Teachers' Conceptions of Assessment: A Global Phenomenon or a Global Localism

Gavin T L Brown,Atta Gebril,Michalis P Michaelides

doi:10.3389/feduc.2019.00016

Abstract

How teachers conceive of the nature and purpose of assessment matters to the implementation of classroom assessment and the preparation of students for high-stakes external examinations or qualifications. It is highly likely that teacher beliefs arise from the historical, cultural, social, and policy contexts within which teachers operate. Hence, it may be that there is not a globally homogeneous construct of teacher conceptions of assessment. Instead, it is possible that a statistical model of teacher conceptions of assessment will always be a local expression. Thus, the objective of this study was to determine whether any of the published models of teacher assessment conceptions could be generalised across data sets from multiple jurisdictions. Research originating in New Zealand with the Teacher Conceptions of Assessment self-report inventory has been replicated in multiple locations and languages (i.e., English in New Zealand, Queensland, Hong Kong, and India; Greek in Cyprus; Arabic in Egypt; Spanish in Spain, Ecuador) and at different levels of instructional contexts (Primary, Secondary, Senior Secondary, and Teacher Education). This study conducts secondary data analyses in which eight previously published models of teacher conceptions of assessment were systematically compared across 11 available data sets. Nested multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (using Amos v25) was carried out to establish sequentially configural, metric, and scalar equivalence between models. Results indicate that only one model (i.e., India) had configural invariance across all 11 data sets and this did not achieve metric equivalence. These results indicate that while the inventory can be used cross-culturally after localized adaptations, there is indeed no single global model. Context, culture, and local factors shape teacher conceptions of assessment.

Highlights

How teachers conceive of the nature and purpose of assessment matters to the implementation of classroom assessment and the preparation of students for high-stakes external examinations or qualifications
Research originating in New Zealand with the Teacher Conceptions of Assessment self-report inventory has been replicated in multiple locations and languages (i.e., English in New Zealand, Queensland, Hong Kong, and India; Greek in Cyprus; Arabic in Egypt; Spanish in Spain, Ecuador) and at different levels of instructional contexts (Primary, Secondary, Senior Secondary, and Teacher Education)
When educational policy needs to be implemented by teachers, how teachers conceive of that policy controls the focus of their attention and their understanding of the same material as well as influencing their behavioral responses to the policy (Fives and Buehl, 2012)

Summary

Introduction

How teachers conceive of the nature and purpose of assessment matters to the implementation of classroom assessment and the preparation of students for high-stakes external examinations or qualifications. Variation in those contexts is likely to change teacher conceptions of assessment meaning that while purposes (e.g., accountability or improvement) may be universal, their manifestation is unlikely to be so This discrepancy creates significant problems for cross-cultural research that seeks to compare teachers working in different. It might be due to the many variations in instructional contexts which do not lead to a universal statistical model Building on this idea, the purpose of this paper is to examine teacher responses from 11 different jurisdictions to a common self-report inventory on the purposes and nature of assessment (i.e., the Teacher Conceptions of Assessment version 3 abridged). This is consistent with the notion that teacher conceptions of educational processes and policies will shape decision making so that it makes sense and contributes to successful functioning within a specific environment (Rieskamp and Reimer, 2007)

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion