Classroom Assessment Practices of Filipino Teachers: Measurement and Impact of Professional...

220

Essentials on Counseling and Education

Classroom Assessment Practices of Filipino Teachers: Measurement and Impact of Professional Development

Richard DLC Gonzales

University of Santo Tomas Graduate School

Carmelo M. Callueng University of Florida

Classroom assessment provides information that is valuable for decisions relating to instruction, student achievement, and accountability. This study reports the initial validation of the Classroom Assessment Practices Questionnaire (CAPSQ) utilizing data from 364 Filipino teachers across teaching levels. Results of a principal axis factoring (PAF) yielded a stable four-factor model that is consistent with assessment purposes framework: (1) assessment as learning, (2) assessment of learning, (3) assessment to inform, and (4) assessment for learning. Both factor and total scores demonstrated high internal consistency. However, high factor and total scores correlations indicate that the total score is the most accurate index of classroom assessment practices. Generally, professional development enhances teachers’ classroom assessment practices and that, teaching level and class size moderate the impact of professional development on classroom assessment practices. Implications of findings are discussed.

Keywords: Classroom Assessment, Assessment of Learning, Assessment for Learning

Classroom assessment plays an essential role in the teaching and learning process. It provides teachers with information that is important to make decisions regarding students’ progress (Jones & Tanner, 2008; Linn & Miller, 2005; Murray, 2006; Nitko & Brookhard, 2007; Stiggins, 2002; 2008). Classroom assessment has been receiving increased attention by researchers and measurement practitioners, particularly those involved teacher training and professional development (Alkharusi, 2008; 2010; Sato, Wei & Darling-Hammond, 2008; Zhang & Burry-Stock, 2003). The information gathered from assessment allows teachers to understand their students’ performance better and are able to match instruction with students’ learning needs (Linn

221


& Miller, 2005; Mertler, 2003; 2009). Additionally, assessment data are used by education policy makers and practitioners involved for accountability (how well students have learned) and instruction (how to promote higher levels of learning) (Bennet & Gitomer, 2009; Danielson, 2008; Sato et al., 2008; Vardar, 2010).

Classroom assessment practices and preferences have been widely studied (e. g. Alkharusi, 2010; Bienbaum, 1997, 2000, Birembaum & Feldman, 1998; Bliem & Davinroy, 1997; Zhang & Burry-Stock, 2003). However, there is less evidence on the impact of professional development programs on teachers’ classroom assessment preferences (Sato et al, 2008). Hence, this study attempts to examine the role of professional development on teachers’ classroom assessment preferences and practices.

What is Classroom Assessment?

Assessment can imply various meanings within the educational setting (Ames, 1992; Popham, 2008; Stiggins, 1997). It can refer to the process teachers use to grade student subject assignments (Dunbar, Koretz, & Hoover, 1991; Gregory, 1996; Harlen, 2008; Manzano, 2000; Mertler, 1998, 2009; Musial, Nieminen, Thomas & Burke, 2009), to standardized testing imposed in schools (Manzano, 2006; Messick, 1989; Stiggins & Chappus, 2005; Stiggins & Conklin, 1992), to any activity designed to collect information to be used as feedback to modify teaching and learning activities (Black & William, 1998), or to improve instruction and students’ performance (Airasian, 1997; Cohen & Hill, 2000; Gullickson, 1984; 1986). These diverse uses have, regrettably, moved assessment away from the primary role that it should play in educational institutions – the gathering of information to improve instructional practices.

In this study, classroom assessment refers to an array of tasks or activities accomplished by the teacher that include developing paper-pencil and performance measures, scoring and marking, assigning grades, interpreting standardized test scores, communicating test results, and using assessment results in decision-making (Alkharusi, 2008; Gonzales & Fuggan, 2012; Zhang and Burry- Stock, 2003).

222


Classroom Assessment Preferences, Practices and Professional Development

Assessment preference refers to an imagined choice between alternatives in assessment and the possibility of practicing these assessment alternatives (Van de Watering, Gjibels, Docky, & Van de Rijt, 2008). While assessment practices refers the activities that teachers do in relation to conducting classroom assessment- from test planning to reporting to utilization of test results (Gonzales & Fuggan, 2012; Volante & Fazio, 2007; Zhang, 1995; Zhang & Burry-Stock, 2003).

Studies indicate that teachers with very minimal participation in professional development programs may not be adequately prepared to meet the demands of classroom assessment (Galluzo, 2005; Mertler, 2009; Shaffer, 1991; Volante & Fazio, 2007; Zhang, 1995). Teachers are expected to be skillful in collecting information about the performance of their students in school (Ames, 1992; Bennet & Gitomer, 2009; Nitko & Brookart, 2007; Harlen, 2007; Musial et al, 2009). However, assessment problems are particularly prominent in performance assessment, interpretation of standardized test results, and grading procedures (Zhang and Burry-Stock, 2003). Teachers also are less aware of the pedagogical, managerial and communicative aims of classroom assessment (see Jones and Tanner, 2008 for more explanation).

To be effective, teachers must be aware that it is not enough to present a lesson to their students and hope that they understand it (Sato et al, 2008). They should realize that learning occurs when there is interplay between the teaching process and the outcomes (Bond, 1995; Mory, 1992). When teachers assess learning, they should be able to identify specific goals and objectives for each subject or lesson (Segers, Dochy, & Cascallar, 2003; Jones & Tanner, 2008), systematically gauge the extent to which these anticipated outcomes actually occur and determine to what degree learning takes place (Raty, Kasanen, & Honkalampi, 2006; Stiggins & Chappuis, 2005). In addition, when teachers do assessment in the classrooms, they also are required to define the role of assessment in making instructional and educational decisions (Danielson, 2008; Stake, 2004; Stiggins, 2008).

