


































Global Research in Higher Education 
ISSN 2576-196X (Print) ISSN 2576-1951 (Online) 

Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe 

1 

 

Original Paper 

Enhancing Knowledge Quality through Formative Assessment 

and Teacher Talk 

Eva Zore
1
 & Mojca Mihelič

2
 

1
 English and Slovenian language, M. A., Danila Kumar Elementary School, Ljubljana, Slovenia and 

PhD candidate, Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana 

2
 Maths and Physics and Headmistress, M. S., Danila Kumar Elementary School, Ljubljana, Slovenia 

 

Received: February 21, 2025     Accepted: February 28, 2025      Online Published: March 13, 2025 

doi:10.22158/grhe.v8n2p1                    URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/grhe.v8n2p1 

 

Abstract 

This paper explores the integration of formative assessment with effective teacher communication to 

enhance student learning. It emphasizes the importance of personalized teaching, adapting methods to 

modern students’ needs, and placing students at the center of the educational process. Formative 

assessment is highlighted as a continuous process that informs instruction and provides daily feedback, 

bridging the gap between current knowledge and learning goals. The paper also discusses differentiated 

teaching to address diverse student needs and argues for personalization in education. Effective 

classroom management and diverse teacher communication styles, including direct instruction, 

questioning, feedback, and encouragement, are emphasized as crucial for supporting student learning. 

The study contrasts national and international education programs, advocating for a combined 

approach that leverages both formative and summative assessments. The paper concludes by 

considering the impact of formative assessment on knowledge retention, interdisciplinary integration, 

and the application of knowledge across various domains, ultimately preparing students for future 

academic and real-world challenges. 

Keywords 

Classroom Management, Teacher Talk, Teacher Communication Styles, Flander’s Analysis, Mother 

Tongue Learning, Formative Assessment, Personalized Teaching, Supportive Learning Environment 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

2 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

1. Personalized Teaching and Classroom Management 

Effective learning and teaching extend beyond traditional frontal instruction. Modern children are 

immersed in a technologically advanced world. Despite having excellent access to information, they 

often struggle to efficiently utilize, comprehend, connect, or enhance it. While it is commonly assumed 

that their multitasking abilities are well-developed, their attention spans often appear limited. This should 

be considered when planning lessons and managing the classroom. 

The essence of quality teaching lies in a teacher who understands that the student, not a tool (e.g., a 

computer) or another person (e.g., the teacher), is at the center of the educational process. Effective 

classroom management involves motivating students to be active participants throughout the lesson. 

Lessons must be tailored to the student, not just in terms of individualization or differentiation, but 

enhanced into what education experts call personalization. Formative assessment plays a crucial role in 

this. Formative assessments are ongoing evaluations, observations, summaries, and reviews that inform 

teacher instruction and provide students with daily feedback (Fisher & Frey, 2007). Greenstein (2010) 

asserts that formative assessment emphasizes learning outcomes, makes goals transparent to students, 

provides clear assessment criteria, and especially closes the gap between what students know and what 

they aim to achieve. 

In the context of formative assessment, it is not only the teacher who strives to achieve learning 

objectives. Students themselves must make sense of the content being taught and set personal goals 

within individual units, while the teacher guides this process and provides appropriate support. The 

teacher does not abandon their mentorship role but rather fulfills it by thoughtfully implementing various 

didactic strategies that significantly promote quality learning for all students. Effective classroom 

management and teaching strategies act reciprocally and are most effective when utilized thoughtfully. 

This paper, based on a presentation prepared for an expert meeting on formative assessment in February 

2020, examines formative assessment as a process that includes clear intentions and success criteria, 

efficient student support, meaningful student feedback, student self-assessment, and peer collaboration. 

 

2. Adapting Teaching Methods for Modern Education 

The concept of differentiated teaching has become a staple in modern education. The inclusive nature of 

today’s society is far from monotonous, and in its diversity, each student is treated as a unique individual. 

This means that differences such as familial, social, and economic factors, cultural background, gender, 

interests, etc., challenge the teacher to use didactic strategies that strengthen the student’s skills and 

talents while encouraging progress in their weaker areas through various activities. It is an organizational 

measure that serves the function of individualization as a didactic principle. We talk about internal, 

external, and flexible differentiation of teaching (Strmčnik). While the curriculum sets out program-wide 

objectives at the school subject level, these objectives can be tailored at the institutional and individual 

levels. This is not the case when it comes to standards of knowledge and related grading. Fani Nolimal, in 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

3 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

her paper ―Personalizacija vzgojno-izobraževalnega dela kot odgovor na izzive šolstva‖ (Personalization 

of Educational Work as an Answer to the Educational System’s Challenges), indicates that the teacher 

must suitably modify the learning environment (activities, learning dialogue), teaching content 

(materials, learning questions, teaching method/level of thinking, question types, interaction type, pace, 

presentation, and illustration type), and learning products/results (achievement/result types, deadline, 

evaluation type). 

Specialist literature (Strmčnik) defines individualization of teaching as a didactic principle, which entails 

modifying the pace, teaching methods, and difficulty level of lessons in accordance with the needs of an 

individual student. Therefore, learning objectives and content vary with regard to the student’s ability, 

while at the same time, individualization allows students to progress through learning materials and 

techniques at a different pace according to their needs and abilities. This allows some students to focus on 

certain topics for longer, while others may skip them entirely. Therefore, individualization does not 

solely apply to learning differences on the group level but also on the individual level. The term 

differentiation of teaching may also denote a process characteristic or lesson adjustment, while 

individualization is considered more as a quality characteristic of the learning process. Both are based on 

the assumption that students between groups differ more or less in terms of how receptive they are to 

learning and how complex the content they learn is. There is also a tendency in internal differentiation 

and individualization to maintain naturally heterogeneous classes and sections (Blažič et al., 2003, p. 

