‘Assessors for learning’: understanding teachers in contexts

Part of the professional role of teachers is to make use of assessment data in schools to make decisions on teaching, instruction and students’ learning. Teachers need to know how to analyse data regarding students’ knowledge, and decide what tasks students need to complete to demonstrate their knowledge (Pellegrino, DiBello, & Goldman, 2016). Teachers’ assessment literacy, defined as teachers’ understanding, knowledge and conceptualisation of assessment, has been widely researched and several articles have been published in this journal investigating teachers’ self-reported conceptions and knowledge of assessment (e.g. Brown, 2004; DeLuca & Klinger, 2010; Leighton, Gokiert, Cor, & Heernan, 2010).

In the lead article of this issue, Looney et al. (this issue) argue that the current research and surveys on teachers’ self-beliefs about assessment literacy do not sufficiently take into account the complexity of teachers’ experiences of assessment. They propose that the role of the teacher as an assessment practitioner goes beyond what has been established through existing scales and conceptualisations of assessment literacy. More specifically, they claim that previous research and scales have paid limited attention to what they identify as essential to Teacher Assessment Identity (TAI).

As part of their ongoing research to develop a new and better measure, Looney et al. present findings from a systematic review of self-report scales on teacher assessment literacy, and teacher identity related to assessment. A total of 28 self-report scales based on 19 instruments described in 20 publications and 518 items were identified and analysed. Results demonstrated that over three-quarters of the items focused upon teachers’ knowledge of assessment, skills and practice, mostly in the context of teacher developed assessment practices. Further, most items had a generic nature. As demonstrated in research in other areas, we need more researches that are subject- and context-specific to understand the complexity of learning. The authors further encourage other researchers to engage in the reconceptualised representation of teachers as assessors, and also include scales in surveys covering teachers’ confidence and self-efficacy in undertaking assessment, not just their assessment skills and strategies.

In the second article, Copp (this issue) investigated the effect of large-scale assessment on classroom teaching in the 10 provinces in Canada. More specifically, Copp asked teachers to identify their teaching through self-reports investigating whether they were teaching to the curriculum, or teaching to the test. The results showed that of the seven provinces with high-stake exams, six of them had teachers reporting they were basically teaching to the test. Although teachers in Canada do not face the same level of high stakes as US teachers when it comes to the use of test results in schools, there was a clear tendency in the data that Canadian teachers are teaching to the test in the provinces where they have large-scale assessment exit exams.

In the third article, Cole et al. (this issue) report from a study among American students where the purpose was to address the effectiveness of autonomy support and lottery-based financial reward in enhancing test motivation and performance. The authors report that the male students were influenced by the lottery, while female students were not. The male students offered a chance at winning the financial reward scored almost 10 points higher on the exams than the female students. Although the present study was carried out in laboratory contexts, it emphasises the continued need for assessment researchers to further investigate and understand more about which students are motivated under which conditions, what enhances students learning, and to what degree gender differences in risk-taking influence students’ achievement (Byrnes, Miller, & Schafer, 1999).

In the fourth article, Pratt (this issue) reports from a study investigating assessment practices among primary Key Stage 2 teachers in England. The interview study reveals some challenges around the Assessment for Learning (AfL) discourse in schools and Pratt suggests there is a mismatch between the aims from AfL pedagogy and what is actually playing out in the classroom. While AfL theories have focused upon trust and dialogue between pupils and teachers, Pratt argues that the current high-stakes accountability policy in England has negative effects on pupils as learners. Interview studies such as the one presented here, are of importance for understanding the teachers’ enactment of reforms, but it is also a reminder of the importance of investigating on a large scale the assessment practices in England as well as worldwide, as we have previously made a call for in the special issue Assessment for Learning: Lessons Learned from Large-Scale Evaluations of Implementations (Hopfenbeck & Stobart, 2015).

Accountability demands are also the theme in the final article by Evans and Lee (this issue). The authors have critically evaluated the value-added accountability measures used in the United States at the federal and state levels to assess teacher preparation programmes and their effectiveness. Drawing upon the framework by Newton and Shaw (2014), the authors explore the technical quality and social acceptability of value-added assessment. The authors aim to address questions such as whether it is possible to measure the desired attribute using the test (Evaluation of Measurement) and whether it is possible to make more accurate decisions using test scores (Evaluation of Decision-Making). The authors also stress the importance of evaluating current measures to avoid misinformed policy judgements, particularly in times where the focus upon teacher quality and student achievement is increasing worldwide.

Finally, we publish Lenore Adie’s review of Formative assessments and teacher professional learning, edited by Dineke Tigelaar and Douwe Beijaar. The book is a compilation of articles originally published in the journal Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, volume 19, issue 2 (April 2013), by the same editors. The theme of the book is teachers’ professional learning and how formative assessment can be integrated within it. The book covers nursing and teaching education contexts, as well as pre-service and in-service teaching. Adie points out that while formative assessment is usually related to students, the original part of this book is how it is linked to both teachers and learners, and what it will take to support teachers to take ownership of their own learning. As the book mostly covers studies from Europe, Adie points to the importance of how this research could be applied to other contexts, such as in Asia. I would like to second that message and include that we need to understand better the different assessment contexts and exam/tests systems to which teachers are held accountable, as has been recently documented by Baird, Isaacs, Opposs, and Gray (2018).