1,145
Views
8
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

Chinese school teachers’ conceptions of high-stakes and low-stakes assessments: an invariance analysis

ORCID Icon &
Pages 458-475 | Received 28 Dec 2018, Accepted 21 Mar 2019, Published online: 12 Apr 2019
 

ABSTRACT

The study investigated teachers’ conceptions of high-stakes and low-stakes assessments with a sample of 1,013 school teachers from China. In general, the assessment model indicated that school teachers in this study agreed with the most factors. They demonstrated a broad understanding of the improvement, evaluation, control, irrelevance, and challenges of assessment for a range of purposes. Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis for high-stakes vs low-stakes found that Chinese teachers perceived improvement, school accountability and examination purposes as highly positively correlated, though accountability was weakly correlated with irrelevance. Further, these teachers showed favourable attitudes toward low-stakes assessments which are believed more indicative of learning, teaching, examination, and school accountability. These results indicate that it is an appropriate option to adopt low-stakes assessments to remedy the unintended effects of high-stakes assessments in China. Possible explanations for major results are discussed, which may provide implications for other educational contexts.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Junjun Chen

Dr. Junjun Chen is an assistant professor in the Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. Her research focuses on measuring teacher and principal effectiveness and school improvement. In pursuing these concerns, she investigate teachers’ and principals’ beliefs and how these beliefs are related with each other.

Timothy Teo

Dr. Timothy Teo serves as a  Professor of School of Education at Murdoch University, Australia. His research interests are multi-disciplinary and both substantive and methodological areas. These are Educational Psychology, ICT in Education, and Quantitative Methods.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 53.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 1,036.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.