cohort of
participants to take the next steps.

6.3.1 Putting the ideas into action

The next step for participants will be to put these ideas into practice and embark on an
iterative process of developing their skills and deepening their knowledge. When ideas are
only presented, and teachers are not supported to enact the ideas, it is possible that they
may express agreement with the ideas but will continue to enact quite contradictory
practices in the classroom (Kennedy, 2016). In order to bring about a change in teacher
practice, it is essential to move beyond the delivery of new ideas and support teachers to
enact those ideas in the real world and reflect deeply on those experiences in an iterative
and ongoing process of improvement (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002). Ideally, participants
will be supported during this enactment phase to ensure they receive feedback and
guidance along the way.

Recommendation:
Teachers will need time to experiment and try out these new ideas
with their students as they attempt to connect theory and practice.
During this time, they will need support to help them design
activities that will elicit quality evidence of learning and help in
reflecting on the experiences to identify the next steps for their own
development. Improvement will require that they embrace
challenge and change, and this means they need to have access to
someone who will be in a position to guide, scaffold, and provide
feedback as needed to keep them moving forward.
Guidance, scaffolding, and feedback will have to come from
someone who has more knowledge and skill in formative
assessment (in the language of Zone of Proximal Development, a
“more knowledgeable other” [Vygotsky, 1978]). To support the first
cohort of training participants, it may be possible to establish an
online community of practice (using Moodle or some other platform)
as a place for them to share ideas and experiences from practice,
ask for feedback and suggestions, and ask questions. This would
have to be facilitated or monitored in some way to ensure that
misconceptions were addressed and misinformation was not
communicated. This role could be taken on by BLD staff.
Alternatively, the workshop facilitators might identify a number of
participants who demonstrated a higher level of expertise in
formative assessment, based on their LAT submissions and
participation in the workshops, and have them take on this role.
Once the first cohort of participants have demonstrated they can
design, implement, and use formative assessment to improve both
teaching and learning, then they will be in a better position to lead
others in their region or school as they apply the content of the
training program in the real world, and embark on a process of
professional improvement. The online community of practice
suggested in the previous paragraph could continue as a space for
discussion and sharing experiences of supporting others with
formative assessment. In this way, there will be ongoing
opportunities to stay connected during the wider rollout across the
Philippines. In addition, it could provide useful information to DepEd
about common challenges and persisting misconceptions, as well

Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines 27

 as effective and practical strategies for implementing formative
assessment in K–3.

6.3.2 Developing key skills for formative assessment

A key aspect of this improvement-focused process is the ability to monitor and reflect on the
effectiveness of their teaching and its impact on student learning outcomes. If teachers do
not have sufficient self-regulatory skills, they will need support to develop these (Timperley,
Wilson, Barrar, & Fung, 2007). Without these skills, and an understanding that formative
assessment is about deep thinking and not just doing activities that have been presented in
the training materials, teachers may adopt some elements from the training (e.g., rubrics) but
in a superficial way that is unlikely to have much impact on their teaching practice or the
learning outcomes of students. Moreover, without adequate skills in working with evidence
and evaluating impact, they may believe they are doing formative assessment, but have no
way of knowing if it is having the desired effect. Unfortunately, traditional approaches only
require teachers to use assessment and evidence to label or categorize students (e.g.,
assigning grades), and teachers may not have had sufficient opportunities to develop skills
in working with evidence (Timperley, 2010). The responses to the LATs indicate that many
participants would benefit from further support to help them:
• think critically and deeply about the evidence they collect in formative assessment,
• use that evidence to identify current points of development for individual learners and
next steps for learning,
• reflect deeply on their teaching and their effectiveness in supporting student learning,
and
• set clear goals for their own improvement and make plans for achieving those goals.
Formative assessment involves deep thinking and higher-order processes such as
analyzing, evaluating, reflecting, problem-solving, and self-regulation. As formative
assessment is a partnership between students and teachers, this means that both teachers
and students must be involved in this deep thinking. Not only will teachers need support to
develop their own skills, but they will also need support in helping their students to develop
these skills. This may involve raising expectations for what K–3 children are capable of and
allowing sufficient time for taking learning to a deeper level. If the first cohort of participants
are to guide colleagues in formative assessment, it is important that they have sufficient
mastery of the skills involved and real-world experience in implementing this process with
students in K–3.

