Front. Educ. Frontiers in Education Front. Educ. 2504-284X Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/feduc.2026.1787953 Curriculum, Instruction, and Pedagogy Measuring teacher formative assessment literacy in primary education: a multidimensional study using the T-FALS scale Çibukçiu Blerina Writing – original draft Koliqi Donika * Writing – review & editing Faculty of Education, University of Pristina “Hasan Pristina”, Pristina, Kosovo Correspondence: Donika Koliqi, Donika.koliqi@uni-pr.edu 04 03 2026 2026 11 1787953 14 01 2026 18 02 2026 20 02 2026 Copyright © 2026 Çibukçiu and Koliqi. 2026 Çibukçiu and Koliqi https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Formative assessment is a core component of effective teaching, requiring teachers to integrate conceptual understanding, practical implementation, and socio-emotional sensitivity. This study investigates formative assessment literacy among primary school teachers in Kosovo using the Teacher Formative Assessment Literacy Scale (T-FALS). Employing a quantitative, cross-sectional design, data were collected from 350 teachers working in grades 1–5 in public and private schools. Descriptive analyses indicated a generally high level of formative assessment literacy, with the conceptual dimension being the most developed, while no participants were classified at a low literacy level. Non-parametric analyses revealed statistically significant differences in formative assessment literacy based on teaching experience, professional training, school location, and class size. Strong positive associations were found among the conceptual, practical, and socio-emotional dimensions, as well as between each dimension and the overall T-FALS score, supporting the multidimensional structure of formative assessment literacy. Multiple regression analyses further demonstrated that teaching experience, professional training, school location, and class size significantly predicted formative assessment literacy across dimensions. While teachers displayed solid conceptual foundations and generally strong practical skills, participatory practices and socio-emotional sensitivity were less consolidated. The findings underscore the importance of continuous, practice-oriented professional development and highlight the value of T-FALS as a diagnostic tool for guiding targeted interventions aimed at strengthening balanced and sustainable formative assessment practices in primary education.

 formative assessment conceptual dimension practical dimension socio-emotional dimension primary education teachers’ literacy TFALS The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication. section-at-acceptance Teacher Education Introduction

Assessment and measurement form the foundation of effective teaching, as they provide essential information about students’ classroom performance and inform educational decision-making at the policy level. The approaches that are supported in the data assist teachers to adapt their strategies based on the students’ needs, thus, enhancing teaching practices and learning outcomes (Lee H. et al., 2020; Popham, 2017a,b). Recent research further emphasizes that assessment should be understood not merely as a tool for monitoring outcomes, but as a core mechanism for guiding instructional decision-making and supporting equity and fairness in education systems (Brookhart, 2011; Torrance, 2012). In contemporary assessment research, increasing attention is paid not only to the use of assessment data, but also to teachers’ capacity to interpret, integrate, and act upon such data in meaningful ways. This shift reflects a broader movement toward evidence-informed teaching and professional judgment grounded in assessment data (DeLuca et al., 2016; Willis et al., 2013). Within this framework, the formative assessment occupies a central role. At the classroom level, the formative assessment is pivotal for diagnostic assessment of prior knowledge, monitoring progress, and the provision of feedback which guides reflection and learning actions (Heritage, 2010; Andrade, 2019). Assessment-for-learning frameworks conceptualize formative assessment as a continuous cycle of evidence generation, interpretation, and instructional response (Wiliam and Thompson, 2008; Carless and Boud, 2018). As Andrade (2019) arguments, students’ self-assessment, which plays a crucial role in the formative assessment, could be used to foster meta-cognitive skills and self-regulation in the teaching process. These processes are closely aligned with contemporary theories of self-regulated learning, which emphasize learners’ active role in monitoring and directing their own learning (Panadero, 2017; Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick, 2006). Recent scholarship highlights formative assessment literacy (FAL) as a critical component of teachers’ professional competence; however, the field remains fragmented and underdeveloped. A recent systematic review indicates that FAL research is still emerging, with considerable variation in conceptual definitions and a strong concentration of studies in Asian contexts, predominantly among in-service language teachers. The review further emphasizes the limited availability of large-scale empirical studies conducted in general education settings and outside dominant research regions, underscoring the need for context-sensitive evidence from underrepresented educational systems (Lei and Lei, 2025).

