Post on 21-Apr-2023
REGULAR ARTICLE
Modeling the Relationship Between Perceptions of AssessmentTasks and Classroom Assessment Environment as a Functionof Gender
Hussain Alkharusi • Said Aldhafri •
Hilal Alnabhani • Muna Alkalbani
� De La Salle University 2013
Abstract A substantial proportion of the classroom time
involves exposing students to a variety of assessment tasks.
As students process these tasks, they develop beliefs about
the importance, utility, value, and difficulty of the tasks.
This study aimed at deriving a model describing the mul-
tivariate relationship between students’ perceptions of the
assessment tasks and classroom assessment environment as
a function of gender. Using a clustering sampling proce-
dure, participants were 411 students selected from the
second cycle of the basic education grades at Muscat public
schools in Oman. As defined by McMillan (Educa-
tional research: Fundamentals of the consumer, 2012,
pp. 176–177), the research design employed in this study
was descriptive in nature that includes correlational and
comparative aspects. Results revealed statistically signifi-
cant gender differences with respect to the perceptions of
the assessment tasks and classroom assessment environ-
ment favoring female students. Also, results showed that
for both males and females, a learning-oriented assessment
environment tended to be associated with high degrees of
congruence with instruction, authenticity, student consul-
tation, and diversity. However, the relationship between
performance-oriented assessment environment and per-
ceptions of the assessment tasks differed in male and
female classrooms. Implications for instruction and
assessment as well as recommendations for future research
were discussed.
Keywords Assessment tasks � Assessment environment �Classroom assessment � Students’ perceptions �Educational assessment
Introduction
The Conceptual Framework of the Study
Of increasing interest to educational assessment research-
ers is the role of classroom assessment environment in
motivating students to learn (Brookhart 1997). The present
study aimed at describing the relationship between stu-
dents’ perceptions of the assessment tasks and classroom
assessment environment. Theoretically, the conceptual
foundation of the study is based on a synthesis of previous
work done in classroom assessment by Ames (1992),
Brookhart (1997), McMillan and Workman (1998), and
Stiggins and Chappuis (2005). As suggested by Brookhart
(2004), theory relevant to studying classroom assessment
comes from different fields such as theories of learning and
motivation, sociology, and social learning theory. For
example, based on achievement goal theory, Ames (1992)
argued that the following classroom assessment practices
are likely to lead to a learning-oriented assessment envi-
ronment: (a) designing assessment tasks that include
challenge, variety, novelty, and active involvement;
(b) giving students opportunities to make choices and
decisions regarding their learning; (c) providing private
recognition and rewards that focus on individual student
effort and improvement; (d) creating small groups of het-
erogeneous abilities that encourage working effectively
with others on learning tasks and developing a feeling of
belongingness; (e) conducting evaluation practices that are
private, assess progress, improvement, and mastery, and
H. Alkharusi (&) � S. Aldhafri � H. Alnabhani
Department of Psychology, College of Education, Sultan Qaboos
University, P.O. Box: 32, Al-Khod, P.C.: 123, Muscat, Sultanate
of Oman
e-mail: hussein5@squ.edu.om
M. Alkalbani
Ministry of Education, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman
123
Asia-Pacific Edu Res
DOI 10.1007/s40299-013-0090-0
avoid social comparisons; and (f) allowing for time on the
assessment task to vary with the nature of the task and
student needs.
In 1997, Brookhart offered a theoretical framework for
the role of classroom assessment in student motivation and
achievement. The framework integrated classroom assess-
ment literature and social-cognitive theories of learning and
motivation. In this framework, Brookhart postulated that
students’ perceptions of the assessment tasks in terms of
difficulty, importance, interest, utility, complexity, and
value communicate certain characters of the classroom
assessment environment to students, which in turn might
influence their motivational beliefs and achievement.
Building on Brookhart’s (1997) theoretical framework and
other theories of learning and motivation, McMillan and
Workman (1998) demonstrated that the following assess-
ment practices are likely to encourage students to perceive
their classroom assessment environment as being instru-
mental to learning: (a) being clear about how learning will be
evaluated, (b) providing specific feedback following an
assessment activity, (c) using mistakes to show students how
learning can be improved, (d) using moderately difficult
assessments, (e) using many assessments rather than a few
major tests, (f) using authentic assessment tasks, (g) using
pre-established criteria for evaluating student work, (h) pro-
viding incremental assessment feedback, and (i) providing
scoring criteria before administering the assessment task.
Along similar lines, Stiggins and Chappuis (2005)
described four conditions that together may foster positive
perceptions of the assessment environment. These condi-
tions state that classroom assessments should focus on clear
purposes, provide accurate reflections of achievement,
provide frequent descriptive feedback on work improve-
ment rather than judgmental feedback, and involve students
in the assessment process. Armed with the aforementioned
conceptual framework, this study aimed at developing a
model describing the relationships between students’ per-
ceptions of the assessment tasks and classroom assessment
environment as a function of gender for Omani students in
the second cycle of the basic education grades. Following
is a review of literature in these areas.
Perceptions of Assessment Tasks
A substantial proportion of the classroom time involves
exposing students to a variety of assessment tasks (Mertler
2003). Educators have long recognized that the assessment
tasks used in the classroom communicate important mes-
sages to students about the value, importance, and useful-
ness of the tasks (Black and Wiliam 1998; Linnenbrink and
Pintrich 2001, 2002; McMillan and Workman 1998). The
characteristics of the assessment tasks as perceived by
students are central to the understanding of student
motivation and achievement-related outcomes (Alkharusi
2008, 2010, 2011; Dorman et al. 2006; Watering et al.
2008). Hence, students’ perceptions of the assessment tasks
should deserve recognition and investigation.
Research has shown that classroom assessment tasks can
be evaluated from students’ perspectives along a variety of
dimensions. For example, based on a sample of 658 science
students in English secondary schools, Dorman and
Knightley (2006) developed a 35-item inventory measuring
students’ perceptions of the assessment tasks along five
dimensions: congruence with planned learning, authentic-
ity, student consultation, transparency, and diversity.