Recommendation:
Taking a developmental approach, and considering the Philippine
Professional Standards for Teachers (PPSTs) (Domain 5,
Assessment and Reporting), we can identify the progression of
development that we might expect teachers to move along as they
develop expertise in formative assessment. As discussed earlier,
the current learning program provides opportunities for participants
to demonstrate the indicators described at the Beginning and
Proficient levels, but not in the real-world context of their school
and classrooms. That is, there are limits to what we can know
about a participant’s actual level of development in the area of
assessment given the context of the current learning program.

28 Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines

 Moving on from this point, a possible pathway for developing and
demonstrating expertise might include the following:
1. Provide opportunities for teachers to design, implement, and
report on a cycle of formative assessment. This would include
information about goals for learning, curriculum connections,
examples of evidence collected, their interpretation of that
evidence, and an explanation of how they used that information
to support improvements in learning and in teaching. (As
evidence of 5.1.2, 5.2.2, and 5.5.2)
2. Provide opportunities for teachers to work in collaborative
groups to review different plans for formative assessment,
interpret evidence collected, and use that information to identify
the next steps for learning and teaching. (As evidence of 5.1.3,
5.2.3, and 5.5.3)
3. Provide opportunities for teachers to lead formative assessment
initiatives in their school or region, including evaluating policies
and guidelines relating to formative assessment, mentoring
others on the analysis and use of formative assessment
evidence to improve learning, leading colleagues in using
assessment evidence to improve teaching practices and
programs. (As evidence of 5.1.4, 5.2.4, and 5.5.4)

6.3.3 Additional instruction and support

In addition to improving their skills in working with evidence and evaluating impact, there are
a number of concepts and practices that participants have identified as things they want to
improve or understand better. Responses in the LATs provide further evidence of the need
for further support in these areas. As these areas have been identified by the participants
themselves (not just teachers but those in leadership as well), we recommend providing
follow-on training or support in these areas before the participants would be ready to take on
the role of facilitators themselves. They are three distinct needs and might have to be
addressed separately or in different ways.
Creating and using rubrics in formative assessment
When asked to identify a goal for their own development in formative assessment, the
majority of participants indicated they would like more help with creating and using rubrics.
This was also a topic that engaged many participants in the workshops and plenary sessions
on Days 4 and 5. While rubrics were not necessarily new for them, the idea that rubrics
could be used formatively (not just for grading or scoring purposes) was new for many.
Importantly, this need extends beyond the teachers and includes supervisors and school
leaders. It is important that all levels of the network, from teachers to regional supervisors,
have a common understanding of what an effective formative assessment rubric is and how
they can be used during the formative assessment process.
Any additional training should include opportunities to collaboratively construct rubrics, to
receive feedback on their rubrics, and to try out their rubrics to identify areas for
improvement. Some participants expressed a desire to include students in the rubric creation
process, a worthy goal given the focus of formative assessment, but it will be important for
teachers to first develop a level of mastery over the process before they will be ready to help
students to do the same.

Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines 29

 Recommendation:
Follow-on training that focuses on the design and use of
developmental rubrics to support formative assessment is
recommended. This should be embedded within practice so that
participants are able to design rubrics that are appropriate and
meaningful for their students, collaborate with colleagues in this
design phase, and then engage in an iterative process of refining
those rubrics through feedback and use in the real world. This
training can extend on the Q&A session that was provided on Day
5, where we provided some tips for creating rubrics and some traps
to avoid. A focus of this training should be on using the rubrics to
support teaching and learning, as different to the current use of
rubrics for scoring and grading.

