Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T17:13:43.978Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prospective Teachers' Conceptions of Assessment: A Cross-Cultural Comparison

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2013

Gavin T L Brown  and
Ana Remesal
Gavin T L Brown*
Affiliation:
The University of Auckland (New Zealand)
Ana Remesal
Affiliation:
Universidad de Barcelona (Spain)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Gavin T L Brown. School of Teaching, Learning & Development, Faculty of Education, The University of Auckland. Private Bag 92019, Auckland, 1142 (New Zealand). E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines the responses of two samples of prospective teachers (New Zealand, n = 324; and Spain, n = 672) to the Teachers' Conceptions of Assessment inventory (English and Spanish respectively). The inventory captures four major intentions for assessment (i.e., improvement, irrelevance, school and student accountability). The conceptions of prospective teachers about the nature and purpose of assessment are relevant, given that (a) much educational assessment is carried out in classrooms; and (b) prospective teachers enter the teacher education programs with significant prior school experience of assessment as pupils. Results of confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the original model was inadmissible and that the best-fitting revised model was only configurally invariant between the two samples. It would appear that lack of teaching experience results in different responses for prospective teachers to those of practicing teachers. Moreover, differences in societal and cultural priorities for assessment use most likely explain the lack of invariance between samples.

En este trabajo se examinan las respuestas de dos muestras de estudiantes de magisterio (Nueva Zelanda, n = 324; y España, n = 672) al cuestionario Teachers' Conceptions of Assessment (en sendas versiones en inglés y español). El cuestionario recoge cuatro intenciones principales de la evaluación en la acción docente (mejora de los procesos de enseñanza y aprendizaje, irrelevancia, rendición de cuentas de la institución escolar y rendición de cuentas del alumno). Las concepciones de los estudiantes de magisterio sobre la naturaleza y los propósitos de la evaluación del aprendizaje son relevantes dado que (a) la evaluación es una actividad frecuente en el aula; y (b) los estudiantes de magisterio inician la formación con una amplia experiencia previa como alumnos. Los resultados del análisis factorial confirmatorio indican que el modelo original no es admisible para estas muestras; en consecuencia, se presentan y discuten modelos alternativos. Las diferencias explicativas más plausibles encontradas apuntan hacia diferencias culturales y de experiencia docente.