Whereas the summative assessment aims at certification of learning at the end of a teaching unit, the interactive formative assessment includes ongoing interventions that make the learning more flexible and oriented towards students’ development (Black and Wiliam, 1998; Popham, 2008). This distinction has been further refined in the literature, which positions formative assessment as a central pedagogical strategy rather than a discrete assessment event (Torrance and Pryor, 2001; Bennett, 2011). The formative assessment is defined as the usage of the evaluation process to collect data about students’ learning in order to support this learning (Black and Wiliam, 2009; Heritage, 2010; Wylie, 2020). Teachers can use different methods such as observations, quizzes, and classroom discussions to understand students’ progression; however, research consistently shows that the mere collection of assessment data is insufficient unless it is accompanied by deliberate pedagogical action (Furtak et al., 2016; Schildkamp et al., 2020). Torrance (2012) further argues that formative assessment should be understood as a transformative practice that reshapes classroom interactions and learning cultures, rather than a set of techniques applied within traditional instructional models. Teachers can use different methods like observations, quizzes and class discussions to understand the students’ progression, but the fundamental aspect of the formative assessment is to utilize these data to enhance the learning process. Through provision of effective feedback and adaptation of teaching based on the students’ needs, the formative assessment helps in the regulation of the learning process and improvement of the learning outcomes (Black and Wiliam, 2009; Wylie, 2020). Empirical research consistently demonstrates that formative assessment can enhance achievement, motivation, and self-regulated learning when implemented effectively (Klute et al., 2017; Lane et al., 2019; Lee I. et al., 2020). Nevertheless, feedback effects are highly variable, depending on their timing, focus, and students’ engagement with feedback information (Hattie and Timperley, 2007; Shute, 2008; Winstone and Boud, 2017). The main idea of formative assessment is to use assessment information about a student’s learning level and progress to subsequently inform future decisions in the learning process in terms of individualized feedback and adaptive teaching (Wiliam and Thompson, 2008). Assessment-for-learning models conceptualize formative assessment as a cyclical process involving the elicitation of evidence, interpretation of student understanding, and subsequent instructional adjustment (Wiliam and Thompson, 2008). This process-oriented understanding emphasizes the integration of assessment and instruction and highlights the active role of teachers in making evidence-informed pedagogical decisions. Formative assessment strategy plays a vital role in supporting the student’s learning. This assessment strategy provides effective feedback and instructional correctives in the teaching-learning process to improve students’ learning, motivation, and self-regulation skills (Black and Wiliam, 2009; Cauley and McMillan, 2010; McManus, 2008; Popham, 2017a,b). In the same vein, Black and Wiliam (2009, p. 9) emphasized that: The practice in the classroom is formative insofar as the evidence for students’ achievements is collected, interpreted, and used by the teacher, students and their peers in order to take decisions for their future steps in teaching which are most likely to be better or more based than the decisions that would be taken in the lack of the evidence. The formative assessment is defined as the usage of the evaluation processes to collect data about students’ learning in order to support this learning (Black and Wiliam, 2009; Heritage, 2010; Wylie, 2020). According to Bennett (2011), the success of this approach depends on the teachers’ ability to collect useful information, to interpret and to use it in the process of instructional decision-making and the provision of the feedback. However, some studies present that the effects of the formative assessment are not always stable because teachers do not use the data to make evidence-based decisions (Furtak et al., 2016; Kepek and İzci, 2021; Bennett, 2011; Schildkamp et al., 2020). In addition, the concept of skills for formative assessment refers to the knowledge, ability, and attitudes that teachers need to have to use the process of assessment in improvement of learning and learning practices (Yan and Pastore, 2022). According to Abell and Siegel (2011) and Xu and Brown (2016), this includes not only the theoretical knowledge for assessment, but also the capacity to analyze students’ results and to use them to give constructive feedback or to change the learning strategies. In an in-depth analysis of the 54 studies, Schildkamp et al. (2020) identified three dimensions of the needed competencies for the formative assessment: Professional knowledge and skills, which include; data literacy, pedagogical knowledge, setting clear objectives, providing valuable feedback, and the usage of technology in the assessment; Social factors-the inclusion of colleagues and students in the process and psychological factors which include: the attitudes, beliefs, sense of ownership, and the perception of control over the evaluation process. These dimensions are closely aligned with emerging frameworks that emphasize teachers’ beliefs, values, and ethical responsibility in assessment practices (Brookhart, 2011; DeLuca et al., 2019). Feedback has long been ascertained to make a high contribution to the enhancement of the learning process and outcomes through formative assessment. On the other hand, the meta-analysis carried out by Winstone and Boud (2017) revealed that feedback may indeed have a large but still a variable effect on students’ performance. Even though there is established an inclusive model to outline these competences, the literature offers very few standardized instruments to measure teachers’ ability in this field, with only one scale clearly identified in the literature (Pastore, 2023). Formative assessment literacy is commonly conceptualized as a multidimensional construct encompassing conceptual, practical, and socio-emotional dimensions. The conceptual dimension refers to teachers’ understanding of the principles and purposes of formative assessment; the practical dimension concerns the design and implementation of formative assessment strategies; while the socio-emotional dimension addresses teachers’ beliefs, dispositions, and sensitivity to students’ motivational and emotional needs. This tripartite framework has emerged as the dominant model in the literature and provides a comprehensive lens for examining teachers’ formative assessment literacy (Lei and Lei, 2025). This study examines the teachers’ literacy for formative assessment in primary education in Kosovo, using the validated instrument T-FALS (Yan and Pastore, 2022). By providing empirical evidence from an underrepresented educational context, this study contributes to the validation of the T-FALS framework and advances understanding of how formative assessment literacy is manifested across different dimensions in primary education. The use of the T-FALS instrument in the context of primary education is based on the specific pedagogical characteristics of this educational level. Primary education is characterized by close teacher-student interaction, a holistic approach to learning and a high importance of children’s socio-emotional development. In this context, formative assessment does not simply represent a measurement technique, but a continuous pedagogical process integrated into daily teaching practice.

The three-dimensional structure of the T-FALS (conceptual, practical and socio-emotional dimensions) matches the developmental needs of early school-age students, who need clear objectives, structured feedback and an emotionally safe environment. For this reason, the T-FALS does not serve only as a measurement instrument, but as a pedagogically coherent framework for analyzing teachers’ competence in implementing formative assessment in primary education.

 Methodology Research design

This study employed a quantitative, cross-sectional research design with a descriptive and inferential orientation to examine primary school teachers’ formative assessment literacy in Kosovo. The study aimed to analyze teachers’ conceptual understanding, practical implementation, and socio-emotional sensitivity in relation to formative assessment, as well as to identify key demographic and contextual factors associated with variation in formative assessment literacy. A quantitative approach was considered appropriate given the study’s focus on measuring latent constructs, examining group differences, and testing associations among variables using standardized instruments and statistical procedures. The design aligns with previous empirical studies on formative assessment literacy that rely on survey-based measurement and multivariate analysis.

 Participants and sampling

The target population consisted of primary school teachers (Grades 1–5) employed in public and private schools across the Republic of Kosovo during the 2024/2025 academic year. A stratified random sampling strategy was used to ensure representation across school types (public/private), geographic areas (urban/rural), and teaching experience levels. The sample included 350 primary school teachers from different municipalities in Kosovo. This sample size exceeds the minimum requirements for factor-based measurement and non-parametric group comparisons and is consistent with sample sizes reported in validation and application studies of formative assessment literacy instruments. In this study, professional training refers to structured and formally recognized development activities related to formative assessment undertaken within the last 5 years (e.g., certified workshops, seminars, or accredited programs).

