2.5 Empirical Studies on AL and LAL among In-service Teachers
2.5.1 AL and LAL Proficiency Level
2.5.1.1 AL Proficiency Level
It has been well documented the inadequate AL among teachers across school levels
has experienced little improvement in the past two decades and has still been prevalent nowadays (Kalajahi & Abdullah, 2016; Kim et al., 2020; Levy-Vered & Alhija, 2015;
Napanoy & Peckley, 2020; Pfeiffer-Hoens, 2017; Prizovskaya, 2018; Talib et al., 2014).
Most of the studies are conducted in quantitative way, either self-report questionnaires or the tests of assessment-related knowledge. A few studies focus on qualitative data through interviews with teachers or the collection of teacher’s assessment-related artifacts.
The multiple data collection and analysis lead to the consistent statement that overall teachers have a poor accumulation of knowledge both in testing and assessment. They displayed a deficiency in knowledge concerning the psychometric features of tests and statistics related to assessment (Daniel & King, 1998; Montee et al., 2013), had a less satisfactory mastery of assessment principles and techniques (Alkharusi et al., 2012;
Howley et al., 2013; Maclellan, 2004), and experienced difficulty in interpreting technical terms in the score report (Kim et al., 2020). They were also reported to lack the understanding of a sound assessment practice (Ch'ng & Rethinasamy, 2013) and to seldomly consider the authenticity in assessment design, which revealed their shortcomings in developing well-constructed test and rubrics (Armstrong et al., 2004;
Birenbaum et al., 2015; Prizovskaya, 2018; Williams, 2015). Moreover, they appeared to be fully ignorant of the adverse influences that their unsound assessment activities might have upon students (Pfeiffer-Hoens, 2017; Vandeyar &Killen, 2007).
Additionally, teachers tended to feel less comfortable with the emerging learning- oriented paradigm than with the traditional measurement-oriented paradigm (Hargreaves, 2005; Koh et al., 2012; Maclellan, 2001; Muñoz et al., 2012; Portelli &
O’Sullivan, 2016). Evidence showed teachers’ over-reliance on traditional summative tests or quizzes to assess student’s recalling of factual knowledge with rare coverage on higher-thinking skills, such as comparison and evaluation (Birenbaum et al., 2015;
Koh & Luke, 2009; Laren & James, 2008; Stiggins et al., 1989).
They were challenged to apply or modify AfL methods into classroom contexts (Koh et al., 2012; Kuze & Shumba, 2011; Marshall & Drummond, 2006; Stewart &
Houchens, 2014). Integration of assessment with classroom instruction and learning remained inconsistently (Hudson, 2017; Portelli & O’Sullivan, 2016). Although some teachers combined it superficially (assessment formats) without difficulty, they were less successful in carrying out the deep core aspects (cognition and purpose) of the assessment (Choi, 2017). Moreover, self-assessment as the main tool for AaL was least frequently used by teachers within the classroom activities (Bol et al., 1998; Volante, 2010; Young & Jackman, 2014).
With regard to the interpretation and communication of assessment results, they seemed to be less certain about how to explain the information they gathered (Bachor
& Anderson, 1994), how to utilize the assessment information (Plake, 1993; Rogers et al., 2007; Wicking, 2017; Yamtim & Wongwanich, 2014), how to provide feedback for
the purpose of student well-being improvement (Brown et al., 2012; Kanjee &
Mthembu, 2015), how to share and explain the assessment process with students (Andrews et al., 2018), and how to communicate assessment results with other stakeholders (Napanoy & Peckley, 2020; Plake, 1993).
In the field of China, what seems consistent with the studies abroad on teacher’s AL proficiency level is that qualitative studies are fewer and quantitative surveys are more favored, either large-scale involving thousands of participants or small-scale involving dozens of samples. The research results confirm that AL proficiency level among teachers in primary and middle schools in China remains expectedly less desirable.
Zheng (2010) investigated to what extent the teachers of all subjects in primary and middle schools were assessment competent according to the seven standards issued in 1990 by sampling nearly 1,000 participants across 18 schools in a province in China through the test adapted from Plake et al. (1993). The findings revealed that teachers’
overall AL was rather low with an average accuracy of less than 50%, even less than 10% on several items. They were less sure about how to use assessment results to make instructional decisions and were least certain about the issues of ethics and fairness involved in the assessment.
With the mere focus on classroom AL among primary teachers, Zhao (2020) utilized a classroom AL questionnaire devised by DeLuca et al. (2016a) to survey AL proficiency
of 1,032 primary teachers in the Mainland of China. Similarly, he argued that there still existed a certain gap between the participants’ AL and the ideal level. Besides, their performance did not reach the basic requirements in assessment communication, especially in ethics, which meant that their awareness of assessment ethics was relatively weak.
Utilizing a large-scale survey from over 1,000 participants from Hong Kong and Guangzhou Province located in the southern part of China, Brown et al. (2011) showed that teachers tended to strongly hold the conception that the examination or test was a powerful way to improve students learning. Their research also revealed that teachers felt challengeable to implement AfL advocated in assessment policies and curriculum standards.
Unlike the above quantitative analysis, qualitative data were collected and analyzed by Chai (2020) through an interview with 30 novice primary teachers in Shanghai, a rather developed city in China. The research discovered the contradiction between the requirement of AL among classroom teachers and inadequate AL among them. Such a contradiction was manifested in their confusion in assessment beliefs, insufficiency in the assessment knowledge base, and unbalanced use of assessment methods. Novice teachers in this study seemed to consider the assessment as the main means for educational management rather than a means for promoting students learning. They also viewed assessment feedback for the sole purpose of strengthening desirable
students’ behaviors rather than for the purpose of enhancing students’ cognition and learning autonomy. In addition, they appeared to have great difficulty in adjusting the assessment plan dynamically in the process of instruction on the basis of the constant interaction with students in the classroom.