220

Classroom Assessment Practices of Filipino Teachers:

Measurement and Impact of Professional Development

Richard DLC Gonzales

University of Santo Tomas Graduate School

Carmelo M. Callueng
University of Florida

Classroom assessment provides information that is valuable for decisions

relating to instruction, student achievement, and accountability. This study
reports the initial validation of the Classroom Assessment Practices
Questionnaire (CAPSQ) utilizing data from 364 Filipino teachers across
teaching levels. Results of a principal axis factoring (PAF) yielded a stable
four-factor model that is consistent with assessment purposes framework:
(1) assessment as learning, (2) assessment of learning, (3) assessment to
inform, and (4) assessment for learning. Both factor and total scores
demonstrated high internal consistency. However, high factor and total
scores correlations indicate that the total score is the most accurate index of
classroom assessment practices. Generally, professional development
enhances teachers’ classroom assessment practices and that, teaching level
and class size moderate the impact of professional development on
classroom assessment practices. Implications of findings are discussed.

Keywords: Classroom Assessment, Assessment of Learning, Assessment for

Learning

Classroom assessment plays an essential role in the teaching and

learning process. It provides teachers with information that is important to
make decisions regarding students’ progress (Jones & Tanner, 2008; Linn &
Miller, 2005; Murray, 2006; Nitko & Brookhard, 2007; Stiggins, 2002; 2008).
Classroom assessment has been receiving increased attention by researchers
and measurement practitioners, particularly those involved teacher training
and professional development (Alkharusi, 2008; 2010; Sato, Wei & Darling-
Hammond, 2008; Zhang & Burry-Stock, 2003). The information gathered
from assessment allows teachers to understand their students’ performance
better and are able to match instruction with students’ learning needs (Linn

 Essentials on Counseling and Education

 221

& Miller, 2005; Mertler, 2003; 2009). Additionally, assessment data are used
by education policy makers and practitioners involved for accountability
(how well students have learned) and instruction (how to promote higher
levels of learning) (Bennet & Gitomer, 2009; Danielson, 2008; Sato et al.,
2008; Vardar, 2010).
Classroom assessment practices and preferences have been widely
studied (e. g. Alkharusi, 2010; Bienbaum, 1997, 2000, Birembaum &
Feldman, 1998; Bliem & Davinroy, 1997; Zhang & Burry-Stock, 2003).
However, there is less evidence on the impact of professional development
programs on teachers’ classroom assessment preferences (Sato et al, 2008).
Hence, this study attempts to examine the role of professional development
on teachers’ classroom assessment preferences and practices.

What is Classroom Assessment?

Assessment can imply various meanings within the educational

setting (Ames, 1992; Popham, 2008; Stiggins, 1997). It can refer to the
process teachers use to grade student subject assignments (Dunbar, Koretz,
& Hoover, 1991; Gregory, 1996; Harlen, 2008; Manzano, 2000; Mertler, 1998,
2009; Musial, Nieminen, Thomas & Burke, 2009), to standardized testing
imposed in schools (Manzano, 2006; Messick, 1989; Stiggins & Chappus,
2005; Stiggins & Conklin, 1992), to any activity designed to collect
information to be used as feedback to modify teaching and learning activities
(Black & William, 1998), or to improve instruction and students’
performance (Airasian, 1997; Cohen & Hill, 2000; Gullickson, 1984; 1986).
These diverse uses have, regrettably, moved assessment away from the
primary role that it should play in educational institutions – the gathering of
information to improve instructional practices.
In this study, classroom assessment refers to an array of tasks or
activities accomplished by the teacher that include developing paper-pencil
and performance measures, scoring and marking, assigning grades,
interpreting standardized test scores, communicating test results, and using
assessment results in decision-making (Alkharusi, 2008; Gonzales & Fuggan,
2012; Zhang and Burry- Stock, 2003).