Keywords

Prospective teachersconceptionsassessmentmulti-group confirmatory factor analysisformación del profesoradoconcepcionesevaluaciónanálisis factorial confirmatorio multi-grupo
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , March 2012 , pp. 75 - 89
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arbuckle, J. L. (2008). AMOS (Version 17.0.0) [computer program]. Crawfordville, FL: Amos Development Corporation.Google Scholar
Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality and behavior (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Betoret, F. D., & Artiga, A. G. (2004). Trainee teachers' conceptions of teaching and learning, classroom layout and exam design. Educational Studies, 30(4), 355–372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305569042000310309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, G. T. L. (2001–2003). Teachers'conceptions of assessment (TCoA) inventory (Versions 1–3). Unpublished test. Auckland, NZ: University of Auckland.Google Scholar
Brown, G. T. L. (2004a). Measuring attitude with positively packed self-report ratings: Comparison of agreement and frequency scales. Psychological Reports, 94, 1015–1024. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.94.3.1015-1024CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, G. T. L. (2004b). Teachers' conceptions of assessment: Implications for policy and professional development. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 11(3), 301–318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0969594042000304609Google Scholar
Brown, G. T. L. (2006). Teachers' conceptions of assessment: Validation of an abridged instrument. Psychological Reports, 99, 166–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.99.1.166-170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, G. T. L. (2008). Conceptions of assessment: Understanding what assessment means to teachers and students. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Brown, G. T. L. (2009). Teachers' self-reported assessment practices and conceptions: Using structural equation modelling to examine measurement and structural models. In Teo, T. & Khine, M. S. (Eds.), Structural equation modelling in educational research: Concepts and applications (pp. 243–266). Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
Brown, G. T. L., & Harris, L. R. (2009). Unintended consequences of using tests to improve learning: How improvement-oriented resources heighten conceptions of assessment as school accountability. Journal of Multi Disciplinary Evaluation, 6(12), 68–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, G. T. L., & Hirschfeld, G. H. F. (2008). Students' conceptions of assessment: Links to outcomes. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 15(1), 3–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09695940701876003Google Scholar
Brown, G. T. L., Irving, S. E., Peterson, E. R., & Hirschfeld, G. H. F. (2009). Use of interactive-informal assessment practices: New Zealand secondary students' conceptions of assessment. Learning and Instruction, 19(2), 97–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.02.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, G. T. L., Kennedy, K. J., Fok, P. K., Chan, J. K. S., & Yu, W. M. (2009). Assessment for student improvement: Understanding Hong Kong teachers' conceptions and practices of assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16(3), 347–363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09695940903319737Google Scholar
Brown, G. T. L., Lake, R., & Matters, G. (2009). Assessment policy and practice effects on New Zealand and Queensland teachers' conceptions of teaching. Journal of Education for Teaching, 35(1), 61–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02607470802587152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, G. T. L., Lake, R., & Matters, G. (2011). Queensland teachers' conceptions of assessment: The impact of policy priorities on teacher attitudes. Teachingand Teacher Education, 27(1), 210–220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, G. T. L., Irving, S. E., & Keegan, P. J. (2008). An introduction to educational assessment, measurement and evaluation (1st ed.). Auckland, NZ: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthen, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures -the issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), 456–466. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F0033-2909.105.3.456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cochran-Smith, M., & Fries, K. (2005). Researching teacher education in changing times: Paradigms and politics. In Cochran-Smith, M. & Zeichner, K. (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Coll, C., & Remesal, A. (2009). Concepciones del profesorado de matemáticas sobre la evaluación del aprendizaje en la educación obligatoria: dimensiones y funciones. [Mathematics teachers' conceptions of learning assessment in compulsory education: dimensions and functions]. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 32(3), 391–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, A. C., Strafford, E., & Mapa, L. (2000). Stocktake/evaluation of existing diagnostic tools in literacy and numeracy in English. Wellington, NZ: NZCER.Google Scholar
Crooks, T. J. (2002). Educational assessment in New Zealand schools. Assessment in Education: Principles Policy & Practice, 9(2), 237–253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0969594022000001959Google Scholar
Crooks, T. J. (2010). Classroom assessment in policy context (New Zealand). In McGraw, B., Peterson, P. & Baker, E. L. (Eds.), The international encyclopaedia of education (3rd ed., pp. 443–448). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delandshere, G., & Jones, J. H. (1999). Elementary teachers' beliefs about assessment in mathematics. A case of assessment paralysis. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 14(3), 216–240.Google Scholar
Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., & Rubin, D. B. (1977). Maximum likelihood estimation from incomplete data via the EM algorithm (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 39(1), 1–38.Google Scholar
Esparza, E. R. (2007). Encuesta Abreviada de Concepciones de Evaluación del Aprendizaje. Unpublished translation of Teachers' Conceptions of Assessment inventory (CoA-IIIA), University of Sonora, Mexico.Google Scholar