Congruence with planned learning refers to the extent to
which students perceive the assessment tasks align with the
subject’s learning objectives and activities. Authenticity
refers to the extent to which students perceive the assess-
ment tasks are related to their everyday living. Student
consultation refers to the extent to which students are
involved and consulted in the assessment process. Trans-
parency refers to the extent to which students are clearly
informed about the purposes and forms of the assessment.
Diversity refers to the extent to which students perceive
that they can complete the assessment tasks at their own
speed.
Dorman et al. (2006) provided evidence that assessment
tasks with low degrees of congruence with planned learn-
ing, authenticity, and transparency could have a detrimental
effect on the confidence of students in successfully per-
forming academic tasks. In their study of upper secondary
Bruneian students’ perceptions of assessment tasks,
Dhindsa et al. (2007) found that although students perceived
that their classroom assessment tasks aligned with what
they learned in the classes and had transparency, there were
low levels of student consultation, authenticity, and diver-
sity. Both Dorman et al. (2006) and Dhindsa et al. (2007)
argued for more research identifying perceived character-
istics of the assessment tasks supportive of a classroom
environment that is conducive to increased student learning.
Classroom Assessment Environment
The assessment tasks are typically designed for students by
the classroom teacher. The overall sense or meaning that
students make out of the various assessment tasks consti-
tutes the classroom assessment environment (Brookhart
and DeVoge 1999). Brookhart (1997) described assessment
environment as a classroom context experienced by stu-
dents as the teacher establishes assessment purposes,
assigns assessment tasks, sets performance criteria and
standards, gives feedback, and monitors outcomes.
Brookhart and her colleagues pointed out that each class-
room has its own ‘‘assessment ‘character’ or environment’’
perceived by the students and springs from the teacher’s
H. Alkharusi et al.
123
assessment practices (Brookhart 2004, p. 444; Brookhart
and Bronowicz 2003).
Several researchers have studied classroom assessment
environment in relation to student achievement-related
outcomes. For example, Church et al. (2001) found that
students’ perceptions of the assessment environment as
being interesting and meaningful were positively related to
adoption of mastery goals, whereas perceptions of the
assessment environment as being difficult and focusing on
grades rather than learning were negatively related to
adoption of mastery goals and positively related to adop-
tion of performance goals. Likewise, Wang (2004) found
that after controlling for student gender, students’ percep-
tions of the assessment environment as being learning
oriented contributed positively to their adoption of mastery
goals, whereas students’ perceptions of the assessment
environment as being test oriented contributed negatively
to their adoption of performance goals. Similarly, Alkha-
rusi (2009) reported that students’ perceptions of the
assessment environment as being learning oriented were
positively related to students’ self-efficacy and mastery
orientations, whereas students’ perceptions of the assess-
ment environment as being hard and emphasizing grades
contributed negatively to students’ self-efficacy and mas-
tery orientations.
However, the measurement of the students’ perceptions
of the assessment environment was not quite clear in the
previous studies. As such, in an attempt to quantify stu-
dents’ perceptions of the classroom assessment environ-
ment, Alkharusi (2011) developed a scale measuring
students’ perceptions of the classroom assessment envi-
ronment. The development of the scale was theoretically
grounded on achievement goal theory. The findings
showed that students’ perceptions of the assessment
environment centered around two facets: learning- and
performance oriented. The learning-oriented assessment
environment focused on assessment practices that enhance
student learning and mastery of content materials such as
asking students a variety of meaningful assessment tasks
with moderate difficulty, giving them opportunities to
improve their performance, and providing them informa-
tive assessment feedback. The performance-oriented
assessment environment focused on assessment practices
that provide students difficult and less meaningful assess-
ment tasks with unattainable assessment standards and
criteria, emphasize the importance of grades rather than
learning, and compare students’ performances norma-
tively. In light of the conceptual framework of the current
study outlined by Ames (1992), Brookhart (1997),
McMillan and Workman (1998), and Stiggins and Chap-
puis (2005) and the theoretical framework of the Dorman
and Knightley’s (2006) Perceptions of Assessment Tasks
Inventory (PATI) as well as previous research work (e.g.,
Alkharusi 2008, 2009; Dorman et al. 2006), it is expected
that students are likely to perceive their assessment envi-
ronment as being learning oriented in classes having
assessment tasks with a high degree of congruence with
planned learning, authenticity, student consultation, trans-
parency, and diversity. Also, it is expected that students
are likely to perceive their assessment environment as
being performance oriented in classes having assessment
tasks with a low degree of congruence with planned
learning, authenticity, student consultation, transparency,
and diversity.
Gender
Previous research on students’ perceptions of the class-
room assessment tasks and assessment environment has
suggested that students’ gender might need to be consid-
ered. Specifically, female students tend to report more
positive perceptions of their classroom environment than
male students (Alkharusi 2010, 2011; Anderman and
Midgely 1997; Meece et al. 2003). Also, student gender
was found to moderate the relationship between assess-
ment environment and motivation-related outcomes. For
example, Wang (2004) found that performance goals were
positively related to both perceptions of the classroom
assessment environment as being learning- and test ori-
ented for male students, but not for female students. Also,
mastery goals were found to be positively related to per-
ceptions of the classroom assessment environment as
being learning oriented for male students, but not for
female students. However, both Alkharusi (2013) and
Dhindsa et al. (2007) found no gender differences on the
students’ perceptions of the assessment tasks. These find-
ings call for further examination of the role of student
gender on the perceptions of the assessment tasks and
assessment environment.
Gender stereotypes and differential gender role sociali-
zation patterns are often used to explain gender differences
in student perceptions and other achievement-related out-
comes (Alkharusi 2008, 2010; Kenney-Benson et al. 2006;
Lupart et al. 2004). However, when considering the context
of the present study, Omani students in the second cycle of
the basic education grades are disaggregated by gender in
public schools. Male- and female students’ schools are
separated. Also, male students are taught by male teachers
only, and female students are taught by female teachers
only. As aforementioned above, the classroom assessment
environment is typically created by the teacher for the
students (Brookhart 1997). As such, considering the dis-
aggregation nature of the public schools in Oman becomes
critical to comprehending the potential gender differences
in students’ perceptions of the assessment tasks and
assessment environment.