 Instrument

Data was collected using the Teacher Formative Assessment Literacy Scale (T-FALS) developed and validated by Yan and Pastore (2022). The T-FALS is a standardized self-report questionnaire designed to measure teachers’ formative assessment literacy across three theoretically grounded dimensions:

Conceptual dimension (7 items): teachers’ understanding of the principles, purposes, and theoretical foundations of formative assessment;

Practical dimension (8 items): teachers’ reported implementation of formative assessment strategies in classroom practice;

Socio-emotional dimension (7 items): teachers’ sensitivity to students’ emotions, values, motivation, and ethical considerations during the assessment process (Figure 1).

Multidimensional structure of teacher formative assessment literacy (T-FALS).

Diagram illustrating Teacher Formative Assessment Literacy (T-FALS) as a central concept divided into three connected dimensions: Conceptual Dimension with seven items, Practical Dimension with eight items, and Socio-Emotional Dimension with seven items.

The instrument consists of 22 closed-ended items rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). In addition, the questionnaire included demographic and professional background questions (gender, age, teaching experience, professional training, school location, and class size). The T-FALS questionnaire was translated and culturally adapted into Albanian using a double-translation procedure (forward and backward translation) to ensure semantic equivalence and contextual appropriateness. The translated version was reviewed by experts in educational assessment and piloted with 20 primary school teachers who were not included in the final sample.

Feedback from the pilot study indicated that the items were clear, culturally appropriate, and easy to understand, and no substantial modifications were required prior to the main data collection.

 Ethical considerations

This study involved human participants (primary school teachers). Before data collection began, permission to conduct the research was obtained from the Municipal Directorate of Education, in accordance with institutional regulations and applicable legislation for educational research. Participation in the study was completely voluntary. All participants were informed about the purpose of the study, the preservation of anonymity and confidentiality of the data. Informed consent was obtained before completing the questionnaire. No personally identifiable data was collected.

 Research hypotheses

H1: Primary school teachers demonstrate a moderate to high level of formative assessment literacy across the conceptual, practical, and socio-emotional dimensions.

H2: There are statistically significant differences in formative assessment literacy across teaching experience groups in all three dimensions (conceptual, practical, and socio-emotional).

H3: Teachers who have participated in professional training demonstrate significantly higher formative assessment literacy than teachers without professional training across all three dimensions.

H4: Teachers working in urban schools demonstrate significantly higher levels of formative assessment literacy than teachers working in rural schools, particularly in the conceptual and practical dimensions.

H5: The conceptual, practical, and socio-emotional dimensions of formative assessment literacy are strongly and positively correlated.

H6: Each dimension of formative assessment literacy is strongly and positively associated with the overall formative assessment literacy score (T-FALS).

H7: Teacher and classroom characteristics (gender, age, teaching experience, school location, and class size) significantly predict formative assessment literacy in the conceptual, practical, and socio-emotional dimensions.

 Findings

The reliability of the questionnaire was assessed using Cronbach’s Alpha for the 22 closed-ended questions of the questionnaire of this study. The analysis extracted a value of Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of 0.948, which shows an excellent internal coherence in accordance with thresholds accepted in the literature (α ≥ 0.9) (George and Mallery, 2019).

Conceptual dimension

The results show that teachers have a strong theoretical meaning of formative assessment. In all the seven assertions of this dimension, the majority of the participants are in the category of Agree or Strongly Agree (typically above 80%). For example, “I know that students’ learning needs can be identified through formative assessment,” 87.2% agreed or strongly agreed. Furthermore, over 90% admit that assessment activities must align with learning objectives, and the assessment results are constructive for the teaching adjustments. These findings suggest that teachers not only acknowledge FA logic, but they also view it as an essential tool for the identification of the students’ needs.

 Practical dimension

In real-life applications, levels of agreement are high, although with more variation compared with conceptual dimensions. For instance, “I use a variety of assessment methods” and “I engage students in using feedback information in subsequent tasks,” over 80% of teachers report regular use. However, in fields like, “I teach students to engage in peer feedback” and “I help students to develop self-assessment skills,” the percentages drop about 65%–75%, by suggesting that active inclusion of students in the process of feedback and self-assessment is not as consolidated as other practical aspects.

 Socio-emotional dimension

In this dimension, positive trends remain strong, but there is a greater variation in responses. For example, over 80% of teachers agree that there must be created a shared understanding of the FA, and the ethics and students’ privacy must be respected. Nevertheless, the assertion “I recognize that students’ values, beliefs, and attitudes impact how they experience the process of formative assessment,” the agreement decreases under 55%, showing a gap in the sensitivity toward students’ cultural and personal diversity. Moreover, some teachers report neutrality about the impact of feedback on students’ motivation, which suggests the need for professional development focused on the FA affective dimension (Table 1).

Frequency analysis of the participants’ responses to the items in the questionnaire.