Teachers more often become immersed in their jobs and lose sight of the exact purpose of assessment. Consequently, teachers may not achieve their purpose for assessment or they overlook another form of assessment that may be more appropriate (Rust, 2002). Hence, it is very important that

223


teachers conduct assessments with a clear purpose in mind and believe that their assessment promotes excellence in students (Astin, 1991; Earl & Katz, 2006; Hill, 2002; Murray, 2006; Sanchez & Brisk, 2004). On the other hand, effective schools need to rethink the roles of assessment. Here, “effective” means maximizing learning and well being for students. Hence, two questions need to be answered. First, what uses of assessment are most likely to maximize student learning and well-being? Second, how can assessment be used best to facilitate student learning and well-being?

The usual response to these questions would be to provide professional development and training to teachers on classroom assessment and how to maximize the information gathered from assessment. Research studies report that teachers’ assessment and evaluation practices are still incongruent with recommended best practices (Galluzzo, 2005; Mertler, 2003, 2009; Volante & Fazio, 2007; Zhang & Burry-Stock, 2003). Hence, the need to determine the implications of classroom assessment practices on the professional development programs and the impact of training programs on improving assessment practices of teachers.

Professional development is commonly understood as a comprehensive, sustained and intensive approach to improving teachers’ and administrators’ effectiveness in raising students’ achievement. In North America, there is relatively little emphasis on assessment in the professional development of teachers (Stiggins, 2002). For example, out of 10 Canadian provinces and 50 US states, only Hawaii and Nebraska allocated a significant sum of money that is specifically targeted to improve assessment and evaluation practices within schools (Volante & Fazio, 2007). In the Philippines, systematic educational assessment has been increasingly institutionalized within schools. However, teachers’ level of confidence and competence in classroom assessment still need attention (Magno & Gonzales, 2011). Evidently, there is strong clamor for professional development programs to address the assessment literacy needs of teachers and school administrators.

Effective professional development is considered as the center of educational reforms (Dilworth & Imig, 1995) but only few studies have documented its cost and effectiveness (Lowden, 2005). Stakeholders including policy makers, board of education, legislators, funding agencies and even taxpayers all want to know if professional development makes a difference. Hence, this study assesses the impact of professional development on classroom assessment practices of teachers.

224


Objectives of the Study The following objectives are addressed in the study: 1) to examine the factor structure of the of teachers’ classroom assessment practices as measured by the CAPSQSQ and 2) to examine assess the impact of professional development on classroom assessment practices.

Method Participants The sample consisted of 364 teachers from three geographical regions in the Philippines. Participants were predominantly females (82%) and with more than six years teaching experience (86%). In the sample, 67% came from tertiary schools and the remaining 33% came from either elementary or secondary school. Distribution by educational level slightly varies, 44 % with bachelor’s degree and 56% with either master’s or doctoral degree. Half of the participants took an assessment course during their pre-service training. Similarly, half indicated attending professional development in classroom assessment within the past three years. Measure

The initial pilot version of the Classroom Assessment Practices Survey Questionnaire (CAPSQ: Gonzales, 2011) consisted of 60 items that were sorted according to thematic similarities using simple Q-sort method (Stephenson, 1953). Item content was derived from interview data from teachers and the works of Birembaum (1997), Bliem and Davinroy (1997), Brown (2002,2004), Brown and Lake (2006), Cheng, Rogers and Hu (2004), Hill, (2002), Mblelani (2008), Mertler (1998, 2003, 2009), Sanchez and Brisk (2004) and Zhang and Burry-Stock (2003). Emerging and recognized scholarship on assessment (Earl and Katz, 2006; Stiggins, 1997, 2008; Angelo & Cross, 1993; Airasian, 1997; and Black & William, 1998) also was consulted.

Items used a 5-point Likert type response scale describing frequency (1-never to 5-always) of doing an assessment activity. Three experts on scale development and classroom assessment reviewed the items in terms of

225


format as well as content clarity and relevance. Items were subsequently categorized according to the four purposed of assessment based on a framework currently used by the Western and Northern Canadian Protocol and described by Earl (2003) and Earl and Katz (2004). These distinct but interrelated purposes include: 1) assessment of learning, 2) assessment as learning, 3) assessment for learning, and 4) assessment to inform. Only 21 items were endorsed by the reviewers and fitted well to the framework.

Procedure

The 21-item pretest form of the CAPSQ was administered to teachers

from various elementary, secondary, and tertiary schools located in Metro Manila and in the southern and northern Luzon regions. Data were collected by the first author during seminar-workshops or through direct contacts by the research assistants who also were teachers from the areas covered in the study. Participants were informed of the purposes the study as part of the informed consent. Data Analysis

Data were initially subjected to descriptive statistics and evaluated for

normality through skewness and kurtosis. To examine the factor structure of the CAPSQ, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted using principal axis factoring (PAF) with promax oblique rotation. PAF can yield a factor structure of the CAPSQ with minimum number of factors that can account for the common variance (or correlation) of items (Costello & Osborne, 2005). Promax oblique rotation was preferred over orthogonal rotation because it assumes that the extracted factors are correlated (Preacher & McCallum, 2002). The number of factors that contribute substantial variance to overall latent factor of classroom assessment practices as measured by the CAPSQ was determined using the criteria of Kaiser eigenvalue greater than 1.0 and Cattell’s scree test (Schultz & Whitney, 2005). Additional psychometric evaluation of CAPSQ’s internal consistency was done by calculating the scale and total scores’ Cronbach’s alpha and factorial correlations.

Hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to examine the impact

of professional development on classroom assessment practices of the participants. Prior to series of regression analyses, bivariate correlations

226


were computed between CAPSQ total score and demographic and teaching-related variables to determine possible moderating variables. Hierarchical regression analysis was conducted in the following manner. Step 1 regression equation was comprised of the moderating variables as predictors of classroom assessment practices. In Step 2 regression equation, classroom assessment pre-service training was added to predictors in Step 1. In Step 3 regression equation, classroom assessment in-service training was added to predictors in Step 2. Finally, Step 4 included those predictors in Step 3 as well as the two-way interactions of the moderating variables and professional development training activities. A p≤ .05 was used for all stages of the regression analyses.

Results Psychometrics of the CAPSQ

Initial analyses were conducted to determine whether assumptions for univariate normality were met. Item skew (-.35 to -1.33) and kurtosis (05 to 1.63) values were within the acceptable range, /3/ and /10/, respectively (Kline, 2010). Inter-item correlation matrix indicates that the coefficients were generally small (e.g., r =.14 for items 8 & 19) to moderate (e.g., r = .34 for items 4 & 14), suggesting that the correlation matrix was appropriate for factor analysis. Item means (and standard deviations) ranged from 4.07 (.89) for item 7 to 4.46 (.75) for item 14. Initial solutions for the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) that included Bartlett’s test of sphericity, χ2 (210, N = 364) = 5200.62, p < .001, and the size of the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy (.94) suggest that the data were satisfactory for factor analysis (Hutcheson & Sofroniou,1999). Results of the initial PAF yielded a five-factor solution that accounted for a total variance of approximately 72%. However, promax rotation method with Kaiser Normalization indicated that only two items (16 and 24) loaded on factor 5, and their content cannot be easily interpreted. Further, items 7, 10, and 18 have similar loadings (i.e., ≥ .30) on two factors. These five items were subsequently eliminated and EFA was again conducted with the remaining 18 items.

227


Table 1 Initial Communalities and Pattern Matrix of the Final 18 Items of the CAPSQ

Abbreviated Item 1 2 3 4 Communalities Factor 1 (50.27%) Item 2: Monitor learning progress .87 -.03 .03 -.01 .72 Item 4: Do self-assessment .86 -.08 .10 -.10 .68 Item 6: How students can learn .74 .01 -.04 .04 .54 Item 3: Getting personal feedback .71 .01 -.05 .20 .68 Item 1: Develop clear criteria .63 .08 .05 .08 .65 Item 5: Set the criteria .59 .13 .03 .09 .60 Factor 2 (8.02%) Item 8: Measure extent of learning -.02 .95 -.21 .03 .64 Item 9: Evaluate level of competence -.04 .84 .04 -.06 .61 Item 11: Determine desired outcomes .02 .82 -.10 .11 .69 Item 12: Make final decision .10 .59 .18 -.01 .60 Factor 3 (5.98%) Item 19: Inform other school officials .01 -.31 .94 .12 .60 Item 20: Provide information to parents

.12 .20 .64 -.18 .56

Item 22: Compare relative to others .14 .28 .45 -.11 .59 Item 23: Supply information to teachers

.03 -.06 .44 .14 .61

Factor 4 (5.45%) Item 17: Help students improve learning

.08 -.06 -.06 .86 .59

Item 15: Strengths and weaknesses .01 -.02 .18 .68 .61 Item 13: Identify better learning .11 .13 -.06 .58 .47 Item 14: Collect learning data -.14 .16 .26 .50 .48

Initial communalities of the final 18 items ranged from .47 to .72, with

a mean coefficient of .61. Results of the PAF for this solution suggest that a four- factor solution would best describe the structure of CAPSQ. Total variance explained by these four factors was approximately 62%: factor 1 accounted for the majority of the variance, 50.27%; factor 2 accounted 8.02%; factor 3 accounted 5.98%; and factor 4 accounted 5.45%. Each of these four factors also contributed at least 3% of the sum of squared loadings. Items have pure loadings of at least .40 on only one factor. Initial communalities and pattern matrix of the final items are presented in Table 1.

Internal consistency of the factor scores and total score was calculated using Cronbach’s alpha (α). The four factors demonstrated high internal

228


consistency, with α = .92 for factor 1, α = .88 for factor 2, α = .83 for factor 3, and α = .85 for factor 4. Internal consistency for the total score also was high, α = .95. Inter- factor correlations ranged from .57 (moderate) to .72 (high). Correlations between CAPSQ factors and total score were all very high (r = .82-.92), indicating that total score can be the most accurate and valid estimate of the classroom assessment practices. Impact of Professional Development on Classroom Assessment Practices

Bivariate correlations indicates that CAPSQ total was significantly

associated with level of teaching (r = -.40, p < .001), class size (r = -.28, p < .01), and academic attainment (r = -.21, p < .001). CAPSQ total was not correlated with length of teaching (r = -.03, p > .05). In addition, correlations between CAPSQ total and professional development activities were significant: pre-service (r = -.32, p < .001) and in-service (r = -.39, p < .001) trainings. These significant correlations suggest possible moderating effects of level of teaching, class size, and educational attainment on the association of professional development and classroom assessment practices. Thus, the main effects of these variables and their interaction with professional development were included in the regression analysis. Initial hierarchical regression analyses indicate that academic attainment was not significantly associated with CAPSQ total and thus, a subsequent analysis was conducted with academic attainment not included in the moderating variable block.

