TEACHERS’ ASSESSMENT SKILLS IN PRACTICE ACROSS DEPARTMENTS IN A
CATHOLIC EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION: A CROSS-SECTIONAL ANALYSIS
DR. DAVID CABABARO BUENO
Dean, Graduate School
Columban College, Inc.
Olongapo City
docdave3090@gmail.com
DR. SEGUNDO C. REDONDO, JR.*
Principal, Basic Education
Columban College, Inc.
Olongapo City
Segred71@yahoo.com
Abstract – This study concentrated on the analysis of the classroom assessment skills and
practices of teachers across levels in a private Catholic school. The descriptive cross-sectional
design was utilized to gather descriptive and comparative data during the Academic Year 20162017. All teachers from elementary, junior and senior high school were considered as participants.
The Classroom Assessment Practices and Skills (CAPS) questionnaire was used. Reliability
estimates of teachers’ perceived skill in classroom assessment were done using Cronbach’s
Alpha, which was α = .95 indicating high levels of internal consistency. The data gathered were
analyzed using Mean, and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) at .05 level of confidence. The teachers
across levels were very skilled in calculating central tendency of teacher-made tests, assessing
students’ class participation, using assessment results in planning, decision-making,
communicating and providing feedback, problem solving, evaluating class improvement, and
writing true or false tests. Moreover, they are skilled in writing multiple-choice tests measuring
higher order thinking skills (HOTS). They always prepare and employ multiple-choice question,
true or false and essay questions, HOTS, problem solving, assessment results for decisionmaking and written feedback along with student’s grades. There was significant difference
between the assessment skills of the elementary and the senior high school teachers.
Furthermore, no significant differences on the assessment practices teachers across levels were
found. Furthermore, there was a moderate positive correlation between the assessment skills and
practices of elementary, junior, and senior high school teachers. Traditional forms of assessment
are more preferred by the teachers compared to the alternative assessment.
Keywords: Classroom assessment, skills and practices, cross-sectional design, elementary,
junior and senior high school teachers
INTRODUCTION
Educational assessment is an essential component of the teaching profession. It it the
process used in the classroom by the teacher to obtain information about students’ performances
on assessment tasks, using a variety of assessment methods, to determine the extent to which
students are achieving the target instructional outcomes. In this regard, researchers suggest that
a sound educational assessment requires a clear conception of all intended learning outcomes of
the instruction and a variety of assessment procedures that are relevant to the instruction,
adequate to sample student performance, and fair to everyone. This means teachers should
competently be able to choose and develop assessment methods appropriate for instructional
decisions; administer, score, and interpret results of externally produced and teacher-made
assessment; use assessment results when making educational decisions; develop valid grading
procedures; communicate assessment results to various audiences; and recognize unethical,
illegal, and inappropriate methods and uses of assessment (Alkharusi, Aldhafri, Alnabhani, &
Alkalbani, 2012).
Thus, teaching is a multifaceted process that requires teacher competencies in
measurement and assessment skills. Such skills may include: test planning and construction;
grading; interpretation of test results; use of assessment results to inform teaching and learning;
interpretation of standardized tests; and communicating results to relevant stakeholders (Koloikeaikitse, 2017).
Assessment of students is very critical because effective teaching decisions are based on
the ability of teachers to understand their students and to match actions with accurate
assessments (McMillan, 2008). However, past research has shown that there are many problems
associated with teachers’ classroom assessment practices. These include teachers’ lack of an
adequate knowledge base regarding the basic testing and measurement concepts (Stiggins,
2014), limited teacher training in assessment and failure of teachers to employ and adhere to
measurement guidelines they learned in measurement courses (Campbell & Evans, 2000).
Teachers adopt different classroom assessment practices to evaluate students’ learning
outcomes, and they spend much of their classroom time engaged in student assessment related
activities. Teachers control classroom assessment environments by choosing how they assess
their students, the frequency of these assessments, and how they give students feedback. All
these are a clear indication that classroom assessments play an integral part of the teaching and
learning process. Just like teachers everywhere, Columban College, Inc. (CCI) teachers are the
key drivers of the education process. Their instructional and classroom assessment practices are
a means by which the education system is enhanced and defined (Nenty, Adedoyin, Odili, &
Major, 2007). For this reason, it is imperative to understand the ways in which teachers feel about
assessment practices, their perceptions regarding assessment training and their experiences as
they attempt to use various assessment methods to evaluate students’ learning outcomes. It is
also important to understand their thought processes as they develop and use assessment
methods, grade students’ work and interpret assessment results. Teachers’ assessment practices
are an essential element for addressing students’ learning needs, and they can ultimately improve
the education system and accountability. Understanding teachers’ assessment practices serves
as a way of finding out if teachers adopt or use quality assessment methods to meet the learning
needs of students (McMillan, 2008).
The role of student assessment at the various levels in the educational system is to
generate information to be used for making “high stakes” decisions, such as selecting and placing
students in appropriate training programs. Student assessment in a private educational institution
also plays an important role of helping students prepare for standardized examinations needed
for those “high stakes” decisions.
However, few formal studies on teachers’ classroom assessment skills and practices have
been conducted. This makes it difficult to have a clear understanding about the nature and
magnitude of assessment issues of teachers in the elementary to senior high school. This study
endeavors to bring an awareness regarding how teachers generally perceive their classroom
assessment skills and practices as paradigm shift towards outcomes-based assessment
practices.
FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY
This study assesses the teacher’s response pattern in a set of items that measured their
perceived skills in classroom assessment practices. In order to gain insights into teacher’s
response to their perceived skill in assessment scale, an Item Response Theory (IRT) model was
utilized. IRT refers to a set of models that connects observed item responses to a participant
examinee’s location on the underlying trait that is measured by the entire scale (Mellenbergh,
1994). IRT models have been found to have a number of advantages over other methods in
assessing self-reported outcomes such as teacher beliefs, perceptions, and attitudes (Hambleton,
Swaminathan, & Rogers, 1991). IRT is a general statistical theory about examinee item and test
and how performance relates to the abilities that are measured by the items in the test. IRT models
have the potential to highlight whether items are equivalent in meaning to different respondents,
they can be used to assess items with different response patterns within the same scale of
measurement, therefore can detect different item response patterns in a given scale (Hays,
Morales, & Reise, 2000). Thus, IRT is regarded as an improved version of Classical Test Theory
(CTT) as many different tasks may be performed through IRT models that provide more flexible
information. Test items and traits of the test taker are referenced on the same interval scale (Koloikeaikitse, 2017).
In order to understand what students know or do not know, educators need assessment.
Classroom assessment is possibly the first and most important part of the teaching and learning
process that includes measurement, feedback, reflection, and change. Classroom assessments
play an important role as they are essential for generating information used for making
educational decisions. Classroom assessments also serve many purposes for teachers such as:
grading, identification of students with special learning needs, student motivation, clarification of
students’ achievement expectations, and monitoring instructional effectiveness (Stiggins, &
Bridgeford, 2014). Thus, classroom assessments must be transformed into the content and use
of assessment information and insights as part of an ongoing learning process.
The purpose of classroom assessment is not just to generate information for decision
making, but also to foster learning improvement. For this reason, if properly offered on a frequent
basis it would help students to refine and deepen their understanding of what they learn.
Classroom assessments are also essential for conveying expectations that can stimulate learning
(Wiggins, 2008). The more information we have about students, the clearer the picture we have
about their achievement, learning challenges and where those challenges emanate. For this
reason, there is a need to pay attention to how it is used, as failure to do this may lead to
inaccurate assessment of students’ achievement and may ultimately prevent students from
reaching their full academic potential (Stiggins, & Bridgeford, 2014).
In other words, assessment serves as an important deciding factor for the future of
students’ learning outcomes. Educators must have a clear understanding of the assessment
practices that teachers use as they assess students, and the assessment challenges teachers
face. The most efficient way to measure, understand, and appreciate teachers’ assessment
practices is to assess their perceptions about classroom assessment methods. They should make
decisions about the choice of assessment methods they want to employ and establish if such
methods are relevant for assessing the specific content and effective to help students reach their
academic potential. Teachers should also make decisions about how they are going to grade,
give students feedback, and how they will analyze, interpret, and use assessment results to inform
decisions in teaching and learning.