Items 1 2 3 4 5
1 I can explain the rationale for formative assessment. 0% 5.1% 18.0% 50.6% 26.3%
0 18 63 177 92
2 I know that students’ learning needs can be identified through formative assessment. 0% 0% 12.9% 66.6% 20.6%
0 0 45 233 72
3 I think assessment activities should be aligned with learning goals. 0% 2.6% 18.0% 57.7% 21.7%
0 9 63 202 76
4 I understand that formative assessment tasks should elicit evidence about students’ learning. 0% 0% 20.0% 46.6% 33.4%
0 0 70 163 117
5 I know that formative assessment results are useful for teachers to cater for student learning needs. 0% 0% 12.9% 49.7% 37.4%
0 0 45 174 131
6 I think students should be engaged in the formative assessment in order to promote learning. 0% 10.3% 15.4% 54.9% 19.4%
0 36 54 192 68
7 I know diverse assessment methods that allow students to demonstrate their learning. 0% 0% 20.0% 46.6% 33.4%
0 0 70 163 117
8 I use a variety of assessment methods that allow students to demonstrate their learning. 0% 0% 17.4% 36.9% 45.7%
0 0 61 129 160
9 I teach students to engage in peer feedback processes. 0% 12.3% 20.0% 36.9% 30.9%
0 43 70 129 108
10 I help students to develop self-assessment skills. 0% 10.3% 12.3% 46.6% 30.9%
0 36 43 163 108
11 I engage students in using feedback information in subsequent tasks. 0% 0% 17.4% 36.9% 45.7%
0 0 61 129 190
12 Based on assessment results, I show students what they need to do in order to improve their learning. 0% 7.7% 12.9% 47.1% 32.3%
0 27 45 165 113
13 I train students to act on assessment feedback information to improve their learning. 0% 0% 20.0% 46.6% 33.4%
0 0 70 163 117
14 I clarify assessment purposes to students. 0% 2.6% 15.4% 39.1% 42.9%
0 9 54 137 150
15 I share assessment criteria with students. 0% 0% 10.3% 23.1% 66.6%
0 0 36 81 233
16 I am aware of the need to create a common understanding of formative assessment among teachers and students. 0% 5.1% 22.6% 29.1% 43.1%
0 18 79 102 151
17 I attend to students’ emotional responses to assessments. 0% 15.4% 14.9% 41.4% 28.3%
0 54 52 145 99
18 I recognize that students’ values, beliefs, and attitudes impact how they experience the process of formative assessment. 0% 23.4% 24.6% 36.6% 15.4%
0 82 86 128 54
19 I am aware of the impact that assessment feedback information might have on students’ learning motivation. 0% 0% 20.0% 46.6% 33.4%
0 0 70 163 117
20 I am sensitive to the ethical aspects of formative assessment, such as fairness and student privacy. 0% 5.1% 22.6% 29.1% 43.1%
0 18 79 102 151
21 I am aware of my responsibilities to cater for students’ well-being during the formative assessment process. 0% 2.6% 15.4% 39.1% 42.9%
0 9 54 137 150
22 I am conscious of the fact that students have the right to benefit from formative assessment practices. 0% 0%0 5.1% 46.9% 48.0%
0 0 18 164 168

Strongly agree: 5; Agree: 4; Neither agree nor disagree: 3; Disagree: 2; Strongly disagree: 1.

In general, the data suggest a higher level of theoretical knowledge and practical skills for the formative assessment, with the remaining challenges mostly in the active inclusion of students and in sensitivity towards socio-emotional factors. This profile is compatible with international literature, where teachers often display more literacy in the conceptual dimension and fewer literacy in practical or affective (Xu and Brown, 2016). The results support the need for more professional development programs that not only deepen theoretical knowledge but also foster the effective implementation of FA in ways that address socio-emotional aspects of the learning process.

To address Hypothesis 1, descriptive statistics were calculated to examine the overall level of formative assessment literacy among primary school teachers. Competency levels were categorized based on the overall mean score on the Likert scale (1–5). Values below 2.5 were considered low; between 2.5 and 3.5 as medium; and above 3.5 as high. The lack of cases in the low category may be related to a ceiling effect or to the self-report nature of the instrument.

The results presented in Table 2 show that none of the participating teachers are qualified at the lowest level of competencies for the application of the formative assessment (0%). About a third of them (30.3%) are at the medium level, thus indicating that they have moderate knowledge and skills, but not fully in this field. The majority of teachers (69.7%) take part at a high level, reporting advanced levels of formative assessment literacy to apply formative assessment in their learning practices. These findings suggest a strong professional foundation for the application of the formative assessment in primary education in Kosovo, although targeted interventions are necessary for the improvement of the competencies of medium-level teachers.

Descriptive data on the level of literacy of primary school teachers in the implementation of the formative assessment.

Literacy level Frequency Percentage (%)
Low level 0 0
Medium level 106 30.3
High level 244 69.7
Total 350 100

Given that the data did not have normal distribution according to the Shapiro–Wilk test, this study used non-parametric tests. Hypothesis 2 examined whether formative assessment literacy differs across teaching experience groups (Table 3).

Group differences in formative assessment literacy by teaching experience.

Teaching experience n Conceptual dimension (mean rank) Practical dimension (mean rank) Socio-emotional dimension (mean rank)
1–5 years 36 19.63 74.88 85.88
6–10 years 99 103.43 108.77 131.65
11–20 years 206 229.93 218.69 205.58
>20 years 9 346.00 323.50 328.00
Kruskal–Wallis H (df = 3) 224.526 136.815 86.476
p-value < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Kruskal–Wallis tests were used; mean ranks are reported. All comparisons were significant (p < 0.001).

A clear and consistent pattern emerged, with mean ranks increasing steadily as teaching experience increased. In the conceptual dimension, teachers with 1–5 years of experience obtained the lowest mean rank (19.63), indicating a limited conceptual understanding of formative assessment principles at early career stages. Mean ranks increased substantially among teachers with 6–10 years (103.43) and 11–20 years of experience (229.93), while the highest levels were observed among teachers with more than 20 years of experience (346.00). This trend suggests a strong cumulative effect of professional experience on teachers’ theoretical and conceptual grasp of formative assessment. A similar pattern was evident for the practical dimension. Teachers with fewer than 5 years of experience reported the lowest mean rank (74.88), whereas teachers with 11–20 years (218.69) and more than 20 years of experience (323.50) demonstrated markedly higher levels of practical literacy. These results indicate that the effective implementation of formative assessment practices develops progressively over time and is closely linked to sustained classroom experience. The socio-emotional dimension also showed significant differences across experience groups. Mean ranks increased from 85.88 among the least experienced teachers to 205.58 among those with 11–20 years of experience and reached the highest level among teachers with more than 20 years of experience (328.00). This finding highlights the role of long-term professional experience in developing sensitivity to students’ emotional responses, values, and motivational needs within the formative assessment process.

Overall, the results demonstrate a robust and monotonic relationship between teaching experience and formative assessment literacy across conceptual, practical, and socio-emotional dimensions. These findings underscore the importance of professional experience as a key factor in the development of teachers’ formative assessment literacy and suggest that early-career teachers may benefit from targeted support and mentoring to accelerate their development in all three dimensions.