Students as partners in formative assessment

Many participants expressed a desire to know more about how to involve students as
partners in formative assessment. The evidence collected in the LATs suggests that many
participants will need additional support to help them master the art of constructing useful
feedback for learning. To be able to provide useful feedback to students about their learning,
teachers must first be able to elicit evidence of learning and know how to interpret that
evidence to identify the student’s progress along the path of learning, something we have
flagged earlier. Without this skill, it is unlikely that they will be able to provide the specific
information that the learner will need to help them take the next steps or to know what things
they should continue to do as they move forward. Beyond these skills in working with
evidence, participants may also need support to shift their thinking about teaching and
learning. The beliefs that teachers hold about teaching and learning have the potential to
influence their practice in a number of ways. Namely, beliefs influence what the teacher
notices or looks for in the classroom, how they interpret that information, and their decisions
about when to act and how to act in response to the information (Fives & Buehl, 2012), all
important aspects of formative assessment.
Responses in the Day 5 LAT indicate that many participants may still be operating from a
traditional teacher-centered perspective, with their central focus on what the teacher is doing
or needs to do. In formative assessment, we are looking for a shift to a more learner-
centered perspective, with a central focus on learning and the individual student’s progress
along a learning pathway. The findings from this first training align with other evidence that
suggests a significant proportion of teachers in the Philippines may be operating at low
levels of formative assessment practice, where their focus in observed lessons is on
delivering the planned lesson, correcting student mistakes, and reminding students of the
instructions (Cagasan et al., 2020). This is in contrast to a more sophisticated, higher level of
formative assessment practice that is responsive to the learning needs of individual
students, views students as capable partners in learning, and provides feedback that aims to
help the individual take active steps in driving their own learning progress.
From the responses of many participants, a deficit view of learning and assessment is also
evident. From a deficit view, assessment focuses on uncovering gaps in learning or
identifying students who are failing to meet expected standards, with a view to filling the
gaps or providing remedial instruction for selected students. This is in contrast to a
developmental view, where the focus is on identifying each student’s progress along a
progression of learning, with a view to targeting instruction to each individual’s point of
development.
In light of the above, supporting participants to improve their skills in constructing useful
feedback for learning and collaborating with students as partners in formative assessment

30 Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines

will have to consider the skills needed (e.g., eliciting and interpreting evidence of learning),
the knowledge needed (e.g., knowing what the pathway for learning looks like), and the
beliefs about teaching and learning that underpin both formative assessment and feedback
for learning.

Recommendation:
This may be the most challenging of the three to address as it
involves not only skills and knowledge, but also beliefs about
teaching and learning. Showing participants real-world examples of
how K–3 students can be actively and meaningfully involved in
formative assessment may help them to see what we are trying to
achieve. Providing explicit instructions for how to involve students
through the use of success criteria, child-friendly rubrics, quality
feedback, and self- and peer-assessment, and then supporting
them to try out these ideas with their students can also provide a
path forward. Finally, we need to ensure that participants have the
necessary skills in assessment and the knowledge about
developmental pathways of learning within curriculum areas such
as literacy and mathematics that will be necessary for effective
formative assessment.

Engaging in formative assessment during remote learning

Overwhelmingly, participants communicated a need for greater support to address the
significant challenge of implementing formative assessment in a meaningful way during the
current context of remote learning. This is especially true for those teachers working in the
modular approach. Formative assessment, by nature, involves interactions (often 1:1 in the
early years) between students and teachers and is embedded in the teaching and learning
process. It will likely take a collaborative and ongoing effort across different levels of the
system to provide teachers and families with the targeted support they will need during this
time. More information may be needed from teachers and families to better understand the
specific challenges they are experiencing and the specific needs they have identified so that
any support can be targeted and meaningful. This challenge is heightened in K–3 due to the
fact that children are still developing their skills as readers and writers and will need help to
access and engage with learning materials and feedback on their learning. Unfortunately,
the guidance and resources for formative assessment in remote learning often assumes that
remote learning is happening online (e.g., online learning activities, platforms for online
learning, programs for meeting online). In addition, many of the resources suggest activities
that are not appropriate or practical in the early years as they require a certain level of
literacy development. Much of the valuable evidence that we collect in the early years is
gathered by listening to what children SAY and watching what children DO while engaging in
a learning activity, not just what they WRITE. It is possible to bring parents into the formative
assessment partnership to assist with capturing this valuable evidence (e.g., sharing what
they observed or heard, recording their child and sending it to the teacher), but this will
require guidance and support from the teacher and the school.

Recommendation:
Strategies for use in remote learning could be addressed by
providing explicit, developmentally appropriate examples that can
be used in offline, remote learning. This information would have to
include not just an idea for an activity, but also information about

Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines 31

 what the intended learning focus is, what evidence would be
gathered, and how they might interpret that information and use it
to improve teaching and learning. To support the transition back to
school, it would be helpful to provide information about how these
examples could be adapted for different modalities. This might also
help teachers move beyond delivering a prescribed plan, toward
thinking more flexibly about how examples can be modified and
adapted to meet the needs of their students.

6.4 Looking ahead—where to next for the training program?

Thinking ahead to the next steps for this training program, we will focus on providing
feedback on what worked well, what could be improved, and what other evidence might be
needed to support future scaling up.

