Table of Contents
Type: Dissertation Proposal | Subject: Education | Level: Masters | Word Count: ~2,400 words
This model dissertation proposal was produced by an Essays UK specialist as reference material for learning purposes only. For support in this field, see our education dissertation writers.
Overview: This proposal sets out a quasi-experimental study examining whether a structured programme of formative assessment raises mathematics attainment among Key Stage 2 pupils in an English primary school. It outlines the research aim and objectives, a focused review of the assessment-for-learning literature, a mixed-methods methodology using a non-equivalent control group, a project timeline, and the ethical safeguards required for research involving children.
Formative assessment, often described as assessment for learning, refers to the continuous process through which teachers and pupils gather evidence of understanding and use it to adapt teaching and learning while instruction is still under way. Since the influential review by Black and Wiliam (1998), formative assessment has become one of the most widely advocated practices in English primary education. Its measurable effect on attainment, however, continues to be debated, and its implementation across classrooms remains uneven. This proposal sets out a study that will examine whether a structured programme of formative assessment strategies raises mathematics attainment among Key Stage 2 (KS2) pupils in a single English primary school.
Mathematics occupies a central position in the national curriculum for KS2, where pupils in Years 3 to 6 are expected to develop fluency, mathematical reasoning and problem-solving across number, measurement, geometry and statistics (Department for Education, 2013). National assessment at the end of Year 6 places considerable pressure on schools to demonstrate progress, and attainment gaps that open during the primary phase are widely understood to persist into secondary education. Against this backdrop, interventions that are low-cost, teacher-led and embedded within everyday classroom practice are particularly attractive to school leaders working within constrained budgets.
Formative assessment is frequently presented as exactly this kind of intervention. The Education Endowment Foundation (2021) identifies feedback and formative strategies among the most cost-effective approaches available to schools, while Wiliam (2011) argues that embedding formative practice offers a realistic route to improving outcomes without additional resourcing. Yet much of the supporting evidence is drawn from secondary settings or from studies that combine several strategies, making it difficult for a primary school to judge what a focused programme might achieve for a specific subject and age group. This study responds to that gap by evaluating a defined, ten-week formative assessment programme in Year 5 mathematics, using a design that allows a cautious comparison between pupils who experience the programme and those who do not.
There is also an equity dimension to this inquiry. Black and Wiliam (1998) observed that improvements in formative practice tended to benefit lower-attaining pupils most, which implies that a well-implemented programme could help to narrow attainment differences rather than simply lift the average. In the current accountability climate, where schools are judged partly on the progress of disadvantaged pupils, an intervention that is both affordable and equitable is of real practical interest. Establishing whether these benefits are visible in a specific primary mathematics context, and understanding the conditions under which they appear, is therefore a question of professional as well as academic value, and it shapes the mixed-methods approach adopted here.
The overarching aim of the study is to evaluate the effect of a structured formative assessment programme on mathematics attainment among Key Stage 2 pupils, and to understand how teachers and pupils experience that programme in practice. To achieve this aim, the study pursues the following objectives:
The study is guided by one principal research question and two subsidiary questions. The principal question asks: to what extent does a structured formative assessment programme affect KS2 mathematics attainment? The subsidiary questions ask: which formative strategies do teachers find most workable in daily practice; and how do pupils experience and respond to formative feedback in mathematics?
The conceptual foundations of formative assessment are usually traced to Sadler (1989), who argued that learners improve only when they understand the standard being aimed for, can compare their current performance against it, and are able to take action to close the gap. Black and Wiliam (1998) built on this logic in their synthesis of classroom research, concluding that strengthening formative practice could produce substantial learning gains, particularly for lower-attaining pupils. Their short companion publication, Inside the Black Box, translated these findings into practical principles and has been widely influential in English schools (Black and Wiliam, 1998).
A recurring theme in the literature is that feedback is powerful but conditional. Hattie and Timperley (2007) demonstrate that feedback is among the strongest influences on achievement, yet they also caution that its effect varies enormously according to type: feedback that directs attention to the task and to the next step in learning tends to help, whereas feedback that focuses on the self, or that is reduced to a grade, can be neutral or even harmful. Clarke (2014) applies this distinction to primary classrooms, advocating comment-only marking and the explicit sharing of success criteria so that pupils can act on what they are told. These accounts suggest that the quality and timing of formative practice matter at least as much as its presence.