 Essentials on Counseling and Education

 222

Classroom Assessment Preferences, Practices and Professional

Development

Assessment preference refers to an imagined choice between

alternatives in assessment and the possibility of practicing these assessment
alternatives (Van de Watering, Gjibels, Docky, & Van de Rijt, 2008). While
assessment practices refers the activities that teachers do in relation to
conducting classroom assessment- from test planning to reporting to
utilization of test results (Gonzales & Fuggan, 2012; Volante & Fazio, 2007;
Zhang, 1995; Zhang & Burry-Stock, 2003).
Studies indicate that teachers with very minimal participation in
professional development programs may not be adequately prepared to
meet the demands of classroom assessment (Galluzo, 2005; Mertler, 2009;
Shaffer, 1991; Volante & Fazio, 2007; Zhang, 1995). Teachers are expected to
be skillful in collecting information about the performance of their students
in school (Ames, 1992; Bennet & Gitomer, 2009; Nitko & Brookart, 2007;
Harlen, 2007; Musial et al, 2009). However, assessment problems are
particularly prominent in performance assessment, interpretation of
standardized test results, and grading procedures (Zhang and Burry-Stock,
2003). Teachers also are less aware of the pedagogical, managerial and
communicative aims of classroom assessment (see Jones and Tanner, 2008
for more explanation).
To be effective, teachers must be aware that it is not enough to
present a lesson to their students and hope that they understand it (Sato et
al, 2008). They should realize that learning occurs when there is interplay
between the teaching process and the outcomes (Bond, 1995; Mory, 1992).
When teachers assess learning, they should be able to identify specific goals
and objectives for each subject or lesson (Segers, Dochy, & Cascallar, 2003;
Jones & Tanner, 2008), systematically gauge the extent to which these
anticipated outcomes actually occur and determine to what degree learning
takes place (Raty, Kasanen, & Honkalampi, 2006; Stiggins & Chappuis,
2005). In addition, when teachers do assessment in the classrooms, they also
are required to define the role of assessment in making instructional and
educational decisions (Danielson, 2008; Stake, 2004; Stiggins, 2008).
Teachers more often become immersed in their jobs and lose sight of
the exact purpose of assessment. Consequently, teachers may not achieve
their purpose for assessment or they overlook another form of assessment
that may be more appropriate (Rust, 2002). Hence, it is very important that

 Essentials on Counseling and Education

 223

teachers conduct assessments with a clear purpose in mind and believe that
their assessment promotes excellence in students (Astin, 1991; Earl & Katz,
2006; Hill, 2002; Murray, 2006; Sanchez & Brisk, 2004). On the other hand,
effective schools need to rethink the roles of assessment. Here, “effective”
means maximizing learning and well being for students. Hence, two
questions need to be answered. First, what uses of assessment are most
likely to maximize student learning and well-being? Second, how can
assessment be used best to facilitate student learning and well-being?
The usual response to these questions would be to provide
professional development and training to teachers on classroom assessment
and how to maximize the information gathered from assessment. Research
studies report that teachers’ assessment and evaluation practices are still
incongruent with recommended best practices (Galluzzo, 2005; Mertler,
2003, 2009; Volante & Fazio, 2007; Zhang & Burry-Stock, 2003). Hence, the
need to determine the implications of classroom assessment practices on the
professional development programs and the impact of training programs on
improving assessment practices of teachers.
Professional development is commonly understood as a
comprehensive, sustained and intensive approach to improving teachers’ and
administrators’ effectiveness in raising students’ achievement. In North
America, there is relatively little emphasis on assessment in the professional
development of teachers (Stiggins, 2002). For example, out of 10 Canadian
provinces and 50 US states, only Hawaii and Nebraska allocated a significant
sum of money that is specifically targeted to improve assessment and
evaluation practices within schools (Volante & Fazio, 2007). In the
Philippines, systematic educational assessment has been increasingly
institutionalized within schools. However, teachers’ level of confidence and
competence in classroom assessment still need attention (Magno & Gonzales,
2011). Evidently, there is strong clamor for professional development
programs to address the assessment literacy needs of teachers and school
administrators.
Effective professional development is considered as the center of
educational reforms (Dilworth & Imig, 1995) but only few studies have
documented its cost and effectiveness (Lowden, 2005). Stakeholders
including policy makers, board of education, legislators, funding agencies and
even taxpayers all want to know if professional development makes a
difference. Hence, this study assesses the impact of professional development
on classroom assessment practices of teachers.

 Essentials on Counseling and Education

 224

Objectives of the Study

The following objectives are addressed in the study: 1) to examine the

factor structure of the of teachers’ classroom assessment practices as
measured by the CAPSQSQ and 2) to examine assess the impact of
professional development on classroom assessment practices.

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of 364 teachers from three geographical regions

in the Philippines. Participants were predominantly females (82%) and with
more than six years teaching experience (86%). In the sample, 67% came
from tertiary schools and the remaining 33% came from either elementary
or secondary school. Distribution by educational level slightly varies, 44 %
with bachelor’s degree and 56% with either master’s or doctoral degree. Half
of the participants took an assessment course during their pre-service
training. Similarly, half indicated attending professional development in
classroom assessment within the past three years.