216). 

This leads to personalization, which is not only an intersection but a union of the aforementioned 

mindsets. The latter ties to teaching, which is based on students’ needs and is tailored to their learning 

selection and specific interests. As a concept, personalization originates from a space that brings learning 

to the forefront, while lessons and teaching are understood as a ―service‖ to learning; the student is 

responsible for their own learning, while the teacher more or less assists them. Of course, this means that 

learning objectives, content, methods, and pace may differ in a fully personalized environment. The 

essence of a personalized lesson is to tailor the educational system (lessons) to the student and not vice 

versa. 

Pevec claims that personalization includes common objectives to ensure high quality of lessons: it allows 

for raising standards in a manner where teaching and learning are focused on the abilities and interests of 

students as well as on removing the obstacles to learning. As previously mentioned, the student is placed 

at the center of learning; this is done by including them in the planning of learning (they must be aware of 

the reasons for learning), encouraging their personal development (planning of education 

goals–self-realization, self-actualization, etc.), strengthening their development of learning abilities, 

connecting their creativity and social skills, as well as by linking the learning method with the needs of 

each individual student. This approach helps students build problem-solving skills, integrate knowledge 

with real-world issues, and, most importantly, boost their confidence and enthusiasm for learning. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

4 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

3. Effective Formative Assessment and Teacher Talk 

Effective formative assessment of a student, their learning process, and the acquisition of knowledge 

involves several key components: 

1) Determining Prior Knowledge and Clarifying Learning Intentions: This includes planning 

personal learning objectives in relation to common objectives. 

2) Planning Didactic and Learning Strategies: These strategies are essential for the successful 

and efficient achievement of learning objectives. 

3) Collecting Evidence: Gathering evidence about achieving learning objectives is crucial. 

4) (Self)Evaluation: This involves evaluating learning performance, the quality of students’ 

knowledge, and consequently, the performance of the teacher’s teaching. 

Literature describes formative assessment as the ―bridge between teaching and learning‖ and highlights 

five key strategies: 

1) Clarifying, participating in defining, and understanding learning intentions and success 

criteria. 

2) Engineering effective classroom activities that elicit evidence of learning. 

3) Providing feedback to students. 

4) Activating students as learning resources for one another. 

5) Activating students as owners of their own learning. 

The discrepancy between summative grading and formative assessment is significant. While related, they 

do not bear the same meaning. Formative evaluation assesses the entire learning process, at the end of 

which the student may be graded. Summative grading is part of the process; however, it is documented, 

and the potential final grade is the result of ongoing work. The student receives ongoing preparation and 

effective feedback on their knowledge acquisition progress. Simply put, a student cannot expect to 

achieve the highest grade if they did not meet objectives during the process, as set with the teacher or 

clarified by the teacher. 

According to formative assessment expert Dylan Wiliam (2018), five core strategies are essential for 

successful formative assessment practice in the classroom: 

1) Clarifying, sharing, and understanding learning intentions and criteria for success. 

2) Engineering effective classroom discussions, activities, and learning tasks that elicit 

evidence of learning. 

3) Providing feedback that moves learning forward. 

4) Activating learners as instructional resources for one another. 

5) Activating learners as owners of their own learning. 

The student’s self-initiative or drive is also expressed in the formative assessment process. This drive is 

their ability to plan their progress in the learning process. The teacher’s role is to sensibly lead and guide 

the student. A common mistake is the lack of trust in children’s ideas, which limits their creativity, a 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

5 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

crucial part of the learning process. Formative assessment cannot replace grading, as it is a process, while 

grading is a final, summative state. Demonstration of knowledge is the final point in a narrow time frame, 

where the teacher leads the student to knowledge, directs them through information, and guides them on 

its application. Both teacher and student need to assess knowledge, determine progress, and check if 

learning objectives are clear on an ongoing basis. 

Evaluation of knowledge, which also plays a selective role, is called normative evaluation by some 

experts (Brodnik, 2017). This evaluation focuses on the extent to which the student correctly memorizes 

learning content. Lower levels of knowledge are often evaluated, emphasizing content knowledge over 

process knowledge. The concept of formative evaluation is based on monitoring knowledge acquisition 

by students, aiming to improve learning and knowledge. Higher cognitive levels of knowledge require 

learning through understanding, which strengthens the permanence of acquired knowledge. 

Formative assessment is in the hands of the teacher, who must be aware of its advantages. It is important 

that the pedagogical head provides autonomy to the teacher regarding formative assessment, cautions and 

guides them through the process, and provides objective criticism. The headmaster/headmistress can lead 

the teacher by asking questions such as: Are the learning intentions and success criteria clear? When is it 

important for the teacher to be heard during a lesson? What are the learning foundations and lesson 

objectives for the teacher? Is the teacher capable of leading the child using efficient questions, or are they 

condescending? Is the teacher guiding the student actively? Is the teacher looking for an answer, or is the 

student only listening and repeating? 

Teacher Talk plays a crucial role in this dynamic, involving the teacher’s ability to communicate 

effectively, provide clear instructions, and engage students in meaningful dialogue. By focusing on 

Teacher Talk, educators can ensure that their interactions with students are purposeful and supportive, 

ultimately enhancing the learning experience. 

