Teachers’ Understanding of Formative Assessment
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21512/lc.v12i1.2113Keywords:
formative assessment, assessment literacy, secondary school teachers, English lessonAbstract
The research explored teachers’ understanding of formative assessment in the secondary school level, particularly in the context of English teaching and examined factors related to the teacher assessment in the literacy level. To achieve the intended purposes, a self-designed instrument named Teacher Formative Assessment Literacy Questionnaire (TFALTQ) was emploted. Cronbach alpha measured the internal consistency of items that measuring the latent constructs were adequately accepted (α= 0,67), and exploratory the factor analysis using rotation matric revealed a robust factor loading of the variance explained with KMO statistic of 0,72. The questionnaire was distributed to all English teachers who taught in the secondary high school in central Lombok. There were 243 teachers from public and private high schools were participated in the study. The participants came from both public school and religious school, regardless of their school types and level. Using the case of 243 English teachers, the analysis reveals that the teachers’ understanding of formative assessment is inadequate and that four dimensions of teachers’ formative assessment literacy and understanding are revealed. These include an assessment to serve the accountability purpose, examination/test driven learning, the procedural approach to learning and assessment, and the receptive role of students. The multiple hierarchical regression analysis is performed to identify athe factors that are influencing the teachers’ formative assessment literacy. The analysis suggests that the teachers have a poor understanding of formative assessment, insufficient training in assessment and gender is a strong predictors of teachers understanding of formative assessment.
Plum Analytics
References
Airasian, P. W. (2001). Classroom assessment. New York: McGraw-Hill companies.
Alkharusi, H. (2011). Psychometric properties of the teacher assessment literacy questionnaire for Pre-Service teachers in Oman. Social and Behavioral Science, 29, 1614-1624. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.404
Arrafii, M. A., & Suhaili, M. (2015). Formative Assessment literacy and practice: A study of English teaching in Indonesian Secondary School. Report paper prepared for Directorate General of Higher Education, Ministry of National Education.
Assessment Reform Group. (2010). Assessment is for learning: 10 principles. Retrieved from http://www.assessment-reform-roup.org.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice. 5(1), 7-74.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of Formative Assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Accountability, 21(1), 5-31.
Bennet, R. E. (2010). Cognitive base assessment of, for and as learning: A Preliminary theory of action for Summative and Formative Assessment. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and
Perspectives, 8(2-3), 389-407.
Bennet, R. E. (2011). Formative Assessment: A Critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 18(1), 5-15.
Butler, S. M., & McMunn. (2006). A Teacher’s guide to classroom assessment: Understanding and using assessment to improve student learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Campbell, C., Murphy, J. A., & Holt, J. K. (2002). Psychometric analysis of an assessment literacy instrument: Applicability to preservice teachers. Paper presented at the meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association, Columbus, OH.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral science. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Creswell, J. W. (2011). Educational research: planning, conducting and evaluation quantitative and Qualitative Research (4th Eds.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Crossouard, B., Pryor, T., & Torrance, H. (2004). Creating an alternative assessment regime with Online FA: Developing a researcher identity. Paper presented at European Conference on Education Research, in Crete, Greece, 21–22 September.
Duncan, N. (2007). ‘Feed-forward’: Improving student’s use of tutor comments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(3), 571-581.
ELTIS (English Language training for Islamic School). (2010). A program completion report. Retrieved from www.lapis-eltis.org.
ETS (Educational Testing Service). (2010). About the KLT program. Princeton: NJ. Retrieved on March 10th, 2014 from http://www.ets.org/Media/Campaign/12652/about.html.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Thausand Oaks, California: SAGE Publication Inc.
Hattie, J. (2005). What is the nature of evidence that makes a difference to learning? Paper presented at the ACER research conference, Melbourne.
Hattie, J., & Jaeger, R. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning: A Deductive Approach. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, and Practice, 5(1), 111-122.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.
Keen, J. (2005). Assessment for writing development: Trainee English teachers’ understanding of Formative Assessment. Teacher Development, 9(2), 237-253.
Knight, P. (2003). An Evaluation of the quality of teacher feedback to students: A Study of numeracy teachingin the Primary Education sector. Paper presented at the AARE/NZARE conference, Auckland, New Zealand.
Linn, R. L. & Miller, M. D. (2005). Measurement and assessment in Teaching (9th Eds.) Upple Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
Mertler, C. A. (2004). Secondary Teachers’ Assessment Literacy: Does Classroom experience make a difference. American Secondary Education, 33(1), 49 – 64.
Mertler, C. A. (2009). Teachers’ assessment knowledge and their perceptions of the impact of classroom assessment professional development. Improving Schools, 12(2), 101 – 113.
Moss, P. A. (2003). Conceptualizing validity for the classroom. educational measurement: Issues and Practices, 22(4), 13-25.
Nitko, A. J., & Brookhart, S. M. (2011). Educational assessment of students (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
OECD. (2005). FA: Improving learning in secondary classroom. New York: OECD Publishing.
Popham, W. J. (2008). Transformative assessment in action: An Inside look at applying the process. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Plake, B. S., Impara, J. C., & Fager, J. J. (1993). Assessment competencies of teachers: a national survey. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12(4), 1210 – 1239.
Stiggins, R. J. (1995). Assessment literacy for 21st Century. Phil Delta Kappan, 77(3), 238-245.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Taras, M. (2005). Assessment, summative and formative: Some theoretical reflections. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(4), 466–78.
Torrance, H., & Pryor, J. (2001). Developing Formative Assessment in the classroom: using Action Research to explore and modify theory. British Educational Research Journal, 27(5), 615-631.
Watkins, C., Carnell, E., Lodge, L., Wagner, P., & Whalley, C. (2000) Learning about learning. London: Routledge.
Wylie, E. C., & Lyon, C. J. (2015). The Fidelity of Formative Assessment implementation: Issues of Breadth and Quality. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22(1), 140-160.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
a. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License - Share Alike that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
b. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
c. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
USER RIGHTS
All articles published Open Access will be immediately and permanently free for everyone to read and download. We are continuously working with our author communities to select the best choice of license options, currently being defined for this journal as follows: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC BY-SA)