To test Hypothesis 3, Mann–Whitney U tests (Table 4) were conducted to compare formative assessment literacy between teachers who had participated in professional training (n = 54) and those who had not (n = 296).

Differences in formative assessment literacy by professional training.

Dimension Training (n = 54) mean rank No training (n = 296) mean rank U Z p
Conceptual dimension 77.33 193.41 2691.00 −7.817 < 0.001
Practical dimension 36.33 200.89 477.00 −11.046 < 0.001
Socio-emotional dimension 62.83 196.05 1908.00 −8.949 < 0.001

Mann–Whitney U tests were used; mean ranks are reported. All comparisons were significant (p < 0.001).

The results revealed statistically significant differences across all three dimensions of formative assessment literacy (p < 0.001).

In the conceptual dimension, teachers who had attended professional training obtained a substantially higher mean rank (Mᵣ = 193.41) compared to teachers without training (Mᵣ = 77.33), with the difference being statistically significant (U = 2691.00, Z = −7.817, p < 0.001). Similarly, in the practical dimension, trained teachers demonstrated markedly higher literacy (Mᵣ = 200.89) than untrained teachers (Mᵣ = 36.33), representing the largest group difference observed (U = 477.00, Z = −11.046, p < 0.001).

Significant differences were also found in the socio-emotional dimension, where trained teachers again showed higher mean ranks (Mᵣ = 196.05) compared to their untrained counterparts (Mᵣ = 62.83) (U = 1908.00, Z = −8.949, p < 0.001).

Taken together, these results indicate that teachers who participated in professional training consistently reported higher levels of formative assessment literacy across conceptual, practical, and socio-emotional dimensions, providing strong empirical support for Hypothesis 3 and underscoring the critical role of professional training in the development of formative assessment literacy.

Hypothesis 4 examined differences in formative assessment literacy based on school location (urban vs. rural) (Table 5).

Group differences in formative assessment literacy by school location.

Dimension Rural schools (n = 174) mean rank Urban schools (n = 176) mean rank Z p
Conceptual dimension 159.59 191.23 −2.950 0.003
Practical dimension 161.85 189.00 −2.523 0.012
Socio-emotional dimension 172.09 178.88 −0.631 0.528

Mann–Whitney U tests were used; mean ranks are reported (p < 0.05).

The results revealed statistically significant differences between rural and urban teachers in the conceptual and practical dimensions, but not in the socio-emotional dimension.

In the conceptual dimension, teachers working in urban schools obtained significantly higher mean ranks (Mᵣ = 191.23) compared to those working in rural schools (Mᵣ = 159.59), with the difference reaching statistical significance (Z = −2.950, p = 0.003). This indicates stronger conceptual understanding of formative assessment principles among teachers in urban settings.

Similarly, for the practical dimension, urban teachers demonstrated higher formative assessment literacy (Mᵣ = 189.00) than rural teachers (Mᵣ = 161.85), with the difference also being statistically significant (Z = −2.523, p = 0.012). This finding suggests that teachers in urban schools more frequently report the application of formative assessment strategies in classroom practice.

In contrast, no statistically significant difference was found for the socio-emotional dimension, as mean ranks were comparable between rural (Mᵣ = 172.09) and urban teachers (Mᵣ = 178.88) (Z = −0.631, p = 0.528). This result indicates that teachers’ sensitivity to students’ emotions, values, and motivational aspects of assessment does not differ meaningfully by school location.

Overall, these findings provide partial support for Hypothesis 4, indicating that school location is associated with differences in conceptual understanding and practical implementation of formative assessment, but not with socio-emotional literacy.

To address Hypothesis 5, Spearman correlation analyses were conducted among the conceptual, practical, and socio-emotional dimensions (Table 6).

Correlations among the dimensions of formative assessment literacy (T-FALS).

Variable 1 2 3 4
1. Conceptual dimension —
2. Practical dimension 0.768** —
3. Socio-emotional dimension 0.707** 0.875** —
4. TFALS (total score) 0.898** 0.924** 0.919** —

Spearman’s rho coefficients are reported due to the ordinal nature of Likert-type data. **p < 0.01.

The conceptual dimension showed a strong positive correlation with the practical dimension (ρ = 0.768, p < 0.01), indicating that teachers who demonstrate a clearer conceptual understanding of formative assessment principles are more likely to implement these principles effectively in classroom practice. A substantial correlation was also observed between the conceptual and socio-emotional dimensions (ρ = 0.707, p < 0.01), suggesting that conceptual knowledge of formative assessment is closely linked to teachers’ sensitivity to students’ emotional and motivational needs during the assessment process. The practical and socio-emotional dimensions were very strongly associated (ρ = 0.875, p < 0.01), highlighting the interdependence between the enactment of formative assessment strategies and teachers’ responsiveness to students’ affective and socio-emotional characteristics. This finding suggests that formative assessment practices that actively engage students are often accompanied by greater attention to students’ emotional responses, values, and learning experiences. In addition, all three dimensions exhibited very strong correlations with the overall T-FALS score (ρ ranging from 0.898 to 0.924, p < 0.01), providing evidence for the internal coherence of the instrument. At the same time, the correlations among the individual dimensions remained below unity, indicating that they represent related but conceptually distinct components of teacher formative assessment literacy. Overall, these results support the multidimensional structure of formative assessment literacy proposed in the T-FALS framework and provide further empirical evidence of the construct validity of the instrument. Hypothesis 6 examined the relationship between each dimension and the overall formative assessment literacy score. Spearman correlations showed very strong positive associations between each dimension and the total T-FALS score (p ranging from 0.898 to 0.924, p < 0.01), supporting the internal coherence of the instrument (Table 6).

To test Hypothesis 7, multiple regression analyses were conducted separately for the conceptual, practical, and socio-emotional dimensions (Table 7). Before conducting the regression analyses, assumptions about multicollinearity were tested. Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) and tolerance values were examined for each predictor. All VIF values were within acceptable limits (<5), while the tolerance was above the minimum threshold (0.20), indicating the absence of problematic multicollinearity. Although the data did not have a completely normal distribution, linear regression was considered appropriate due to the sample size (N = 350), which increases the robustness of the analysis to deviations from normality. However, since all data were collected through a self-report instrument, there is the possibility of common-method variance, which may have inflated some of the reported statistical relationships.