Measure

The initial pilot version of the Classroom Assessment Practices Survey

Questionnaire (CAPSQ: Gonzales, 2011) consisted of 60 items that were
sorted according to thematic similarities using simple Q-sort method
(Stephenson, 1953). Item content was derived from interview data from
teachers and the works of Birembaum (1997), Bliem and Davinroy (1997),
Brown (2002,2004), Brown and Lake (2006), Cheng, Rogers and Hu (2004),
Hill, (2002), Mblelani (2008), Mertler (1998, 2003, 2009), Sanchez and Brisk
(2004) and Zhang and Burry-Stock (2003). Emerging and recognized
scholarship on assessment (Earl and Katz, 2006; Stiggins, 1997, 2008; Angelo
& Cross, 1993; Airasian, 1997; and Black & William, 1998) also was
consulted.
Items used a 5-point Likert type response scale describing frequency
(1-never to 5-always) of doing an assessment activity. Three experts on scale
development and classroom assessment reviewed the items in terms of

 Essentials on Counseling and Education

 225

format as well as content clarity and relevance. Items were subsequently

categorized according to the four purposed of assessment based on a
framework currently used by the Western and Northern Canadian Protocol
and described by Earl (2003) and Earl and Katz (2004). These distinct but
interrelated purposes include: 1) assessment of learning, 2) assessment as
learning, 3) assessment for learning, and 4) assessment to inform. Only 21
items were endorsed by the reviewers and fitted well to the framework.

Procedure

The 21-item pretest form of the CAPSQ was administered to teachers

from various elementary, secondary, and tertiary schools located in Metro
Manila and in the southern and northern Luzon regions. Data were collected
by the first author during seminar-workshops or through direct contacts by
the research assistants who also were teachers from the areas covered in the
study. Participants were informed of the purposes the study as part of the
informed consent.

Data Analysis

Data were initially subjected to descriptive statistics and evaluated for

normality through skewness and kurtosis. To examine the factor structure of
the CAPSQ, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted using principal
axis factoring (PAF) with promax oblique rotation. PAF can yield a factor
structure of the CAPSQ with minimum number of factors that can account for
the common variance (or correlation) of items (Costello & Osborne, 2005).
Promax oblique rotation was preferred over orthogonal rotation because it
assumes that the extracted factors are correlated (Preacher & McCallum,
2002). The number of factors that contribute substantial variance to overall
latent factor of classroom assessment practices as measured by the CAPSQ
was determined using the criteria of Kaiser eigenvalue greater than 1.0 and
Cattell’s scree test (Schultz & Whitney, 2005). Additional psychometric
evaluation of CAPSQ’s internal consistency was done by calculating the scale
and total scores’ Cronbach’s alpha and factorial correlations.

Hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to examine the impact

of professional development on classroom assessment practices of the
participants. Prior to series of regression analyses, bivariate correlations

 Essentials on Counseling and Education

 226

were computed between CAPSQ total score and demographic and teaching-
related variables to determine possible moderating variables. Hierarchical
regression analysis was conducted in the following manner. Step 1
regression equation was comprised of the moderating variables as predictors
of classroom assessment practices. In Step 2 regression equation, classroom
assessment pre-service training was added to predictors in Step 1. In Step 3
regression equation, classroom assessment in-service training was added to
predictors in Step 2. Finally, Step 4 included those predictors in Step 3 as
well as the two-way interactions of the moderating variables and
professional development training activities. A p≤ .05 was used for all stages
of the regression analyses.

Results

Psychometrics of the CAPSQ

Initial analyses were conducted to determine whether assumptions

for univariate normality were met. Item skew (-.35 to -1.33) and kurtosis (05
to 1.63) values were within the acceptable range, /3/ and /10/, respectively
(Kline, 2010). Inter-item correlation matrix indicates that the coefficients
were generally small (e.g., r =.14 for items 8 & 19) to moderate (e.g., r = .34
for items 4 & 14), suggesting that the correlation matrix was appropriate for
factor analysis. Item means (and standard deviations) ranged from 4.07 (.89)
for item 7 to 4.46 (.75) for item 14.
Initial solutions for the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) that included
Bartlett’s test of sphericity, χ2 (210, N = 364) = 5200.62, p < .001, and the size
of the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy (.94)
suggest that the data were satisfactory for factor analysis (Hutcheson &
Sofroniou,1999). Results of the initial PAF yielded a five-factor solution that
accounted for a total variance of approximately 72%. However, promax
rotation method with Kaiser Normalization indicated that only two items (16
and 24) loaded on factor 5, and their content cannot be easily interpreted.
Further, items 7, 10, and 18 have similar loadings (i.e., ≥ .30) on two factors.
These five items were subsequently eliminated and EFA was again conducted
with the remaining 18 items.