Assessment Environment
123
Although much has been written about the role of stu-
dents’ perceptions of the classroom assessment tasks and
assessment environment in student motivation and
achievement-related outcomes (e.g., Alkharusi 2008, 2010;
Brookhart 2004; Brookhart et al. 2006; Cauley and
McMillan 2010; Nolen 2011; Rodriguez 2004), research
investigating which perceptions of the assessment tasks
would be most relevant to a specific classroom assessment
environment is limited. The current study aimed at devel-
oping a model of the classroom assessment environment to
acquire a better understanding of the relationship between
students’ perceptions of the classroom assessment tasks
and assessment environment. Armed with the aforemen-
tioned past studies, the present study will also investigate
gender differences with respect to the perceptions of the
classroom assessment tasks and assessment environment.
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
As suggested above, several classroom assessment educa-
tors (e.g., Brookhart 1997, 2004; McMillan and Workman
1998) have considered what a theory of classroom
assessment may look like. Such a theory should be able to
inform teachers what features of the classroom assessment
tasks are conducive to an assessment environment that
enhances student motivation and learning. However, there
is a paucity of research studying association between per-
ceived characteristics of the assessment tasks and class-
room assessment environment. Therefore, the current study
attempted to fill this gap by investigating the relationship
between students’ perceptions of the assessment tasks and
classroom assessment environment.
Specifically, the study aimed at developing a model that
describes the potential meaningful multivariate relationship
between students’ perceptions of the assessment tasks and
classroom assessment environment. The model was
expected to illustrate which perceptions of the assessment
tasks would be most relevant to a specific classroom
assessment environment. Based on previous research, in
order to develop a descriptive model of the classroom
assessment environment, there seems a need to examine
gender differences with respect to students’ perceptions of
the assessment tasks and classroom assessment environ-
ment. This study attempted to meet this need too. Hence,
the study was guided by the following research questions:
(1) Are there statistically significant gender differences
with respect to students’ perceptions of the assess-
ment tasks and classroom assessment environment?
(2) How do students’ perceptions of the assessment tasks
relate to their perceptions of the classroom assess-
ment environment?
Methods
Research Design
As defined by McMillan (2012, pp. 176–177), the research
design employed in this study was descriptive in nature that
includes correlational and comparative aspects. The cor-
relational part involves studying the multivariate relation-
ship between students’ perceptions of the assessment tasks
and classroom assessment environment. The comparative
part involves examining gender differences with respect to
students’ perceptions of the assessment tasks and class-
room assessment environment. As such, causal relation-
ships cannot be established from the findings of the study.
Participants and Procedures
The target population of this study was students in the
second cycle of the basic education grades at Muscat public
schools in Oman. A list of all students could not be
obtained from the Ministry of Education in Oman. There-
fore, a clustering sampling procedure was employed to
select the students by utilizing a list of all public schools in
Muscat. The list contained 36 male- and 36 female schools.
A random sample of 10 male- and 10 female schools was
selected. Then, one grade level of the second cycle of the
basic education grades was randomly selected from each
school, and all students from that grade was included in the
study. This resulted in a sample of 585 Omani students
(365 females and 220 males) being surveyed. Valid
responses were obtained from 411 Omani students (259
females and 152 males) with an overall response rate of
about 70 %. Their ages ranged from 12 to 17 years with an
average of 15 and a standard deviation (SD) of 1.24. Per-
mission was requested from the Ministry of Education and
school principals to collect data from the students during a
regular scheduled class meeting. The students were
informed that a study about their perceptions of the class-
room assessment environment is being conducted. They
were informed that they were not obligated to participate in
the study, and if they wished to participate, their responses
would remain anonymous and confidential. They were also
told that participation in the study would not influence their
grades or relations with the teacher in any way.
Students who wished to participate were asked to
respond to a self-report questionnaire, which will be
described in a later section of this study. It contained three
main sections about demographic information in terms of
gender and age, perceptions of the assessment tasks, and
perceptions of the assessment environment. The question-
naire was administered by assistant researchers during a
scheduled class meeting. The administration took about
H. Alkharusi et al.
123
one class period, and was preceded by a brief set of
instructions about how to complete the questionnaire.
Instrument
The instrument used was a self-report questionnaire with
three main sections: demographic information, perceptions
of the assessment tasks, and perceptions of the assessment
environment. The questionnaire items were subjected to a
content validation process done by a panel of seven experts
in the areas of educational measurement and psychology
from Sultan Qaboos University and Ministry of Education.
They were asked to judge the clarity of wording and
appropriateness of each item for the use with the targeted
participants and its relevance to the construct being mea-
sured. Their feedback was used for refinement of the items.
Internal consistency reliability of the whole questionnaire
was .91 as measured by Cronbach’s a. Internal consistency
reliability of the different sections of the questionnaire was
established using Cronbach’s a as described in the
respective sections below.
With respect to factorial validity, responses to the items
of the questionnaire were subjected to principal-component
analyses. Details about the analyses are explained later in
the next sections. Although some of the items have factor
loadings as low as .30, these sizes of the loadings were
comparable to the original versions of the instruments in
the previous studies as it will be mentioned later in the next
sections. In addition, the size of the loadings might have
been influenced by the homogeneity of the scores in the
sample, and as such a low cutoff (.30) was used for
interpretation of the factors as suggested by Tabachnick
and Fidell (2013).
Demographic Information
The demographic information of the questionnaire covered
gender and age.
Perceptions of Assessment
This section of the questionnaire included 35 items from
Dorman and Knightley’s (2006) PATI. The items measure
students’ perceptions of assessment tasks in terms of con-
gruence with planned learning (7 items; a = .73; e.g., ‘‘I
am assessed on what the teacher has taught me’’),
authenticity (7 items; a = .75; e.g., ‘‘My assessment tasks
in this class are meaningful’’), student consultation (7
items; a = .74; e.g., ‘‘I am asked about the types of
assessment I would like to have in this class’’), transpar-
ency (7 items; a = .85; e.g., ‘‘I am told in advance when I
am being assessed’’), and diversity (7 items; a = .63; e.g.,
‘‘I am given a choice of assessment tasks’’). Responses
were obtained on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Alkharusi (2013) translated the PATI from English to
Arabic and tested the validity and reliability of the trans-
lated version of the PATI for use with Omani students.