Classroom assessment involves a wide range of activities from designing paper-pencil
tests and performance measures to grading, communicating assessment results, and using them
in decision-making (Zhang & Burry-Stock, 2013). Although there is a great deal of research on
teachers’ assessment practices, few empirical research attempts have been made to link these
practices to teachers’ skills in the classroom assessment environment.
Studies which focused on classroom assessment showed that teacher assessment
practices have been affected by various subject areas such as English Language, Mathematics,
Science, Social Studies, Music, Visual Arts in the elementary, middle high school, and senior high
school departments. The results suggested that the overall use of and thinking about assessment
practices in a secondary English context aligns with prior formative assessment, although the
practices reported as used in this study seemed to be more targeted to individual students and
their learning needs (Tolley, 2016); and both Filipino and Indonesian junior high school English
teachers used assessment for learning using written comments as their primary method for
providing feedback (Balinas, 2016). Given issues related to differences in learner characteristics,
effective sampling across the content domain and recent emphases on assessing meaningfully
contextualized abilities and higher-order cognitive processes, the traditional mathematics test
arguably does not provide a valid measure of student ability, Dandis (2013), concluded that
teachers mainly use written exams to assess their student, they reported using some alternative
assessment but sporadically, the teachers showed dissatisfaction with the methods they use and
they prefer using direct observation to assess their students, and the teachers gave some
suggestions for improvement purposes; while Awoniyi (2016) used school-based among senior
high school management of assessment towards improving assessment practices; and Nabie
(2013) indicated that many practicing Mathematics teachers integrated and used multiple
assessment techniques in their problem-solving and investigation lessons. Teachers identified
pedagogical issues, motivation, social learning, diagnosis, and student thinking as the reasons
for their choice of assessment techniques. Moreover, a study of primary and secondary
mathematics teachers’ changing assessment practices in the context of policy, stakeholder, and
personal presses for change, findings revealed several trajectories of change in the interplay
between assessment forms and the functions that they serve (Saxe & Franke, 1997).
Moreover, a study on classroom assessment practices by secondary school mathematics
teachers in Nandi Central Sub-County concluded that discourse, observation, students’ selfassessment and peer assessment were the common classroom assessment practices reported.
Open-open questions, select-type items and super items were the common assessment formats
used across school categories. Assessment information were mainly used to give students grades
or marks, diagnose students‘ learning problems and to assign them to different programs or tasks
and mathematical competencies often considered when math teachers prepared assessment
tools across school categories included communication, problem solving, mathematical reasoning
and use of symbols and formal language (Eliud, 2015), while Bandele (2013) investigated
assessment literacy of science teachers in public secondary schools in Ekiti State using survey
design. Results showed that majority of the teachers had low knowledge of assessment
techniques, and placed more emphasis on formal assessment procedures than the informal. It
was recommended that regular seminar/workshop be organized for science teachers on
assessment practices for quality assessment in the classroom. In another science teachers’
assessment and grading practices study, assessment and grading practices were found to be at
odds with modern perspectives of assessment as well as its role in learning (Carmen &
Jakobsson, 2015). Furthermore, the currently described and enacted curriculum in K-8
classrooms is poorly designed for the purpose of building content knowledge according to
analyses of science curricula in the United States. A research on elementary science teachers
and formative assessment implementation in their classrooms found out that teachers bear a
great burden of using effective strategies in an attempt to create learning opportunities that lead
to greater understanding of science, and the importance of solidifying effective formative
assessment use for elementary science teachers cannot be underestimated in the efforts to
increase effective, research-based science instruction (Pierson, 2013).
The influences of teachers’ authentic assessment on their classroom practices were
paramount to both teachers’ students if implemented effectively in the Social Studies classroom.
The research found out that for improvements to be made on teacher knowledge and ability and
the policies and practices of authentic assessment in schools, teachers, students, parents and
policymakers value and see the potential for authentic assessment to improve teaching and
learning, it will continue to be under-emphasized, undervalued and poorly used. Thus, the
researcher recommended that the teaching universities in Ghana should broaden their scope on
the teaching of assessment to incorporate authentic assessment (Kankam, Bordoh, Eshun,
Bassaw, & Korang, 2014). In music education and visual arts, researchers have found out that
music teachers in the southwestern region of the United States seldom received administrative
guidance or altered assessment approaches due to standards-based curriculum adoption. They
based grades on a combination of achievement and non-achievement criteria, with nonachievement criteria receiving greater weight in determining grades. Although instructional time,
number of students taught, and number of concert performances prepared/ given had no
substantive relationship with assessment decisions, grading practices were influenced by
teaching level and teaching specialization (Russell & Austin, 2010); and showed that visual art
teachers with the knowledge of educational measurement across Ghana and Nigeria; for the fact
that most of them were studio oriented teachers. Other studies reviewed indicated the need for
training of teachers, generally on the new assessment strategies (Mohammed, 2015).
Moreover, a standardized test data from a southern suburban elementary school showed
lagging student scores behind those of students from similar settings. These scores suggested a
disconnection between teachers’ understanding of and practice in formative assessment. This
project may lead to positive social change by empowering teachers to design curriculum and
assessment with authentic learning experiences and providing students with goal-setting
strategies to become responsible for learning. The project’s positive social change may lead to
this school and district closing the identified achievement gap. It is recommended that further
research on teacher perception of formative assessment should include more elementary and
middle schools (Bennett, 2015), while a study on teacher factor in assessment towards enhancing
universal Basic Education in Ijebu of Ogun State attempted to find out how teachers assess their
students and areas in which teachers need assistance. Results revealed that teachers indicated
the need for assistance on some assessment procedures such as: directing students to assess
their own progress, skill of test construction and item development procedure. Recommendations
include staff re-orientation to correct systematic defects on assessment practices (Kareem, 2011).
In another elementary classroom, results were discussed in light of other research, indicating that
a greater understanding of assessment beliefs and importance of practices can contribute to the
development of relevant professional development aimed at the improvement of teachers’
assessment pedagogies and practices can contribute to greater educational success (Calveric,
2010), while an investigation on the knowledge and attitude of secondary school teachers towards
continuous assessment (CA) practices in Edo Central Senatorial District, Nigeria showed that
majority of the teachers, perceived CA practices as a systematic and comprehensive system of
evaluation but have inadequate knowledge of its cumulative and guidance oriented characteristic
(Akinlosotu, 2016); and in secondary schools in South Korea revealed that classroom speaking
assessment currently conducted has broadly employed performance-based tasks and that
somewhat informative feedback has been offered to students in the form of criterion descriptions
plus marking scores. However there was still a strong tendency here towards traditional formal
testing to measure and report learning outcomes, one which resulted in teachers having an overall
pessimistic attitude towards the positive effects of such testing on teaching and learning. It is
evident from this study that there is need for improvements in order to facilitate better learning
outcomes in the classroom (Lee, 2010). The teachers implemented Formative Assessment (FA)
practices in Grade 9 Technology classrooms in the Fort Beaufort district. The study found that
teachers had no knowledge of how to implement Formative Assessment in their classrooms and
had a negative attitude towards it. Thus, practitioners need to be re-trained on how to implement
the Formative Assessment policy in schools (Kuze & Shumba, 2011).
While it is very true that assessment plays an important part of the Teaching and Learning
(T&L) process. It is the duty of the teachers to carry out assessment tasks that would suit their
intended purpose. The research findings suggest that teachers view on the value they hold about
assessment practices and the actual practices do not show a lot of difference. It can be concluded
that teachers view about AFL is at moderately high level. The mean score of feedback for
practices and value are at the high level. Unlike the feedback, questioning records a mean score
at the high level but their practices are at the moderately high level. Other aspects of AFL are in
the moderately high level (Varatharaj, Ghani, Abdullah, & Ismail, 2014). On the other hand, a
multilevel linear modeling technique was used to examine the effects of teachers' assessment
practices on students’ perceptions of the classroom assessment environment. Results showed
that students’ perceptions of the assessment environment were shaped by student characteristics
such as self-efficacy; class contextual features such as aggregate perceived assessment
environment and average self-efficacy levels of the class; teacher’s teaching experience and
assessment practices; and interaction of student characteristics, class contextual features, and
teacher’s assessment practices (Alkharusi, 2010)
There is no empirical investigation on comparative analysis of the classroom assessment
skills and practices of the basic education teachers from elementary to senior high school that
demonstrates comparative analysis. Given the paucity of such research, Cavanagh et al. (2005)
suggest that two strategies can instead be applied: (1) examine the assessment skills in terms of
forms/approaches, and (2) examine the actual assessment practices that teachers use.