 Essentials on Counseling and Education

 227

Table 1
Initial Communalities and Pattern Matrix of the Final 18 Items of the CAPSQ
Abbreviated Item 1 2 3 4 Communalities
Factor 1 (50.27%)
Item 2: Monitor learning progress .87 -.03 .03 -.01 .72
Item 4: Do self-assessment .86 -.08 .10 -.10 .68
Item 6: How students can learn .74 .01 -.04 .04 .54
Item 3: Getting personal feedback .71 .01 -.05 .20 .68
Item 1: Develop clear criteria .63 .08 .05 .08 .65
Item 5: Set the criteria .59 .13 .03 .09 .60
Factor 2 (8.02%)
Item 8: Measure extent of learning -.02 .95 -.21 .03 .64
Item 9: Evaluate level of competence -.04 .84 .04 -.06 .61
Item 11: Determine desired outcomes .02 .82 -.10 .11 .69
Item 12: Make final decision .10 .59 .18 -.01 .60
Factor 3 (5.98%)
Item 19: Inform other school officials .01 -.31 .94 .12 .60
Item 20: Provide information to .12 .20 .64 -.18 .56
parents
Item 22: Compare relative to others .14 .28 .45 -.11 .59
Item 23: Supply information to .03 -.06 .44 .14 .61
teachers
Factor 4 (5.45%)
Item 17: Help students improve .08 -.06 -.06 .86 .59
learning
Item 15: Strengths and weaknesses .01 -.02 .18 .68 .61
Item 13: Identify better learning .11 .13 -.06 .58 .47
Item 14: Collect learning data -.14 .16 .26 .50 .48

Initial communalities of the final 18 items ranged from .47 to .72, with
a mean coefficient of .61. Results of the PAF for this solution suggest that a
four- factor solution would best describe the structure of CAPSQ. Total
variance explained by these four factors was approximately 62%: factor 1
accounted for the majority of the variance, 50.27%; factor 2 accounted
8.02%; factor 3 accounted 5.98%; and factor 4 accounted 5.45%. Each of
these four factors also contributed at least 3% of the sum of squared
loadings. Items have pure loadings of at least .40 on only one factor. Initial
communalities and pattern matrix of the final items are presented in Table 1.
Internal consistency of the factor scores and total score was calculated
using Cronbach’s alpha (α). The four factors demonstrated high internal

 Essentials on Counseling and Education

 228

consistency, with α = .92 for factor 1, α = .88 for factor 2, α = .83 for factor 3,
and α = .85 for factor 4. Internal consistency for the total score also was high,
α = .95. Inter- factor correlations ranged from .57 (moderate) to .72 (high).
Correlations between CAPSQ factors and total score were all very high (r =
.82-.92), indicating that total score can be the most accurate and valid
estimate of the classroom assessment practices.

Impact of Professional Development on Classroom Assessment

Practices

Bivariate correlations indicates that CAPSQ total was significantly

associated with level of teaching (r = -.40, p < .001), class size (r = -.28, p <
.01), and academic attainment (r = -.21, p < .001). CAPSQ total was not
correlated with length of teaching (r = -.03, p > .05). In addition, correlations
between CAPSQ total and professional development activities were
significant: pre-service (r = -.32, p < .001) and in-service (r = -.39, p < .001)
trainings. These significant correlations suggest possible moderating effects
of level of teaching, class size, and educational attainment on the association
of professional development and classroom assessment practices. Thus, the
main effects of these variables and their interaction with professional
development were included in the regression analysis. Initial hierarchical
regression analyses indicate that academic attainment was not significantly
associated with CAPSQ total and thus, a subsequent analysis was conducted
with academic attainment not included in the moderating variable block.
Results of the hierarchical regression analysis indicates that from Step
1, the two moderating variables entered as a block accounted for almost 24%
of the variance in CAPSQ total, Adj R2 = .24, F (2, 360) = 56.95, p < .001. Level
of teaching (β = -.40, t = -8.75, p < .001) and class size (β = .28, t = 6.12, p <
.001) were significantly associated with CAPSQ total. Compared to
college/university teachers (M = 85.98, SD = 12.00), elementary and high
school teachers (M = 96.38, SD = 9.42) reported higher CAPSQ total scores.
Similarly, teachers handling large classes (M = 91.09, SD = 10.42) reported
higher CAPSQ total scores than teachers handling small classes (M = 82.36,
SD = 16.30). The results from Step 2 indicate that after controlling for the
effects of the moderating variables, classroom assessment pre-service
training accounted for approximately 3% increase in the variance in CAPSQ
total, ΔR2 = .03, ΔF (1, 359) = 13.70, p < .001. Pre-service training was
significantly associated with CAPSQ total (β = -.19, t = - 3.70, p < .001).