6.4.1 What worked well?

Plenary sessions
Presenting the content in a whole group plenary session, and addressing emerging
misconceptions or questions about the concepts in those sessions, ensures that all
participants are given the same information about key concepts like evidence and formative
assessment, key knowledge such as the progression of early literacy and numeracy
development, and key messages such as the need to actively involve students in the
process and the need for quality evidence of learning. The presentations have been
recorded and can be used in future iterations to maintain fidelity with foundational knowledge
that is covered in these sessions.
Workshops
Feedback from the workshop facilitators indicates the Facilitator Manual was useful in
supporting them to lead the daily workshop sessions. The repetitive nature of the workshop
activities across the week (e.g., using a consistent structure and slides) also helped to
support both facilitators and participants to engage in the workshops as the week
progressed and everyone became familiar with how things worked. From the debrief
sessions, the feedback indicates that participant engagement in these workshop sessions
increased over the course of the week.
Workshop facilitators provided positive feedback on the use of breakout rooms to actively
engage participants in discussions, and the interactive nature of the workshop activities that
provided multiple opportunities for participants to share ideas, experiences, and questions
with the group. Feedback from the debrief sessions indicates that participants (especially the
teachers) were eager to share and contribute to the discussions.
The Agree/Disagree activities in the workshop were designed to uncover common
misconceptions about formative assessment, and they appeared to work well in doing that
during this first implementation of the training. Facilitators were able to provide feedback to
ACER during our debrief sessions when misconceptions were discovered in their group
during this activity, and this was then followed up by ACER in the next session.
Having a dedicated support person in workshop sessions to assist with managing the Zoom
session (e.g., admitting participants into the room, managing breakout rooms, managing the
chat, etc.) allowed the facilitator to focus on facilitating the planned activities. When this
support person was also able to contribute to the facilitation by participating in the
discussions and interacting in the chat, this was even more helpful as it moved closer to a
co-teaching approach.

32 Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines

LATs
The Day 5 LATs provided useful information on the participant’s level of understanding of
key concepts, persisting misconceptions, identified learning needs, and areas of greatest
interest to participants. Their feedback suggests that they found the experience to be
motivating and interesting, and that they were energized and excited to take their new
knowledge back to their schools to share with colleagues.

6.4.2 What could be improved?

More time to learn and put ideas into practice
The 5-day intensive nature of the program is probably not the best approach for learning.
While it frontloads the participants with knowledge, it does not provide the opportunity to
apply that knowledge and learn through the process of doing. Also, there are questions
about how much of that information a person might realistically be able to take in during such
a short but intense experience, and how long they might retain that information beyond the
training week. Spreading out the training over a longer period of time would allow
participants to spend time between sessions applying the concepts, reflecting on the
experience, and collecting real-world evidence that can be used in subsequent sessions. For
example, on Day 2 they are asked to design a formative assessment for literacy and then
describe some possible student responses at different levels of development and then
interpret those responses. It would be far better to allow them to collect actual student
responses as evidence, and then support them to interpret those responses and to make
plans for what to do next.
The demands of the 5-day program on workshop facilitators meant they did not have
adequate time to mark all of the LATs, and this activity is still continuing at the writing of this
report. If the training program is spread out over a longer time period, this will be more
achievable and the participants will be able to receive important and timely feedback on their
responses that can be used to support improvements in their understanding and their real-
world practice. This experience of receiving and using formative feedback to improve their
learning may help to promote a deeper understanding of feedback from the perspective of a
learner.
Reducing the demands on facilitators
If the course is to go ahead as a 5-day intensive, then our recommendation would be to
decrease the number of submitted tasks. The most logical option would be to keep the Day 4
and Day 5 (#1) tasks as they build on the work done on Days 1, 2, and 3. You might ask
participants to begin working on the Day 4 task (describing a literacy formative assessment
and creating a rubric to go with it) on Day 2, and begin working on the Day 5 task (describing
a mathematics formative assessment and constructing student feedback) on Day 3. To
further reduce the marking workload, participants could be asked to complete the Day 1 and
Day 5 self-reflection as a monitoring exercise that provides useful information to facilitators
but does not need to be marked or given feedback.
This would reduce the number of tasks that would need to be marked from 6 down to 2.
Preparing to teach and learn online
To avoid disruptions to the teaching and learning, especially in a 5-day intensive format, it
would be a good idea to prepare both facilitators and participants to engage in the online
components. For facilitators, this would involve practice in working through the Day 1
workshop activities, including using the breakout rooms and response functions, as well as
time to test out their equipment to identify any potential problems and back-up plans. This
would also be the time to give them access to Moodle and have them look through the
content, as well as an opportunity to experiment with accessing a submitted task and going
through the process of marking and giving feedback.

Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines 33

For participants, providing a welcome webinar on Zoom prior to the training week could
provide the opportunity to introduce them to the processes and protocols involved in the
Zoom sessions; make sure that everyone knew what workshop group they were in, and had
their Moodle login details; and address any other access issues prior to the Day 1 Plenary
session. This webinar could also provide instructions for the participants to log into Moodle,
read through the Getting Started material, and complete the pre-training self-reflection to
ensure that any issues with logging into Moodle are addressed prior to Day 1.
Additional scaffolding
While the content of the course provides a strong foundation of knowledge about the
process of formative assessment and the key practices of eliciting evidence of learning and
using that evidence to support teaching and learning, the findings suggest that some
participants may benefit from additional support to help them understand the process. In the
workshops on Days 2 and 3, participants were provided with examples of formative
assessment tasks, given opportunities to share different strategies for eliciting evidence, and
supported to think about how different students might respond and what that might mean for
teaching and learning. To further establish what kind of evidence we are looking for in
formative assessment (i.e., qualitative rather than quantitative information about what the
student can and cannot do), it would be useful to include more explicit examples of student
responses and explicitly model how teachers can collaboratively interpret the evidence and
make decisions about how to use it. This could also include a guided discussion to illustrate
why a score (e.g., 3/5 correct) does not provide the kind of information that we need to be
able to determine where the student is in their learning and what the next step would be for
teaching and learning. This could be done in the form of teacher communities of practice, or
Learning Action Cells.
Additional scaffolding could also be added to the Day 2 and Day 3 LAT by providing more
explicit prompts for the participant to respond to. For example:
• In this formative assessment activity, I am trying to find out…
• Provide the actual prompt that the student will be responding to (What question will
you ask? What instructions will you give them?)
• How will the student respond? (In writing? In a drawing? Orally? In a group? 1 on 1?)
• Imagine you have 3 different student responses in front of you (1 high level, 1
medium level, 1 low level). Describe those 3 different responses. Remember, we are
not looking for a score that you have calculated after grading the response. We want
the actual response that the student made. What did they do, say, make, or write?
• For each of the students, answer the following questions. Looking at the evidence,
what CAN the student do and/or what DO they know? What is the most logical thing
for them to learn next?
For the Day 4 LAT, it is recommended that the participants add onto the document they
already completed in the Day 2 LAT rather than submit a separate document with the rubric.
Similarly, for the Day 5 LAT (1), the participants could add the student feedback onto the
document they completed in the Day 3 LAT. This might help participants to better connect
the different parts of the formative assessment process, from design to implementation to
interpretation and finally use.

6.4.3 What other evidence do we need?

Any professional learning program, including this one, is undertaken with the aim of
instigating change. In teacher professional learning, we are generally hoping to change
teacher practice in a way that will lead to improved outcomes for students. Unfortunately, it
remains true that many teacher professional learning programs have little to no impact on
changing teacher practice. While we have some information that suggests participants have

34 Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines

had a positive and engaging experience during the training, we have no way of knowing if
this will lead to any changes in practice, what the nature of those changes to practice might
be, or what impact, if any, this might have on students and their learning. Before investing
time and resources into scaling up the program, we recommend collecting evidence to
determine the effectiveness of the program and its impact on teaching practice and student
outcomes.

Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines 35

References
Cagasan, L., Care, E., Robertson, P., & Luo, R. (2020). Developing a formative assessment
protocol to examine formative assessment practices in the Philippines. Educational
Assessment, 25(4), 259-275.
Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947–967.
Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2012). Spring cleaning for the “messy” construct of teachers’
beliefs: What are they? Which have been examined? What can they tell us?. In APA
Educational Psychology Handbook, Vol 2: Individual differences and cultural and
contextual factors. (pp. 471-499). American Psychological Association.
Kennedy, M. M. (2016). How Does Professional Development Improve Teaching? Review of
Educational Research, 86(4), 945–980.
Oakley, G., King, R., & Scarparolo, G. (2018). An evaluation of ELLN Digital: Technology-
supported teacher professional development on early language, literacy, and numeracy
for K-3 teachers. Quezon City, Philippines: Foundation for Information Technology
Education and Development.
Timperley, H. (2010). Using evidence in the classroom for professional learning. Ontario
Education Research Symposium, 1–12. Retrieved from http://esolonline.tki.org.nz/
Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and
development: Best evidence synthesis iteration (BES). Retrieved from
https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/series/2515/15341
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). (2019). 2019 National Early Grade
Reading Assessment-Summary of results and recommendations. Retrieved from
https://shared.rti.org/content/2019-national-early-grade-reading-assessment-egra-
english-and-filipino-grade-3-brief#modal-29-2628.
Vygotsky, L. L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

