This  study  aimed  to  statistically  compare  preservice  teachers’ assessment   knowledge   in   crafting   assessment   task   and   selecting assessment  method  in  relation  to  their  teaching  experience.  This  study involved  397  preservice  teachers’  who  were  final  year  undergraduate students   in   a   local   university. The   instrument   of   data   collection consisted of eight superitems test. Data collected was analysed by using statistical   method   (SPSS   version   22.0). The   result   showed   that preservice  teachers  for  all  categories  of  teaching  experience  performed better in the selecting assessment method than crafting assessment task. However, there was no significant differences existed between the three categories   of teaching   experience   of preservice   teachers   for   both standards of assessment knowledge assessed

Chew Cheng Meng

Lim Hooi Lian

Wun Thiam Yew

Journal Of Research Policy & Practice of Teachers & Teacher Education

Directory of Open Access Journals

16 
 
Journal of Research, Policy & Practice of Teachers &  
Teacher Education 
Vol. 6, No. 2, December 2016, 16-22 
 
 
Preservice teachers’ assessment knowledge:  Do teaching experiences 
make a difference? 
 
Lim Hooi Lian, Wun Thiam Yew and Chew Cheng Meng 
University of Science, Malaysia 
 
 
This study aimed to statistically compare preservice teachers’ 
assessment knowledge in crafting assessment task and selecting 
assessment method in relation to their teaching experience. This study 
involved 397 preservice teachers’ who were final year undergraduate 
students in a local university. The instrument of data collection 
consisted of eight superitems test. Data collected was analysed by using 
statistical method (SPSS version 22.0). The result showed that 
preservice teachers for all categories of teaching experience performed 
better in the selecting assessment method than crafting assessment task. 
However, there was no significant differences existed between the three 
categories of teaching experience of preservice teachers for both 
standards of assessment knowledge assessed.  
 
Keywords: Assessment knowledge, preservice teacher, selecting 
assessment method, crafting assessment task. 
 
 
 
Introduction 
 
Classroom assessment has received increased attention from the professional educational 
assessment community in recent years (Nitko & Brookhart, 2014). Since school teachers 
are primarily responsible for assessing student learning, there is a widespread concern about 
the quality of classroom assessment. Additionally, in recent years, Malaysian government 
attention has shifted to the emphasis on school based assessment as the main determinant to 
the students’ performance in learning, rather than depends solely on the result of 
standardized tests. Hence, there has been an increase in expectations regarding teachers' 
assessment knowledge and professional expertise. 
While a number of researchers have argued that there are several fundamental and 
essential assessment principles that teachers should understand in order to develop the more 
quality and valid task (e.g. Calfee & Masuda,1997; Cizek, 1997; McMillan, 2001; Nitko & 
Brookhart, 2014; Stiggins & Conklin, 1992 ), it continues to be relatively little emphasis on 
its application especially on the stage of crafting assessment task (Stiggins, 2000). 
Meanwhile, regarding the knowledge of selecting of assessment method, Stiggins et al 
(2004), Suah (2012), Romberg (2004) addressed some common problems faced by school 
teachers. Namely,  
                                                          
 Corresponding author: Email: hllim@usm.my 
17 
 
i. lack of knowledge  in choosing the appropriate method of assessment 
ii. lack of the knowledge about the concept of assessment method 
iii. facing difficulties and challenges in selecting  or adopting assessment task 
 
Rudner and Schafer (2003) stated that a complete picture of what students understand and 
can do is put together in pieces comprised by different methods of assessment. Therefore, 
there is a need for teachers to ‘understand, select and apply’ the entire range of assessment 
techniques and methods appropriately, with the realization that each has advantages and 
limitations.  
Currently, several previous studies had focused on investigating the comparison of 
assessment knowledge between inservice and presercice teacher. For instance, Campbell et 
al. (2002) and Metler (2003) revealed that the inservice teachers scored higher than their 
preservice counterparts. However, Rohaya and Mohd. Najid (2008) claimed that there was 
no significant difference between the in-service teachers’ assessment literacy level and their 
teaching experience. Less researched and concern, however, is the pre-service teachers’ 
basic assessment knowledge, namely pertaining to the competency in crafting assessment 
task and selecting assessment method in relation to their teaching experience. Therefore, this 
study examined pre-service teachers’ assessment knowledge pertaining to these both 
standards. Moreover, this study seeks to expand the current research on classroom 
assessment by examining their assessment knowledge in relation to their teaching 
experience. 
 
Purpose of study 
 
The purpose of this study was to statistically compare preservice teachers’ assessment 
knowledge in crafting assessment task and selecting assessment method in relation to their 
teaching experience. 
 