Integrating teachers’ perceptions will build a foundation and rationale for the assessment practice
they use in their classrooms, through which one can learn to what extent and in what ways
students’ impacts their learning.
Thus, the purpose of this study is to examine assessment skills and practices about
assessment of teachers particularly in a private educational system.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
This study focuses on the classroom assessment practices of teachers across levels and
departments towards outcomes-based assessment model. The specific objectives of the study
are to analyze: (1) the skills of teachers in the areas of classroom assessment; (2) the practices
of teachers related to classroom assessment; (3) the significant variations on the belief, skills and
practices on classroom assessment; and (4) the implications towards paradigm shift to outcomesbased assessment.
METHODOLOGY
A descriptive-cross-sectional design was used to gather descriptive and comparative data
for the purpose of describing the characteristics of several groups of teachers relative to their
classroom assessment practices. Descriptive cross-sectional design is used to describe
characteristics of a population or phenomenon being studied at a given time. It does not answer
questions about how/when/why the characteristics occurred. Rather it addresses the "what"
question. The characteristics used to describe the situation or population is usually some kind of
categorical scheme also known as descriptive categories. Surveys can be a powerful and useful
tool for collecting data on human characteristics, such as their beliefs, attitudes, thoughts, and
behavior (Dillman, Smtyth, & Christian, 2009; Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2009; Mertens, 2014), hence
the survey design fit very well within the framework of this study. All teachers from various levels
were covered in this study. Thus, there was no sampling technique used. The elementary school
teachers, junior high school and the senior high teachers were included. The Classroom
Assessment Practices and Skills (CAPS) questionnaire was used as the data collection
instrument. The questionnaire contains closed-ended items. The initial set of items was adopted
from Assessment Practices Inventory (Zhang & Burry-Stock, 2013). This instrument was created
and used in the United States of America to measure teachers’ skills and use of assessment
practices across teaching levels, content areas, and teachers self-perceived assessment skills as
a function of teaching experience. The Zhang & Burry-Stock (2013) instrument consists of several
items measured on two rating scales “use” and “skill” The “use” scale was meant to measure
teachers’ usage of assessment practices on a scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always). The “skill” scale
was designed to measure teachers’ self-perceived from 1 (not at all skilled) to 5 (very skilled). To
check the content-validity of the instrument, the draft questionnaire was given content experts in
classroom assessment and teacher training. They were asked to review the items for clarity and
completeness in covering most, if not all, assessment and grading practices used by teachers in
classroom settings, as well as to establish face and content validity of the instrument and items.
Necessary revisions were made based upon their analyses. The draft questionnaire with various
items was pilot tested with a total sample of 10 teachers from primary school, 10 junior high
school, and 10 senior high school to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the questionnaire
in terms of question format, wording and order of items. It was also meant to help in the
identification of question variation, meaning, item difficulty, and participants’ interest and attention
in responding to individual items, as well as to establish relationships among items and item
responses, and to check item response reliability (Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2009; Mertens, 2014).
Reliability estimates of teachers’ perceived skill in classroom assessment were estimated using
Cronbach’s Alpha, which was α = .95 indicating high levels of internal consistency. The
researchers sought permission and approval of the school president to allow the data gathering
from teachers. The researchers took into account the ethical issues such as the confidentiality of
the data gathered and the anonymity of the respondents in the administration of the
questionnaires. The data gathered were analyzed using Percentage, Mean, and Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) at .05 level of confidence.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Skills on Classroom Assessment The results of the previous study revealed that
primary school teachers, particularly those with a certificate, need more skill training in
assessment applications, statistical applications and criterion referenced testing. Primary school
teachers reported relatively higher discrepancies on use than perceived skill for statistical
applications and objective items, and secondary school teachers reported more skill than use of
statistical applications and objective items (Koloi-Keaikitse, 2012). The classroom assessment
skills of the teachers are presented in Table 1. As reflected, the elementary school teachers (EST)
are very skilled using assessment results for decision-making about individual students,
assessing individual student participation in whole class lessons, assessment of problem solving
skills, using assessment results for decision-making about individual students, using assessment
results when planning teaching, communicating classroom assessment results to others,
including student improvement in the calculation of grades, using assessment results when
evaluating class improvement, writing true or false questions, and providing written feedback
comments along with grades. Moreover, the EST are skilled in writing multiple-choice questions,
writing essay questions, and writing test items for higher cognitive levels. However, the EST are
moderately skilled in conducting item analysis for teacher-made tests, revising a test based on
item analysis, using portfolio assessment, using peer assessments for student assessments,
using a table of specifications to plan assessments, developing rubrics for grading students’
assignments, and calculating variability (standard deviation) for teacher-made tests. Thus, the
overall mean assessment is 3.88. This means that the elementary school teachers are skilled in
conducting classroom assessment of students’ learning. The classroom assessment skills of the
Junior High School Teachers (JHST) are presented in Table 1. As reflected, the JSHT are very
skilled in writing essay questions, calculating central tendency for teacher-made tests, assessing
individual student participation in whole class lessons, assessment of problem solving skills, using
assessment results for decision-making about individual students, using assessment results
when planning teaching, communicating classroom assessment results to others, including
student improvement in the calculation of grades, using assessment results when evaluating class
improvement, writing true or false questions, and providing written feedback comments along with
grades. Moreover, the JHST are skilled in writing multiple-choice questions, writing test items for
Table 1. Teachers’ Skills on Classroom Assessment
Classroom Assessment Skills
1.
2.
3.
4.
EST
X
DR*
3.42
S
4.01
S
3.99
S
4.23 VS
JHST
X
DR*
3.46
S
4.22 VS
3.91
S
4.37 VS
SHST
X
DR*
3.89
S
4.47 VS
4.10
S
4.65 VS
Writing multiple-choice questions.
Writing essay questions.
Writing test items for higher cognitive levels.
Calculating central tendency for teacher-made
tests.
5. Conducting item analysis for teacher-made tests.
3.39 MS 4.00
S
4.05
S
6. Revising a test based on item analysis.
3.37 MS 3.39
S
3.46
S
7. Assessing individual student participation in whole
4.26 VS 4.44 VS 4.65 VS
class lessons.
8. Assessment of problem solving skills.
4.35 VS 4.52 VS 4.57 VS
9. Using portfolio assessment.
3.20 MS 3.25 MS 4.01
S
10. Using assessment results for decision-making
4.32 VS 4.47 VS 4.47 VS
about students.
11. Using assessment results when planning teaching.
4.43 VS 4.51 VS 4.66 VS
12. Communicating classroom assessment results to
4.33 VS 4.49 VS 4.51 VS
others.
13. Including student improvement in the calculation of
4.26 VS 4.34 VS 4.42 VS
grades.
14. Using peer assessments for student assessments.
3.21 MS 3.32 MS 4.19
S
15. Using a table of specifications to plan assessments. 3.37 MS 3.39 MS 3.98
S
16. Developing rubrics for grading students’
3.12 MS 3.16 MS 3.27 MS
assignments.
17. Using assessment results when evaluating class
4.21 VS 4.43 VS 4.51 VS
improvement.
18. Writing true or false questions.
4.53 VS 4.66 VS 4.69 VS
19. Providing written feedback comments along with
4.67 VS 4.71 VS 4.72 VS
grades.
20. Calculating variability (standard deviation) for
2.91 MS 3.03 MS 3.39 MS
teacher-made tests.