A second theme concerns the active role of the learner. Self-assessment and peer assessment are theorised not merely as checking devices but as means of developing pupils’ capacity to regulate their own learning. This literature intersects with work on motivation, including Dweck’s (2017) account of how beliefs about ability shape persistence; formative feedback that emphasises progress and strategy is argued to support a more resilient disposition towards challenging mathematics. For younger pupils, however, the evidence is thinner, and some scholars question whether children in the primary phase can assess their own work with sufficient accuracy to benefit.
A third strand of the literature turns from whether formative assessment works to whether it can realistically be sustained. Wiliam (2011) stresses that formative practice is demanding because it requires teachers to interpret evidence and respond in the moment rather than follow a fixed script. Where strategies such as detailed marking are added without removing other demands, the result can be an unsustainable increase in workload, and practices adopted under pressure are often implemented superficially. Clarke (2014) argues that comment-only marking and classroom response techniques can in fact save time if they replace rather than supplement existing routines. This tension between pedagogical value and practical feasibility is precisely why the present study gathers teachers’ own judgements about which strategies are workable, rather than assuming that what is effective in principle will survive contact with a full timetable.
While the general case for formative assessment is strong, subject-specific and phase-specific evidence is more limited. The Education Endowment Foundation (2021) reports that feedback approaches are associated with meaningful progress, but it also notes wide variation in results and a shortage of high-quality trials in primary mathematics specifically. Much of the foundational work, including that of Black et al. (2003), spans several subjects and phases, so the particular response of younger mathematics learners is not well isolated. The present study therefore addresses a genuine gap: it isolates a defined programme within a single subject and year group, and it combines attainment data with the perspectives of the teachers and pupils involved, so that measured effects can be interpreted alongside an account of how the programme was actually enacted.
The study adopts a mixed-methods design within a broadly pragmatic paradigm, combining a quantitative quasi-experiment with qualitative data on process and perception. This combination is appropriate because the research questions are partly causal, concerning the effect on attainment, and partly interpretive, concerning how the programme is experienced (Creswell and Creswell, 2018).
A quasi-experimental, non-equivalent control group design will be used, with a pre-test and a post-test. A true experiment with random allocation of individual pupils is neither practical nor ethical within a functioning school, because pupils are taught in established classes. Instead, two parallel Year 5 classes will be assigned, one as the intervention group and one as the comparison group, with the pre-test used to establish baseline equivalence and to adjust for any initial differences at the analysis stage. The limitations of this design, including the absence of randomisation, are well documented (Shadish, Cook and Campbell, 2002) and are addressed directly in the analysis and limitations sections below.
The study will use convenience sampling within a single, purposively selected two-form-entry primary school in England. The anticipated sample is approximately sixty Year 5 pupils across the two classes, together with the two class teachers. Year 5 is chosen because pupils are old enough to engage with self- and peer-assessment yet are not sitting the statutory end-of-key-stage tests, which reduces the pressure associated with a Year 6 intervention. The figures given here are illustrative of the expected scale rather than a claim about a particular school.
The intervention is a ten-week programme of four formative strategies delivered within normal mathematics lessons: sharing learning intentions and co-constructed success criteria; improved questioning with extended wait time; comment-only marking that identifies a next step; and structured self- and peer-assessment. The comparison class will continue with its usual mathematics teaching. To respect fairness, the comparison teacher will be offered the same professional development and materials once data collection is complete, following a wait-list approach.
Quantitative attainment data will be gathered using an age-appropriate, standardised mathematics assessment administered to both groups before and after the intervention period. Qualitative data will be collected through three sources: semi-structured interviews with the two teachers; two small pupil focus groups drawn from the intervention class; and a short series of structured lesson observations using an agreed schedule. Using several sources supports triangulation and strengthens the credibility of the interpretive findings (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2018).
Quantitative analysis will compare post-test scores between the two groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with the pre-test score entered as a covariate to control for baseline differences. Effect sizes will be reported alongside significance testing so that the practical as well as the statistical importance of any difference can be judged. Qualitative data will be analysed thematically following an established six-phase approach, with codes developed from the transcripts and observation notes and organised into themes that speak to the subsidiary research questions. The qualitative findings will be used to help explain and contextualise the quantitative results rather than simply to sit beside them.
Several measures will protect the quality of the evidence. The attainment instrument will be a published, standardised assessment with established reliability, and the same version will be administered under consistent conditions at pre- and post-test to support fair comparison. A short pilot of the interview and focus-group schedules will be carried out with pupils and staff outside the sample, allowing the wording to be refined before the main study. Because the design lacks randomisation, the baseline pre-test is important for checking that the two classes are broadly comparable and for adjusting the analysis where they are not. For the qualitative strand, trustworthiness will be pursued through triangulation across interviews, focus groups and observations, through an audit trail of coding decisions, and through member checking, in which a summary of the emerging themes is shared with participating teachers to confirm that it reflects their experience fairly.