Results of the hierarchical regression analysis indicates that from Step 1, the two moderating variables entered as a block accounted for almost 24% of the variance in CAPSQ total, Adj R2 = .24, F (2, 360) = 56.95, p < .001. Level of teaching (β = -.40, t = -8.75, p < .001) and class size (β = .28, t = 6.12, p < .001) were significantly associated with CAPSQ total. Compared to college/university teachers (M = 85.98, SD = 12.00), elementary and high school teachers (M = 96.38, SD = 9.42) reported higher CAPSQ total scores. Similarly, teachers handling large classes (M = 91.09, SD = 10.42) reported higher CAPSQ total scores than teachers handling small classes (M = 82.36, SD = 16.30). The results from Step 2 indicate that after controlling for the effects of the moderating variables, classroom assessment pre-service training accounted for approximately 3% increase in the variance in CAPSQ total, ΔR2 = .03, ΔF (1, 359) = 13.70, p < .001. Pre-service training was significantly associated with CAPSQ total (β = -.19, t = - 3.70, p < .001).

229


Teachers who took a course in classroom assessment (M = 93.39, SD = 11.59) reported higher CAPSQ total scores than teachers without any course in classroom assessment (M = 85.20, SD = 11.45) during their college years. Consistent with Step 1, level of teaching (β = -.32, t = -4.95, p < .001) and class size (β = .29, t = 6.39, p < .001) were associated with CAPSQ total.

The results from Step 3 indicate that after controlling for the effects of pre-service training and the moderating variables, in-service training in classroom assessment accounted for approximately 4% increase in the variance in CAPSQ total, ΔR2 = .04, ΔF (1, 358) = 22.76, p < .001. In-service training is significantly associated with CAPSQ total (β = -.28, t = - 4.77, p < .001). Teachers who attended at least in-service training related to classroom assessment during the last three years (M = 94.03, SD = 11.94) reported higher CAPSQ total than teachers who did not attend any in-service training (M = 85.20, SD = 11.45). In contrast to Step 2, pre-service training is not associated with CAPSQ total (β = -.03, t = -.50, p > .05). Similar in Steps 1 and 2, level of teaching (β = -.27, t = -5.69, p < .001) and class size (β = .30, t = 6.79, p < .001) were associated with CAPSQ total.

The results from Step 4 indicate that after controlling for the main effects, two-way interactions of professional development trainings and moderating variables provided a further 4% increase in the variance associated with CAPSQ total, ΔR2 = .04, ΔF (6, 352) = 3.53, p > .05. Two interactions were significantly associated with CAPSQ total: level of teaching by pre-service training (β = -1.02, t = -2.56, p < .05 and class size by in-service training (β = .92, t = 2.96, p < .01). Consistent with Step 3, in-service training is associated with CAPSQ total, β = -.70, t = -2.14, p < .05. All other interactions and main effects were not significant.

Discussion

The discussion section is organized around two broad areas: the development and initial validation of the CAPSQ and the impact of teachers’ professional development on classroom assessment practices. Implications of the findings for classroom practice, research and professional development are also discussed.

230


The CAPSQ as a Measure of Classroom Assessment Practices The factor structure of the CAPSQ conformed to the general purposes

of classroom assessment that was considered as a framework in the conceptualization phase of the scale development. All factor and total scores demonstrated high internal consistency. However, there was strong evidence of factor-total score overlap suggesting that the total score is the most valid index when using the CAPSQ to describe classroom assessment practices. Although this is psychometrically true, item and factor information may be beneficial when determining teachers’ strengths and weaknesses in dispensing their roles related to classroom assessment. For example, school administrators and teachers themselves can examine the pattern of responses at the factor and item levels for professional development purposes. CAPSQ total score may be the information to use for research and longitudinal growth modeling in developmental program evaluation. Descriptions of the empirically derived four factors of CAPSQ are important to facilitate understanding of classroom assessment practices.

Factor 1: Assessment as learning. This factor refers to the practices

of teachers in giving assessment that is aimed at developing and supporting student’s knowledge of his/her thought process (i.e., metacognition). Assessment as learning is translated into practice when teachers assess students by providing them with opportunities to show what they have learned in class (Murray 2006), by creating an environment where it is conducive for students to complete an assigned tasks and by helping students to develop clear criteria of good learning practices (Hill, 2002). This factor also implies that teachers decide to assess students to guide them to acquire personal feedback and monitoring of their learning process (Murray, 2006; Sanchez & Brisk, 2004). Assessment as learning requires more task-based activities than traditional paper-pencil tests. This teaching practice provides examples of good self-assessment practices for students to examine their own learning process (Kubiszyn & Borich, 2007; Mory, 1992). Factor 2: Assessment of learning. This factor refers to assessment practices of teachers to determine current status of student achievement against learning outcomes and in some cases, how their achievement compare with their peers (Earl, 2005; Gonzales, 1999; Harlen, 2007). The main focus of assessment of learning is how teachers make use assessment

231


results to guide instructional and educational decisions (Bond, 1995; Musial, Nieminem, Thomas & Burle, 2009). Hence, this factor describes practices that are associated with summative assessment (Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-Gordon, 2009; Harlen, 2007; Struyf, Vandenberghe, & Lens (2001).

