Assessment conceptions of Finnish pre-service teachers

Figures & data

Table 1. Summary of the online questionnaire.

	Response scale
Background characteristics
Pre-service teacher group	1 = Classroom teacher, 2 = Subject teacher, 3 = Special needs teacher
Age	In years
Previous studies in education	0 = no previous study units, 1 = basic studies [25 ECTS], 2 = intermediate studies [35 ECTS] and 3 = advanced studies [70–90 ECTS]
Previous studies in special education	0 = no previous study units, 1 = basic studies [25 ECTS], 2 = intermediate studies [35 ECTS] and 3 = advanced studies [70–90 ECTS]
Teaching experience	In full years (except if experience < 1 year = 0.5)
Assessment conceptions
Assessment of learning (5 items; e.g. Assessment sums up student learning)	1 = completely disagree; 7 = completely agree
Assessment for teaching and learning (10 items; e.g. Assessment supports learning, Assessment helps to improve the quality of teaching)	1 = completely disagree; 7 = completely agree
Assessment as harmful (5 items; e.g. Assessment is unfair)	1 = completely disagree; 7 = completely agree

TABLE 2. Confirmatory factor analysis for the assessment conception scale

Items	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3
Assessment supports learning.	.891
Assessment provides information on different learning needs.	.750
*Assessment allows different students to get different instruction.	.749
*Assessment help students improve their learning.	.738
*Assessment modifies the ongoing teaching of students.	.731
Assessment helps to develop the learning climate.	.688
Assessment provides information on how the support provided has benefited the student.	.631
*Assessment is integrated with the teaching practice.	.628
Assessment guides the planning of teaching.	.622
*Assessment provides feedback to students about their performance.	.602
*Assessment identifies student strengths and weaknesses.		.844
Assessment sums up student learning.		.831
*Assessment establishes what students have learned.		.728
Assessment predicts student performance.		.504
*Assessment predicts future student performance.		.298
Assessment negatively affects students’ perceptions of themselves.			.753
*Assessment is unfair.			.708
*Assessment interferes with teaching.			.546
Assessment exposes students to comparing each other’s performance.			.494
Assessment takes up too much of teachers’ work time.			.368

Note. Factor 1: Assessment for teaching and learning (α=.91); Factor 2: Assessment of learning (α=.79); Factor 3: Assessment as harmful (α=.69).

*=The item is from Brown’s (2004) COA-III Instrument.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics of the key variables.

	All participants (N = 287)				1. Classroom teachers (n = 110)		2. Subject teachers (n = 43)		3. Special needs teachers (n = 134)
Measure	M	Sd	Skew	Kurt	M	Sd	M	Sd	M	Sd	F	ηp2	Post hoc^a
Age	26.55	7.82	1.76	2.70	23.33	4.72	24.53	2.96	29.84	9.47	26.66***	.158	3 > 1, 2
Studies in education	1.463	1.054	.44	−1.04	.900	.967	1.232	.571	1.321	1.199	5.13**	.035	3 > 1
Studies in special education	.620	.868	1.27	.69	.191	.516	.070	.258	1.149	.922	69.44***	.328	3 > 1, 2
Prior teaching experience	2.05	4.43	3.36	12.28	.509	1.202	.698	1.042	3.739	5.932	20.10***	.129	3 > 1, 2
Assessment for teaching and learning	.000	.692	−.498	−.111	−.105	.653	−.167	.726	.140	.692	5.41**	.037	3 > 1, 2
Assessment of learning	.000	.578	−.502	.169	−.076	.524	−.202	.582	.128	.593	7.14***	.048	3 > 1, 2
Assessment as harmful	.000	.428	.031	−.317	.032	.409	.071	.374	−.050	.457	1.80	.012	--

*** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05. ^a = significant group differences.

Figure 1. Z-scores of the cluster profiles.

Table 4. Descriptive statistics of the cluster profiles.

	1 Assessment Cautious (n = 123)		2 Assessment Positives (n = 114)		3 Assessment Criticals (n = 50)
Measure	M	Sd	M	Sd	M	Sd	F	ηp2	Post hoc^a
Age	26.163	7.287	27.921	8.283	24.360	7.819	3.944**	.027	2 > 3
Assessment for teaching and learning	−.217	.323	.670	.250	−.994	.472	491.293***	.776	2 > 1 > 3
Assessment of learning	−.017	.318	.389	.440	−.846	.411	177.382***	.555	2 > 1 > 3
Assessment as harmful	.137	.297	−.335	.332	.429	.318	122.401***	.463	3 > 1 > 2
Studies in education	1.15	1.02	1.31	1.1	.760	.94	4.81**	.033	1, 2 > 3
Studies in special education	.642	.88	.73	.90	.32	.71	3.99*	.027	1, 2 > 3
Prior teaching experience	2.09	4.68	2.25	4.22	1.47	4.30	.548	.004	-

*** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05. ^a = significant group differences.

Table 5. Cross tabulation: Cluster profile and pre-service teacher group.

	Cluster profile
Pre-service teacher group	Assessment Cautious	Assessment Positives	Assessment Criticals
Classroom teacher (n = 110)	49 (44.5%)	36 (32.7%)	25 (22.7%)
Subject teacher (n = 43)	21 (48.8%)	11 (25.6%)	11 (25.6%)
Special needs teacher (n = 134)	53 (39.6%)	67 (50%)	14 (10.4%)
Total (N = 287)	123 (42.9%)	114 (39.7%)	50 (17.4%)