Assessment conception patterns of Finnish pre-service special needs teachers: the contribution of prior studies and teaching experience

Figures & data

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the variables

	All participants N = 134				Assessment Criticals n = 27		Assessment Positives n = 61		Assessment Cautious n = 46
Measure	M	Sd	Skewness	Kurtosis	M	Sd	M	Sd	M	Sd	F	ηp2
Age	29.84	9.47	1.03	0.10	24.93	9.00	27.61	8.07	35.67	8.68	17.56***	.21
Assessment supports teaching and learning^a	.00	.97	−.88	.41	−1.06	.95	.65	.49	−.24	.78	59.47***	.48
Assessment measures learning^a	.00	.92	−.55	.26	−.64	.90	−.04	.94	.32	.71	10.79***	.14
Assessment as harmful^a	.00	.88	.27	.02	.89	.74	−.63	.61	.34	.66	55.85***	.46
Prior theoretical studies	1.15	.92	.46	−.58	.59	.69	1.26	.98	1.32	.84	6.77**	.09
Prior teaching experience	1.49	1.03	.12	−1.12	.74	.81	1.15	.83	2.37	.74	45.37***	.41

Note. ^a = Regression based factor scores. *** p <.001, ** p <.01.

Figure 1. Cluster profiles.

Table 2. Differences in prior teacher qualification and assessment experience

	Prior teacher qualification χ2 = 50.33***		Prior assessment experience χ2 = 27.37***
	Yes	No	Yes	No
Assessment Criticals n = 27	4 (14.8%)	23 (85.2%)	11 (40.7%)	16 (59.3%)
Assessment Positives n = 61	13 (21.3%)	48 (78.7%)	49 (80.3%)	12 (19.7%)
Assessment Cautious n = 46	38 (82.6%)	8 (17.4%)	43 (93.5%)	3 (6.5%)

Note. *** p <.001, ** p <.01, * p <.05.