Framework of assessing assessment knowledge 
 
According to Nitko (2014), paper and pencil is the most common type of assessment 
method. It consists of selected response test and selected response test. When teacher 
crafting the paper and pencil test task, they need to understand the concept of various types 
of the test and follow the fundamental rules and standard guidelines. Therefore, in this study, 
the three main stages were assessed pertaining to the competency and knowledge in crafting 
assessment task, namely: [1] identify the type of paper and pencil test; [2] state the 
weaknesses of the task; and [3] revise the task  
On the other hand, according to Stiggins, Arter, Chappuis, and Chappuis (2004), in 
all assessment development cycle, assessment planning stage involved four steps, namely, 
[1] determine the intended uses of an assessment, [2] identify the learning outcomes to be 
assessed, [3] select the proper assessment method, and [4] determine the relative importance 
of each learning target. They stated that the quality and valid assessments arise from clear, 
specific, and measureable learning outcome. In other words, the understanding of learning 
outcome is important because different learning outcomes require different assessment 
methods. At this point, teachers need to follow the three main steps as follows: 
a) List the major learning targets that the teachers will be teaching. 
b) Classify the learning outcomes into the appropriate domains. 
c) Deciding assessment method to be selected.  
18 
 
In this study, these three main steps of assessment planning were adapted to assess 
the preservice teachers’ assessment literacy pertaining to the competence in selecting of 
assessment methods. 
 
Methodology 
 
This study involved 397 preservice teachers’ who were final year undergraduate students. 
They did their education first degree program in a local university. They had completed their 
educational measurement and evaluation course and waited to be located to secondary 
schools for the teaching practical course.  
In this study, the instrument of data collection consisted of eight superitems test. 
Combination of SOLO (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome) model and superitem 
format had been developed (Collis, Romberg, and Jurdak, 1986; Lam & Foong, 1998; 
Wilson & Iventosh, 1988) to generate an alternative assessment framework for monitoring 
the growth of learner’s cognitive ability in solving problems. In the superitem format, it 
consists of a problem situation and three different complexity levels of questions related to 
it. The problem situation is represented by text. While the questions represent the levels of 
cognitive reasoning defined by SOLO model which include unistructural, multistructural 
and relational.  Thus, a right response to the specify level of question (three questions 
indicate three levels) within superitem would indicate the cognitive ability at a certain level 
reflected in the SOLO model.  
Thus, each superitem comprised three items. All the three items in each superitem are 
in open-ended format. Open-ended item format might require the preservice teachers to 
respond with a word, a phrase, or they may require a long and complex response. Superitem 
1 to superitem 4 with the total of 12 items  (item 1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4b, 
4c), assessed the samples’ ability in identifying the types of paper and pencil test, detecting 
the weaknesses of the task and then revised it based on their knowledge of assessment 
fundamental principles. Superitem 5 to superitem 8 with the total of 12 items  (item 5a, 5b, 
5c, 6a, 6b, 6c, 7a, 7b, 7c, 8a, 8b, 8c), assessed samples’ ability in identifying learning 
outcomes based on the information given, classifying the learning outcome into the 
appropriate domains and suggesting the appropriate assessment method to assess the 
particular learning outcomes. The data collection was administered by researchers. During 
the test, respondents were not allowed to talk and discuss with others. Time allocated for the 
test was an hour. Data collected was analysed by using statistical method (SPSS version 
22.0) to investigate preservice teachers’ assessment knowledge in relation to their teaching 
experience. 
 
Result 
 
Table 1 showed the mean scores of two standards of assessment knowledge investigated, 
namely crafting assessment task and selecting assessment method. The mean scores for each 
standard are based on the total of 24 scores where 0 equals the lowest score and 2 equals the 
highest score for each item. Result indicated that assessment knowledge of preservice 
teachers was demonstrated a mediocre level for both standards of assessment knowledge 
across the three categories of their teaching experience namely, no experience, 1 to 2 years 
of teaching experience and  3 to 4 years of teaching experience. On average, preservice 
teachers for all categories of teaching experience performed better in the second standards, 
namely selecting assessment method with the mean values were near to 12,  compare with 
the first standard which  the mean values were only 9.  
 