 

4. A Process of Communication in Classroom 

There is a constant interaction between teachers and students in the classroom, as the learning process is 

primarily a process of communication (Han & Tosten, 2016). The field of classroom communication has 

already been studied in the past. In Slovenia, classroom communication was studied by O. Kunst 

Gnamuš (1992), who states that ―classroom communication explores the forms of verbal activity in 

teaching, their cognitive structure and social assumptions, and based on this, infers educational effects‖ 

(Kunst Gnamuš, 1992, p. 7); Brajša (1993), who divides communication into intentional or unintentional, 

conscious or unconscious, planned or unplanned; B. Marentič Požarnik (2000); and M. Ule (2005), who 

states that communication encompasses processes between people and within the individual. Foreign 

authors describe it similarly, for example, J. Wood (2004), who defines communication as a systemic 

process in which actors influence each other by transmitting symbols. 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

6 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

To ensure communication is as effective as possible, it is important to focus on the teacher’s speech in the 

classroom. This speech must be based on the conversion of expert content into a pedagogical 

communication relationship, which consists of social and cognitive functions. In other words, the 

teacher’s speech in the classroom is twofold, consisting of relational and cognitive speech (Kunst 

Gnamuš, 1989; Ule, 2005). Relational speech is used by the teacher to establish contact with students, 

form and maintain mutual relationships, and create conditions for guiding and directing the student’s 

process (Vogel, 2008; Vogel, 2009). It synchronizes the flow of consciousness, achieves the exchange of 

ideas, agreement on their reality, correctness, or acceptability, and induces the desired student activity 

(teaching as guided conversation). At the same time, it connects the participants in the conversation, their 

sensory, cognitive, and verbal activities, creating closeness or distance, equal or unequal relationships, 

competitiveness or collaboration (Kunst Gnamuš, 1992). Cognitive speech, on the other hand, is the 

speech of the profession or science, through which students acquire new knowledge (Vogel, 2008). It 

includes justifying, proving, explaining, and discussing, and is characterized by the use of metalanguage. 

It refers to that part of pedagogical speech that relates to the subject matter (Kunst Gnamuš, 1992). 

Inappropriate teacher speech can create barriers in the student’s perception and understanding of the 

content. Martin (2021) also emphasizes the importance of teacher communication in the classroom. 

Misalignment can have several consequences, including the creation of a communication wall between 

teachers and students, alienation, and poorer academic performance in the classroom. In the 1970s, 

experts began intensively researching verbal communication in the classroom. Based on these studies, 

several instruments were developed to observe it (Reciprocal Category System, 1968; Equivalent Talk 

Categories, 1970; Verbal Interaction Category System, and Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories 

System (FIAS), 1970; Student/Teacher Interaction Classroom Observation, 2016). FIAS is one of the 

most well-known observation instruments for classroom interaction. Flanders (1970) classified 

classroom interaction into 10 categories. Using his instrument, the teacher’s speech (referred to as 

―teacher talk‖) is observed in seven defined categories (four of these define indirect teacher speech, such 

as praise and questioning, while the other three define direct teacher speech, such as lecturing and giving 

instructions); student speech (referred to as ―pupil talk‖) is observed in two defined categories (e.g., 

student responses to teacher questions), and silence (or confusion) is defined in the tenth category. The 

focus of the research will be on teacher speech, which can be divided into direct and indirect speech. 

 

5. Integrating Formative Assessment with Effective Teacher Communication 

The approach used in the International Baccalaureate (IB) program cannot be directly applied to the 

national elementary school education program, as formative assessment and evaluation are integral to the 

IB system, where the final grade is derived from various partial grades. According to the first paragraph 

of Article 3 of the Rules on Knowledge Assessment and Grading and Students’ Progress to a Higher 

Class Standing in Elementary Schools (2013), the national elementary school education program does 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

7 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

not allow teachers to grade knowledge assessments in a way that directly impacts the final grade. Such 

assessments are only meant to gather information on how the student is meeting the objectives or 

standards set in the curriculum. Knowledge assessment is therefore mandated, but grading it is prohibited. 

Through these assessments, we can determine that the student has made good progress, but we cannot 

consider this when assigning their final grade. The final grade is merely a snapshot in time and excludes 

partial evaluations, which provide practical and useful feedback to the child and their parents. 

We should consider whether formative assessment and summative grading are opposing concepts or 

complementary mindsets. The current situation in the national education program differs from that in the 

international education program. Formative assessment is the supportive path that helps the student reach 

their goal, while the grade is the summit (summative). The main issue with the national education 

program is that the Rules do not allow formative assessment of the student’s progress to be considered, 

preventing the teacher from providing additional motivation during the learning process. This seems to 

contradict the goals of elementary education. The problem with such grading is that it only captures a 

moment in time and does not reflect actual knowledge. Thus, the student receives the incorrect message 

that only the result matters for a good grade, not the learning journey. This devalues knowledge. The 

student learns that only the knowledge demonstrated at a specific moment (the day of an oral or written 

exam) counts, not their overall progress. 

For example, a student’s knowledge was assessed as good (grade 3 or UK grade equivalent C) on a 

written assessment at the end of the year, but this cannot be considered in the final grade. One week later, 

just before the end of the school year, the same student’s knowledge was graded insufficient (grade 1 or 

UK grade equivalent F) on an oral exam. The lack of time prevents the teacher from reassessing the 

student, so a negative grade from the oral exam may lead to a lower final grade, even though the teacher 

knows the student had an off day. Is it appropriate for the teacher to break the rules (and help the student 

avoid a remedial exam) by considering the positive grade from the written assessment, knowing it 

reflects the student’s true knowledge? 