36 Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines

Appendix A: Course Outline and Sequence
DAY 1 DAY 2 DAY 3 DAY 4 DAY 5

Online Opening program Focus: Focus: Focus: Focus:

presentation
• Welcome and Formative assessment Formative assessment Recording student Involving students in
(synchronous, Introduction and literacy and mathematics progress in learning formative assessment
whole group)
• Overview of the Recap of Day 1 and Recap of Day 2 and Q&A Recap of Day 3 and Recap of Day 4 and
week Q&A Q&A Q&A
Presentation
• Objectives Presentation Presentation Presentation
Becoming a
Presentation Becoming a Literacy Mathematics Learning Thinking Like a Rubric Students as Learning
Learning Detective Detective Detectives
Becoming a Learning • What are rubrics?
Detective • Talking like a book • Learning to count • Why do we need to
• How can rubrics
involve students in
• What is formative • Decoding • Why this is so help us in formative
formative
assessment? important for assessment?
• Why this is so assessment?
mathematical
• Why is formative important • Benefits of using
development • Learning intentions
assessment rubrics
• Key stages of and success criteria
important? • Key stages in
development • Examples of rubrics
development • Self- and peer-
• Situating in the
• Collecting evidence assessment
Philippines context • Collecting evidence
• Feedback for
• What counts as
learning
evidence of student
learning? • Creating a culture of
learning
• Gathering evidence
of learning
Online • Revise the key • Revising key ideas • Revising the key • Revising key ideas • Revising key ideas
workshop elements of about literacy ideas about about rubrics and about involving
formative development and mathematics formative students in
(synchronous,
assessment formative development and assessment formative
small group
assessment formative assessment
learning) • Identify the • Using rubrics to
assessment
challenges teachers • Interpreting interpret evidence • Self- and peer-
evidence of student and monitor learning assessment

Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines 37

 DAY 1 DAY 2 DAY 3 DAY 4 DAY 5
face in formative development in • Interpreting evidence • Constructing rubrics • Presentations of
assessment literacy
of student for formative Day 3 LAT –
• Reflect on • Managing 1 to 1 development in assessment Cooperative
examples of assessments in mathematics Assessment
• Presentations of
formative literacy • Managing 1 to 1 Day 2 LAT
assessment
assessments in
mathematics
Online module Reviewing key ideas Reviewing key ideas Reviewing key ideas from Reviewing key ideas Reviewing key ideas
from Day 1 from Day 2 Day 3 from Day 4 from Day 5
(asynchronous,
individual Reflect on experiences Reflection/self- Reflection/self- Reflection/self-
learning) of teaching and learning assessment: assessment: assessment: What are
the next steps for
What have I learned? What have I learned?
improving your skills in
What do I still need to What do I still need to formative literacy
LAT 1: Exit ticket –
know? know? assessment
Construct feedback for
a student

LAT: Create a formative LAT: Create a formative LAT: Exit ticket – Create LAT 2: Post-training
LAT: Pre-training self-
assessment for literacy assessment for a rubric for your literacy self-audit for formative
audit for formative
mathematics assessment assessment
assessment

Hours 3 3 3 3 3

38 Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines

Appendix B: LATs
B.1 LAT for Day 1 (Becoming a Learning Detective)
Use the following prompts to complete a self-audit as a first step in our learning about
formative assessment.

Name

Workshop Group Number

List 3 things you know about

formative assessment.

What formative assessment

strategies do you have
experience using?

In your experience, how often do

you think K-3 teachers use
formative assessment?

What 3 words best describe how

you feel when you think about
formative assessment?

What do you wish you knew

better about formative
assessment or what do want to
learn to do better?

Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines 39

B.2 LAT for Day 2 (Becoming a Literacy Learning Detective)
This is your learning assessment task that you will need to complete and upload into
Moodle.
Use the following prompts to describe a formative assessment of comprehension.

