The growing emphasis on formative assessment represents a challenge for universities, schools, and educational institutions within traditionally summative assessment cultures. In 2005, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) declared that schools could support academic development through formative assessment, mainly for underachieving students (OECD, 2005). In addition, the OECD (2005) underscored that formative assessment improves the retention of learning and the quality of students’ work. Additionally, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) emphasized how formative assessment can help students’ learning during emergencies and crises (Bawane and Sharma, 2020). A recent study commissioned by the European Commission underscored that “formative assessment needs to place the learners themselves at the center of the learning and assessment processes, taking a more active and central role both as individual, self-regulated learners, and as critical peers” (Cefai et al., 2021, p. 7). These studies indicate the potential of formative assessment strategies to create and build meaningful learning environments in a variety of educational contexts.

In Europe, there has been discussion of the correspondence between the 1999 implementation of the Bologna Process and the increase in learner-centered assessment approaches in educational systems that typically employ top-down, test-based methods (Pereira et al., 2015). Founded on a skills-based learning model, the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) currently guides the operations of European universities, prompting the adoption of new methodologies and assessment systems. Systematic reviews of formative assessment reveal that despite evidence that learner-centred formative assessment practices are effective, such practices have been researched predominantly in school-based contexts, unevenly implemented in European higher education, and dominated by studies from the United Kingdom (Pereira et al., 2015; Morris et al., 2021). Moreover, a recent study of Italian higher education assessment practices underscores a culture of assessment that places emphasis on the summative or concluding phase of teaching rather than developmental supports for ongoing learning through formative assessment (Doria et al., 2023). In this study, we answer calls for broader empirical work on formative assessment in higher education; specifically, we focus our attention on the implementation of embedded formative assessment within programs that prepare university students to work as pre-service teachers, social workers and heads of social services in Italy.

This study addresses a gap in the research on how formative assessment can be used to develop and evaluate students who are preparing for professional contexts where formative assessment knowledge is both a beneficial and expected skill. This goal is achieved through the following specific research questions: can formative assessment help students to achieve deep learning of several assessment methods and strategies, support students to understand the complexity of assessment procedures, promote students’ growth from both a personal and professional point of view, and motivate them to use multiple forms of assessment when they become professionals in their respective fields?

The next section provides an overview of how conceptual understandings from the literature on formative assessment provide a rationale for the research and inform the study design. Drawing on existing literature on formative assessment in higher education contexts, we explores how such concepts and practices might be used to explore how to foster pre-service teachers, social workers, and heads of social services understanding of formative assessment. Thereafter, the study aims are explored through qualitative and quantitative data that support and sustain reasonable and realistic ways to introduce formative assessment strategies and activities in higher education contexts (Crossouard and Pryor, 2012). Finally, the limitations and difficulties of combining and effectively balancing summative and formative assessment methods (Lui and Andrade, 2022) are discussed, and recommendations for future practice are made.

This research derives from a theoretical understanding of learning as an ongoing and developmental process that is effective when the learner is engaged in and metacognitive about the assessment process (Bruner, 1970). Like Crossouard and Pryor (2012), we resist the separation of theory from practice and consider them entangled. This framework underpins both the concepts explored in the next sections of this paper, and how these concepts have influenced the design, analysis and reporting of the study.

When exploring the potential of formative assessment in a higher education context that is largely summative, we considered three main areas of literature to support and situate the work: formative assessment as a developmental process in education, the potential of formative assessment within programs for professionals in education, and the principles of formative assessment that could inform the study design. Throughout this section we demonstrate how, in alignment with the learner-centred nature of formative assessment, this study aims to create and investigate the conditions for building higher education learning environments where students can experience several assessment types and can reflect on and improve their own learning processes and competence development (Dann, 2014; Ibarra-Sáiz et al., 2020). We also establish how the student profile that inspires us to conduct this study is represented by learners who are ultimately able to monitor, self-reflect, modify their learning strategies according to different situations, and seek multiple creative solutions suitable for their future professional tasks (Tillema, 2010; Evans et al., 2013; Ozan and Kıncal, 2018).

To answer the research questions, a mixed method research design was chosen. Specifically, we followed the indications by Tashakkori and Teddlie (2009), adopting a mixed method multistrand design since the exploratory study provided several stages. Additionally, as stated by Creswell and Clark (2011), the timing of data collection was concurrent since we implemented both the quantitative and qualitative strands during each phase of the study. The interpretation of the results was based on a triangulation of quantitative and qualitative data (Creswell et al., 2003) since there were no specific priorities between the kinds of data. Both data typologies were utilized to gain a deep understanding of the phenomenon. We have chosen a sequential design because it allowed us to implement the different formative assessment strategies with all students at the same time. In this way, the students could express their ideas on the effectiveness of each strategy. Conceptually this methodological approach serves to amplify the points from the theoretical framework: we sought student-centred data that was sequential, over time, with multiple access points for understanding to gain a deeper understanding of this student-centred assessment approach for higher education.