The study is planned over a single academic year. The indicative schedule below shows the main phases and their expected duration.
| Phase | Activity | Months |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Literature review and ethics application | 1–2 |
| 2 | School recruitment, consent and baseline (pre-test) | 3 |
| 3 | Ten-week intervention and lesson observations | 4–6 |
| 4 | Post-test, teacher interviews and pupil focus groups | 7 |
| 5 | Data analysis | 8–9 |
| 6 | Writing up, revision and submission | 10–12 |
Because the study involves children, ethical planning is central rather than incidental, and the research will be conducted in accordance with the Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research published by the British Educational Research Association (2018) and with the university’s own ethics procedures. Approval will be secured before any fieldwork begins.
Access will be negotiated through the headteacher as gatekeeper. Informed, opt-in consent will be sought from parents and carers using plain-language information sheets, and age-appropriate assent will be sought from the pupils themselves, who will be told that they may stop taking part at any time without any disadvantage. Teacher participation will likewise be voluntary and based on informed consent. The right to withdraw, including the withdrawal of data within a stated period, will be made explicit to all participants.
Data protection will comply with the UK General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018. All data will be anonymised at the point of transcription, using pseudonyms for pupils, staff and the school; identifiable records will be stored separately and securely, and access will be restricted to the researcher and supervisor. Safeguarding is a particular priority: the researcher will hold an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service check, will never work unsupervised with individual children, and will follow the school’s safeguarding policy, including its procedures for reporting any disclosure. Finally, fairness to the comparison group is protected through the wait-list arrangement, by which that class receives the intervention and its materials once the study concludes, so that no pupil is denied a potentially beneficial approach as a condition of the research.
Several limitations are acknowledged at the outset. The quasi-experimental design cannot establish causation with the confidence of a randomised trial, and pre-existing differences between the two classes, including teacher effect, may influence the results despite statistical adjustment. The single-school sample limits the generalisability of the findings, and the ten-week window may be too short to capture longer-term effects on attainment or disposition. There is also a risk that the comparison class is affected indirectly, as staff within one school share ideas, which could narrow any measured difference between the groups. These constraints are reported transparently so that the conclusions can be read with appropriate caution, and they also point towards useful directions for larger, multi-school research in future.
The study is designed to be useful to practitioners as well as to the research community. By focusing on a single subject and year group, and by pairing attainment data with teacher and pupil perspectives, it aims to move beyond the general claim that formative assessment helps and towards a more specific account of what a focused programme can achieve in primary mathematics and at what cost in effort. For the participating school, the outcome will be a set of grounded recommendations about which strategies to retain. For the wider field, the study offers a transferable, low-cost model that other primary schools could adapt and that could inform the design of a larger, multi-school trial. In this way the work contributes modestly to the evidence base on sustainable assessment for learning in the primary phase.
Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1998) ‘Assessment and classroom learning’, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), pp. 7–74.
Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1998) Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. London: King’s College London.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B. and Wiliam, D. (2003) Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
British Educational Research Association (2018) Ethical guidelines for educational research. 4th edn. London: BERA.
Clarke, S. (2014) Outstanding formative assessment: Culture and practice. London: Hodder Education.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2018) Research methods in education. 8th edn. Abingdon: Routledge.
Creswell, J.W. and Creswell, J.D. (2018) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 5th edn. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Department for Education (2013) The national curriculum in England: Key stages 1 and 2 framework document. London: Department for Education.
Dweck, C.S. (2017) Mindset: Changing the way you think to fulfil your potential. Updated edn. London: Robinson.
Education Endowment Foundation (2021) Teacher feedback to improve pupil learning: Guidance report. London: Education Endowment Foundation.
Hattie, J. and Timperley, H. (2007) ‘The power of feedback’, Review of Educational Research, 77(1), pp. 81–112.
Sadler, D.R. (1989) ‘Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems’, Instructional Science, 18(2), pp. 119–144.
Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D. and Campbell, D.T. (2002) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Wiliam, D. (2011) Embedded formative assessment. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
You May Also Like
All work is written by human writers. 100% AI free, guaranteed.
100% money back guarantee if you find plagiarism in our work.
COMPANY DETAILS