Name

Workshop Group Number

What is the goal or purpose of the

task and the assessment?

What are you trying to find out?

Briefly describe the task and the

assessment.

What is the teacher doing?

What is the learner doing?

Indicate if this is a 1:1 or

Group situation.

Provide examples of 3 student Student 1 response

responses that show evidence of
signposts along the path of
learning: low skill, medium skill
and high skill Student 2 response

Student 3 response

For each student, describe what Student 1 learning goal

the student needs to learn next.

Student 2 learning goal

Student 3 learning goal

40 Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines

B.3 LAT for Day 3 (Becoming a Mathematics Learning Detective)
This is your learning assessment task that you will need to complete and upload
into Moodle.
Use the following prompts to describe a formative mathematics task and assessment to
determine whether students are ready to add or subtract quantities up to 10 using
concrete materials.

Name

Workshop Group Number

What is the goal or purpose of the

task and the assessment?

What are you trying to find out?

Briefly describe the task and the

assessment.

What is the teacher doing?

What is the learner doing?

Indicate if this is a 1:1 or

Group situation.

Provide examples of 3 student Student 1 response

responses that show evidence of
signposts along the path of
learning: low skill, medium skill
and high skill Student 2 response

Student 3 response

For each student, describe what Student 1 learning goal

the student needs to learn next.

Student 2 learning goal

Student 3 learning goal

Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines 41

B4. LAT for Day 4 (Thinking Like a Rubric)
Looking back at the formative assessment plans you presented today, use your three
student responses and your plans for the assessment task to construct a simple rubric that
could be used to interpret the evidence you collect from this assessment. Think about the
ages of the students you would be working with and try to use language that would be
accessible for them. For very young children, you might even think about including visuals to
help them use the rubric to monitor their own progress and the progress of their peers.

Name

Workshop Group Number

Use your three student responses and your plans for assessing comprehension to construct
a simple rubric that could be used to interpret the evidence you collect from this assessment.
Think about the ages of the students you would be working with and try to use language that
would be accessible for them. For very young children, you might even think about including
visuals to help them use the rubric to monitor their own progress and the progress of their
peers.
As you create your table, remember to include these things:
1. A title to communicate the focus for the rubric (e.g. listening comprehension)
2. Information about what the students are learning to do in relation to that focus (e.g.
recount the sequence of events, make a simple inference, come up with an
alternative ending, etc.)
3. Different levels of mastery
4. Clear descriptions of what learning looks like at these different levels of mastery
The structure of your table will be determined by how many different things you are trying to
assess (#2 above) and how many different levels of mastery you are describing (#3 above).
Don’t worry about ‘getting it right’, this is an exercise to help you start thinking like a rubric as
you work towards becoming a rubric master!
You can create your rubric below by inserting a table into this Word document, you can draw
your rubric on paper and take a photo to upload to Moodle, or you could use an online rubric
maker like Quick Rubric (https://www.quickrubric.com) to make the rubric.

42 Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines

B5. LAT for Day 5 # 1 (Construct Feedback for Learning)
Looking back at the formative assessment plans you presented today, construct feedback
for one of the student responses to help them move forward in their learning. It can be
designed to be given in writing or orally but must be in a format the student will be able to
receive and use. Include the student response along with the feedback to provide context for
the reader.
Use the following prompts to construct feedback for a student that supports them to move
forward in their learning.

Name

Workshop Group Number

Briefly describe the task and the

assessment.

Student response

What is the next step for that

student? (learning goal)

Feedback to student

Mode of delivery (oral or written)

Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines 43

B6. LAT for Day 5 # 2 (Post-training self-audit)
Now that we have come to the end of our training course, it’s time to reflect once again on
what you know and feel about formative assessment. You can refer back to your first self-
audit to look for any changes to your understanding or feelings. This is also an opportunity to
identify some next steps for yourself as you continue to develop your formative assessment
practice.
Use the following prompts to complete another self-audit as you reflect on your learning
about formative assessment.

Name

Workshop Group Number

List 3 thinks that you know about

formative assessment now that
you didn’t know before.

What 3 words best describe how

you feel now when you think
about formative assessment.

Thinking about your

understanding of formative
assessment, what is something
you would like to learn more
about?

Thinking about your skills in

formative assessment, what is
something you would like to
improve on?

44 Online Training on Formative Assessment for ELLN in the Philippines