With regard to validity, Alkharusi (2013) reported that a
principal-components factor analysis with varimax rotation
on the 35 items of the Arabic version of the PATI showed
that together the five factors accounted for 43.78 % of the
total variance. The first factor accounted for 10.27 % of the
variance (eigenvalue = 2.32) and consisted of the seven
transparency items, with loadings ranging from .49 to .68.
The second factor accounted for 9.80 % of the variance
(eigenvalue = 2.11) and consisted of the seven authentic-
ity items, with loadings ranging from .37 to .67. The third
factor accounted for 9.26 % of the variance (eigen-
value = 2.09) and consisted of the seven diversity items,
with loadings ranging from .44 to .62. The fourth factor
accounted for 7.42 % of the variance (eigenvalue = 1.97)
and consisted of the seven congruence with planned
learning items, with loadings ranging from .30 to .69. The
fifth factor accounted for 7.04 % of the variance (eigen-
value = 1.69) and consisted of the seven student consul-
tation items, with loadings ranging from .36 to .62. With
regard to reliability, Alkharusi (2013) reported that internal
consistency coefficients for the measures of congruence
with planned learning, authenticity, student consultation,
transparency, and diversity were .71, .72, .65, .66, and .63
as indicated by Cronbach’s a, respectively.
In the current study, the Arabic version of the PATI was
used. The principal-components factor analysis was also
conducted on the 35 items of the Arabic version of the
PATI. Both varimax and oblimin rotation methods yielded
similar results. Based on the analysis, together the five
factors accounted for 42.36 % of the total variance. The
first factor accounted for 24.46 % of the variance (eigen-
value = 8.32) and consisted of the seven transparency
items, with loadings ranging from .32 to .67. The second
factor accounted for 6.22 % of the variance (eigen-
value = 2.12) and consisted of the seven diversity items,
with loadings ranging from .34 to .66. The third factor
accounted for 4.75 % of the variance (eigenvalue = 1.61)
and consisted of the seven authenticity items, with loadings
ranging from .42 to .69. The fourth factor accounted for
3.65 % of the variance (eigenvalue = 1.24) and consisted
of the seven student consultation items, with loadings
ranging from .42 to .60. The fifth factor accounted for
3.27 % of the variance (eigenvalue = 1.11) and consisted
of the seven congruence with planned learning items, with
loadings ranging from .36 to .71. The score reliabilities of
the current sample seem comparable to those reported by
Dorman and Knightley (2006) and Alkharusi (2013).
Specifically, internal consistency coefficients in this study
Assessment Environment
123
for the measures of congruence with planned learning,
authenticity, student consultation, transparency, and
diversity were .71, .72, .66, .76, and .73 as indicated by
Cronbach’s a, respectively. Internal consistency reliability
of the whole section of the 35 items of the PATI was .91 as
measured by Cronbach’s a. Each measure was constructed
by averaging its corresponding items.
Assessment Environment
This section of the questionnaire included 18 items from
Alkharusi’s (2011) Perceptions of the Classroom Assess-
ment Environment Scale (PCAES). This scale was
designed and administered in Arabic. The items measure
students’ perceptions of the classroom assessment envi-
ronment as being learning oriented (9 items; a = .82; e.g.,
‘‘In this class, the teacher helps us identify the places where
we need more effort in future’’), and performance oriented
(9 items; a = .75; e.g., ‘‘The tests and assignments in this
class are difficult to students’’). Responses were obtained
on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 5 (strongly agree). Alkharusi (2011) tested factorial
validity of the PCAES by conducting a principal-compo-
nents analysis with varimax rotation based on a sample of
450 Omani students from the second cycle of the basic
education grades. As reported by Alkharusi (2011), toge-
ther the two factors accounted for 41.90 % of the total
variance. The first factor accounted for 29.19 % of the
variance (eigenvalue = 4.67) and consisted of the nine
items of the learning-oriented assessment environment,
with loadings ranging from .43 to .76. The second factor
accounted for 12.71 % of the variance (eigenvalue = 2.03)
and consisted of the nine items of the performance-oriented
assessment environment, with loadings ranging from .36 to
.84. In addition, Alkharusi (2011) examined criterion-
related validity by correlating the scores of PCAES with
the academic achievement scores. Results showed that
perceptions of the assessment environment as being
learning oriented correlated positively with academic
achievement, r(448) = .31, p \ .001; whereas perceptions
of the assessment environment as being performance ori-
ented correlated negatively with academic achievement,
r(448) = -.20, p \ .05.
In this study, the PCAES was also administered in Arabic.
Its factorial validity was examined by conducting a princi-
pal-components analysis with varimax rotation. Results
showed that together the two factors accounted for 32.09 %
of the total variance. The first factor accounted for 17.69 %
of the variance (eigenvalue = 3.18) and consisted of the
nine items of the learning-oriented assessment environment,
with loadings ranging from .45 to .71. The second factor
accounted for 14.40 % of the variance (eigenvalue = 2.59)
and consisted of the nine items of the performance-oriented
assessment environment, with loadings ranging from .36 to
.70. Internal consistency coefficients for the measures of
perceived learning- and performance-oriented assessment
environment were .76 and .68 as indicated by Cronbach’s a,
respectively. Internal consistency reliability of the whole
section of the 18 items of the PCAES was .70 as measured by
Cronbach’s a. Each measure was constructed by averaging
its corresponding items.
Data Analysis
In relation to the aforementioned purposes of the study, the
following statistical procedures were employed:
(1) Multivariate analyses of variances (MANOVAs) were
conducted to examine gender differences with respect
to students’ perceptions of the assessment tasks and
classroom assessment environment.
(2) Pearson-product moment correlation coefficients
were computed to examine bivariate relationships
between perceptions of the assessment tasks and
classroom assessment environment.
(3) A canonical correlation analysis was conducted to
explore multivariate relationships between percep-
tions of the assessment tasks and classroom assess-
ment environment.