The ideal solution would be to combine partial grades (formative assessment) from the international 

education program with the snapshot grading (summative) from the national education program. Teacher 

communication styles are crucial in this process, as they influence how effectively teachers can convey 

expectations, provide feedback, and support students in their learning journey. 

The quality of the relationship between teachers and students is an important factor in students’ cognitive 

and non-cognitive processes and influences their outcomes (Cornelius White, 2007). Education and 

upbringing are closely connected and depend on the quality of interpersonal relationships between 

teachers and students (Bratanić, 1991). Interpersonal communication between the teacher and the student 

is a fundamental condition for establishing these relationships and for effective learning and teaching 

(Wubbels et al., 1993). In the field of education, the relationship is a process that is established between 

the teacher and the individual student or the entire class (Bratanić, 1991). It is an interpersonal 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

8 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

relationship in which the student and teacher give and receive knowledge, experience, willingness to 

work, and cooperate. Positive mutual relationships in the classroom also have a positive impact on the 

teacher’s relationship with students, classroom behavior, and the overall atmosphere (Schutz & Lee, 

2014; Spilt, 2011). The teacher-student relationship is one of the most important factors in teaching as it 

directly affects the climate and work in the classroom (Doyle, 1986). Classroom climate is expressed 

through mutual relationships, while mutual relationships also reflect the classroom climate (Marn, 2006; 

Pšunder, 1998). Studies examining teachers’ and students’ perceptions of classroom climate have proven 

that a positive climate has a positive effect on students’ cognitive perceptions (Wubbels & Brekelmans, 

1998; Wubbels et al., 2006). Research has shown that students’ perception of the teacher-student 

relationship is strongly related to their academic success (den Brok et al., 2004; Wubbels et al., 2006; 

Brekelmans et al., 2005) and that a healthy mutual relationship in the classroom is a crucial prerequisite 

for students’ involvement in learning activities (Brekelmans et al., 2000). C. Razdevšek-Pučko (1990) in 

the conclusions of her doctoral dissertation also notes that students’ ability to actively participate in the 

classroom positively affects their relationship with school and academic performance. Improving the 

quality of teacher-student relationships is associated with a reduction in behavioral problems in primary 

schools (Maldonado-Carreño & Votruba-Drzal, 2011). 

The teacher uses various levers and instruments in leadership to shape a comprehensive, distinctive 

leadership style (Kovač et al., 2004). The author defines leadership as a process in which the teacher, 

based on their unique abilities, personality traits, and knowledge, influences people through 

characteristic behavior in order to mutually achieve agreed-upon goals (Kovač et al., 2004). Strock (2006, 

in Peklaj & Pečjak, 2015) defines classroom leadership as the teacher’s use of various strategies to ensure 

an effective and positive learning environment for students, free from behavioral problems. However, 

authors define leadership styles in different ways. Flanders (1972) distinguishes between a directive and 

an indirect leadership style (based on the teacher’s direct and indirect speech). A teacher with a directive 

leadership style offers criticism, comments, and gives instructions, thereby directing students’ activities. 

An indirect leadership style is demonstrated by a teacher who accepts students’ emotions, considers 

suggestions, and provides positive feedback. The division into authoritarian, democratic, and anarchic 

leadership styles emerged from Lewin et al.’s (1939) research. M. Pšunder (1998) cites the authoritative 

or directive style and the democratic or participatory style, while D. Baumrind (1991) adds the 

permissive style to the authoritarian and authoritative styles.  

Examples of Teacher Communication Styles: 

1) Direct Instruction: Clearly articulate concepts and expectations to students, ensuring they 

grasp the objectives and success criteria. 

2) Questioning: Employ open-ended questions to stimulate critical thinking and encourage 

active student participation. 

3) Feedback: Provide constructive feedback to help students recognize their strengths and 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

9 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

identify areas for improvement. 

4) Encouragement: Motivate students by acknowledging their efforts and progress, fostering 

a supportive learning environment. 

5) Active Listening: Show genuine interest in students’ ideas and concerns, making them feel 

valued and understood. 

6) Scaffolding: Offer support and guidance as students tackle challenging tasks, gradually 

reducing assistance as they become more proficient. 

7) Collaborative Dialogue: Engage students in discussions that promote peer learning and 

collective problem-solving. 

8) Non-Verbal Communication: Use body language, facial expressions, and gestures to 

reinforce messages and maintain student engagement. 

Tyler (1993) connects four leadership goals (directive, supportive, instructional, and delegative) within a 

situational theory, stating that different leadership styles can be applied in various groups and situations. 

Wubbels’ theory of classroom leadership styles is also important. Wubbels et al. (1993) developed a 

model that describes the communication between teachers and students based on communication styles. 

M. Skarbø and K. Skovholt (2019) assert that every teacher demonstrates a unique communication style 

during classroom interaction. Research results related to teachers’ communication styles have shown that 

communication styles affect relationships in the classroom, the quality of teaching, and effective 

classroom leadership (Brekelmans et al., 2005). Based on this model, Brekelmans et al. (1993) defined 

eight communication styles (directive, authoritative, tolerant and authoritative, tolerant, uncertain and 

tolerant, uncertain and aggressive, repressive, difficult). 