Results of multiple regression analyses: teacher characteristics as predictors of formative assessment literacy.

Predictors Conceptual dimension β (SE) Practical dimension β (SE) Socio-emotional dimension β (SE)
Gender −0.145*** (0.025) 0.026 (0.041) 0.057 (0.051)
Age 0.087** (0.030) 0.226*** (0.048) −0.082 (0.061)
Teaching experience (years) 0.501*** (0.032) 0.164** (0.052) 0.422*** (0.065)
School location −0.132*** (0.026) −0.132** (0.042) −0.200*** (0.053)
Class size 0.202*** (0.016) 0.337*** (0.026) 0.446*** (0.033)
R 2 0.855 0.647 0.557
Adjusted R2 0.853 0.642 0.550
F 405.92*** 125.95*** 86.45***

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

Prior to addressing the main research questions, we provide a concise overview of the descriptive patterns in teachers’ formative assessment literacy across the three dimensions examined, namely conceptual, practical, and socio-emotional dimensions. These descriptive patterns, presented earlier, indicate generally high levels of formative assessment literacy among primary school teachers, with some variation across demographic, professional, and contextual characteristics. These preliminary observations serve as a foundation for the subsequent regression analyses that examine the extent to which teacher and school-related characteristics predict formative assessment literacy. To investigate the contribution of teacher characteristics to formative assessment literacy, we conducted multiple linear regression analyses for each of the three dimensions (Table 7). The regression model predicting the conceptual dimension explained a substantial proportion of variance (R2 = 0.855). Teaching experience emerged as the strongest predictor (β = 0.501, p < 0.001), indicating that teachers with longer professional experience reported higher levels of conceptual understanding of formative assessment principles. Professional context also played a role, with school location showing a significant effect (β = −0.132, p < 0.001), suggesting higher conceptual literacy among teachers working in urban schools. Class size was positively associated with conceptual dimension (β = 0.202, p < 0.001). In addition, gender and age contributed significantly to the model, although their effects were comparatively smaller. The regression model for the practical dimension explained 64.7% of the variance in teachers’ reported practices (R2 = 0.647). Age was a significant positive predictor (β = 0.226, p < 0.001), indicating that older teachers tended to report more frequent use of formative assessment practices. Teaching experience was also positively related to the practical dimension (β = 0.164, p < 0.01). Contextual variables again proved important: teachers working in urban schools reported higher levels of practical formative assessment literacy than their rural counterparts (β = −0.132, p < 0.01), and larger class size was associated with higher practical dimension (β = 0.337, p < 0.001). Gender did not show a statistically significant association with the practical dimension. With regard to the socio-emotional dimension, the regression model accounted for 55.7% of the variance (R2 = 0.557). Teaching experience was a strong positive predictor (β = 0.422, p < 0.001), highlighting the role of professional maturation in developing sensitivity to students’ emotional and motivational needs during the assessment process. School location was again significant (β = −0.200, p < 0.001), indicating higher socio-emotional dimension among teachers in urban schools. Class size also showed a positive association with socio-emotional dimension (β = 0.446, p < 0.001). In contrast, neither gender nor age was significantly related to the socio-emotional dimension.

Overall, the regression analyses demonstrate that teaching experience and school-context variables are consistently associated with formative assessment literacy across dimensions, whereas demographic characteristics play a more limited and dimension-specific role. These findings provide a differentiated picture of the factors shaping teachers’ formative assessment literacy and set the stage for a more detailed interpretation of their implications in the discussion section.

 Discussion

The results of the study provide a comprehensive picture of the literacy of formative learning among primary school teachers in Kosovo, in the conceptual, practical and socio-emotional dimensions. On the scale, teachers reported high levels of literacy of the formative function, strongest in the conceptual dimension. In the responses to Hypothesis H1, which predicts an average level, 69.7% of teachers resulted in high levels, while none were classified as low. This indicates a more consolidated professional base than initially expected.

The dominance of the conceptual dimension is in contrast to the literature, which shows that teachers tend to develop earlier knowledge of the theory of actions and practical or socio-emotional sensitivity in the view (Xu and Brown, 2016). The strong correlation between the conceptual and practical dimensions (ρ = 0.768, p < 0.01) supports the idea that theoretical understanding is used as a basis for effective actions in the classroom. Teachers who clearly understand their logic and goals should understand this meaning in concrete practice.

However, conceptual knowledge does not always guarantee all balanced. Practices such as involving students in the processes of average activity and self-assessment were found to be less consolidated. This is consistent with the argument that theoretical knowledge should be solved with card strategies and structured in the second grade (Black and Wiliam, 2009; Heritage, 2010). In this sense, preparation focused only on theory is not enough to guarantee high security.

The socio-emotional dimension showed greater variation in responses. Most teachers showed awareness of ethical aspects and student well-being, but less visible anticipation of students’ values, beliefs and attitudes in their experience. This result is consistent with the argument that training outcomes require not only technical competence, but also ethical and emotional sensitivity (Bennett, 2011). The weaker consolidation of the dimension suggests the need for professional development that directly addresses students’ motivation, involvement, and emotions.

Differences related to professional activities and school location highlight the contextual nature of formative learning literacy. Teachers with more years of experience reported higher levels of literacy in all three dimensions. This reinforces the idea that in a good experience, expertise in work expertise and professional reflection. Teachers in the early stages of work may need structured work and mentoring to accelerate their assistance.

School location influenced the conceptual and practical dimensions. Teachers in urban schools reported higher levels compared to rural areas, which may be related to greater access to resources and professional development opportunities. However, there were no significant differences in the socio-emotional dimension, suggesting that sensitivity to student well-being is more related to values and professional orientation than to the institutional context.