Results
Multivariate Analyses of Variances
A MANOVA was conducted to assess the extent to which
male and female students differ in their perceptions of the
assessment tasks in terms of congruence with planned
learning, authenticity, student consultation, transparency,
and diversity. Table 1 presents the means (M) and SDs for
males and females on the perceptions of the assessment
tasks. Results indicated statistically significant multivariate
effects for gender on the perceptions of the assessment
tasks, F(5, 405) = 11.35, p \ .001, Wilks’ K = .88.
Gender accounted for approximately 12 % (g2 = .123) of
the variability in the perceptions of the assessment tasks.
The univariate analyses indicated statistically significant
effects for gender on the congruence with planned learning,
F(1, 409) = 26.13, p \ .001, g2 = .06; authenticity, F(1,
409) = 12.38, p \ .001, g2 = .03; student consultation,
F(1, 409) = 7.24, p \ .01, g2 = .02; and transparency,
F(1, 409) = 47.81, p \ .001, g2 = .11. As shown in
Table 1, female students reported more positive percep-
tions of the assessment tasks than male students with
respect to the congruence with planned learning, authen-
ticity, student consultation, and transparency.
H. Alkharusi et al.
123
Another MANOVA was conducted to examine gender
differences on the perceptions of the classroom assessment
environment. Table 2 presents the M and SDs for males
and females on the perceptions of the classroom assess-
ment environment. Results indicated statistically signifi-
cant multivariate effects for gender on the perceptions of
the classroom assessment environment, F(2, 408) = 16.90,
p \ .001, Wilks’ K = .92. Gender accounted for 7.6 %
(g2 = .076) of the variability in the perceptions of the
classroom assessment environment. The univariate analy-
ses indicated statistically significant effects for gender on
the learning-oriented assessment environment, F(1,
409) = 12.07, p \ .01, g2 = .03; and performance-ori-
ented assessment environment, F(1, 409) = 17.67,
p \ .001, g2 = .04. As shown in Table 2, female students
tended to perceive their classroom assessment environment
as more learning oriented than male students; whereas male
students tended to perceive their classroom assessment
environment as more performance oriented than female
students.
Bivariate Correlation Analyses
The aforementioned MANOVA showed statistically sig-
nificant gender differences with respect to the perceptions
of the assessment tasks and classroom assessment envi-
ronment. Therefore, the bivariate correlational analysis of
the perceptions of the assessment tasks and classroom
assessment environment should be conducted separately
for males and females. Tables 3 and 4 present the bivariate
correlations between perceptions of the assessment tasks
and perceived assessment environment for males and
females, respectively. As shown in Tables 3 and 4, there
were differences between males and females in the pattern
of the bivariate correlations between perceptions of the
assessment tasks and perceived assessment environment. In
male classrooms, learning- and performance-oriented
assessment environments were positively correlated with
each other. In contrast, there was no statistically significant
relationship between the two types of the assessment
environment in female classrooms. Although both types of
the assessment environment had positive correlations with
perceived features of the assessment tasks in male class-
rooms, the correlations were stronger with the learning-
than with the performance-oriented assessment environ-
ment. In female classrooms, learning-oriented assessment
environment had statistically significant positive moderate
correlations with the perceived features of the assessment
tasks, whereas performance-oriented assessment environ-
ment had a statistically significant negative week correla-
tion with congruence with planned learning and a
statistically significant positive week correlation with stu-
dent consultation. These gender differences in the bivariate
correlations between perceptions of the assessment tasks
and classroom assessment environment suggested multiple
patterns or differential relationships between each of the
two sets of variables.
As shown in Tables 3 and 4, the five dimensions of the
assessment tasks (congruence with planned learning,
authenticity, student consultation, transparency, and
diversity) are intercorrelated. Based on the conceptual
framework of the study outlined by Ames (1992), Brook-
hart (1997), McMillan and Workman (1998), and Stiggins
and Chappuis (2005) and the theoretical framework of the
Dorman and Knightley’s (2006) PATI, these dimensions
Table 1 Means and standard deviations for males and females on the
perceptions of the assessment tasks
Variables Males (n = 152) Females (n = 259)
M SD M SD
Congruence with planned
learning
3.60 .74 3.94 .60
Authenticity 3.63 .70 3.86 .62
Student consultation 3.37 .70 3.55 .64
Transparency 3.66 .72 4.10 .57
Diversity 3.38 .72 3.47 .72
Table 3 Intercorrelations between perceptions of the assessment
tasks and classroom assessment environment for male students
(n = 152)
Variables 2 3 4 5 6 7
(1) Congruence with planned
learning
.74* .57* .71* .60* .73* .32*
(2) Authenticity .63* .68* .68* .72* .44*
(3) Student consultation .67* .73* .71* .49*
(4) Transparency .57* .69* .33*
(5) Diversity .70* .49*
(6) Learning-oriented assessment
environment
.39*
(7) Performance-oriented
assessment environment
–
* p \ .05
Table 2 Means and standard deviations for males and females on the
perceptions of the classroom assessment environment
Variables Males
(n = 152)
Females
(n = 259)
M SD M SD
Learning-oriented assessment environment 3.48 .73 3.72 .64
Performance-oriented assessment
environment
3.16 .65 2.87 .66
Assessment Environment
123
are not independent. Theoretically, when these aspects of
the assessment tasks are emphasized with a high degree in
a classroom, it is expected that students are likely to per-
ceive their assessment environment as being learning ori-
ented (Alkharusi 2008). Alternatively, when these aspects
of the assessment tasks are emphasized with a low degree
in a classroom, it is expected that students are likely to
perceive their assessment environment as being perfor-
mance oriented (Alkharusi 2008).
Canonical Correlation Analyses
To study the underlying patterns of the relationships
between the perceptions of the assessment tasks and per-
ceived assessment environment, two multivariate linear
models were fitted to the males and females’ data by means
of canonical correlation analyses. The perceptions of
assessment tasks were utilized as predictor variables of the
perceived assessment environment. With regards to males’
data, the full model across all variates was statistically
significant, F(10, 290) = 28.52, p \ .001, Wilk’s K = .25;
suggesting some relationship between the variable sets
across the variates. The analysis yielded two canonical
variates with squared canonical coefficients of .73 and .07
for each variate. Based on the dimension reduction analy-
sis, the two pairs of the canonical variates should be
interpreted, F(10, 290) = 28.52, p \ .001 for the first pair;
and F(4, 146) = 2.66, p \ .05 for the second pair. Table 5
presents the standardized canonical coefficients between
the perceptions of the assessment tasks and perceived
assessment environment for male students. The first
canonical variate accounted for 73 % of the common var-
iance between the perceptions of the assessment tasks and
perceived assessment environment, whereas the second
canonical variate accounted for 7 % of the common vari-
ance between the two sets of the variables.