By employing these diverse communication styles, teachers can create a more dynamic and supportive 

learning environment. 

5.1 Empowering Learning with Teacher Talk 

A crucial aspect of a child’s quality learning experience is receiving feedback, which includes all 

information given to the student about their work with the aim of enhancing their learning and knowledge. 

Feedback should always be provided using the ―sandwich‖ method; it should not include judgments, but 

concrete positive observations, concrete negative observations, negative impact, wishes and 

recommendations, and positive changes. It must be described to the student what specifically they did, 

what they should change, and what positive changes will happen if they follow the suggestions (Brodnik, 

2017). A child can also receive feedback from a peer, known as ―critical friendship,‖ which provides 

insight into the quality of their learning and knowledge. It is not always suitable for the teacher to be 

dominant when providing feedback. This is important not only for building knowledge but also for 

developing social skills, peer cooperation, and evaluation. Evaluation gives the student insight into the 

level at which they are achieving learning objectives and enables them to plan further improvements to 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

10 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

their learning, while it also allows the teacher to reflect on effective and useful support they provide to 

students on the path to quality learning. 

Teacher Talk plays a significant role in this process, as it involves the teacher’s ability to communicate 

effectively, provide clear instructions, and engage students in meaningful dialogue. By focusing on 

Teacher Talk and feedback, educators can ensure that their interactions with students are purposeful and 

supportive, ultimately enhancing the learning experience. 

5.2 Laying the Groundwork: How Formative Assessment Builds Student Success 

Formative assessment is like laying the foundation for a house. Just as a strong foundation is crucial for 

the stability and longevity of a house, formative assessment is essential for the solid development of a 

student’s learning journey. Here’s how they compare: 

1) Planning and Preparation: 

o House Foundation: Before construction begins, detailed plans are drawn up, and the ground is 

prepared. This involves surveying the land, clearing debris, and ensuring the soil is stable. 

o Formative Assessment: Similarly, formative assessment starts with understanding the 

student’s prior knowledge and learning needs. Teachers plan lessons that build on this 

foundation, setting clear learning objectives. 

2) Continuous Monitoring: 

o House Foundation: During the construction of the foundation, builders continuously check the 

alignment, depth, and materials used to ensure everything is up to standard. 

o Formative Assessment: In the classroom, teachers continuously monitor students’ progress 

through various assessments, observations, and feedback. This helps identify areas where 

students may need additional support or adjustments in instruction. 

3) Adjustments and Corrections: 

o House Foundation: If any issues are detected during the foundation work, immediate 

corrections are made to prevent future problems. This might involve reinforcing certain areas or 

adjusting the layout. 

o Formative Assessment: When teachers notice gaps in understanding or skills, they provide 

timely and specific feedback to help students improve. This might involve reteaching concepts, 

offering additional practice, or using different instructional strategies. 

4) Building on a Strong Base: 

o House Foundation: A well-laid foundation supports the entire structure of the house, ensuring 

it can withstand various stresses and remain stable over time. 

o Formative Assessment: A strong formative assessment process supports students’ ongoing 

learning, helping them build a solid understanding of concepts and skills. This foundation 

enables them to tackle more complex tasks and achieve long-term academic success. 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

11 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

5) Feedback and Reflection: 

o House Foundation: Builders reflect on the foundation work to ensure it meets all standards and 

will support the house effectively. 

o Formative Assessment: Teachers and students reflect on the learning process, using feedback 

to guide future learning and teaching. This reflection helps both parties understand what works 

well and what needs improvement. 

In both cases, the goal is to create a strong, reliable base that supports future growth and development. 

Just as a house cannot stand without a solid foundation, students’ learning cannot thrive without ongoing, 

formative assessment to guide and support their progress. 

 

6. Resolution 

In devising strategies to achieve learning objectives or meet knowledge standards, both the student and 

the teacher must consider the learning goal and the path the student will take to reach it. This journey is 

influenced by the student’s prior knowledge, motivation, current progress towards the learning objective, 

and the methods employed to achieve this goal. The teacher acts as a mentor, guiding the learning 

process. 

Formative assessment clearly enhances both the student’s learning strategies and the teacher’s 

instructional methods. It improves the quality of knowledge, increases student engagement in the 

learning process, and encourages students to take responsibility for their own learning. Effective 

classroom management is also crucial, as it creates an environment where formative assessment can 

thrive. 

It is essential to consider how formative assessment impacts the retention of knowledge, interdisciplinary 

integration, and the application of knowledge across various domains. By fostering a supportive and 

dynamic learning environment, formative assessment not only helps students achieve their goals but also 

prepares them for future academic and real-world challenges. 

 

References 

Aasheim, M., Fossum, S., Reedtz, C., Handegård, B. H., & Martinussen, M. (2020). Examining the 

Incredible Years Teacher Classroom Management Program in a Regular Norwegian School 

Setting: Teacher-Reported Behavior Management Practice, Problem Behavior in Classroom and 

School Environment, Teacher Self- and Collective Efficacy, and Classroom Climate. SAGE Open, 

10(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020927422 

Andersson, K., Sandgren, O., Rosqvist, I., Lyberg Åhlander, V., Hansson, K., & Sahlén, B. (2022). 