In summative assessment, teachers aim to improve instructional programs based on how students have learned as reflected by various assessment measures given at the end of the instructional program (Borko et. al., 1997; Harlen, 2008; Mbelani, 2008). Teachers conduct summative assessment to make final decisions about the achievement of students at the end of the lesson or subject (Stiggins, Arter, Chappuis & Chappuis, 2004).

Factor 3: Assessment to inform. This factor refers to the

communicative function of assessment, which is reporting and utilizing results for various stakeholders (Jones and Tanner, 2008). Teachers perform assessment to provide information both to students and their parents, other teachers, schools, and future employers regarding students’ performance in class (Guillickson, 1984; Sparks, 2005). Assessment to inform is related to assessment of learning since the intention of assessment is to be able to provide information to parents about the performance of their children in school at the end of an instructional program (Harlen, 2008). Teachers use assessment to rank students and to use assessment results to provide a more precise basis to represent the achievement of students in class through grades and rating (Manzano, 2000; Murray, 2006; Sparks, 2005).

Factor 4: Assessment for learning. This factor refers to practices of

teachers to conduct assessment to determine the progress in learning by giving tests and other tools to measure learning during instruction (Biggs, 1995; Docky & McDowell, 1997; Murray, 2006; Sadler, 1989; Sparks, 2005). Assessment for learning or formative assessment requires the use of learning tests, practice tests, quizzes, unit tests, and the like (Boston, 2002; MacLellan, 2001; Stiggins et al, 2004). Teachers prefer these formative assessment tools to cover some predetermined segment of instruction that focuses on a limited sample of learning outcomes Assessment for learning requires careful planning so that teachers can use the assessment information to determine what students know and gain insights into how, when and whether students apply what they know (Earl & Katz (2006).

In formative assessment, teachers help students identify strengths and weaknesses and subsequently guide them to their learning during

232


instructional program (Stiggins et al, 2004; Stiggins, 2008; Mory, 1992). Teachers who engage in assessment for learning help students to determine their learning problems, identify remedial strategies, and make suggestions to improve their learning process (Musial et al., 2009; Sparks, 2005). Impact of Professional Development on Classroom Assessment Practices

In general, professional development enhances classroom assessment

practices. Both pre-service and in-service trainings when treated separately accounted for similar amount of variance in classroom assessment practices of teachers. However when both types are taken together, in-service training tends to obscure the predictive power of pre-service training. This is not surprising since in-service professional development tackles assessment topics and activities that are congruent to the needs and concerns of teachers rather than understanding of concepts and theories mostly covered in introductory pre-service assessment courses. Although assessment literacy and knowledge in measurement and testing have significant impact on teachers’ assessment practices and skills (Gullikson, 1984; Wise, Lukin & Roos, 1991; Zhang & Burry-Stock, 2003), teachers may benefit more from in-service professional development because it gives them the opportunity to reflect upon their practice Gullikson, 1986; Hill, 2002; Mansour, 2009) and their common shared experiences oftentimes serve as points for discussion during in-service training sessions (Mbelani, 2008; Sanchez & Brisk, 2004).

Impact of professional development on classroom assessment practices is not a simple linear association. This study confirmed the important role of level of teaching and class size in understanding the influence of professional development on classroom assessment practices of teachers. Elementary and high school teachers reported engaging more frequently in classroom assessment activities than college teachers, a finding consistent with reports by Zhang and Burry-Stock (2003). Variation in teachers’ assessment practices may be due to the nature of assessment delineated by their teaching levels. For example, elementary and high schools provide more assessment activities to students (Adams & Hsu, 1998; Gonzales, 2011; Stiggins & Conklin, 1992, Zhang and Burry-Stock, 2003). These activities include written and oral tests, performance tasks, projects, and homework that may be embedded in instruction (Mertler, 2009). Teacher in elementary and high school levels consider more classroom

233


assessment as a continuous activity to improve the quality of instruction and motivate students to learn (Gronlund, 2006; Stiggins & Conklin, 1992). On the other hand, less frequent classroom assessment by college teachers perhaps imply that they give less assessment because they have more autonomy and self-regulated in their teaching (Plake, 1993; Schafer, 1991; Zhang, 1995). Another reason for less frequent assessment activities by college teachers is the shorter instructional period (semester) for a course or subject compared in elementary and high schools that have the entire school year as instructional period for a subject. Thus, assessment activities in college classrooms are limited and more delineated perhaps to certain assessment purposes (i.e., more summative than formative). As mentioned previously, class size moderates the influence of professional development on classroom assessment practices. Teachers handling large classes reported more frequent assessment activities than teachers handling small classes, consistent with findings that teachers’ assessment practices is affected by the number of students in a class (Borko, et al., 1997; Danielson, 2008; Gonzales, 2011; Gullickson, 1984; Stiggin & Conklin, 1992; Zhang, 1995). The results may suggest that frequent assessment activities by teachers teaching more students ensure more information that teachers can use to discriminate student performance as well as to achieve fair and objectives in grading especially when comparing performance of students with his/her peers. Significant interactions are associated with classroom assessment practices. First, there is differential influence of level of teaching and in-service training on classroom assessment. Compared to college teachers with pre-service training on assessment, elementary and high school teachers with pre-service training on assessment reported better classroom assessment practices. This finding may imply that content and skills taught in pre-service assessment courses that are required in pre-service teacher training degree programs are more tailored and useful to the assessment needs of elementary and high school students. Surprisingly, even those elementary and high school teachers without pre-service training in assessment reported better assessment practices that college teachers with pre-service training. Other factors beyond (e.g., peer interaction) may explain this finding and is beyond the scope of the current study. Lastly, class size and in-service training on assessment differentially influence classroom assessment practices. Teachers in large classes and who attended in-service training reported better assessment practices compared