 Essentials on Counseling and Education

 229

Teachers who took a course in classroom assessment (M = 93.39, SD = 11.59)

reported higher CAPSQ total scores than teachers without any course in
classroom assessment (M = 85.20, SD = 11.45) during their college years.
Consistent with Step 1, level of teaching (β = -.32, t = -4.95, p < .001) and class
size (β = .29, t = 6.39, p < .001) were associated with CAPSQ total.
The results from Step 3 indicate that after controlling for the effects of
pre-service training and the moderating variables, in-service training in
classroom assessment accounted for approximately 4% increase in the
variance in CAPSQ total, ΔR2 = .04, ΔF (1, 358) = 22.76, p < .001. In-service
training is significantly associated with CAPSQ total (β = -.28, t = - 4.77, p <
.001). Teachers who attended at least in-service training related to classroom
assessment during the last three years (M = 94.03, SD = 11.94) reported
higher CAPSQ total than teachers who did not attend any in-service training
(M = 85.20, SD = 11.45). In contrast to Step 2, pre-service training is not
associated with CAPSQ total (β = -.03, t = -.50, p > .05). Similar in Steps 1 and
2, level of teaching (β = -.27, t = -5.69, p < .001) and class size (β = .30, t =
6.79, p < .001) were associated with CAPSQ total.
The results from Step 4 indicate that after controlling for the main
effects, two-way interactions of professional development trainings and
moderating variables provided a further 4% increase in the variance
associated with CAPSQ total, ΔR2 = .04, ΔF (6, 352) = 3.53, p > .05. Two
interactions were significantly associated with CAPSQ total: level of teaching
by pre-service training (β = -1.02, t = -2.56, p < .05 and class size by in-service
training (β = .92, t = 2.96, p < .01). Consistent with Step 3, in-service training
is associated with CAPSQ total, β = -.70, t = -2.14, p < .05. All other
interactions and main effects were not significant.

Discussion

The discussion section is organized around two broad areas: the

development and initial validation of the CAPSQ and the impact of teachers’
professional development on classroom assessment practices. Implications
of the findings for classroom practice, research and professional
development are also discussed.

 Essentials on Counseling and Education

 230

The CAPSQ as a Measure of Classroom Assessment Practices

The factor structure of the CAPSQ conformed to the general purposes

of classroom assessment that was considered as a framework in the
conceptualization phase of the scale development. All factor and total scores
demonstrated high internal consistency. However, there was strong evidence
of factor-total score overlap suggesting that the total score is the most valid
index when using the CAPSQ to describe classroom assessment practices.
Although this is psychometrically true, item and factor information may be
beneficial when determining teachers’ strengths and weaknesses in
dispensing their roles related to classroom assessment. For example, school
administrators and teachers themselves can examine the pattern of
responses at the factor and item levels for professional development
purposes. CAPSQ total score may be the information to use for research and
longitudinal growth modeling in developmental program evaluation.
Descriptions of the empirically derived four factors of CAPSQ are important
to facilitate understanding of classroom assessment practices.

Factor 1: Assessment as learning. This factor refers to the practices

of teachers in giving assessment that is aimed at developing and supporting
student’s knowledge of his/her thought process (i.e., metacognition).
Assessment as learning is translated into practice when teachers assess
students by providing them with opportunities to show what they have
learned in class (Murray 2006), by creating an environment where it is
conducive for students to complete an assigned tasks and by helping
students to develop clear criteria of good learning practices (Hill, 2002). This
factor also implies that teachers decide to assess students to guide them to
acquire personal feedback and monitoring of their learning process (Murray,
2006; Sanchez & Brisk, 2004). Assessment as learning requires more task-
based activities than traditional paper-pencil tests. This teaching practice
provides examples of good self-assessment practices for students to examine
their own learning process (Kubiszyn & Borich, 2007; Mory, 1992).