The data analysis is structured as follows. On the basis of the study aims indicated in the introduction, both quantitative and qualitative findings will underline, firstly, which formative assessment activities are more suitable in the higher education contexts. So, the findings will highlight the favorite techniques by the students: self-, peer-, and/or group-assessment. Secondly, the findings will emphasize which factors (Learning, Complexity, Personal, Professional, Motivation), linked with the formative assessment, have been more developed. So, the findings can tell us in which way formative assessment can become a basic and crucial concept for the students. Finally, the findings will stress if the use of formative assessment supports the students’ motivation to use formative assessment in their own future professional fields.

Both the quantitative and qualitative findings of this study provide important insights about the use of formative assessment in the higher education contexts and indicate significant implications from a practical point of view.

First of all, comparing the three formative assessment strategies, peer- and group-assessment proved to be more appreciated among the students involved in the study. Also, self-assessment was evaluated as a positive activity but peer- and group-assessment allowed students to reflect deeply on their own learning processes, create feedback and give them the opportunity to improve and modify their learning strategies.

Among the five factors that characterized this study (Learning; Complexity; Personal; Professional; Motivation), two of them revealed their importance. The scores for “Complexity” (understanding complexity of assessment procedures) and “Motivation” (increasing my motivation to use formative assessment strategies in the future) were significantly higher than the other factors mainly for peer- and group-assessment activities. Opportunities to understand the complexity of assessment procedures and to increase motivation for future use of formative assessment strategies represented crucial elements of the formative assessment activities. These reasons are explained in the qualitative comments. Firstly, formative assessment methods allowed students to recognize that an assessment procedure is not simple and linear but it is composed of many connected components, both summative and formative. Consequently, students must be able to learn and design several assessment methods linked in a coherent way, as indicated by Ismail et al. (2022). Secondly, the use of formative assessment strategies in higher education increased the probability of using formative assessment techniques in the future, confirming the study carried out by Hamodi et al. (2017).

Regarding differences among participants, peer- and group assessment were more appreciated by older students, indicating that these students rely on forms of professional relationships to develop their own professional perspectives, as denoted by Biesma et al. (2019) and Montgomery et al. (2023). Peer-assessment is, in general, more appreciated than group-assessment for developing “Complexity,” “Motivation” and, also, “Learning” but group-assessment was more valued than peer- and self- assessment for increasing the “Professional” factor. This observation means that group-assessment represents an effective simulation of a work experience (Homayouni, 2022). The younger students appreciated group-assessment more than peer-assessment for the “Personal,” “Complexity” and “Motivation” factors, showing that younger students needed formative assessment activities for developing awareness of their own skills and capacities. Finally, students with no work experience appreciated the self-assessment activities for the factor “Learning,” revealing that they valued moments for reflecting on themselves.

The last quantitative finding arises from the exploratory factor analysis which confirmed that the factor related to understanding the complexity of assessment procedures is particularly significant for the participants.

The findings highlighted by the qualitative analysis reveal essential results of the study. Regarding the positive aspects, all three strategies helped students in growing their awareness in recognizing their learning processes, effectively connecting theory to practice, and consciously fostering their professional perspectives, as indicated by Tillema (2010). In particular, peer- and group-assessment boosted students’ capacity to exchange ideas and views with others; consequently, these strategies amplified peer relationships through responsibility to each other and deepened student understanding of the complexity of assessment procedures.

Additionally, the qualitative analysis identified three main limits in two aspects of formative assessment: lack of feedback in peer-assessment, and in group-assessment, low level of engagement and high level of confusion. Consequently, these two strategies must be carefully implemented. Even though they were highly appreciated by the students in general, the qualitative sections of the questionnaire indicate that peer-and group-assessment must be carried out in an adequate setting allowing students to express their ideas and motivations without pressure and confusion.

Lack of feedback, low level of engagement and high level of confusion represent three risks of formative assessment previously identified in the literature. The lack of feedback was already mentioned by Brown (2019) and the other two points were indicated by Crossouard and Pryor (2012).