234


to teachers in small classes and who did not attend in-service training. While obviously in-service training increases assessment competence, teachers handling large classes are given more opportunities to harness their knowledge and skills in assessment because of the diversity of the learning needs in large classes. Summary of the Implications of the Findings for Classroom Practice, Research and Professional Development The present study attempted to develop a valid and psychometrically sound measure of classroom assessment practices and to examine the impact of professional development on classroom assessment practices. The study suggests that the CAPSQ will be useful to school principals and administrators in determining teachers’ classroom assessment practices. Since this is a self-report questionnaire, it is not easy to assume that high CAPSQ total score would imply better assessment practices while a low CAPSQ total score implies the strong need for professional development and training on classroom assessment. Hence, the CAPSQ could be more useful to principals and school administrators as tool for identifying professional development needs related to classroom assessment if a classroom assessment skills checklist would be given to avoid relying solely on what teachers reported through CAPSQ. This way, teachers’ responses will be validated.

The findings also revealed a number of implications for classroom practice and professional development. First, teachers handling larger classes may be encouraged to attend more professional development program on classroom assessment that is specifically designed to handle large class assessment. This program will provide them larger reservoir of assessment tools and techniques given the need to give more assessment activities and using more evaluation tools to ensure objectivity in determining students’ performance in class. Second, while college or university mentors are implied to have more autonomy and more self-regulated in their teaching, it is also important that they are also provided with professional development program on classroom assessment to improve their classroom assessment practices. It was noted that majority of college teachers have not undergone formal teacher-training, hence, in-service professional development programs should be designed to meet this specific need. Third, the lesser impact of pre-service professional

235


development necessitates a review and revisit on the current curriculum and syllabus of educational measurement and evaluation and education testing in teacher-training programs. The revision should be focused on practical applications of assessment rather than theoretical and conceptual understanding of classroom assessment. Fourth, in-service professional development should be encouraged more and the focus must be on the instructional activities taking place in their classroom, while pre-service professional development programs on classroom assessment should in integrated with student teaching and practicum and other practical teaching experiences.

Finally, this study has some implications to research. The generalizability of specific results of this current study may be limited by its use of a newly developed questionnaire and participating respondents. The use of multiple methods of data collection including classroom observation, analysis of teacher-made assessment tools, and teacher interview to validate the teacher self-report is strongly recommended in future studies. Future research may also examine the relationship between teachers’ assessment practices and assessment skills, particularly on how assessment skills may improve assessment practices and on what practices are essentials in developing classroom assessment skills.

References

Adams, E. L., & Hsu, J. Y. (1998). Classroom assessment: Teachers’

conceptions and practices in mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 98(4), 174-180.

Airasian, P. W. (1997). Classroom assessment. New York: McGraw-Hill. Alkharusi, H. (2008). Effects of classroom assessment practices on students’

achievement goals. Educational Assessment, 13, 243-266. Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271. Angelo, T., & Cross, P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques (2nd ed.). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Astin, A. W. (1991). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of

assessment and evaluation in higher education. New York: American Council on Education/Macmillan.

Black, P., & William, D. (1998a) Assessment and classroom learning, Educational Assessment: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5(1), 7-74.

236


Black, P., & William, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-148.

Bennet, R. E., & Gitomer, D. H. (2009). Transforming K-12 assessment: Integrating accountability testing, formative assessment and professional support. In C. Wyatt-Smith & J. J. Cumming (Eds.), Educational assessment in the 21st century (pp. 43-62). Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London and New York: Springer.

Biggs, J. (1995). Assessing for learning: some dimensions underlying new approaches to educational assessment. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 41(1), 1-17.

Birenbaum, M. (1997). Assessment preferences and their relationship to learning strategies and orientations. Higher Education, 33, 71–84.

Birenbaum, M. (2000). New insights into learning and teaching and the implications for assessment.Keynote address at the 2000 conference of the EARLI SIG on assessment and evaluation, September13, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Birenbaum, M., & Feldman, R. A. (1998). Relationships between learning patterns and attitudes towards twoassessment formats. Educational Research, 40(1), 90–97.

Bliem, C.L. & Davinroy, K.H. (1997). Teachers’ beliefs about assessment and instruction in literacy. CSE Technical Report 421, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST), Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles.

Bond, L. A. (1995). Critical issue: Rethinking assessment and its role in supporting educational reforms. Oaks Brooks, IL: North Central Regional Education Laboratory. [on-line] Available: http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/assessment/as700.htm.

Borko, H., Mayfield, V., Marion, S., Flexer, R., & Cumbo, K. (1997). Teachers’ developing ideas and practices about mathematics performance assessment: Successes, stumbling blocks, and implications for development, Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(3), 259-278.

Boston, C. (2002). The concept of formative assessment. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(9). [on-line] Available: http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=9.

Brown, G. T. L. (2002) Teachers’ conception of assessment. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Unversity of Auckland, New Zealand.

http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/assessment/as700.htm

http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/assessment/as700.htm

http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=9

237


Brown, G. T. L. (2004). Teachers’ conceptions of assessment: implications for policy and professional development. Assessment in Educatio: Policy, Principles and Practice, 11(3), 305-322.