Factor 2: Assessment of learning. This factor refers to assessment

practices of teachers to determine current status of student achievement
against learning outcomes and in some cases, how their achievement
compare with their peers (Earl, 2005; Gonzales, 1999; Harlen, 2007). The
main focus of assessment of learning is how teachers make use assessment

 Essentials on Counseling and Education

 231

results to guide instructional and educational decisions (Bond, 1995; Musial,

Nieminem, Thomas & Burle, 2009). Hence, this factor describes practices that
are associated with summative assessment (Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-
Gordon, 2009; Harlen, 2007; Struyf, Vandenberghe, & Lens (2001).
In summative assessment, teachers aim to improve instructional
programs based on how students have learned as reflected by various
assessment measures given at the end of the instructional program (Borko
et. al., 1997; Harlen, 2008; Mbelani, 2008). Teachers conduct summative
assessment to make final decisions about the achievement of students at the
end of the lesson or subject (Stiggins, Arter, Chappuis & Chappuis, 2004).

Factor 3: Assessment to inform. This factor refers to the

communicative function of assessment, which is reporting and utilizing
results for various stakeholders (Jones and Tanner, 2008). Teachers perform
assessment to provide information both to students and their parents, other
teachers, schools, and future employers regarding students’ performance in
class (Guillickson, 1984; Sparks, 2005). Assessment to inform is related to
assessment of learning since the intention of assessment is to be able to
provide information to parents about the performance of their children in
school at the end of an instructional program (Harlen, 2008). Teachers use
assessment to rank students and to use assessment results to provide a more
precise basis to represent the achievement of students in class through
grades and rating (Manzano, 2000; Murray, 2006; Sparks, 2005).

Factor 4: Assessment for learning. This factor refers to practices of

teachers to conduct assessment to determine the progress in learning by
giving tests and other tools to measure learning during instruction (Biggs,
1995; Docky & McDowell, 1997; Murray, 2006; Sadler, 1989; Sparks, 2005).
Assessment for learning or formative assessment requires the use of learning
tests, practice tests, quizzes, unit tests, and the like (Boston, 2002; MacLellan,
2001; Stiggins et al, 2004). Teachers prefer these formative assessment tools
to cover some predetermined segment of instruction that focuses on a
limited sample of learning outcomes Assessment for learning requires
careful planning so that teachers can use the assessment information to
determine what students know and gain insights into how, when and
whether students apply what they know (Earl & Katz (2006).
In formative assessment, teachers help students identify strengths
and weaknesses and subsequently guide them to their learning during

 Essentials on Counseling and Education

 232

instructional program (Stiggins et al, 2004; Stiggins, 2008; Mory, 1992).

Teachers who engage in assessment for learning help students to determine
their learning problems, identify remedial strategies, and make suggestions
to improve their learning process (Musial et al., 2009; Sparks, 2005).

Impact of Professional Development on Classroom Assessment

Practices

In general, professional development enhances classroom assessment

practices. Both pre-service and in-service trainings when treated separately
accounted for similar amount of variance in classroom assessment practices
of teachers. However when both types are taken together, in-service training
tends to obscure the predictive power of pre-service training. This is not
surprising since in-service professional development tackles assessment
topics and activities that are congruent to the needs and concerns of teachers
rather than understanding of concepts and theories mostly covered in
introductory pre-service assessment courses. Although assessment literacy
and knowledge in measurement and testing have significant impact on
teachers’ assessment practices and skills (Gullikson, 1984; Wise, Lukin &
Roos, 1991; Zhang & Burry-Stock, 2003), teachers may benefit more from in-
service professional development because it gives them the opportunity to
reflect upon their practice Gullikson, 1986; Hill, 2002; Mansour, 2009) and
their common shared experiences oftentimes serve as points for discussion
during in-service training sessions (Mbelani, 2008; Sanchez & Brisk, 2004).
Impact of professional development on classroom assessment
practices is not a simple linear association. This study confirmed the
important role of level of teaching and class size in understanding the
influence of professional development on classroom assessment practices of
teachers. Elementary and high school teachers reported engaging more
frequently in classroom assessment activities than college teachers, a finding
consistent with reports by Zhang and Burry-Stock (2003). Variation in
teachers’ assessment practices may be due to the nature of assessment
delineated by their teaching levels. For example, elementary and high schools
provide more assessment activities to students (Adams & Hsu, 1998;
Gonzales, 2011; Stiggins & Conklin, 1992, Zhang and Burry-Stock, 2003).
These activities include written and oral tests, performance tasks, projects,
and homework that may be embedded in instruction (Mertler, 2009).
Teacher in elementary and high school levels consider more classroom