As also shown in Table 5, the perceived characteristics
of the assessment tasks associated with the first canonical
variate were congruence with planned learning, authentic-
ity, student consultation, and diversity; whereas the per-
ceived assessment environment correlated with the first
canonical variate was learning-oriented assessment envi-
ronment. Taken as a pair, in male classrooms, high degrees
of congruence with planned learning, authenticity, student
consultation, and diversity were associated with an assess-
ment environment that is more oriented toward learning.
The second canonical variate from the perceived features of
the assessment tasks was composed of congruence with
planned learning, authenticity, student consultation, trans-
parency, and diversity; and the corresponding canonical
variate from the assessment environment side was com-
posed of performance-oriented assessment environment.
More specifically, in male classrooms, high degrees of
authenticity, student consultation, and diversity as well as
low degrees of congruence with planned learning and
transparency were associated with an assessment environ-
ment that is more oriented toward performance.
The first canonical variate explained 90 % of the vari-
ance in the perceptions of the assessment tasks and 65 % of
the variance in the perceptions of the assessment environ-
ment. The second canonical variate explained 10 % of the
variance in the perceptions of the assessment tasks and
35 % of the variance in the perceptions of the assessment
Table 4 Intercorrelations between perceptions of the assessment
tasks and classroom assessment environment for female students
(n = 259)
Variables 2 3 4 5 6 7
(1) Congruence with
planned learning
.64* .39* .59* .49* .64* -.19
(2) Authenticity .41* .50* .56* .68* -.07
(3) Student consultation .53* .56* .57* .14*
(4) Transparency .45* .55* -.08
(5) Diversity .66* .11
(6) Learning-oriented
assessment environment
-.04
(7) Performance-oriented
assessment environment
–
* p \ .001
Table 5 Canonical correlation analysis summary of the perceptions
of the assessment tasks and perceived assessment environment for
males (n = 152)
Variables Canonical
coefficients
of the first
canonical
variate
Canonical
coefficients
of the second
canonical
variate
Perceptions of assessment tasks
Congruence .26 1.04
Authenticity .23 -.58
Student consultation .31 -.60
Transparency .10 .64
Diversity .26 -.42
Percentage of variance .90 .10
Redundancy .66 .01
Perceived assessment environment
Learning oriented .88 .64
Performance oriented .25 -1.05
Percentage of variance .65 .35
Redundancy .47 .02
Rc .85 .26
Rc2 .73 .07
H. Alkharusi et al.
123
environment. The two variates from the perceptions of the
assessment tasks extracted 49 % of the variance in the
perceptions of the assessment environment. Also, together,
the variates from the perceptions of the assessment envi-
ronment extracted 67 % of the variance in the perceptions
of the assessment tasks.
With regards to females’ data, the full model across all
variates was statistically significant, F(10, 504) = 40.15,
p \ .001, Wilk’s K = .31; suggesting some relationship
between the variable sets across the variates. The analysis
yielded two canonical variates with squared canonical
coefficients of .65 and .12 for each variate. Based on the
dimension reduction analysis, the two pairs of the canon-
ical variates should be interpreted, F(10, 504) = 40.15,
p \ .001 for the first pair; and F(4, 253) = 8.44, p \ .001
for the second pair. Table 6 presents the standardized
canonical coefficients between the perceptions of the
assessment tasks and perceived assessment environment
for female students. The first canonical variate accounted
for 65 % of the common variance between the perceptions
of the assessment tasks and perceived assessment envi-
ronment, whereas the second canonical variate accounted
for 12 % of the common variance between the two sets of
the variables.
As also shown in Table 6, the perceived characteristics
of the assessment tasks associated with the first canonical
variate were congruence with planned learning, authentic-
ity, student consultation, and diversity; whereas the per-
ceived assessment environment correlated with the first
canonical variate was a learning-oriented assessment envi-
ronment. Taken as a pair, in female classrooms, high
degrees of congruence with planned learning, authenticity,
student consultation, and diversity were associated with an
assessment environment that is more oriented toward
learning. The second canonical variate from the perceived
features of the assessment tasks was composed of congru-
ence with planned learning, student consultation and
diversity; and the corresponding canonical variate from the
assessment environment side was composed of perfor-
mance-oriented assessment environment. More specifically,
in female classrooms, high degrees of student consultation,
and diversity as well as a low degree of congruence with
planned learning were associated with an assessment
environment that is more oriented toward performance.
The first canonical variate explained 74 % of the vari-
ance in the perceptions of the assessment tasks and 50 % of
the variance in the perceptions of the assessment environ-
ment. The second canonical variate explained 17 % of the
variance in the perceptions of the assessment tasks and
50 % of the variance in the perceptions of the assessment
environment. The two variates from the perceptions of the
assessment tasks extracted 83 % of the variance in the
perceptions of the assessment environment. Also, together,
the variates from the perceptions of the assessment envi-
ronment extracted 50 % of the variance in the perceptions
of the assessment tasks.
Discussion
Classroom assessment and its role in student motivation
and achievement have been the focus of much attention for
over the past years. Until recently, little research has been
done on how student’ perceptions of the assessment tasks
may relate to their perceptions of the classroom assessment
environment. This study attempted to address this topic by
having two main goals: (a) to examine gender differences
on the perceptions of the assessment tasks and classroom
assessment environment and (b) to assess the nature of the
relationships between perceptions of the assessment tasks
and classroom assessment environment. Investigating stu-
dents’ perceptions of the assessment process should be
helpful in providing teachers and other educators some
insights regarding possible ways of creating classroom
environments conducive to student learning and develop-
ment. Also, understanding the classroom assessment pro-
cess from the students’ perspectives in terms of
accurateness, meaningfulness, and fairness is important to
understanding the consequential validity of the assessment
process (Schaffner et al. 2000).