Brown, G. T. L. (2006), Teachers’ conceptions of assessment: Validation of an abridged instrument. Psychological Reports, 99, 166-170.

Brown, G. T. L., & Lake, R. (2006) Queensland teachers’ conceptions of teaching, learning, curriculum and assessment: Comparison with New Zealand teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Australian Association of Research in Education, Adelaide, Australia.

Cheng, L., Rogers, T., & Hu, H. (2004) ESL/EFL instructors’ classroom assessment practices: purposes, methods, and procedures. Language Testing, 21(3), 360-389.

Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. Teacher’s College Record, 102, 294-343.

Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 10(7). [on-line] Available: http://pareonline.net/getyn.asp?v=10&n=7.

Danielson, C. (2008). Assessment for learning: For teachers as well as students. In C.A. Dwyer (Ed). The future of assessment: Shaping teaching and learning (pp. 191-213). New York: Taylor & Francis.

DeVillis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. California: Sage Publications.

Dilworth, M. E., & Imig, D. G. (1995). Reconceptualizing professional teacher development. The ERIC Review, 3(3), 5-11.

Dochy, F., & McDowell, L. (1997). Assessment as a tool for learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23(4), 279–298.

Dunbar, S. B., Koretz, D. M., & Hoover, H. D. (1991). Quality control in the development and use of performance assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 4(4), 289-303.

Earl, L. (2005 Spring). Classroom assessment: Making learning paramount. Mass Journal, 5(1), 14-15.

Earl, L., & Katz, S. (2006). Rethinking classroom assessment with purpose in mind. Western and Northern Canadian Protocol for Collaboration in Education. [on-line] Available: www.wncp.ca

Galluzzo, G. R. (2005). Performance assessment and renewing teacher education. Clearing House, 78(4), 142-145.

http://www.wncp.ca/

238


Guskey, T. (2003). What makes professional development effective? Phi Delta Kappan, 84(10), 748-750.

Gielen, S., Dochy, F., & Dierick, S. (2003). Evaluating the consequential validity of new modes of assessment: The influence of assessment on learning, including pre-, post-, and true assessment effects. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards (pp. 37–54). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Gijbels, D., Dochy, F., Van den Bossche, P., & Segers, M. (2005). Effects of problem based learning: A meta-analysis from the angle of assessment. Review of Educational Research, 75(1), 27–61.

Gijbels, D., van de Watering, G., Dochy, F., & Van den Bossche, P. (2005). The relationship between students’ approaches to learning and the assessment of learning outcomes. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 20(4), 327–341.

Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2009). Supervision and instructional leadership: a developmental approach. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Gonzales, R. DLC. (1999). Assessing thinking skills in the classroom: Types, techniques and taxonomy of measures of thinking skills in higher education. Philippines Journal of Educational Measurement, 9(1), 17-26.

Gonzales, R. DLC. (2011). Classroom assessment preferences of English and Japanese languages teachers in Japan and in the Philippines: A comparative study. A research report submitted to The Sumitomo Foundation for Japan-Related Studies Research Grant.

Gonzales, R. DLC., & Fuggan, C. G. (2012). Exploring the conceptual and psychometric properties of the classroom assessment. The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 10(1), 45-60.

Gregory, R. J. (1996). Psychological testing: History, principles, and applications (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Gronlund, N. E. (2006). Assessment of student achievement (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Guillickson, A. R. (1984) Teachers perspectives of their instructional use of test. Journal of Educational Research, 77(4), 244-248.

239


Guillickson, A. R. (1986). Teacher education and teacher-perceived needs in educational measurement and evaluation. Journal of Educational Measurement, 23(4), 347-354.

Harlen, W. (2007). Assessment of learning. London: Sage Publication Harlen, W. (2008). Trusting teachers’ judgment. In S. Swaffield, Unlocking

assessment (pp. 138-153). Abingdon, Ox: Routhledge. Hill, M. (2002). Focusing on teacher’s gaze: Primary teachers reconstructing

assessment in self-managed schools. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 1, 113-125.

Hutcheson, G., & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist: Introductory statistics using generalized linear models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Jones, S., & Tanner, H. (2008). Assessment: A practical guide for secondary teachers (2nd ed.). London: Continuum.

Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of Structural Equation Modeling (3rd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.

Kubiszyn, T., & Borich, G. (2007). Educational testing and measurement: Classroom application and practice, (8th ed.). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Linn, R., & Miller, M. (2005). Measurement and assessment in teaching (9th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill-Prentice Hall.

Lowden, C. (2005). Evaluating the impact of professional development. Journal of Research in Professional Learning.

MacLellan, E. (2001). Assessment for learning: The differing perceptions of tutors and students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26, 307–318.

Magno, C., & Gonzales, R. DLC (2011). Measurement and evaluation in the Philippine higher education: Trends and development. In E. Valenzuela (Ed.), UNESCO Policy Studies: Trends and development in Philippine Education (pp. 47-58). Manila: UNESCO.

Manzano, R. (2000). Transforming classroom grading. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R. J. (2006). Classroom assessment and grading that work. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Mansour, N. (2009). Science teachers’ beliefs and practices: Issues , implications and reseach agenda. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(1), 25-48.

240


Mbelani, M. (2008). Winds of change in teachers’ classroom assessment practice: A self-critical reflection on the teaching and learning of visual literacy in a rural eastern CAPSQe High School. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 7(3), 100-114.