Fan, X., & Sivo, S. A. (2007). Sensitivity of fit indices to model misspecification and model types. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(3), 509–529. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00273170701382864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, E. B., & Ladd, H. F. (2000). When schools compete: A cautionary tale. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Griffiths, T., Gore, J., & Ladwig, J. (2006, November). Teachers' fundamental beliefs, commitment to reform and the quality of pedagogy. Paper presented at Australian Association for Research in Education Annual Conference, Adelaide, Australia.Google Scholar
Harris, L. R., & Brown, G. T. L. (2009). The complexity of teachers' conceptions of assessment: Tensions between the needs of schools and students. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16(3), 365–381. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09695940903319745Google Scholar
Hill, M. F. (2000). Remapping the assessment landscape: primary teachers reconstructing assessment in self-managing schools. Hamilton, NZ: University of Waikato.Google Scholar
Kane, M. T. (2006). Validation. In Brennan, R. L. (Ed.), Educational Measurement (4th ed., pp. 17–64). Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Leahy, S., Lyon, C., Thompson, M., & Wiliam, D. (2005). Classroom assessment: Minute by minute, day by day. Educational Leadership, 63(3), 18–24.Google Scholar
Levin, B. (2001). Reforming education: From origins to outcomes. London, UK: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
Li, W. S., & Hui, S. K. F. (2007). Conceptions of assessment of mainland China college lecturers: A technical paper analyzing the Chinese version of CoA-III. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 16(2), 185–198. http://dx.doi.org/10.3860%2Ftaper.v16i2.262Google Scholar
Ludlow, L., Pedulla, J., Enterline, S., Cochran-Smith, M., Loftus, F., Salomon-Fernandez, Y., & Mitescu, E. (2008). From students to teachers: using surveys to build a culture of evidence and inquiry. European Journal of Teacher Education, 31(4), 319–337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619760802420842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lukin, L. E., Bandalos, D. L., Eckhout, T. J., & Mickelson, K. (2005). Facilitating the development of assessment literacy. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 23(2), 26–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2004.tb00156.x/pdfCrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacCallum, R. C. (1995). Model specification: Procedures, strategies, and related issues. In Hoyle, R. H. (Ed.), Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 16–36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 320–341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maruyama, G. M. (1998). Basics of structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMunn, N., McColskey, W., & Butler, S. (2003). Building teacher capacity in classroom assessment to improve student learning. International Journal of Educational Policy, Research, & Practice, 4(4), 25–48.Google Scholar
Ministerio de Educación Español (2007a). Orden ECI/2572/2007 Sobre evaluación en Educación Secundaria Obligatoria. [Law ECI/2572/2007 On assessment in Compulsory Secondary Education] Madrid, Spain: Ministerio de Educación.Google Scholar
Ministerio de Educación Español (2007b). Orden ECI/2572/2007 Sobre evaluación en Educación Primaria. [Law ECI/2572/2007 On assessment in Primary Education] Madrid, Spain: Ministerio de Educación.Google Scholar
Ministerio de Educación Español (2007c). Real Decreto 1467/2007 Por el que se establece la estructura del Bachillerato y se fijan sus enseñanzas mínimas. [Royal Decree 1467/2007 Establishing the structure of High School and its basic curriculum] Madrid, Spain: Ministerio de Educación.Google Scholar
New Zealand Ministry of Education. (1994). Assessment: Policy to practice. Wellington, NZ: Learning Media.Google Scholar
New Zealand Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum for English-medium teaching and learning in years 1–13. Wellington, NZ: Learning Media.Google Scholar
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), pp. 307–332. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543062003307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Remesal, A. (2006). La resolución de problemas en las prácticas de evaluación del área de matemáticas en la educación obligatoria: ideas de profesores y alumnos. [Problem solving in assessment practices of mathematics education in compulsory school: Ideas of teachers and pupils]. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
Remesal, A. (2007). Educational reform and primary and secondary teachers' conceptions of assessment: the Spanish instance, building upon Black and Wiliam (2005). The Curriculum Journal, 18, 27–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585170701292133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Remesal, A. (2008, August). Student teachers' conceptions on assessment: First year conceptions. Paper presented at Northumbria EARLI-SIG Assessment, Potsdam, Germany.Google Scholar
Remesal, A. (2009). Cuestionario Abreviado de Concepciones de Evaluación del Aprendizaje. Unpublished translation of Teachers' Conceptions of Assessment inventory (CoA-IIIA), Universidad de Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
Remesal, A. (2011). Primary and secondary teachers' conceptions of assessment: Aqualitative study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 472–482. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.TATE.2010.09.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van den Berg, B. (2002). Teachers' meanings regarding educational practice. Review of Educational Research, 72(4), 577–625. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543072004577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(4), 4–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Townsend, M. A. R. (2000). From Rata to Rimu: Grouping for instruction in best practice New Zealand classrooms. The Reading Teacher, 53(6), 460–471.Google Scholar
Wolf, D., Bixby, J., Glenn, H., & Gardner, H. (1991). To use their minds well: Investigating new forms of students' assessment. Review of Research in Education, 17, 31–74.Google Scholar