Overall Mean 3.88
S
4.00
S
4.23 VS
*Descriptive Rating (DR): 1=Not Skilled; 2=Little Skilled; 3=Somewhat Skilled; 4=Skilled; 5=Very
Skilled
higher cognitive levels, conducting item analysis for teacher-made tests, and revising a test based
on item analysis. However, the JHST are moderately skilled in using portfolio assessment, using
peer assessments for student assessments, using a table of specifications to plan assessments,
developing rubrics for grading students’ assignments, and calculating variability (standard
deviation) for teacher-made tests. Thus, the overall mean assessment is 4.00. This means that
the junior high school teachers are skilled in conducting classroom assessment of students’
learning. The same table further illustrates the classroom assessment skills of the Senior High
School Teachers (SHST) are very skilled in writing essay questions, calculating central tendency
for teacher-made tests, assessing individual student participation in whole class lessons,
assessment of problem solving skills, using assessment results for decision-making about
individual students, using assessment results when planning teaching, communicating classroom
assessment results to others, including student improvement in the calculation of grades, using
assessment results when evaluating class improvement, providing written feedback comments
along with grades, and writing true or false questions. Moreover, the SHST are skilled in writing
multiple-choice questions, writing test items for higher cognitive levels, conducting item analysis
for teacher-made tests, revising a test based on item analysis, using portfolio assessment, using
peer assessments for student assessments, and using a table of specifications to plan
assessments. However, the SHST are just moderately skilled in developing rubrics for grading
students’ assignments, and calculating variability (standard deviation) for teacher-made tests.
Thus, the overall mean assessment is 4.23. This means that the senior high school teachers are
very skilled in conducting classroom assessment of students’ learning. In order to gather
information about teaching and learning, teachers use a variety of assessment instruments such
as written tests, performance assessment, observation and portfolio assessment (Airasian, 2011;
Stiggins & Bridgeford, 2014; Popham, 2008). Ndalichako (2014) observed that most primary
school teachers prefer to use tests and examinations to evaluate students’ learning. However,
use of multiple methods of assessment is recommended due to its potentiality in yielding valuable
information regarding students’ strengths and weaknesses in their learning (Gonzales & Fuggan,
2012). There are various methods that can be used to assess students learning such as portfolios,
projects, performance assessment such methods offer rich information about teaching and
learning. Portfolio is generally defined as a collection of student work with a common theme or
purpose (Wolf, 2011; Arter & Spandel, 2012; Damian, 2014; Popham, 2008). The key
characteristic of portfolio assessment is that it highlights student effort, development, and
achievement over a period of time and emphasizes application of knowledge rather than simply
recall of information (Price, Pierson, & Light, 2011). The main advantage of using portfolio is the
engagement of students in assessing their own progress and achievement and in strengthening
collaboration with their teachers through establishing ongoing learning goals (Popham, 2008).
Portfolios encourage self-reflection and awareness among students as they review their previous
assignments and assess strengths and weaknesses of both the processes as well as the final
products (Sweet, 2013). The main challenges associated with use of portfolios are the reliability
of scoring, time required to produce the product and to develop a credible scoring system. The
findings of the present study affirmed the investigation on teachers’ assessment practices across
teaching levels and content areas, as well as teachers’ self-perceived assessment skills as a
function of teaching experience and measurement training (Zhang & Burry-stock, 2003). Thus,
classroom assessment has received increased attention from the measurement community in
recent years. Since teachers are primarily responsible for evaluating instruction and student
learning, there is a widespread concern about the quality of classroom assessment (Mullis &
Martin, 2015). More research has confirmed this general picture. Elementary teachers appear to
be unaware of the assessment work and do not trust or use their authentic assessment results
(Florez & Sammons, 2017). Both in questioning and written work, teachers' assessment focuses
on low-level aims, mainly recall. There is little focus on such outcomes as speculation and critical
reflection (Ndalichako, 2013), and students focus on getting through the tasks and resist attempts
to engage in risky cognitive activities (Chih-Min, S. & Li-Yi, W., 2016). Although teachers can
predict the performance of their pupils, their own assessments do not tell them what they need to
know about their students' learning (Bombly, 2013).
Classroom Assessment Practices. Proper choice of classroom assessment method
allows teachers to diagnose problems faced by students in attaining desirable learning outcomes
and in devising appropriate remedial measures to redress the situation (Looney, Cumming, Kleij,
& Harris, 2017). In a nutshell, classroom assessment can be viewed as a totality of all the
processes and procedures used to gather useful information about the progress in teaching and
learning which facilitates in regulating the pace and strategies of teaching . Frequency of
assessment is also considered important in facilitating retention of material learned (Panadero,
Brown & Courtney, 2014). They observed that the frequency of assessment has a mediating effect
on student engagement in learning. Research by Pryor and Crossouard (2010) showed that when
the frequency of testing is increased, there is increased student involvement in responding to
Table 2. Classroom Assessment Practices
Practices on Classroom Assessment
1.
2.
3.
4.
EST
X
DR*
4.33
A
4.21
A
4.37
A
3.39 SO
JHST
X
DR*
4.41
A
4.33
A
4.42
A
3.41
O
SHT
X
DR*
4.48
A
4.39
A
4.46
A
3.44 O
Writing multiple-choice questions.
Writing essay questions.
Writing test items for higher cognitive levels.
Calculating central tendency for teacher-made
tests.
5. Conducting item analysis for teacher-made tests.
2.67 SO 2.91 SO 3.31
6. Revising a test based on item analysis.
2.66 SO 2.70 SO 2.87
7. Assessing individual student participation in whole 4.10 O
4.13
O
4.19
class lessons.
8. Assessment of problem solving skills.
4.21
A
4.26
A
4.43
9. Using portfolio assessment.
3.23 SO 3.41
O
3.52
10. Using assessment results for decision-making
4.22
A
4.36
A
4.40
about students.
11. Using assessment results when planning teaching. 3.42 O
3.50
O
3.61
12. Communicating classroom assessment results to
3.53 O
3.61
O
3.72
others.
13. Including student improvement in the calculation of 3.67 O
3.72
O
3.80
grades.
14. Using peer assessments for student assessments. 3.12 SO 3.25 SO 3.29
15. Using a table of specifications to plan
3.54 O
3.62
O
3.65
assessments.
16. Developing rubrics for grading students’
2.97 SO 3.01 SO 3.21
assignments.
17. Using assessment results when evaluating class
4.11 O
4.19
O
4.18
improvement.
18. Writing true or false questions.
4.43
A
4.51
A
4.47
19. Providing written feedback comments along with
4.37
A
4.40
A
4.51
grades.
20. Calculating variability (standard deviation) for
2.29 SE 2.42 SE 2.62
teacher-made tests.
Overall Mean 3.64 O
3.73
O
3.83
*Descriptive Rating (DR): 1=Never; 2=Seldom; 3=Sometimes; 4=Oftentimes; 5 =Always
SO
SO
O
A
O
A
O
O
O
SO
O
SO
O
A
A
SE
O
questions and in discussing the subject matter. Other scholars maintained that frequent testing
helps students to monitor their learning and reinforces their engagement with the course as a
result of immediate feedback provided (Lysaght & O’Leary, 2013). It has also been established
that frequent testing has positive impact on future retention of material learned (Looney, 2014).
Since retention of material is one of an important components of master learning (Panadero,
Brown & Courtney, 2014), it can be inferred that frequent testing contributes to mastery learning.