Regression analyses showed that professional training is among the most diverse predictors of all three dimensions. Teachers who had attended structured training reported higher levels of conceptual, practical, and socio-emotional literacy. This result is consistent with the findings of Andersson and Palm (2017), who argue that a well-structured professional classroom program can lead to changes in student techniques and outcomes. Professional development, therefore, should not be seen as an additional element, but as a central mechanism for improving formative development. The positive mediating relationship between classroom and literacy reported should be interpreted with caution. It is possible that this result reflects the interaction between conflicts and contextual connections, and not a direct effect of classroom society on classroom competence.

In other respects, the study findings are consistent with recent systems reviews, which emphasize that the conceptual dimensions of the formative outcomes literature tend to be more important than the practical and socio-emotional dimensions (Lei and Lei, 2025). Teachers often posit a strong theoretical foundation, but their practical and sensitive effects on the outcomes remain less well-established. This highlights the need for professional development models that integrate theoretical knowledge, practical practices, and the socio-emotional dimension of improvement in a balanced manner.

 Conclusion

This study provides a comprehensive examination of formative assessment literacy among primary school teachers in Kosovo by analyzing its conceptual, practical, and socio-emotional dimensions using the T-FALS framework. Overall, the findings indicate that teachers report a high level of formative assessment literacy, thereby exceeding the initially anticipated moderate level. This result reflects a solid professional foundation and suggests that formative assessment principles are well embedded in teachers’ conceptual understanding.

In line with the descriptive findings and the rejection of Hypothesis H1, teachers exhibited particularly strong competencies in the conceptual dimension, demonstrating a clear understanding of the logic, purposes, and foundational principles of formative assessment. This indicates that teachers are broadly aware of the importance of using student-generated evidence to guide instruction and support learning processes. The strong association observed between the conceptual and practical dimensions further confirms that theoretical understanding and classroom implementation are closely interdependent, and that improvements in conceptual clarity are likely to translate into more effective formative assessment practices.

Although the practical dimension was generally positive, the results revealed notable areas for improvement, particularly in practices that involve active student participation, such as self-assessment and peer feedback. These findings suggest that while teachers are capable of applying formative assessment strategies, participatory practices that position students as active agents in the assessment process remain underdeveloped. This imbalance highlights the need for professional development initiatives that move beyond assessment theory and explicitly address concrete classroom techniques that foster student engagement.

The socio-emotional dimension showed positive overall tendencies but was characterized by substantial variation among teachers. Specifically, limited sensitivity toward the influence of students’ values, beliefs, and attitudes on their assessment experiences was evident. Additionally, some teachers displayed neutral perceptions regarding the motivational role of feedback, indicating that this dimension requires more systematic and sustained support. Given that socio-emotional responsiveness is essential for creating inclusive, fair, and motivating learning environments, this finding underscores the importance of integrating emotional and ethical considerations into formative assessment practice.

The study also identified significant differences related to teaching experience, professional training, school context, thereby supporting Hypotheses H2–H4 and H7. Teachers with more extensive professional experience demonstrated higher levels of formative assessment literacy, particularly in the conceptual and practical dimensions, highlighting the cumulative role of experience in assessment literacy development. Professional training emerged as a particularly influential factor, with teachers who had participated in training programs consistently demonstrating higher levels of formative assessment literacy across all dimensions. This finding confirms that continuous professional development plays a more decisive role than experience alone in shaping formative assessment literacy.

From an institutional and policy perspective, the findings emphasize that teachers’ professional development should not be conceptualized as a one-time intervention but rather as an ongoing, monitored, and practice-oriented process integrated into broader strategies for educational quality improvement. Educational systems aiming to strengthen formative assessment should invest in mentoring structures, opportunities for professional exchange, and organizational conditions that support reflective and collaborative practice.

Finally, the application of the T-FALS instrument in this study demonstrated its value as both a robust research tool and a practical framework for identifying strengths and gaps in teachers’ formative assessment literacy. Beyond its measurement function, T-FALS offers meaningful guidance for the design of targeted intervention programs and professional development initiatives. While primary school teachers in Kosovo display strong conceptual foundations and generally well-developed practical competencies in formative assessment, the socio-emotional dimension remains comparatively less consolidated. This imbalance indicates that effective and sustainable formative assessment cannot rely solely on technical knowledge and procedural skills, but requires deliberate attention to students’ emotional engagement, beliefs, and agency.

In conclusion, this study shows that formative assessment literacy among primary school teachers in Kosovo is well established at the conceptual and practical levels. However, achieving a fully balanced and effective implementation of formative assessment requires strengthening the socio-emotional dimension and ensuring continuous, evidence-based professional development grounded in reflection and collaborative practice.

Limitations and recommendations

This study should be interpreted within the context of its cross-sectional design and the specific context of primary education in Kosovo, which limits the generalizability of the findings. Although stratified sampling was used, the sample may not be proportionally representative of all regions and school contexts. Formative assessment literacy was measured through a self-report instrument, which reflects teachers’ self-assessed perceptions and competencies, not observed classroom practice. As a result, the results may have been influenced by the effect of social desirability and the possibility of a ceiling effect, given the high levels of reported literacy. Although the internal consistency of the instrument was very high (α = 0.948), this does not automatically guarantee full construct validity across contextual subgroups, and measurement invariance was not formally tested. The high explanatory power of some regression models may reflect possible overlap between predictors, while the cross-sectional design does not allow for causal inferences. Future studies should include confirmatory factor analyses, classroom observations, and longitudinal designs to examine the congruence between perceived literacy and implemented practice. However, the findings offer important implications for structured professional development, highlighting the need for an integrated approach that includes the conceptual, practical, and socio-emotional dimensions of formative assessment.

 Data availability statement

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

 Ethics statement

Ethical standards for educational research were strictly observed. All participants were informed about the aims of the study and provided informed consent prior to participation. Anonymity and confidentiality were guaranteed, and no personal identifiable information was collected or stored. Data was used exclusively for research purposes and analyzed in aggregate form.

 Author contributions

BÇ: Writing – original draft. DK: Writing – review & editing.