19 
 
Table 1: Rating of assessment knowledge by teaching experience 
 
Assessment knowledge  N Means score Standard deviation 
1. No teaching 
experience 
78   
a. Crafting 
assessment task 
 9.13 4.33 
b. Selecting 
assessment 
method 
 11.82 5.08 
2. 1 to 2 years of  
teaching 
experience 
137   
a. Crafting 
assessment task 
 9.15 3.05 
b. Selecting 
assessment 
method 
 11.96 3.61 
3. 3 to 4 years of  
teaching 
experience 
182   
a. Crafting 
assessment task 
 8.96 3.07 
b. Selecting 
assessment 
method 
 11.58 3.72 
 
Based on the examination of the ANOVA results in Table 2, F (2, 394) = 0.148, df = 
2, p = 0.862 for the standard 1, F (2, 392) = 0.359, df = 2, p = 0.699 for standard 2. It 
showed that p > .05 for both standards of assessment knowledge. The findings revealed that 
there was no significant differences existed between the three categories of teaching 
experience of preservice teachers for both standards of assessment knowledge assessed.  
 
Table 2: One way ANOVA test between teaching experience and assessment knowledge 
 
 Sum of Squares df Mean 
Square 
F Sig. 
Standard 1 
Crafting task 
     
Between Groups 3.319 2 1.660 .148 .862 
Within Groups 4413.230 394 11.201   
Total 4416.549 396    
Standard 2 
Selecting method  
     
Between Groups 11.388 2 5.694 .359 .699 
Within Groups 6221.280 392 15.871   
Total 6232.668 394    
Note. * p < .05 
 
 
20 
 
Discussion and Conclusion 
 
The preservice teachers’ performance in selecting assessments method reflected the similar 
finding with the previous studies such as Campbell, Murphy and Holt (2002) and Melter 
(2003). In those studies, out of seven standards assessed, the highest mean value of 
preservice and inservice teachers’ performance was selecting the appropriate assessment 
method. Nevertheless, it was obvious that the preservice teachers in this study demonstrated 
their poor performance in crafting assessment task. As stated by Rogers (1991) and Kahl, 
Hofman, Bryant (2013), generally school teachers are more concern about the day to day 
assessment process, less and less emphasize on the application of fundamental assessment 
principles in crafting the valid assessment task. Consequently, the lecturers who are 
expertise in this area should emphasize on the vital connection between these two standards 
in preparing the more quality assessment. With respect to the issue of assessment 
knowledge, Popham (2003) highlighted five main principles (includes both standards 
assessed in this study) that teachers should follow. However, research found that these 
principles are seldom met due to the insufficient time, less confident and public perception. 
On the other hand, previous studies reported that school teachers are unprepared to assess 
their student professionally. They often believe that they have not received sufficient 
training and knowledge in order to practice comfortably and confidently in school; couple 
with the fact that the preservice teachers demonstrated a mediocre level of their assessment 
knowledge in this study. Hence, the school of education or faculty of education in 
universities or teaching institutes may revise the appropriateness of educational assessment 
course in education program.  
Meanwhile, comparisons of preservice teachers’ assessment knowledge in relation to 
their teaching experience revealed no significant differences among the three categories of 
their teaching experience. This finding supported the research done by Rohaya & Mohd 
Najid (2008). Their study revealed that there was also no significant difference between the 
assessment literacy level and teaching experience among 501 Malaysian secondary school 
teachers (three categories: 1-5 years, 6-10 years and more than 10 years). These results 
shown that the implementation of classroom assessment in Malaysian school might 
predispose to rely on the traditional approaches that they had been exposed during their 
school life (Volante & Fazio, 2007; Popham, 2009). As Graham (2005) described that 
“preservice students are more likely to succumb to their apprenticeships of observation,” in 
line with this, the school of education may seriously consider ‘on job training’ approach as 
suggested by Metler (2003). It means the preservice teachers will learn the assessment and 
skill through the classroom experience as a teacher. The lecturer then will be easier to guide 
and help the preservice teachers based on their problems and feedbacks given in the process 
of application of assessment knowledge.  
The findings of the study enable the professional development program to be planned 
more effectively. Besides, the instrument can also be used by the organization under the 
Ministry of Education, namely schools and the State Education Department as a test of 
readiness in identifying the strengths and weaknesses of preservice teacher or in-service 
teachers’ assessment knowledge in crafting assessment task and selecting assessment 
method. In addition, the findings can be referred to plan the measurement and evaluation 
course in teacher training programs. 
Quality preservice teachers need to be equipped themselves with necessary skills and 
knowledge to correspond with the ever-changing and complexity of the school classrooms 
(Mohamad Termizi, 2014). The production of good quality teachers depend on the relevance 
and effectiveness of the current curriculum of teacher training. Hence, the curriculum must 
be revised and updated from time to time based on the feedback and research findings in 
21 
 
order to provide the quality knowledge and skills for the preservice teachers (Goh & Wong, 
2015).  
 