Table 2 exposes the classroom assessment practices of teachers relative to the frequency of use
of the various assessment tools. As shown, the Elementary School Teachers (EST) are always
using multiple-choice questions, essay questions, test items for higher cognitive levels,
assessment of problem solving skills, using assessment results for decision-making about
individual students, writing true or false questions, and always providing written feedback
comments along with grades. The EST oftentimes assess individual student participation in whole
class lessons, use assessment results when planning teaching, communicate classroom
assessment results to others, include student improvement in the calculation of grades, use a
table of specifications to plan assessments, and assessment results when evaluating class
improvement. Moreover, the EST sometimes calculate central tendency for teacher-made tests,
conduct item analysis for teacher-made tests, revise a test based on item analysis, use portfolio
assessment, use peer assessments for student assessments, and develop rubrics for grading
students’ assignments. Thus, the teachers seldom calculate variability (standard deviation) for
teacher-made tests. The overall mean assessment is 3.64. This means that the elementary school
teachers oftentimes use these assessment tools for students’ learning. The Junior High School
Teachers (JHST) are always using multiple-choice questions, essay questions, true or false
questions, writing test items for higher cognitive levels, problem solving skills, assessment results
for decision-making about individual students, and always providing written feedback comments
along with grades. The feedback provided by teachers' written responses to students' homework
was studied in an experiment with students involving teachers in schools (Wyatt-Smith &
Klenowski, 2013). They trained the teachers to give written feedback which concentrated on
specific errors and on poor strategy, with suggestions about how to improve, the whole being
guided by a focus on deep rather than superficial learning (Wyatt-Smith & Looney, 2016). Analysis
of variance of the results showed a big effect associated with the feedback treatment in the final
achievement. The treatment also reduced the initial superiority of boys over girls and had a large
positive effect on attitudes towards the subject (Xu & Brown, 2016). Moreover, the JHST
oftentimes calculate central tendency for teacher-made tests, assess individual student
participation in whole class lessons, use portfolio assessment, use assessment results when
planning teaching, communicate classroom assessment results to others, include student
improvement in the calculation of grades, use a table of specifications to plan assessments, and
assessment results when evaluating class improvement. Furthermore, the teachers sometimes
conduct item analysis for teacher-made tests, and revise a test items, use peer assessments for
student assessments, and develop rubrics for grading students’ assignments. The portfolio
movement is more closely associated with efforts to change the impact of high-stakes, often
standardized, testing of school learning (Young, & Jackman, 2014). There is a vast literature
associated with the portfolio movement. Much of it is reviewed by DeLuca & Klinger, 2010), set
out some of the issues in education. A portfolio is a collection of a student's work, usually
constructed by selection from a larger corpus and often presented with a reflective piece written
by the student to justify the selection (Cizek, Schmid, & Germuth, 2013). Others (Alkharusi et al.,
2012) emphasize that it is valuable for students to understand the assessment criteria for
themselves, while Brookhart (2011), points out that the practice of helping students to reflect on
their work has made teachers more reflective for themselves. However, there is little by way of
research evidence that goes beyond the reports of teachers, to establish the learning advantages.
Attention has focused rather on the reliability of teachers' scoring of portfolios because of the
motive to make them satisfy concerns for accountability, and so to serve summative purposes as
well as the formative (Koh, 2011). In this regard, the tension between the purposes plays out both
in the selection and in the scoring of tasks. Lyon (2011) describes scoring approaches based on
a multi-dimensional approach, with the criterion that each dimension reflects an aspect of learning
which can be understood by students and which reflects an important aspect of learning.
However, the Junior High School Teachers seldom calculate variability (standard deviation) for
teacher-made tests. Thus, the overall mean assessment is 3.73. This means that the JHST
oftentimes use these assessment tools for students’ learning. The Senior High School Teachers
(SHST) are always using multiple-choice questions, essay questions, true or false questions,
writing test items for higher cognitive levels, problem solving skills, assessment results for
decision-making about individual students, and always providing written feedback comments
along with grades. Moreover, the SHST oftentimes calculate central tendency for teacher-made
tests, assess individual student participation in whole class lessons, use portfolio assessment,
use assessment results when planning teaching, communicate classroom assessment results to
others, include student improvement in the calculation of grades, use a table of specifications to
plan assessments, and assessment results when evaluating class improvement. Furthermore,
the teachers sometimes conduct item analysis for teacher-made tests, and revise a test items,
use peer assessments for student assessments, and develop rubrics for grading students’
assignments. However, the Senior High School Teachers seldom calculate variability (standard
deviation) for teacher-made tests. Thus, the overall mean assessment is 3.83. This means that
the SHST oftentimes use these assessment tools for students’ learning. More than one
assessment method should be used to ensure comprehensive and consistent indications of
student performance (Alkharusi et al., 2012). This means to obtain a more complete picture or
profile of a student’s knowledge, skills, attitudes, or behaviors and to discern consistent patterns
and trends, more than one assessment method should be used. Student knowledge might be
assessed using completion items; process or reasoning skills might be assessed by observing
performance on a relevant task; evaluation skills might be assessed by reflecting upon the
discussion with a student about what materials to include in a portfolio. Self-assessment may help
to clarify and add meaning to the assessment of a written communication, science project, piece
of art work, or an attitude. Use of more than one method will also help minimize inconsistency
brought about by different sources of measurement error. Before an assessment method is used,
a procedure for scoring should be prepared to guide the process of judging the quality of a
performance or product, the appropriateness of an attitude or behavior, or the correctness of an
answer (Zhang & Burry-Stock, 2013). It means further that to increase consistency and validity,
properly developed scoring procedures should be used. Different assessment methods require
different forms of scoring. Scoring selection items (true or false, multiple-choice, matching)
requires the identification of the correct or, in some instances, best answer. Guides for scoring
essays might include factors such as the major points to be included in the “best answer” or
models or exemplars corresponding to different levels of performance at different age levels and
against which comparisons can be made (Committee, 2011). Procedures for judging other
performances or products might include specification of the characteristics to be rated in
performance terms and, to the extent possible, clear descriptions of the different levels of
performance or quality of a product (Hendrickson, 2011). Comments formed as part of scoring
should be based on the responses made by the students and presented in a way that students
can understand and use them (Johnson, 2014). It further illustrates that, comments, in oral and
written form, are provided to encourage learning and to point out correctable errors or
inconsistencies in performance. In addition, comments can be used to clarify a result. Such
feedback should be based on evidence pertinent to the learning outcomes being assessed.
Procedures for summarizing and interpreting results for a reporting period should be guided by a
written policy (Koloi-keaikitse, 2017). This means that summary comments and grades, when
interpreted, serve a variety of functions. They inform students of their progress. Parents, teachers,
counselors, and administrators use them to guide learning, determine promotion, identify students
for special attention and to help students develop future plans. Comments and grades also
provide a basis for reporting to other schools in the case of school transfer and, in the case of
senior high school students, post-secondary institutions and prospective employers. They are
more likely to serve their many functions and those functions are less likely to be confused if they
are guided by a written rationale or policy sensitive to these different needs. This policy should be
developed by teachers, school administrators, and other jurisdictional personnel in consultation
with representatives of the audiences entitled to receive a report of summary comments and
grades. The finding of the present study raises the issue of formative feedback by closely
examining teachers’ responses to student's work. For example, if the teacher asks students to
provide more details about a written work, the practice is characterized as formative; however, a
concern arises as to whether the student know what the instructor meant when he or she asks for
elaboration and more details (Wiliam & Thompson, 2008). Formative feedback contradicts the
traditional evaluative comments teachers frequently use, such as well done, good, or great work
and more. Chappuis and Stiggins (2013) argue that judgmental feedback not only holds less for
value for improvement and student learning, but it also discourages students from learning. Black
and Wiliam (2013) assert that formative feedback illuminates students’ strengths and
weaknesses, provides some suggestion for improvement, and avoids comparing one student with
his or her peers. In addition, Black and Wiliam (2013) point out the importance of oral feedback
provided by the teacher, enabling students to reflect on their learning. They write, “the dialogue
between pupils and a teacher should be thoughtful reflective, focused to evoke and explore
understanding… so that all pupils have an opportunity to think and to express their ideas”. Given
the definitions and characteristics of formative feedback, it is an important component of
instruction that occurs while the instruction occurs and enables the instructor to adjust instruction
based on students’ suppositions respectively. Thus, reporting of students’ progress takes the form
of written reports and conferences (Roemer, 1999). Conferences are face-to-face events involving
teacher, student and parents in various combinations for different purposes (students taking the
lead in sharing their learning with their parents serves the purpose of encouraging them to take
responsibility for their learning (Johnson, 2014). Lastly, those who argue for using traditional
assessments argue that just like other forms of assessments, traditional tests are also focused
on improving the cognitive side of instruction, i.e. the skills and knowledge that students are
expected to develop within a short period of time (Segers & Dochy, 2001). A study conducted by
Kleinert, Kennedy, and Kearns (1999) revealed that teachers expressed levels of frustration in
the use of alternative assessments such as portfolio assessment. Some major issues that
teachers have against the use of alternative assessments are that they require more time for
students to complete, and for teachers to supervise and assess. Thus, the teachers are generally
also concerned about competencies they have in reliably grading these forms of assessments
and that such assessments are more teacher-based than student-based.