 Essentials on Counseling and Education

 233

assessment as a continuous activity to improve the quality of instruction and

motivate students to learn (Gronlund, 2006; Stiggins & Conklin, 1992). On
the other hand, less frequent classroom assessment by college teachers
perhaps imply that they give less assessment because they have more
autonomy and self-regulated in their teaching (Plake, 1993; Schafer, 1991;
Zhang, 1995). Another reason for less frequent assessment activities by
college teachers is the shorter instructional period (semester) for a course or
subject compared in elementary and high schools that have the entire school
year as instructional period for a subject. Thus, assessment activities in
college classrooms are limited and more delineated perhaps to certain
assessment purposes (i.e., more summative than formative).
As mentioned previously, class size moderates the influence of
professional development on classroom assessment practices. Teachers
handling large classes reported more frequent assessment activities than
teachers handling small classes, consistent with findings that teachers’
assessment practices is affected by the number of students in a class (Borko,
et al., 1997; Danielson, 2008; Gonzales, 2011; Gullickson, 1984; Stiggin &
Conklin, 1992; Zhang, 1995). The results may suggest that frequent
assessment activities by teachers teaching more students ensure more
information that teachers can use to discriminate student performance as
well as to achieve fair and objectives in grading especially when comparing
performance of students with his/her peers.
Significant interactions are associated with classroom assessment
practices. First, there is differential influence of level of teaching and in-
service training on classroom assessment. Compared to college teachers with
pre-service training on assessment, elementary and high school teachers
with pre-service training on assessment reported better classroom
assessment practices. This finding may imply that content and skills taught
in pre-service assessment courses that are required in pre-service teacher
training degree programs are more tailored and useful to the assessment
needs of elementary and high school students. Surprisingly, even those
elementary and high school teachers without pre-service training in
assessment reported better assessment practices that college teachers with
pre-service training. Other factors beyond (e.g., peer interaction) may explain
this finding and is beyond the scope of the current study.
Lastly, class size and in-service training on assessment differentially
influence classroom assessment practices. Teachers in large classes and who
attended in-service training reported better assessment practices compared

 Essentials on Counseling and Education

 234

to teachers in small classes and who did not attend in-service training. While
obviously in-service training increases assessment competence, teachers
handling large classes are given more opportunities to harness their
knowledge and skills in assessment because of the diversity of the learning
needs in large classes.

Summary of the Implications of the Findings for Classroom Practice,

Research and Professional Development

The present study attempted to develop a valid and psychometrically

sound measure of classroom assessment practices and to examine the impact
of professional development on classroom assessment practices.
The study suggests that the CAPSQ will be useful to school principals
and administrators in determining teachers’ classroom assessment practices.
Since this is a self-report questionnaire, it is not easy to assume that high
CAPSQ total score would imply better assessment practices while a low
CAPSQ total score implies the strong need for professional development and
training on classroom assessment. Hence, the CAPSQ could be more useful to
principals and school administrators as tool for identifying professional
development needs related to classroom assessment if a classroom
assessment skills checklist would be given to avoid relying solely on what
teachers reported through CAPSQ. This way, teachers’ responses will be
validated.
The findings also revealed a number of implications for classroom
practice and professional development. First, teachers handling larger
classes may be encouraged to attend more professional development
program on classroom assessment that is specifically designed to handle
large class assessment. This program will provide them larger reservoir of
assessment tools and techniques given the need to give more assessment
activities and using more evaluation tools to ensure objectivity in
determining students’ performance in class. Second, while college or
university mentors are implied to have more autonomy and more self-
regulated in their teaching, it is also important that they are also provided
with professional development program on classroom assessment to
improve their classroom assessment practices. It was noted that majority of
college teachers have not undergone formal teacher-training, hence, in-
service professional development programs should be designed to meet this
specific need. Third, the lesser impact of pre-service professional

 Essentials on Counseling and Education

 235

development necessitates a review and revisit on the current curriculum and

syllabus of educational measurement and evaluation and education testing in
teacher-training programs. The revision should be focused on practical
applications of assessment rather than theoretical and conceptual
understanding of classroom assessment. Fourth, in-service professional
development should be encouraged more and the focus must be on the
instructional activities taking place in their classroom, while pre-service
professional development programs on classroom assessment should in
integrated with student teaching and practicum and other practical teaching
experiences.
Finally, this study has some implications to research. The
generalizability of specific results of this current study may be limited by its
use of a newly developed questionnaire and participating respondents. The
use of multiple methods of data collection including classroom observation,
analysis of teacher-made assessment tools, and teacher interview to validate
the teacher self-report is strongly recommended in future studies. Future
research may also examine the relationship between teachers’ assessment
practices and assessment skills, particularly on how assessment skills may
improve assessment practices and on what practices are essentials in
developing classroom assessment skills.