Enhancing teachers’ classroom communication skills—Measuring the effect of a continued 

professional development programme for mainstream school teachers. Child Language Teaching 

and Therapy, 38(2), 166-179. https://doi.org/10.1177/02656590211070997 

https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020927422
https://doi.org/10.1177/02656590211070997


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

12 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Arsenijević, J., Andevski, M., & Jockov, M. (2017). Role of Communication in Classroom 

Management. The Anthropologist, 28(1-2), 69-78. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/09720073.2017.1316613 

Bantwini, B. D. (2015). Do Teachers’ Learning Styles Influence Their Classroom Practices? A Case of 

Primary School Natural Science Teachers from South Africa. International Journal of 

Educational Sciences, 11(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/09751122.2015.11890369 

Baumrind, D. (1991). Parenting styles and adolescent development. V J. Brooks-Gunn, R. M. Lerner in 

A. C. Petersen (ur.), The encyclopedia on adolescence (str. 746-758). Garland Publishing. 

Blažič, M., Ivanuš-Grmek, M., Kramar, M., Strmčnik, F., & Tancer, M. (2003). Didaktika: visokošolski 

učbenik. [Didactics] Visokošolsko središče, Inštitut za raziskovalno in razvojno delo. 

Brajša, P. (1993). Pedagoška komunikologija. Glotta Nova.  

Bratanič, M. (1991). Mikro-pedagogija (interakcijsko-komunikacijski aspekt odgoja). Šolska knjiga. 

Brekelmans, M., Levy, J., & Rodriguez, R. (1993). A typology of teacher communication style. In V T. 

Wubbels, & J. Levy (ur.), Do you know what you look like? Interpersonal relationship in education 

(str. 46-63). The Falmer Press. 

Brekelmans, M., Sleegers, P., &  Fraser, B. (2000). Teaching for Active Learning. In V P. R. J. 

Simons, J. L. van der Linden, & T. Duffy (ur.), New Learning (str. 227-242). Kluwer. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47614-2_12 

Brekelmans, M., Wubbels, T., & van Tartwijk, J. (2005). Teacher-student relationship across the 

teaching career. International Journal of Educational Research, 43(1-2), 55-71. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2006.03.006 

Brodnik, V. (2017). Formativno spremljanje in vrednotenje znanja in učenja zgodovine. Zgodovina v 

šoli [Historz in school], XXV, št. 1, str. 17-29. https://doi.org/10.59132/zvs/2017/1/17-29 

Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2000). A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived 

self-efficacyin classroom management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(2), 239-253. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(99)00057-8 

Cornelius White, J. (2007). Learner centred teacher-student relationships are effective: a meta-analysis. 

Rewiev of educatonal research, 77(1), 113-143. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298563 

Daher, W. (2022). Teachers’ classroom management for motivating students’ creativity. Middle School 

Journal, 53(4), 28-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2022.2096818 

den Brok, P., Brekelmans, M., & Wubbels, T. (2004). Interpersonal teacher behaviour and Student 

Outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15(3-4), 407-442. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450512331383262 

Devjak, T., Gaber, S., Berčnik, S., & Tašner, V. (ur.). (2020). Vsak otrok si zasluži najboljšega učitelja. 

1. natis. Pedagoška fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani. 

 

https://doi.org/10.1080/09720073.2017.1316613
https://doi.org/10.1080/09751122.2015.11890369
https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47614-2_12
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2006.03.006
https://doi.org/10.59132/zvs/2017/1/17-29
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(99)00057-8
https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298563
https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2022.2096818
https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450512331383262


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

13 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Dhillon, N., & Kaur, G. (2021). Self-Assessment of Teachers’ Communication Style and Its Impact on 

Their Communication Effectiveness: A Study of Indian Higher Educational Institutions. SAGE 

Open, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211023173 

Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom Organization and Management. In V M. C. Witttrock (ur.), Handbook of 

research on teaching (3rd ed.) (str. 392-431). Macmillan. 

Evertson, C. M., & Weinstein, C. S. (2006). Classroom management as a field of inquiry. In V. C. M. 

Evertson, & C. S. Weinstein (ur.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and 

contemporary issues (pp. 3-15). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2007). Checking for Understanding: Formative Assessment Techniques for Your 

Classroom. Alexandria: Virginia, ASCD. Print. 

Flanders, N. (1989). Analysing Teacher Behaviour. Asidon-Wesley Educational Publishers Inc.  

Gantar, B., & Vogrinc, J. (2008). Kvalitativno raziskovanje na pedagoškem področju. Pedagoška 

fakulteta.  

Greenstein, L. (2010). What Teachers Really Need to Know about Formative Assessment (pp. 5-20). 

Alexandria,Virginia: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development. 

Han, B., & Tosten, R. (2016). In-class teacher-student communication according to high school 

students’ perceptions. New Trends and Issues. Proceedings on Humanities and Social Sciences, 

11, 190-198. https://doi.org/10.18844/prosoc.v2i11.1921 

Heikonen, L., Toom, A., Pyhältö, K., & Pietarinen, J. (2017). Student-teachers’ strategies in classroom 

interaction in the context of the teaching practicum. Journal of Education for Teaching, 43(5), 

534-549. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2017.1355080 

Holcar, B. A., Bizjak, C., Borstner, M., Cotič P. J., Eržen, V., & Kerin, M. (2017). Formativno 

spremljanje v podporo vsakemu učencu [Formative assessment as students’ support], 2. zvezek 

(Vključujoča šola). Ljubljana: ZRSŠ. 

Kneževič, A. N. (2001). Oljka o sporazumevanju in obnašanju. Tudi tako govorimo. Didakta. 