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) in the Assessment Skills and Practices of Teachers
across Levels. Table 3 reflects the ANOVA in the assessment skills across levels. The f-ratio
value is 2.27588, with p-value of .111964. The result is not significant at p < .05. This means there
are no significant variations on the assessment skills of teachers across levels.
Table 3. ANOVA in the Assessment Skills across Levels
Source
SS
dF
Between-treatments
1.2899
2
Within-treatments
16.1531
57
Total
17.443
59
MS
0.645
0.2834
F-ratio
2.27588
For the ANOVA in the assessment practices across levels as shown in Table 4, the f-ratio
value is 0.43015, with p-value of .652505. The result is not significant at p < .05. This means there
are no significant variations on the assessment practices of teachers across levels.
Table 4. ANOVA in the Assessment Practices across Levels
Source
SS
dF
MS
F-ratio
Between-treatments
0.3446
2
0.1723
0.43015
Within-treatments
22.8334
57
0.4006
Total
23.178
59
The f-ratio value is 0.43015. The p-value is .652505. The result is not significant at p < .05.
t-Test on the Assessment Skills and Practices. For the test of difference in the
assessment skills between EST and JHST, the t-value value is -0.69362, with p-value of .246068.
The result is not significant at p < .05. This means there is no significant difference between the
assessment skills of elementary and junior high school teachers. Similarly, the test of difference
in the assessment skills between JHST and SHST, the t-value value is -1.39832, with p-value of
.085062. The result is not significant at p < .05. This means there is no significant difference
between the assessment skills of the junior and the senior high school teachers. However, there
is significant difference between the assessment skills of the elementary and the senior high
school teachers because the t-value value is -2.20128, with p-value of .016931. The result
is not significant at p < .05.
Table 5. Differences between the Assessment Skills and Practices of Teachers
Assessment Skills
X1
X2
t-value
p-value
Result
EST vs. JHST
3.88 4.00 -0.69362
.246068
Not significant at p < .05.
JHST vs. SHST
4.00 4.23 -1.39832
.085062
Not significant at p < .05.
EST vs. SHST
3.88 4.23 -2.20128
.016931
Significant at p < .05.
Assessment
X1
X2
t-value
p-value
Result
Practices
EST vs. JHST
3.64 3.73 -0.41871
.338891
Not significant at p < .05.
JHST vs. SHST
3.73 3.83 -0.50674
.307631
Not significant at p < .05.
EST vs. SHST
3.64 3.83 -0.93536
.177755
Not significant at p < .05.
Relative to the assessment practices, the test of difference in the skills between EST and
JHST, the t-value value is -0.41871, with p-value of .338891. The result is not significant at p <
.05. This means there is no significant difference between the assessment practices of the
elementary and the junior high school teachers. Similar result in the test of difference in the
assessment skills between JHST and SHST is obtained because the t-value value is -1.39832,
with p-value of .085062. The result is not significant at p < .05. This means there is no significant
difference between the assessment practices of the junior and the senior high school teachers.
Moreover, there is no significant difference between the assessment practices of the elementary
and the senior high school teachers because the t-value value is -0.93536, with p-value of
.177755. The result is not significant at p < .05.
Relationship between Assessment Skills and Practices. Among EST as shown in
Table 6, the value of R is 0.713 and the coefficient of determination is 0.508. Thus, there is a
moderate positive correlation between assessment skills and practices of elementary school
teachers, which means there is a tendency for a skilled teacher in the preparation of the
assessment tool to frequently use the same tool in the classroom (and vice versa). Among JHST,
the value of R is 0.634 and the coefficient of determination is 0.402. Thus, there is a moderate
positive correlation between assessment skills and practices of junior high school teachers, which
means by normal standards, the association between the skills and the practices of teachers
would be considered statistically significant.
Table 6. Correlation between Assessment skills and Practices
Teacher Assessmen Assessment R-value
R2-value
s
t Skills (X1)
Practices
(coefficient
(X2)
determination)
EST
3.88
3.64
0.713
0.508
JHST
4.00
3.73
0.634
0.402
SHST
4.23
3.83
0.655
0.429
Correlation
Moderate (+)
Moderate (+)
Moderate (+)
Moreover, similar result of moderate positive correlation is obtained among SHST,
because the value of R is 0.655 and the coefficient of determination is 0.429. Therefore, teachers
adopt a variety of classroom assessment practices to evaluate student learning outcomes, and
spend much classroom time engaged in assessment-related activities. Teachers typically control
classroom assessment environments by choosing how they assess their students, the frequency
of these assessments, and how they provide assessment feedback. For these reasons, it is
imperative for them to be competent in the various classroom assessment tools (Koloi-keaikitse,
2017). The findings of the study affirm that primarily the current practices of assessment were
focused on exams, classroom discussions, classroom assignment, projects, and seminars. In
addition, the study found out that an informal exposure to formative assessment (alternative
approach) existed among the faculty members and based on students’ responses, overall, as a
formal approach, alternative assessment was considered as a new paradigm (Ahmad &
Mussawy, 2009). Teachers depend on the classroom assessment information to improve their
instructional methods, and as such, that information plays an important role in student learning. It
is apparent that teachers should be made competent in the collection, analysis and use of
assessment information. Zhang and Burry-Stock (2003) argued that to be able to communicate
assessment results more effectively, teachers must possess a clear understanding about the
limitations and strengths of various assessment methods. Teachers must also use proper
terminology as they use assessment results to inform other people about the decisions about
student learning. For this reason, teacher educators must find ways in which they can improve
their assessment training methods that can equip teachers with needed skills for using and
communicating assessment results. This finding equally brings major challenges to school
administrators who rely on teachers to provide them with information about student learning that
they collect from assessment results. It is clear that items that assessed teachers’ perceived skills
about test construction are helpful in providing essential information about teachers’ perceived
skills in classroom assessment practices. This finding is important because it shows that if school
managers want to know assessment areas that teachers may need to be trained on, they may
not ask them about their perceived skills in test construction, but rather they may want to establish
if teachers are more confident in using assessment information for improving their instructional
methods, or whether they are in a position to communicate assessment results for better decisionmaking about student learning. These results generally imply the need for teachers or assessment
professional development specialists to focus their attention on assessment training on skills
teachers need most and those they have less perceived skills on. Teachers are one of the key
elements in any school and effective teaching is one of the key propellers for school improvement.
This study is concerned with how to define a teacher’s effectiveness and what makes an effective
teacher in relation to their skills and actual practices in assessing students’ learning. It draws out
implications for policymakers in education and for improving classroom practice. Thus, the results
of this study suggest that, although most teachers claimed that their training did have a certain
impact on their assessment practices, the changes occurred mostly while the teachers were
novice teachers. This finding also indicates that teachers are required to attend workshops or
courses to acquire updated assessment knowledge from time to time. Teacher training programs
can equip teachers with assessment knowledge by offering assessment courses to pre-service
teachers and assessment workshops to in-service teachers.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The teachers across levels from elementary to senior high school are very skilled
calculating central tendency of teacher-made tests, assessing students’ class participation,
calculation of grades, using assessment results in planning, decision-making, communicating and
providing feedback, problem solving, evaluating class improvement, and writing true or false tests.
Moreover, they are skilled in writing multiple-choice tests measuring higher order thinking skills
(HOTS). However, they are moderately skilled in developing rubrics, and calculating variability for
teacher-made tests. All the teachers across levels are always preparing and employing multiplechoice question, true or false and essay questions, HOTS, problem solving, assessment results
for decision-making and written feedback along with student’s grades. Moreover, they oftentimes
employ assessment of individual student’s class participation, results in lesson planning, and
evaluating class and student’s improvement, communicate assessment result, and table of
specifications. However, they sometimes use item analysis, revise test items, peer assessment,
and rubrics in classroom assessment, and they seldom use the results of standard deviation for
teacher-made tests. Moreover, there are no significant variations on the assessment skills and
assessment practices of teachers across levels, and there is no significant difference between
the assessment skills of elementary and junior high school teachers, as well as between the junior
and the senior high school teachers. However, there is significant difference between the
assessment skills of the elementary and the senior high school teachers. Furthermore, no
significant differences on the assessment practices teachers across levels. Furthermore, there is
a moderate positive correlation between the assessment skills and the assessment practices of
elementary, junior, and senior high school teachers. Additionally, the results showed that items
asking teachers about their perceived skills in test construction and calculation of statistical
techniques such as measures of central tendency were the least useful in understanding overall
perceptions about assessment skills. Further examination of the results showed that an item that
asked teachers about their perceived skill in portfolio assessment proved to be the most difficult
for teachers to use, an indication that most of the teachers were less skilled in portfolio
assessment. This means using traditional forms of assessment such as true or false, multiple
choice items and essay questions are more preferred by the teachers compared to the alternative
assessments such as portfolio assessments. Thus, the findings of the study revealed the
perceived strengths and weaknesses of teachers relative to their classroom assessment skills
and practices. These findings have major implications for teacher educators and school
managers. For teacher educators these results highlight classroom assessment areas that they
may need to focus on as they teach assessment courses. Assessment entails a broad spectrum
of activities that includes collection of information for decision-making. The responsibility of
teachers is to collect information through various assessment methods that can be used to make
informed decisions about students’ learning progress. The question is: are teachers competent
enough to use or apply assessment information for making students’ learning decisions? From
these results it was very clear that teachers are less confident in using assessment information
to make informed instructional and learning decisions. The teachers should continue bringing
change and preparing students for future endeavors though authentic assessment. It is therefore
imperative to understand their teaching practices particularly how they assess and evaluate
student learning outcomes. The gathered information should be used to highlight the level of
teachers’ competences in conducting classroom assessments towards planning and conducting
teachers’ education and professional development. It is now essential for researchers, educators,
and policy-makers in the Philippine context to have a clear understanding of the perceived skills
teachers hold about certain classroom assessment practices as it can open avenues informing
policy and practice for addressing the needs that teachers have as they wrestle with their day-today classroom assessment practices. Furthermore, research to establish why teachers felt least
competent and in the use of portfolio assessment is highly recommended.
REFERENCES
Airasian, P. W. (2011). Classroom assessment: Concepts and applications. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ahmad, S., & Mussawy, J. (2009). Assessment Practices: Student’s and Teachers’ Perceptions of
Classroom
Assessment.
Master's
Capstone
Projects.
9.
http://scholarworks.umass.edu/cie_capstones/9
Akinlosotu, P. J. (2016). Knowledge and Attitude of Secondary School Teachers Towards Continuous
Assessment Practices in Esan Central Senatorial District of Edo State. Journal of Education and
Practice, 7(10), 71–79.
Arter, J. A. & Spandel, V. (2012). Using Portfolios of student work in Instruction and Assessment.
Educational Measurement; Issues and Practice, 26 - 44.
Alkharusi, H. (2010). A multilevel linear model of teachers’ assessment practices and students’ perceptions
of the classroom assessment environment. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5(2), 5–11.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.041
Alkharusi, H., Aldhafri, S., Alnabhani, H., & Alkalbani, M. (2012). Educational Assessment Attitudes ,
Competence , Knowledge , and Practices : An Exploratory Study of Muscat Teachers in the
Sultanate of Oman, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v1n2p217
Awoniyi, F. C. (2016). The understanding of senior high school Mathematics teachers of school-based
assessment and its challenges in the Cape Coast Metropolis. British Journal of Education, 4(10),
22-38
Balinas, E. S. (2016). English Teachers Classroom Assessment Practices,. International Journal of
Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), 5(1), 82–92. ISSN: 2252-8822
Bandele, S. O. (2013). Assessing Assessment Literacy of Science Teachers in Public Secondary Schools
in Ekiti State. Journal of Education and Practice, 4(28), 56–63. ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN
2222-288X (Online)
Bennett, D. P. (2015). Elementary School Teacher Perceptions of Using Formative Strategies To Improve
Instruction.
Walden
University
Dissertations
and
Doctoral
Studies.
http://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations Part
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2013). Assessment for learning: Putting it into
practice. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Bombly, Sarah Mirlenbrink, "Reading Assessment Practices of Elementary General Education Teachers:
A
Descriptive
Study"
(2013).
Graduate
Theses
and
Dissertations.
http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/4866
Brookhart, S. M. (2011). Educational assessment knowledge and skills for teachers. Educational
Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30, 3-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2010.00195.x
Calveric, S. (2010). Elementary teachers’ assessment beliefs and practices. Virginia Commonwealth
University, 2010. Downloaded from http://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/etd/2332
Campbell, C., & Evans, J. A. (2000). Investigation of preservice teachers’ classroom assessment practices
during student teaching. Journal of Educational Research
Carmen, G., & Jakobsson, A. (2015). Science Teachers ’ Assessment and Grading Practices in Swedish
Upper
Secondary
Schools,
Journal
of
Education
and
Training,2(2),
1–19.
https://doi.org/10.5296/jet.v2i2.7107
Cavanagh, R.F., Waldrip, B.G., Romanoski, J.T., Fisher, D.L., and Dorman, J.P. (2005). Measuring student
perceptions of classroom assessment. Paper presented at the 2005 Annual Meeting of the
Australian Association for Research in Education: Parramatta. Retrieved September 5, 2009 at
http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:jokRTlUCmK4J:https://www.aare.edu.au/05pap/cav0
5748.pdf+Measuring+student+perceptions+of+classroom+assessment&hl=en&gl=us
Chappuis, S., & Stiggins, R. J. (2013). Classroom assessment for learning. Educational Leadership, 60,
40-43.
Chih-Min, S. & Li-Yi, W. (2016). Factors Affecting English Language Teachers’ Classroom Assessment
Practices A case study at Singapore secondary schools. NIENTU Singapore Research Brief, 13,
10. www.nie.edu.sg
Cizek, G. J., Germuth, A. A., & Schmid, L. A. (2013). A checklist for evaluating K-12 assessment programs.
Kalamazoo: The Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University. Available from
http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists/
Damian, V. B. (2014). Portfolio assessment in the classroom. Helping children at home and school II:
Handout for families and educators, S3 - 129 – S3 - 131.
Dandis, M. A. (2013). The assessment methods that are used in a secondary mathematics class. Journal
for Educators, Teachers and Trainers, 4(2), 133–143. ISSN 1989 – 9572.
http://www.ugr.es/~jett/index.php
DeLuca, C., & Klinger, D. A. (2010). Assessment literacy development: Identifying gaps in teacher
candidates’ learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17, 419–438. doi:10.
1080/0969594X.2010.516643
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J.D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored
design method (3rd ed.). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Eliud, K. (2015). Classroom assessment practices by Mathematics teachers in secondary schools in Kenya.
Kenya Classroom Assessment Journal, 5(6), 35-41.
Flórez, M.T. & Sammons, P. (2013). Assessment for learning: effects and impact. Oxford University
Department of Education. Copyright CfBT Education Trust 2013.
Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2009). Educational research competencies for analysis and
applications. Columbus, GA: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
Gonzales, R. & Fuggan, F. G. (2012). Exploring the conceptual and psychometric properties of classroom
assessment. The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 9(2), 45-60.
Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory:
Measurement methods for the social sciences series (Vol. 2). New York, NY: Sage
Hays, R. D., Morales, L. S., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory and health outcomes measurement
in the 21st century. Medical Care, 38, II28–II42.
Hendrickson, K. A. (2011). Assessment in Finland : A Scholarly Reflection on One Country’s Use of
Formative, Summative, and Evaluative Practices. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 25 (25),
33–43.
Johnson, S. (2012) Assessing Learning in the Primary Classroom. London: Routledge.
Johnson, S. (2014) On the reliability of high-stakes teacher assessment, Research Papers in Education,
18(1), 91-105.
Kankam, B., Bordoh, A., Eshun, I., Bassaw, T. K., & Korang, F. Y. (2014). An investigation into authentic
assessment practices of social studies teachers in the senior high schools ( SHSs ) in Ghana.