Consistent with the findings from earlier research by
Alkharusi (2011), Anderman and Midgely (1997), and
Table 6 Canonical correlation analysis summary of the perceptions
of the assessment tasks and perceived assessment environment for
females (n = 259)
Variables Canonical
coefficients of
the first canonical
variate
Canonical
coefficients of
the second
canonical variate
Perceptions of assessment tasks
Congruence .25 .88
Authenticity .37 .06
Student consultation .26 -.61
Transparency .06 .25
Diversity .32 -.57
Percentage of variance .74 .17
Redundancy .48 .02
Perceived assessment environment
Learning oriented 1.00 -.01
Performance oriented .04 -1.00
Percentage of variance .50 .50
Redundancy .77 .06
Rc .81 .34
Rc2 .65 .12
Assessment Environment
123
Meece et al. (2003), results of the current study generally
showed that female students tended to hold more positive
perceptions of the assessment tasks and assessment envi-
ronment than male students. In addition, the correlation
analysis showed different patterns based on gender with
regard to the relationships between the perceptions of the
assessment tasks and classroom assessment environment.
More specifically, learning- and performance-oriented
assessment environments were positively correlated with
each other in male classrooms, whereas there was no sig-
nificant relationship between the two types of the assess-
ment environment in female classrooms. This suggests that
although the two types of the assessment environment may
represent unique assessment climates in female classrooms,
both types of the assessment environment might be oper-
ating simultaneously in male classrooms. Although both
types of the assessment environment had positive correla-
tions with perceived features of the assessment tasks in
male classrooms, learning-oriented assessment environ-
ment in female classrooms had positive relationships with
the perceived features of the assessment tasks, whereas
performance-oriented assessment environment had a neg-
ative week correlation with congruence with planned
learning and a positive week correlation with student
consultation. These findings underpin the importance for
future research to examine gender differences in the
classroom assessment process to identify which assessment
features are facilitative for learning of the different groups
of students. Classroom observations and interviews might
shed more light on the differential effects of gender on the
assessment process.
Results from the canonical correlation analyses yielded
two unique roots that accounted for interpretable amount of
variance in the perceptions of the assessment tasks and
assessment environment. For both males and females, the
first canonical root was defined by a learning-oriented
assessment environment and perceptions of assessment
tasks in terms of congruence with planned learning,
authenticity, student consultation, and diversity. Interpre-
tation of this root suggests that the following features of the
assessment process are likely to promote a learning-ori-
ented assessment environment: (a) the assessment tasks
align with the objectives of the instructional process and
they are meaningful and relevant to the real-life of the
students and that (b) the students are consulted and
informed about the assessment tasks and they are given
assessment tasks suitable to their ability. However, male
and female students differed on the second root which was
defined solely by the performance-oriented assessment
environment on the assessment environment side. In males’
model, the performance-oriented assessment environment
was associated with low congruence with planned learning,
low transparency in the assessment, high authenticity, high
student consultation, and high diversity. In female’s model,
the performance-oriented assessment environment was
associated with low congruence with planned learning,
high consultation, and high diversity. These results imply
that male classrooms acknowledge multiple forms of the
assessment environment. This may be due to the complex
educational goals operating in the males’ achievement
settings. Perhaps the assessment process in males’ classes
stimulates desires for competence in both intrapersonal
sense and normative sense. Further research is needed to
test whether simultaneous adoption of both learning- and
performance-oriented assessment environments is associ-
ated with more desirable outcomes than adoption of a
single assessment environment.
There are a number of limitations to the present study
that necessitate cautious interpretation of the results. First,
perhaps the shared variance among the perceptions of the
assessment tasks might have masked more basic features of
the assessment tasks that are true correlates of the specific
assessment environment. Also, a systematic bias might
have affected these results. On one hand, what students
report regarding their perceptions of the classroom
assessment might not be the same as the perceptions they
make at the time they are actually engaging in an assess-
ment task. On other hand, the students may not be able to
accurately assess their perceptions of the classroom
assessment. Classroom observations and interviews with
students and teachers may help clarify these issues. Sec-
ond, the study was descriptive in nature, so causal rela-
tionships between assessment tasks and assessment
environment cannot be assumed and require additional
research. Future researchers might need to consider some
form of experimental research to testify the relationships
found in the present study. A third limitation involves the
generalizability of the results to all public schools in the
country. Future research should consider a more repre-
sentative sample selected from different educational gov-
ernorates across the country. A fourth limitation is
concerned with the imbalance of the male and female
participants (152 vs. 259). Although the response rates
were about 69 and 70 % for males and females, respec-
tively, and that the assumption of the homogeneity of
variance–covariance matrices was not rejected for the
current sample data, future research should consider equal
sample sizes of males and females.
However, the study, as it stands, has some ecological
validity. It describes some important relationships between
day-to-day classroom assessment activities. This should
help teachers identify activities needed for creating an
assessment environment that could maximize student
learning. For example, the models imply that for effective
learning to occur, congruence should exist between
instructional objectives and assessment tasks. Specifically,
H. Alkharusi et al.
123
the models suggest that congruence with planned learning
might facilitate the development of a learning-oriented
assessment environment, which should promote desirable
motivation and achievement-related outcomes and impede
the development of a performance-oriented assessment
environment, which might minimize the likelihood of
successful academic performance.
Implications of the Study
Teachers depend on day-to-day classroom assessment to
enhance their instruction and its potential impact on student
motivation and learning. The findings of this study raise
some implications related to instruction and assessment.
First, teachers should be aware that alignment between the
objectives of the instruction and assessment tasks is
essential for desirable outcomes of student motivation and
learning. Second, the assessment tasks themselves should
emphasize authenticity linking instruction and assessment
in meaningful ways. Third, teachers should involve stu-
dents in the assessment process to motivate them to learn.
In this regard, teachers should change their ‘‘view of
assessment as something that is being done to students to
something that is being done with and for the students’’
(Klenowski 2009, p. 89). This can partially be accom-
plished by having effective instructional conversations
between teachers and students about the instructional
objectives and the assessment process (Ruiz-Primo 2011).