Konzorcij projekta Included. (2010). Analiza dobrih praks v evropskih šolskih sistemih. Andragoški 

center Republike Slovenije. Elektronska publikacija: 

http://arhiv.acs.si/publikacije/Analiza_dobrih_praks_v_evropskih_solskih_sistemih.pdf 

Kovač, J., Mayer, J., & Jesenko, M. (2004). Stili in značilnosti uspešnega vodenja. Moderna 

organizacija. 

Kovač, T., Resman, M., & Rajkovič, V. (2008). Kriteriji ocenjevanja kakovosti šol na podlagi 

ekspertnega modela. Moč participacije učencev. Sodobna pedagogika, 59(2), 180-201. 

Kunst Gnamuš, O. (1989). Jezikovna komunikacija v razredu. Sodobna pedagogika, 40(5-6), 257-269. 

Kunst Gnamuš, O. (1992). Sporazumevanje in spoznavanje jezika. DZS.  

Kwok, A. (2021). Managing classroom management preparation in teacher education. Teachers and 

Teaching, 27(1-4), 206-222. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2021.1933933 

https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211023173
https://doi.org/10.18844/prosoc.v2i11.1921
https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2017.1355080
https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2021.1933933


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

14 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Kwok, A. (2023). Facilitating Classroom Management Development in Teacher Education. The 

Educational Forum, 87(1), 105-121. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2022.2048758 

Lesar, I., Čuk, I., & Peček, M. (2005). Mnenja osnovnošolskih učiteljev o njihovi odgovornosti za učni 

uspeh. Sodobna pedagogika, 56(1), 90-107. 

Mahmoodi, F. (2016). The Effect of Teacher Talk Style on Student Achievement. International 

Journal of Education and Psychological Researches, 2(4), 205-2012. 

https://doi.org/10.4103/2395-2296.189668 

Maldonado-Carreño, C., & Votruba-Drzal, E. (2011). Teacher-Child Relationships and the evelopment 

of Academic and Behavioral Skills During Elementary School: A Within- and etween-Child 

Analysis. Child Development, 82(2), 601-616. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01533.x 

Marentič Požarnik, B. (2000). Psihologija učenja in pouka. DZS. 

Marentič Požarnik, B., & Plut Pregelj, L. (2009). Moč učnega pogovora: poti do znanja z 

razumevanjem. DZS. 

Marn, U. (2006). Konstruktivizem v šoli kot podlaga učenja nenasilnih vzorcev vedenja. Socialna 

pedagogika, 10(3), 365-386. 

Mihelič, M. (2020). Naj formativno spremljanje v osnovni šoli zavzame mesto ocenjevanja znanja? 

Posvet Naj formativno spremljanje v osnovni šoli zavzame mesto ocenjevanja? (12. 2. 2020), 

Formativno spremljanje in vrednotenje (PowerPoint). 

Miller, P. W. (2000). Nonverbal communication in the classroom. Miller and Associates. 

Nasmilah, N. (2023). Teachers’ Talk and Students’ Attitude in Learning English at Secondary Schools 

in Indonesia: A Correlational Analysis. Education Research International, 23, 11. 

https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/8959615 

Nolimal, F. (2020). Personalizacija vzgojno-izobraževalnega dela kot odgovor na izzive šolstva 

[Personalisation of educational work as a response to challenges in schooling]. Ljubljana: Zavod 

za šolstvo Republike Slovenije. Availible on 

https://www.zrss.si/naravoslovje2015/files/petek-sekcijsko/Personalizacija-vzgojno-izobrazevalne

ga-dela-kot-odgovor-na-izzive.pdf. (Acquired 30. 8. 2020). 

Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology: A textbook for teachers. Prentice Hall 

International. 

Peklaj, C. (2006). Teorija in praksa v izobraževanju učiteljev. Center za pedagoško izobraževanje 

Filozofske fakultete. 

Peklaj, C., & Pečjak, S. (2015). Psihosocialni odnosi v šoli. Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete. 

Pevec, S. K. (2009). Na poti med individualizacijo, diferenciacijo in personalizacijo pouka. [Path 

between individualization, differentiation and personalization in educational process]. Ljubljana: 

Zavod za šolstvo Republike Slovenije. Availible on 

https://www.slideserve.com/hao/na-poti-med-individualizacijo-diferenciacijo-in-personifikacijo-p

https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2022.2048758
https://doi.org/10.4103/2395-2296.189668
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01533.x
https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/8959615


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

15 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

ouka. (Acquired 30. 8. 2020). 

Pianta, R., Hamre, B., & Allen, J. (2012). Teacher-student relationships and engagement: 

Conceptualizing, measuring and improving the capacity of classroom interaction. In V. S. L. 

Christenston, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (ur.), Handbook of student engagement (str. 365-386). 

Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_17 

Podjetnost-samoiniciativna in kreativna mladina. (2017). Availible on 

https://www.schooleducationgateway.eu/sl/pub/resources/tutorials/entrepreneurship-empowering-

y.htm (pridobljeno 5. 5. 2020). 

Pravilnik o preverjanju in ocenjevanju znanja ter napredovanju učencev v osnovni šoli [ Rules on 

checking and assessing knowledge and progress of students in primary school ]. (2013). Uradni 

list RS, št. 52/13. 

Pravno-informacijski system. Pravilnik o izobrazbi učiteljev in drugih strokovnih delavcev v 

izobraževalnem programu osnovne šole. (Uradni list RS, št. 85/22). Ministrstvo za vzgojo in 

izobraževanje. 