American
Journal
of
Social
Sciences,2(6),
166–
172.http://www.openscienceonline.com/journal/ajss
Kareem, A. O. (2011). Universal basic education in Ijebu-Division of Ogun State. The African Symposium:
An online journal of the African Educational Research Network, 11(2), 106–112.
Koh, K. H. (2011). Improving teachers’ assessment literacy through professional development. Teaching
Education, 22, 255-276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2011.593164
Koloi-Keaikitse, S. (2012). Classroom Assessment Practices: a Survey of Botswana Primary and
Secondary
School
Teachers.
Cogent
Education,
38(1),
1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1281203
Koloi-keaikitse, S. (2017). Assessment of teacher perceived skill in classroom assessment practices using
IRT Models. Cogent Education, 38(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1281202
Kuze, M. W., & Shumba, A. (2011). An investigation into formative assessment practices of teachers in
selected schools in Fort Beaufort in South Africa, 29(2), 159–170.
Lee, S. (2010). Current practice of classroom speaking assessment in secondary schools in South Korea.
The University of Queensland (41938553).
Looney, A. (2014). Assessment and the reform of education systems. In C. Wyatt-Smith, V. Klenowski, &
P. Colbert (Eds.), Designing assessment for quality learning. Heidelberg: Springer.
Looney, A., Cumming, J., Kleij, F. Van Der, & Harris, K. (2017). Reconceptualising the role of teachers as
assessors : teacher assessment identity. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice,
(January), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2016.1268090
Lyon, E. G. (2011). Beliefs, practices and reflection: Exploring a science teacher’s classroom assessment
through the assessment triangle model. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22, 417-435.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10972-011-9241-4
Lysaght, Z., & O’Leary, M. (2013). An instrument to audit teachers’ use of assessment for learning. Irish
Educational Studies, 32, 217–232. doi:10.1080/03323315.2013.784636
McMillan, J. M. (2008). Assessment essentials for student-based education (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks:
Crown Press.
Mellenbergh, G. J. (1994). Generalized linear item response theory. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 300–307.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.300
Mertens, D. M. (2014). Research and evaluation in education and psychology. Integrating diversity with
quantitative and qualitative and mixed methods (3rd ed.). California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Mohammed, Y. (2015). Visual Art Teachers and Performance Assessment Methods in Nigerian Senior
Secondary Schools. Mgbakoigba: Journal of African Studies, 4, 1–18.
Mullis, I. V. S., & Martin, M. O. (2015). Assessment Frameworks. TIMMS and Pirls International Study
Center, Boston College.
Nabie, M. J. (2013). Integrating Problem Solving and Investigations in Mathematics : Ghanaian Teachers ’
Assessment Practices Department of Mathematics Education Department of Mathematics
Education. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science,3(15), 46–56.
Ndalichako, J. L. (2014). Towards an understanding of assessment practices of primary school teachers in
Tanzania. Zimbabwe Journal of Education Research, 16(3), 168-177. Available on
http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/zjer.v16i3.26046.
Ndalichako, J.L. (2017). Examining Classroom Assessment Practices of Secondary School Teachers in
Tanzania. National Examinations Council of Tanzania
Nenty, H. J., Adedoyin, O. O., Odili, J. N., & Major, T. E. (2007). Primary teachers’ perceptions of classroom
assessment practices as means of providing quality primary and basic education by Botswana and
Nigeria. Educational Research and Review
Panadero, E., Brown, G., & Courtney, M. (2014). Teachers’ reasons for using self-assessment: A survey
self-report of Spanish teachers. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21, 365–
383. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2014.919247
Panadero, E., Brown, G., & Courtney, M. (2014). Teachers’ reasons for using self-assessment: A survey
self-report of Spanish teachers. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21, 365–
383. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2014.919247
Pierson, D. R. (2013). Elementary teachers’ assessment actions and elementary science education:
formative
assessment
enactment
in
elementary science.
University of
Iowa.
http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/5043
Popham, W.J. (2008). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know? 5th Ed. Boston: Ally and
Bacon.
Price, J. K, Pierson, E. & Light D. (2011). Using Classroom Assessment to Promote 21st Century Learning
in Emerging Market Countries. Paper presented at Global Learn Asia Pacific 2011, Melbourne
Australia
Pryor, J., & Crossouard, B. (2010). Challenging formative assessment: Disciplinary spaces and identities.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 37–41. doi:10.1080/02602930903512891
Roemer, K. L. (1999). Student evaluation practices used by Montessori elementary teachers. The University
of Memphis Review, 22(19), 23-25
Russell, J. A., & Austin, J. R. (2010). Assessment practices of secondary Music teachers. Journal of
Research in Music Education, 58(1), 37 –54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429409360062
Saxe, G. B., & Franke, M. L. (1997). Teachers’ Shifting Assessment Practices in the Context of Educational
Reform in Mathematics. Center for Research on Evaluation , Standards , and Student Testing
(CRESST ), University of California , Los Angeles Los Angeles , CA 90095-1522, 1522
Stiggins, R. J., & Bridgeford, N. J. (2014). The ecology of classroom assessment. Journal of Educational
Measurement, 22(4), 271–286
Sweet, D. (2013). Student Portfolios: Classroom Uses. Education Consumer Guide No. 8. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/OR/ConsumerGuides/classesuse.html.
Tolley, Leigh M., (2016). Assessing Formative Assessment: An Examination of Secondary
English/Language Arts Teachers' Practices. SURFACE at SURFACE Dissertations - ALL. Paper
457.
Varatharaj, R. K., Ghani, A., Abdullah, K., & Ismail, A. (2014). Assessment practices among Malaysian
cluster school teachers, International Journal of Research in Management & Business
Studies,1(3),July - Sept 2014
Warsen, G. D. (2013). Making Grades Matter : Connections Between Teacher Grading Practices and
Attention
to
State
Assessment.
Dissertations.
Paper
156.
http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations Part
Wiliam, D., & Thompson, M. (2008). Integrating assessment with learning: What will it take to make it work?
In C. A. Dwyer (Ed.). The future of assessment: Shaping teaching and learning.. New York:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wolf, P. (2011). Academic improvement through regular assessment. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(4),
690-702.
Wiggins, G. P. (2008). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve student
performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Wyatt-Smith, C. M., & Looney, A. (2016). Professional standards and the assessment work of teachers. In
D. Wyse, L. Hayward, & J. Pandaya (Eds.), The Sage handbook of curriculum, pedagogy and
assessment (pp. 805–820). London: Sage
Wyatt-Smith, C., & Klenowski, V. (2013). Explicit, latent and meta-criteria: Types of criteria at play in
professional judgement practice. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 20, 35–
52. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2012.725030
Xu, Y., & Brown, G. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy in practice: A reconceptualization. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 58, 149–162. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.010
Young, J. E. J., & Jackman, M. G. (2014). Formative assessment in the Grenadian lower secondary school:
Teachers’ perceptions, attitudes and practices. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy &
Practice, 21, 398–411. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2014.919248
THE RESEARCHERS
David C. Bueno is a holder of Ed.D, MASE, MPM, MBA, and BA degrees. He is an awardee of the
Sectoral Engagement Grant to conduct research on “Human Resources Comprehensive Development Plan
for Region 3 under CHED’s FDP for K-12 Transition. He authored books in Research and Thesis Writing,
Statistics, Quantitative and Qualitative Research, Biological, Physical and Environmental Sciences, Human
Resource Management, Organization and Management, Curriculum Development, Research Writing for
Business and Hospitality Management students, and Food Safety and Sanitation. He is currently the Dean
of the Graduate School and Director of Research and Publications at Columban College, Inc. An active
member of various international organizations, technical committee and reviewer of international
conferences, seminar-workshop speaker and a multi-awarded research presenter.
Segundo C. Redondo is a holder of Bachelor in Secondary Education, Master of Arts in Education,
Master in Physical Education, and Doctor of Education. He is presently the Principal of the Basic Education
Department and Professor in the undergraduate and graduate education programs at Columban College,
Inc.-Olongapo City. Dr. Redondo is a FAPE Certifier and Accreditor.