 Acknowledgments

The authors express sincere gratitude to the primary school teachers in Kosovo who participated in this study and the language experts who assisted with the translation and cultural adaptation of the instrument.

 Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

 Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

 Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

 References AbellS. K. SiegelM. A. (2011). “Assessment literacy: what science teachers need to know and be able to do” in The professional Knowledge Base of science teaching. eds. CorriganD. DillonJ. GunstoneR. (Berlin: Springer), 205–221. AnderssonC. PalmT. (2017). The impact of formative assessment on student achievement: a study of the effects of changes to classroom practice after a comprehensive professional development programme. Learn. Instr. 49, 92–102. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.12.006 AndradeH. L. (2019). A critical review of research on student self-assessment. Front. Educ. 4:87. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2019.00087 BennettR. E. (2011). Formative assessment: a critical review. Assess. Educ. Princ. Policy Pract. 18, 5–25. doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678 BlackP. WiliamD. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assess. Educ. Princ. Policy Pract. 5, 7–74. doi: 10.1080/0969595980050102 BlackP. WiliamD. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educ. Assess. Eval. Accountab. 21, 5–31. doi: 10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5 BrookhartS. M. (2011). Educational assessment knowledge and skills for teachers. Educ. Meas. Issues Pract. 30, 3–12. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2010.00195.x CarlessD. BoudD. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 43, 1315–1325. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354 CauleyK. M. McMillanJ. H. (2010). Formative assessment techniques to support student motivation and achievement. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83, 1–6. doi: 10.1080/00098650903267784 DeLucaC. KlingerD. A. PyperJ. S. WoodsJ. (2019). Conceptualizing assessment literacy as a multi-dimensional construct. Teach. Teach. Educ. 80, 45–58. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2018.12.010 DeLucaC. LaPointe-McEwanD. LuhangaU. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy: development of a competency profile. Assess. Educ. Princ. Policy Pract. 28, 251–272. doi: 10.1007/s11092-015-9233-6 FurtakE. M. Ruiz-PrimoM. A. ShemwellJ. T. AyalaC. C. BrandonP. R. ShavelsonR. J. . (2016). Comparing formative assessment interventions: effects on student learning. Educ. Assess. 21, 93–112. GeorgeD. MalleryP. (2019). IBM SPSS statistics 26 step by step: A simple guide and reference. New York, NY: Routledge. HattieJ. TimperleyH. (2007). The power of feedback. Rev. Educ. Res. 77, 81–112. doi: 10.3102/003465430298487 HeritageM. (2010). Formative assessment: Making it happen in the classroom. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press. KepekA. İzciK. (2021). Teachers’ formative assessment knowledge and its relation to classroom practices. J. Educ. Meas. Eval. 12, 149–165. KluteM. ApthorpH. HarlacherJ. RealeM. (2017). Formative assessment and elementary school student academic achievement: A review of the evidence (REL 2017–259): Regional Educational Laboratory Central. LaneR. ParrilaR. BowerM. BullR. CavanaghM. ForbesA. . (2019). Literature review: formative assessment evidence and practice: AITSL. LeeH. ChungH. Q. ZhangY. AbediJ. WarschauerM. (2020). The effectiveness and features of formative assessment in US K-12 education: a systematic review. Appl. Meas. Educ. 33, 124–140. doi: 10.1080/08957347.2020.1732383 LeeI. MakP. YuanR. E. (2020). Assessment as learning in primary writing classrooms: an exploratory study. Assess. Writing 45:100471. doi: 10.1016/j.asw.2020.100471 LeiW. LeiZ. (2025). Formative assessment literacy: a systematic review. Lang. Test. Asia 16. doi: 10.1186/s40468-025-00418-0 McManusS. (2008). Attributes of effective formative assessment. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. NicolD. Macfarlane-DickD. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Stud. High. Educ. 31, 199–218. doi: 10.1080/03075070600572090 PanaderoE. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: six models and four directions for research. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 29, 273–315. doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9320-7 PastoreS. (2023). Teacher assessment literacy: a systematic review. Frontiers in Education 8:1217167. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1217167 PophamW. J. (2008). Transformative assessment: ASCD. PophamW. J. (2017a). Assessment literacy for educators in a hurry. Arlington: ASCD. PophamW. J. (2017b). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know. 8th Edn. London: Pearson. SchildkampK. PoortmanC. L. LuytenH. EbbelerJ. (2020). Factors promoting and hindering data-based decision making in schools. Sch. Eff. Sch. Improv. 31, 237–255. ShuteV. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Rev. Educ. Res. 78, 153–189. doi: 10.3102/0034654307313795 TorranceH. (2012). Formative assessment at the crossroads. Oxf. Rev. Educ. 38, 323–342. doi: 10.1080/03054985.2012.689693 TorranceH. PryorJ. (2001). Developing formative assessment in the classroom. Assess. Educ. Princ. Policy Pract. 8, 165–181. WiliamD. ThompsonM. (2008). “Integrating assessment with learning: what will it take to make it work?” in The future of assessment. Shaping teaching and learning. ed. DwyerC. A. (Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 53–84. WillisJ. AdieL. KlenowskiV. (2013). Conceptualising teachers’ assessment literacies in an era of curriculum and assessment reform. The Australian Educational Researcher, 40, 241–256. doi: 10.1007/s13384-013-0089-9 WinstoneN. E. BoudD. (2017). Feedback seeking, feedback giving and feedback literacy. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 42, 1020–1033. WylieE. C. (2020). Formative assessment: what do teachers need to know and do? Phi Delta Kappan 102, 20–25. doi: 10.1177/0031721720970700 XuY. BrownG. T. L. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy in practice: a reconceptualization. Teach. Teach. Educ. 58, 149–162. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.010 YanZ. PastoreS. (2022). Are teachers literate in formative assessment? The development and validation of the teacher formative assessment literacy scale. Stud. Educ. Eval. 74:101183. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2022.101183

Edited by: Serafina Pastore, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Italy

Reviewed by: Martha Christianti, Yogyakarta State University, Indonesia

Yuyun Haryanti, Universitas Majalengka, Indonesia