Finally, continuous professional development programs
should be developed for teachers to encourage them for-
mulating assessment practices capable of creating an
assessment environment conducive for student learning.
Acknowledgments This research was thankfully supported by a
grant (RC/EDU/PSYC/12/01) from The Research Council in Oman.
This funding source had no involvement in the conduct of the
research and preparation of the article.
References
Alkharusi, H. (2008). Effects of classroom assessment practices on
student’s achievement goals. Educational Assessment, 13,
243–266.
Alkharusi, H. (2009). Classroom assessment environment, self-
efficacy, and mastery goal orientation: A causal model. INTIJournal, Special issue on teaching and learning, 104–116.
Alkharusi, H. (2010). Literature review on achievement goals and
classroom goal structure: Implications for future research.
Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 8,
1363–1386.
Alkharusi, H. (2011). Development and datametric properties of a
scale measuring students’ perceptions of the classroom assess-
ment environment. International Journal of Instruction, 4,
105–120.
Alkharusi, H. (2013). Canonical correlational models of students’
perceptions of assessment tasks, motivational orientations and
learning strategies. International Journal of Instruction, 6,
21–38.
Ames, C. (1992). Achievement goals and the classroom motivational
climate. In D. H. Schunk & J. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptionsin the classroom (pp. 327–348). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Anderman, E. M., & Midgely, C. (1997). Changes in achievement
goal orientations, perceived academic competence, and grades
across the transition to middle-level schools. ContemporaryEducational Psychology, 22, 269–298.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising
standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80,
139–148.
Brookhart, S. M. (1997). A theoretical framework for the role of
classroom assessment in motivating student effort and achieve-
ment. Applied Measurement in Education, 10, 161–180.
Brookhart, S. M. (2004). Classroom assessment: Tensions and
intersections in theory and practice. Teachers College Record,106, 429–458.
Brookhart, S. M., & Bronowicz, D. L. (2003). ‘I don’t like writing. It
makes my fingers hurt’: Students talk about their classroom
assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy andPractice, 10, 221–242.
Brookhart, S. M., & DeVoge, J. G. (1999). Testing a theory about the
role of classroom assessment in student motivation and achieve-
ment. Applied Measurement in Education, 12, 409–425.
Brookhart, S. M., Walsh, J. M., & Zientarski, W. A. (2006). The
dynamics of motivation and effort for classroom assessment in
middle school science and social studies. Applied Measurementin Education, 19, 151–184.
Cauley, K. M., & McMillan, J. H. (2010). Formative assessment
techniques to support student motivation and achievement. TheClearing House, 83, 1–6.
Church, M. A., Elliot, A. J., & Gable, S. L. (2001). Perceptions of
classroom environment, achievement goals, and achievement
outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 43–54.
Dhindsa, H. S., Omar, K., & Waldrip, B. (2007). Upper secondary
Bruneian science students’ perceptions of assessment. Interna-tional Journal of Science Education, 29, 1261–1280.
Dorman, J. P., Fisher, D. L., & Waldrip, B. G. (2006). Classroom
environment, students’ perceptions of assessment, academic
efficacy and attitude to science: A LISREL analysis. In D. Fisher
& M. S. Khine (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to research onlearning environment: Worldviews (pp. 1–28). Singapore: World
Scientific Publishing.
Dorman, J. P., & Knightley, W. M. (2006). Development and
validation of an instrument to assess secondary school students’
perceptions of assessment tasks. Educational Studies, 32, 47–58.
Kenney-Benson, G. A., Pomerantz, E., Ryan, A. M., & Patrick, H.
(2006). Sex differences in math performance: The role of
children’s approach to schoolwork. Developmental Psychology,42, 11–26.
Klenowski, V. (2009). Australian indigenous students: Addressing
equity issues in assessment. Teaching Education, 20, 77–93.
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2001). Multiple goals, multiple
contexts: The dynamic interplay between personal goals and
contextual goal stresses. In S. Volet & S. Jarvela (Eds.),
Motivation in learning contexts (pp. 251–270). Amsterdam:
Pergamon.
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Motivation as an
enabler for academic success. School Psychology Review, 31,
313–327.
Lupart, J. L., Cannon, E., & Telfer, J. A. (2004). Gender differences
in adolescent academic achievement, interests, values and life-
role expectations. High Ability Studies, 15, 25–42.
McMillan, J. H. (2012). Educational research: Fundamentals for theconsumer (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Assessment Environment
123
McMillan, J. H., & Workman, D. J. (1998). Classroom assessmentand grading practices: A review of the literature. ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED453263.
Meece, J. L., Herman, P., & McCombs, B. L. (2003). Relations of
learner-centered teaching practices to adolescents’ achievement
goals. International Journal of Educational Research, 39,
457–475.
Mertler, C. A. (2003, October). Preservice versus inservice teachers’
assessment literacy: Does classroom experience make a differ-ence? In Paper presented at the meeting of the Mid-Western
Educational Research Association, Columbus, OH.
Nolen, S. B. (2011). The role of educational systems in the link
between formative assessment and motivation. Theory intoPractice, 50, 319–326.
Rodriguez, M. C. (2004). The role of classroom assessment in student
performance on TIMSS. Applied Measurement in Education, 17,
1–24.
Ruiz-Primo, M. A. (2011). Informal formative assessment: The role
of instructional dialogues in assessing students’ learning. Studiesin Educational Evaluation, 37, 15–24.
Schaffner, M., Burry-Stock, J. A., Cho, G., Boney, T., & Hamilton, G.
(2000). What do kids think when their teachers grade? In Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association.
Stiggins, R., & Chappuis, J. (2005). Using student-involved class-
room assessment to close achievement gaps. Theory intoPractice, 44, 11–18.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariatestatistics (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Wang, X. (2004). Chinese EFL students’ perceptions of classroomassessment environment and their goal orientations in thecollege English course. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Queen’s
University, Kingston, ON.
Watering, G., Gijbels, D., Dochy, F., & Rijt, J. (2008). Students’
assessment preferences, perceptions of assessment and their
relationships to study results. Higher Education, 56, 645–658.
H. Alkharusi et al.
123