The qualitative analysis also raised issues about the assessment quality and pinpointed crucial features related to the relationship between summative and formative assessment. Some students felt that group-assessment should be followed by a formal grade, while others indicated that the same activity should be carried out more informally. Regardless, all students felt the lack of an instructor-designed assessment to ensure that activities were well designed (Homayouni, 2022). These are fundamental points because the university teachers must decide if the formative assessment should affect and/or modify the final grade or not. This matter represents an open question that may also be influenced by the larger assessment culture (Doria et al., 2023). In this study, we decided that the formative assessment should not change the final grade because the formative strategies were focused on the metacognitive aspects.

From an organizational point of view, the students needed forms of training to effectively carry out both self- and peer-assessment. The organization of group-assessment was a particularly debated aspect because some students desired an open assessment discussion whilst other students wanted a completely blind assessment to avoid any conflict with their peers, as indicated by Hamodi et al. (2017).

This study presents some limitations. First, the participants are quite heterogeneous. They are all students enrolled in courses focused on educational contexts but the structure of the courses is different and this situation can affect the application of the assessment strategies. The second limitation is represented by the different topics faced in the different subjects. Even if the formative strategies can be considered valid for all subjects, it is necessary to reflect on the specificities of each subject to verify potential differences in managing and arranging the formative techniques. Finally, the study procedure lasted the whole academic year. It is likely that the elapsed time can represent a bias for students who faced three formative strategies throughout the course.

Instead of assuming that ‘theory’ is solely the domain of expert educational researchers, we reassert our alignment with other researchers who recognize the critical significance of educational practitioners’ comprehension of theory in actualizing specific practices (Crossouard and Pryor, 2012). Our findings indicate that the participants in our study significantly enhanced their capacities in reflecting on their assessment competences.

Notably, the higher education students in this study understood the complexity of the assessment procedures (RQ #2) and were motivated to use multiple forms of assessment in their future work (RQ #4). In terms of learner-centred feedback on effectiveness (RQ #6), peer- and group-assessment strategies emerged as the most effective and productive methods from a formative point of view. As for RQ #5, we did not find specific differences in the use of formative assessment in the programs for pre-service teachers, social workers, and heads of social services. Furthermore, despite the different opinions expressed by the participants, the majority declared that it would be important to repeat the formative assessment activities with students in the educational profession programs the following academic year.

These conclusions and the findings have implications for future work in this area. The value of integrating formative assessment and learner-identified feedback into instructional practices is evident and will inform future studies and formative assessments, with some recommendations.

For future studies, our first recommendation is an emphasis on peer- assessment strategies. From a practical and organizational perspective, ways to strengthen the peer-assessment components, such as mandatory peer comments are one recommendation for avoiding a reported lack of feedback. In the present study, qualitative comments were optional and some students did not write any comments to their peers.

Our second recommendation further derives from the students who did not receive peer comments and emphasized that the rubric scores and indicators were not enough to express meaningful feedback. Supporting students in their development of effective peer feedback practices would be an important next step in strengthening this component of instruction and developing student competencies in formative assessment for the education professions.

A third recommendation is related to group assessment. To avoid low levels of engagement and high levels of confusion during group-assessment, additional measures are suggested. One option includes arranging random groups of students with the presence of one instructor in each group to ensure sufficient guidance during the activity. Following the activity, the instructor should leave the group to promote open discussion and support students’ assessment of the peer presentation, so that students can more freely and informally assess the learning. Then, the instructor will come back into the group to give a formal grade. We anticipate that this response could resolve issues of lack of teacher assessment and the question of assigning a formal evaluative grade to this activity, thereby effectively balancing summative and formative assessment methods (Lui and Andrade, 2022).

Typically, formative assessment is aimed at fostering developmental functions mainly related to metacognitive aspects of learning, whereas summative assessment is commonly targeted toward evaluative and administrative decisions (grades, reports, etc.) about performance (Baker, 2007). As the findings of this study reveal, we emphasize the main original contribution of this study: formative assessment is an effective combination of developmental and evaluative purposes.

We further recommend that future studies should investigate both (a) metacognitive steps to underline the formative values of assessment, and (b) evaluative steps to underscore the summative standards to be reached by a professional in education. This design will both align with the recent European Commision report (European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, et al., 2023) and support the creation of a strong combination of formative and summative feedback to deeply assess learners’ competences.

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethical approval was not required for the studies involving humans because this study strictly followed the principles of ethics. The participants were informed about the aims, the activities and the instruments designed for this study. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

DP: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft. EN: Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft. EM: Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft. MI: Writing – review & editing.