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