Exploring pre-service special needs teachers’ assessment conceptions and assessment self-efficacy

Figures & data

Table 1. Confirmatory factor analysis for the assessment conception scale.

Items	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3	Factor 4
*Assessment helps students improve their learning.	.775
*Assessment modifies the ongoing teaching of students.	.835
Assessment provides information on different learning needs.	.885
Assessment guides planning of teaching.	.548
Assessment provides information on how the support provided has benefited the student.	.676
*Assessment provides feedback to students about their performance.	.651
*Assessment is integrated with teaching practice.	.635
*Assessment allows different students to get different instruction.	.741
*Assessment establishes what student have learned.		.707
Assessment predicts student performance.		.624
*Assessment identifies student strengths and weaknesses.		.698
*Assessment is unfair.			.798
Assessment negatively affects students’ perceptions of themselves.			.686
Assessment exposes students to compare each other’s performance.			.680
Assessment takes up too much teachers’ work time.				.537
*Assessment interferes with teaching.				.861
Assessment makes it difficult to implement guidance and teaching.				.697

Factor 1: Assessment of learning; Factor 2: Assessment for teaching and learning; Factor 3: Assessment as harmful for student; Factor 4: Assessment as harmful for teacher.* = The item is from Brown’s (2004) COA-III Instrument.

Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis for the self-efficacy assessment scale.

Items	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3	Factor 4
I can identify students’ learning needs.	.833
I can assess student performance.	.840
I can assess how well students have achieved learning goals.	.740
I can use assessment to develop my teaching.		.714
I can use assessment to help students identify skills that still require practice.		.739
I can use assessment to support students’ learning.		.852
I can use assessment to support my own work.		.819
I can assess fairly and equitably.			.789
I can encourage students through assessment.			.645
I can design assessment practices according to age and potential.			.764
I can assess using varied assessment methods.			.708
I trust my own assessment skills.			.865
I trust my opportunities to develop as an assessor.			.660
I tend to avoid assessment responsibilities.				.895
Assessment situations cause me anxiety or stress.				.599
I do not like tasks related to assessment.				.712

Factor 1: Self-efficacy for summative assessment; Factor 2: Self-efficacy for formative assessment; Factor 3: Overall self-efficacy in assessment; Factor 4: Assessment avoidance.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics of the variables.

	All participants (N = 148)				Master students (N = 50)		Diploma students (N = 98)
Measures	M	Sd	Skew	Kurt	M	Sd	M	Sd	t	Cohen’s d
Studies is special education	1.20	.72	.38	.19	1.24	.82	1.18	.66	.47	.09
Teaching experience	6.84	8.12	.96	−.36	2.71	5.76	8.94	8.34	−4.74***	−.82
Assessment of learning	.000	.721	−.648	2.092	−.138	.772	.071	.686	−1.68	−.29
Assessment for teaching and learning	.000	.734	−.977	1.877	−.236	.825	1.205	.655	−2.87**	−.50
Assessment as harmful for student	.000	1.176	.048	−.361	.352	1.213	−.180	1.120	2.66**	.46
Assessment as harmful for teacher	.000	.731	.387	−.264	.139	.769	−.071	.704	1.67	.29
Summative self-efficacy	.000	.900	−1.048	1.688	−.561	1.027	.286	.670	−5.29***	−1.05
Formative self-efficacy	.000	.785	−.869	1.095	−.480	.873	.245	.608	−5.25***	−1.02
General assessment self-efficacy	.000	.901	−1.002	1.467	−.558	1.026	.285	.674	−5.26***	−1.04
Assessment avoidance	.000	1.357	.278	−.891	.246	1.303	−.126	1.374	1.58	.28

*** p < .001, ** p < .01,* p < .05.

Table 4. Correlations between key variables.

Measures	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
(1) Assessment of learning	-
(2) Assessment for teaching and learning	.627***	-
(3) Assessment as harmful for student	−.281***	−.717***	-
(4)Assessment as harmful for teacher	−.261**	−.634***	.880***	-
(5)Summative self-efficacy	.364***	.360***	−.292***	−.219**	-
(6) Formative self-efficacy	.301***	.354***	−.303***	−.217**	.947***	-
(7) General assessment self-efficacy	.375***	.384***	−.328***	−.253**	.992***	.939***	-
(8) Assessment avoidance	−.241**	−.334***	.486***	.483***	−.418***	−.386***	−.489***	-
(9) Studies in special education	.046	.069	−.162	−.161	.017	.005	.040	−.148
(10) Teaching experience	.120	.061	−.054	.006	.535***	.508***	.526***	−.166*	−.031

*** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05.

Figure 1. Z-scores of the cluster profiles.

Table 5. Descriptive statistics of the cluster profiles.

	1 Assessment Cautious (n = 43)		2 Assessment Positives (n = 51)		3 Assessment Criticals (n = 47)
Measures	M	Sd	M	Sd	M	Sd	F	ηp2	Diff.
Assessment of learning	.267	.426	.232	.726	−.546	.634	26.028***	.274	1, 2 > 3
Assessment for teaching and learning	.063	.409	.568	.446	−.681	.679	69.546***	.502	2 > 1 > 3
Assessment as harmful for student	.240	.588	−1.184	.700	1.026	.792	125.360***	.645	3 > 1 > 2
Assessment as harmful for teacher	.128	.420	−.725	.331	.610	.584	108.471***	.611	3 > 1 > 2
Studies in special education	.791	.600	1.490	.644	1.255	.736	13.213***	.161	2, 3 > 1
Teaching experience	12.081	8.750	5.186	7.237	2.872	5.021	20.183***	.226	1 > 2, 3
Summative self-efficacy	.347	.687	.195	.760	−.612	.961	18.623***	.213	1, 2 > 3
Formative self-efficacy	.294	.632	.151	.684	−.486	.816	15.498***	.183	1, 2 > 3
General assessment self-efficacy	.328	.669	.236	.772	−.624	.956	19.572***	.221	1, 2 > 3
Assessment avoidance	−.047	1.107	−.712	1.233	.771	1.222	18.966***	.216	3 > 1 > 2

*** p < .001.

Brown, G. T. L. 2004. “Teachers’ Conceptions of Assessment: Implications for Policy and Professional Development.” Assessment in Education 11: 302–318.

 Google Scholar