 
References 
 
Campbell, C., Murphy, J. A., & Holt, J. K. (2002) Psychometric analysis of an assessment 
literacy instrument: applicability to preservice teachers. Paper presented at the 
Annual  Meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association, 
Columbus, OH, October. 
Calfee, R. C., & Masuda, W. V. (1997). Classroom assessment as inquiry. In G. D. Phye 
(Ed.). Handbook of classroom assessment: Learning, adjustment, and achievement. 
NY: Academic Press. 
Cizek, G. J. (1997). Learning, achievement, and assessment: Constructs at a crossroads. In 
G. D. Phye (Ed.) Handbook of classroom assessment: Learning, adjustment, and 
achievement. NY: Academic Press. 
Collis, K. F., Romberg, T. A., & Jurdak, M. E. (1986). A technique for assessing 
mathematical problem-solving ability. Journal for Research in Mathematics 
Education, 17(3), 206-221. 
Graham, P. (2005). Classroom‐based assessment: Changing knowledge and practice through 
preservice teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 607‐21. 
Goh, P. S. C., & Wong, K. T. (2015).  Exploring the challenges for teacher educators. 
Journal of Research, Policy & Practice of Teachers & Teacher Education, 5(1), 
37-45. 
Kahl, S., Hofman, P., & Bryant, S. (2013). Assessment literacy standards and performance 
measures for teacher candidates and practicing teachers. Retrieved June 03, 2016, 
from caepnet.org/~/media/Files/caep/standards/assessment-literacy-in-teacher-
preparati.pdf. 
Lam, P., & Foong, Y. Y. (1998). Assessment of mathematics structure of learning    
outcome proficiency attainment  level using hierarchical items in testlets. 
Educational Research Quarterly, 27(2), 3-15. 
McMillan, J. H. (2001). Essential assessment concepts for teachers and administrators. 
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Publishing Company. 
Mohamad Termizi, B. (2014).  A review of the impact of PBL on pre-service teachers’ 
Learning. Journal of Research, Policy & Practice of Teachers & Teacher 
Education, 4(1), 5-14.  
Nitko, A., & Brookhart, S. (2014).  Educational assessment of students (6th. Ed.). Harlow: 
Pearson Education Limited. 
Popham, W. J. (2003). Seeking redemption for our psychometric sins. Educational 
Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22(1), 45-48. 
Popham, W. J. (2009). Assessment Literacy for Teachers: Faddish or Fundamental? Theory 
Into Practice, 48, 4-11. 
Rohaya & Mohd Najid (2008). Pembinaan dan Pengesahan Instrumen bagi Mengukur 
Tahap  Literasi Pentaksiran Guru Sekolah Menengah di Malaysia. Retrieved May 
10, 2016, from http://eprints.utm.my/7906/1/EDUPRES_%28F2%29_10.pdf 
Romberg, T. A. (2004). Standard-based mathematics assessment in middle school: 
Rethinking classroom practice. New York: Teachers College Press. 
Rudner, L. & Schafer, W. (2002). What Teachers Need to Know About Assessment. 
Washington, DC: National Education Association. 
22 
 
Stiggins, R. J. (2000). Classroom assessment: A history of neglect, a future of immense 
potential. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational 
Research Association. 
Stiggins, R., Arter, J., Chappuis, J. and Chappuis, S. (2004). Classroom assessment for 
student learning: Doing it right-using it well. Retrieved May 30, 2016, from 
http://www-tc.pbs.org/teacherline/courses/inst325/docs/inst325_stiggins.pdf 
Suah, S. L. (2012). Analisis model literasi dan amalan pentaksiran guru sekolah serta 
kajian  tentang jurang antara keduanya [Analysis of assessment literacy and 
practice school  teacher and study of the gap between them]. Unpublished doctoral 
thesis, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang. 
Volante, L.,  & Fazio. X. (2007). Exploring teacher candidates’ assessment literacy: 
implications for teacher education reform and professional development. Canadian 
Journal of Education, 30, (3), 749‐770. 
Wilson, M., & Iventosch, L. (1988). Using the partial credit model to investigate responses 
to structured subtest. Applied Measurement in Education, 1(4), 319-334. 
 


Preservice teachers’ assessment knowledge:  Do teaching experiences make a difference?

https://ejournal.upsi.edu.my/index.php/JRPPTTE/article/download/222/161/

Preservice teachers’ assessment knowledge: Do teaching experiences make a difference?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Directory of Open Access Journals