Mertler, C. A. (1998). Classroom assessment practices of Ohio teachers. A Paper presented at the 1998 Annual Meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Reseach Association, Chicago, Illinois, October 14-17, 1998.

Mertler, C. A. (2003, October). Preservice versus inservice teachers’ assessment literary: Does classroom experience make a difference? Paper presented at the meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association, Columbus, OH.

Mertler, C.A. (2009). Teachers’ assessment knowledge and their perceptions of the impact of classroom assessment professional development. Improving Schools, 12(2), 101-113.

Messick, S. (1989). Educational measurement (3rd Ed.). New York: American Council on Education/MacMillan.

Mory, E. (1992). The use of informational feedback in instruction: Implications for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(3), 5-20.

Murray, S. (2006). The role of feedback and assessment in language learning. Rhode University, Grahamstown.

Musial, D., Nieminem, G., Thomas, J., & Burke, K. (2009). Foundations of meaningful educational assessment. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Nitko, A. J., & Brookhart, S. M. (2007). Educational assessment of students (5th Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Plake, B. S. (1993). Teacher assessment literacy: Teachers’ competencies in the educational assessment of students. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 6(1), 21-27.

Popham, W. J. (2003). Seeking redemption for our psychometric sins. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22(1), 45-48.

Popham, W. J. (2008). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Preacher, K. J., & MacCallum, R. C. (2002). Exploratory factor analysis in behavior genetics research: Factor recovery with small sample sizes. Behavior Genetics, 32, 153-161.

http://www.quantpsy.org/pubs/preacher_maccallum_2002.pdf

http://www.quantpsy.org/pubs/preacher_maccallum_2002.pdf

241


Raty, H., Kasanen, K., & Honkalampi, K. (2006). Three years later: A follow-up student of parents’ assessments of their children’s competencies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(9), 2079-2099.

Rust, C. (2002). Purposes and principles of assessment. Oxford Center for Staff and Learning Development, Learning and Teaching Briefing Paper Series.

Sadler, R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119-144.

Sanchez, M. T., & Brisk, M.E. (2004). Teachers’ assessment practices and understandings in bilingual program. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 2(1), 1993-208.

Sato, M., Wei, R. C., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Improving teachers’ assessment practices through professional development: The case of National Board Certification. American Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 669-700.

Schafer, W.D. (1991). Essential assessment skills in professional education of teachers. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10(1), 3-6.

Shultz, K.S., & Whitney, D.A. (2005). Measurement theory in action: Case studies and exercises Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Segers, M., Dochy, F., & Cascallar, E. (2003). The era of assessment engineering: Changing perspectives on teaching and learning and the role of new modes of assessment. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards (pp. 1–12). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Sparks, D. (2005). Learning for results. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.

Stake, R. E. (2004). Standards-based and responsive evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Stiggins, R.J. (1997). Student-centered classroom assessment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Where is our assessment future and how can we get there from here? In R. W. Lissitz & W.D. Schafer (Eds), Assessment in educational reform: Both means and ends (pp. 18-48). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Stiggins, R. J. (2008). An introduction to student-involved assessment FOR learning. New Jersey: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall

http://www.sagepub.com/booksProdDesc.nav?prodId=Book225609

http://www.sagepub.com/booksProdDesc.nav?prodId=Book225609

242


Stiggins, R. J., & Chappuis, J. (2005). Using student-involved classroom to close achievement gaps. Theory into Practice, 44(1), 11-18.

Stiggins, R., & Conklin, N. F. (1992). In teachers’ hands: Investigating the practices of classroom assessment. Albany: SUNY Press.

Stiggins, R. J., Arter J. A., Chappuis, J., & Chappuis, S. (2004). Classroom assessment for student learning: Doing it right – Using it well. Portland, Oregon: Assessment Training Institute.

Struyf, E., Vandenberghe, R., & Lens, W. (2001). The evaluation practice of teachers as a learning opportunity for students. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 27(3), 215–238.

Van de Watering, G., Gjibels, D., Docky, F., & Van der Rijt, J. (2008). Students’ assessment preferences, perceptions of assessment and their relationships to study results. Higher Education, 56, 645–658

Vardar, E. (2010). Sixth, seventh and eight grade teachers’ conception of assessment. Unpublished masters thesis, Graduate School of Social Sciences Middle East Technical University.

Volante, L., & Fazio, X. (2007). Exploring teacher candidates’ assessment literacy: Implications for teacher education reform and professional development. Canadian Journal of Education, 30(3), 749-770.

Wise, S. L., Lukin, L. E., & Roos, L. L. (1991). Teacher beliefs about training in testing and measurement. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(1), 37-42.

Zhang, Z. (1995). Investigating teachers’ self-perceived assessment practices and assessment competencies on the Assessment Practices Inventory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama.

Zhang, Z., & Burry-Stock, J. A. (2003). Classroom assessment practices and teachers’ self-perceived assessment skills. Applied Measurement in Education, 16(4), 323-342.

243


Dr. Richard DLC Gonzales is an International Development Consultant for Education and Human Resources Development. He is the President of the Philippine Educational Measurement and Evaluation Association and a Professorial Lecturer of Psychology and Educational Measurement at University of Santo Tomas Graduate School

Mr. Carmelo Callueng has his graduate training in school psychology at the University of Florida. His research has focused on areas related to test adaptation, children’s temperaments, school learning, and positive psychology.

Classroom Assessment Practices of Filipino Teachers: Measurement and Impact of Professional...

Documents

Transcript of Classroom Assessment Practices of Filipino Teachers: Measurement and Impact of Professional...