Pšunder, M. (1998). Kaj bi učitelji in starši še lahko vedeli? Zavod Republike Slovenije za šolstvo. 

Razdevšek-Pučko, C. (1990). Vpliv učiteljevih vzgojno-izobraževalnih stališč na njegovo pedagoško 

delo ter možnost njihovega spreminjanja. Doktorska disertacija. Pedagoška fakulteta, Univerza v 

Ljubljani. http://www.dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-52F8YCLV. 

Schutz, P. A., & Lee, M. (2014). Teacher emotion, emotional labor and teacher identity. In V. J. 

Martínez Agudo (ur.), English as a foreign language teacher education: Current perspectives and 

challenges (str. 169-186). Rodopi. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401210485_011 

Shofiyatul, H., & Agustiani, M. (2018). An Analysis of English Teacher and Learner Talk in the 

Classroom Interaction. Linguistic, English Education and Art (LEEA) Journal, 2(1), 60-72. 

https://doi.org/10.31539/leea.v2i1.385 

Skarbø Solem, M., & Skovholt, K. (2019). Teacher Formulations in Classroom Interactions. 

Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 63(1), 69-88. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2017.1324904 

Skubic, D. (2004). Pedagoški govor v vrtcu in v prvem razredu devetletne osnovne šole. Univerza v 

Ljubljani, Pedagoška fakulteta. 

Skupni evropski jezikovni okvir: učenje, poučevanje, ocenjevanje (SEJO). (2011). Ministrstvo RS za 

šolstvo in šport, Urad za razvoj šolstva. 

Spilt, J., Koomen, H., & Thijs, J. (2011). Teacher Wellbeing: The Importance of Teacher-Student 

Relationships. Educational Psychology Review, 23(4), 457-477. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9170-y 

Strmčnik, F. (1993). Učna diferenciacija in individualizacija v naši osnovni šoli [Diferentiation and 

individualization in primary schools]. Ljubljana: Zavod Republike Slovenije za šolstvo in šport. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_17
http://www.uradni-list.si/1/objava.jsp?sop=2022-01-1985
https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401210485_011
https://doi.org/10.31539/leea.v2i1.385
https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2017.1324904
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9170-y


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

16 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Ule, M. (2005). Psihologija komuniciranja. Fakulteta za družbene vede. 

Van Lier, L. (2001). Constraints and resources in classroom talk: Issues of equality and symmetry. In V. 

C. Candlin, & N. Mercer (ur.), English language teaching in its social context: A reader (str. 

90-107). Routledge. 

van Tartwijk, J., Brekelmans, M., Wubbels, T., Fisher, D. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1998). Students’ 

perceptions of teacher interpersonal style: The front of the classroom as the teacher’s stage. 

Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(6), 607-617. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(98)00011-0 

Vec, T. (2002). Dejavniki učinkovite komunikacije in komunikacijski zakoni. Socialna pedagogika, 6(1), 

68-80. 

Vogel, J. (2008). Slovenščina kot učni predmet in učni jezik v šolah s slovenskim učnim jezikom v RS. In 

V. M. Ivšek (ur.), Jeziki v izobraževanju. Zbornik prispevkov konference (str. 117-128). Zavod RS 

za šolstvo. 

Vogel, J. (2009). Slovenščina v šoli—Le poseben učni predmet ali sestavni del vsakega predmeta? 

Vzgoja in izobraževanje, 40(2), 15-21. 

Walsh, S. (2002). Construction or Obstruction: Teacher Talk and learner involvement in the EFL 

classroom. Language Teaching Research, 6(1), 3-23. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168802lr095oa 

Wiliam, D. (2018). Embedded Formative Assessment (2nd ed.). Bloomington, Indiana: Solution Tree 

Press. 

Wilkinson, S., Freeman, J., Simonsen, B. Sears, S., Byun G., S., Xu, X., & Luh, H. (2020). Professional 

development for classroom management: A review of the literature. Educational Research and 

Evaluation, 26(3-4), 182-212. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2021.1934034 

Wood, J. T. (2004). Communication Theory in Action. An introduction. Thomson Wadsworth. 

Wubbels, T., & Korthagen, F. A. J. (1990). The effects of a preservice teacher education program for 

the preparation of reflective teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching, 16, 29-43. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/0260747900160102 

Wubbels, T., & Levy, J. (1993). Do you know what you look like: Interpersonal relationships in 

education. Falmer Press.  

Wubbels, T., Brekelmans, M., & Hooymayers, H. (1991). Interpersonal teacherbehavior in the 

classroom. In V. B. J. Fraser, & H. J. Walberg (ur.), Educational environments: Evaluation, 

antecedents and consequences (str. 141-160). Pergamon Press.  

Wubbels, T., Brekelmans, M., den Brok, P., & van Tartwijk, J. (2006). An Interpersonal Perspective on 

Classroom Management in Secondary Classrooms in the Netherlands. In V. C. M. Evertson, & C. 

S. Weinstein (ur.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary 

issues (str. 1161-1191). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. 

Zabukovec, V., & Boben, D. (2000). Učitelji in stili vodenja. Center za psihodiagnostična sredstva. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(98)00011-0
https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168802lr095oa
https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2021.1934034
https://doi.org/10.1080/0260747900160102


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

17 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Zadravec Pešec, R. (1994). Pragmatično jezikoslovje, temeljni pojmi. Pedagoški inštitut, Center za 

diskurzivne študije. 

 

 


