Teachers’ assessment skills in practice across departments in a Catholic
educational institution: A cross-sectional analysis
David Cababaro Bueno1*, Segundo Chavez Redondo, Jr. 2
*Dean, Graduate School, 2Principal, Basic Education Columban College, Inc., Olongapo City
ABSTRACT
ARTICLE INFORMATION
Article History:
Received 26 July 2017
Received in revised form_______
Accepted ________________
Article ID _________________
Keywords
Classroom assessment, skills and practices,
cross-sectional design, elementary, junior
and senior high school teachers
*Corresponding author:
docdave3090@gmail.com
This study concentrates on the analysis of the classroom
assessment skills and practices of teachers across levels
in a private Catholic school. The descriptive crosssectional 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 are 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 decision-making and
written feedback along with student’s grades. There is
a 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 are found.
Furthermore, there is 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.
© The Authors and Asia Pacific Higher Education
Research Journal
Introduction
Educational assessment is an essential component of the teaching profession. It is 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 (Koloi-keaikitse, 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 (Koloi-keaikitse, 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 decisionmaking (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’ self-assessment
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 non-achievement 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 outcomes-based
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 multiplechoice 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 higher cognitive levels, conducting item analysis for teacher-made tests, and
revising a test based on item analysis.
Table 1
Teachers’ Skills on Classroom Assessment
Classroom Assessment Skills
EST
JHST
X
DR*
X
DR*
1. Writing multiple-choice questions.
3.42
S
3.46
S
2. Writing essay questions.
4.01
S
4.22
VS
3. Writing test items for higher cognitive levels.
3.99
S
3.91
S
4. Calculating central tendency for teacher-made tests.
4.23
VS
4.37
VS
5. Conducting item analysis for teacher-made tests.
3.39
MS
4.00
S
6. Revising a test based on item analysis.
3.37
MS
3.39
S
7. Assessing individual student participation in whole class lessons.
4.26
VS
4.44
VS
8. Assessment of problem solving skills.
4.35
VS
4.52
VS
9. Using portfolio assessment.
3.20
MS
3.25
MS
10. Using assessment results for decision-making about students.
4.32
VS
4.47
VS
11. Using assessment results when planning teaching.
4.43
VS
4.51
VS
12. Communicating classroom assessment results to others.
4.33
VS
4.49
VS
13. Including student improvement in the calculation of grades.
4.26
VS
4.34
VS
14. Using peer assessments for student assessments.
3.21
MS
3.32
MS
15. Using a table of specifications to plan assessments.
3.37
MS
3.39
MS
16. Developing rubrics for grading students’ assignments.
3.12
MS
3.16
MS
17. Using assessment results when evaluating class improvement.
4.21
VS
4.43
VS
18. Writing true or false questions.
4.53
VS
4.66
VS
19. Providing written feedback comments along with grades.
4.67
VS
4.71
VS
20. Calculating variability (standard deviation) for teacher-made tests.
2.91
MS
3.03
MS
Overall Mean 3.88
S
4.00
S
*Descriptive Rating (DR): 1=Not Skilled; 2=Little Skilled; 3=Somewhat Skilled; 4=Skilled; 5=Very Skilled
SHST
X
DR*
3.89
S
4.47
VS
4.10
S
4.65
VS
4.05
S
3.46
S
4.65
VS
4.57
VS
4.01
S
4.47
VS
4.66
VS
4.51
VS
4.42
VS
4.19
S
3.98
S
3.27
MS
4.51
VS
4.69
VS
4.72
VS
3.39
MS
4.23
VS
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 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
Classroom Assessment Practices
Practices on Classroom Assessment
EST
X
DR*
1. Writing multiple-choice questions.
4.33
A
2. Writing essay questions.
4.21
A
3. Writing test items for higher cognitive levels.
4.37
A
4. Calculating central tendency for teacher-made tests.
3.39
SO
5. Conducting item analysis for teacher-made tests.
2.67
SO
6. Revising a test based on item analysis.
2.66
SO
7. Assessing individual student participation in whole class lessons.
4.10
O
8. Assessment of problem solving skills.
4.21
A
9. Using portfolio assessment.
3.23
SO
10. Using assessment results for decision-making about students.
4.22
A
11. Using assessment results when planning teaching.
3.42
O
12. Communicating classroom assessment results to others.
3.53
O
13. Including student improvement in the calculation of grades.
3.67
O
14. Using peer assessments for student assessments.
3.12
SO
15. Using a table of specifications to plan assessments.
3.54
O
16. Developing rubrics for grading students’ assignments.
2.97
SO
17. Using assessment results when evaluating class improvement.
4.11
O
18. Writing true or false questions.
4.43
A
19. Providing written feedback comments along with grades.
4.37
A
20. Calculating variability (standard deviation) for teacher-made tests.
2.29
SE
Overall Mean 3.64
O
*Descriptive Rating (DR): 1=Never; 2=Seldom; 3=Sometimes; 4=Oftentimes; 5 =Always
JHST
X
DR*
4.41
A
4.33
A
4.42
A
3.41
O
2.91
SO
2.70
SO
4.13
O
4.26
A
3.41
O
4.36
A
3.50
O
3.61
O
3.72
O
3.25
SO
3.62
O
3.01
SO
4.19
O
4.51
A
4.40
A
2.42
SE
3.73
O
SHT
X
DR*
4.48
A
4.39
A
4.46
A
3.44
O
3.31
SO
2.87
SO
4.19
O
4.43
A
3.52
O
4.40
A
3.61
O
3.72
O
3.80
O
3.29
SO
3.65
O
3.21
SO
4.18
O
4.47
A
4.51
A
2.62
SE
3.83
O
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 decisionmaking 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 teachermade 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 (Koloikeaikitse, 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
Between-treatments
Within-treatments
Total
SS
1.2899
16.1531
17.443
dF
2
57
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 fratio 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
Between-treatments
0.3446
2
0.1723
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.
F-ratio
0.43015
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 pvalue of .016931. The result is not significant at p < .05.
Table 5
Differences between the Assessment Skills and Practices of Teachers
Assessment Skills
EST vs. JHST
JHST vs. SHST
EST vs. SHST
Assessment Practices
EST vs. JHST
JHST vs. SHST
EST vs. SHST
X1
3.88
4.00
3.88
X1
3.64
3.73
3.64
X2
4.00
4.23
4.23
X2
3.73
3.83
3.83
t-value
-0.69362
-1.39832
-2.20128
t-value
-0.41871
-0.50674
-0.93536
p-value
.246068
.085062
.016931
p-value
.338891
.307631
.177755
Result
Not significant at p < .05.
Not significant at p < .05.
Significant at p < .05.
Result
Not significant at p < .05.
Not significant at p < .05.
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
Teachers
Assessment Skills
(X1)
Assessment
Practices (X2)
R-value
EST
JHST
SHST
3.88
4.00
4.23
3.64
3.73
3.83
0.713
0.634
0.655
R2-value
(coefficient
determination)
0.508
0.402
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 decision-making 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 multiple-choice 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-to-day
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.17453992.2010.00195.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/05p
ap/cav05748.pdf+Measuring+student+perceptions+of+classroom+assessment&hl=en&gl=u
s
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