References

Adams, E. L., & Hsu, J. Y. (1998). Classroom assessment: Teachers’

conceptions and practices in mathematics. School Science and
Mathematics, 98(4), 174-180.
Airasian, P. W. (1997). Classroom assessment. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Alkharusi, H. (2008). Effects of classroom assessment practices on students’
achievement goals. Educational Assessment, 13, 243-266.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.
Angelo, T., & Cross, P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques (2nd ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1991). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of
assessment and evaluation in higher education. New York: American
Council on Education/Macmillan.
Black, P., & William, D. (1998a) Assessment and classroom learning,
Educational Assessment: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5(1), 7-74.

 Essentials on Counseling and Education

 236

Black, P., & William, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards
through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-148.
Bennet, R. E., & Gitomer, D. H. (2009). Transforming K-12 assessment:
Integrating accountability testing, formative assessment and
professional support. In C. Wyatt-Smith & J. J. Cumming (Eds.),
Educational assessment in the 21st century (pp. 43-62). Dordrecht,
Heidelberg, London and New York: Springer.
Biggs, J. (1995). Assessing for learning: some dimensions underlying new
approaches to educational assessment. The Alberta Journal of
Educational Research, 41(1), 1-17.
Birenbaum, M. (1997). Assessment preferences and their relationship to
learning strategies and orientations. Higher Education, 33, 71–84.
Birenbaum, M. (2000). New insights into learning and teaching and the
implications for assessment.Keynote address at the 2000 conference
of the EARLI SIG on assessment and evaluation, September13,
Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Birenbaum, M., & Feldman, R. A. (1998). Relationships between learning
patterns and attitudes towards twoassessment formats. Educational
Research, 40(1), 90–97.
Bliem, C.L. & Davinroy, K.H. (1997). Teachers’ beliefs about assessment and
instruction in literacy. CSE Technical Report 421, National Center for
Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST),
Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, University of
California, Los Angeles.
Bond, L. A. (1995). Critical issue: Rethinking assessment and its role in
supporting educational reforms. Oaks Brooks, IL: North Central
Regional Education Laboratory. [on-line] Available:
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/assessment/as70
0.htm.
Borko, H., Mayfield, V., Marion, S., Flexer, R., & Cumbo, K. (1997). Teachers’
developing ideas and practices about mathematics performance
assessment: Successes, stumbling blocks, and implications for
development, Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(3), 259-278.
Boston, C. (2002). The concept of formative assessment. Practical Assessment,
Research & Evaluation, 8(9). [on-line] Available:
http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=9.
Brown, G. T. L. (2002) Teachers’ conception of assessment. Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, Unversity of Auckland, New Zealand.

 Essentials on Counseling and Education

 237

Brown, G. T. L. (2004). Teachers’ conceptions of assessment: implications for

policy and professional development. Assessment in Educatio: Policy,
Principles and Practice, 11(3), 305-322.
Brown, G. T. L. (2006), Teachers’ conceptions of assessment: Validation of an
abridged instrument. Psychological Reports, 99, 166-170.
Brown, G. T. L., & Lake, R. (2006) Queensland teachers’ conceptions of
teaching, learning, curriculum and assessment: Comparison with New
Zealand teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the
Australian Association of Research in Education, Adelaide, Australia.
Cheng, L., Rogers, T., & Hu, H. (2004) ESL/EFL instructors’ classroom
assessment practices: purposes, methods, and procedures. Language
Testing, 21(3), 360-389.
Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom
performance: The mathematics reform in California. Teacher’s College
Record, 102, 294-343.
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor
analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your
analysis. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 10(7). [on-line]
Available: http://pareonline.net/getyn.asp?v=10&n=7.
Danielson, C. (2008). Assessment for learning: For teachers as well as
students. In C.A. Dwyer (Ed). The future of assessment: Shaping
teaching and learning (pp. 191-213). New York: Taylor & Francis.
DeVillis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. California:
Sage Publications.
Dilworth, M. E., & Imig, D. G. (1995). Reconceptualizing professional teacher
development. The ERIC Review, 3(3), 5-11.
Dochy, F., & McDowell, L. (1997). Assessment as a tool for learning. Studies in
Educational Evaluation, 23(4), 279–298.
Dunbar, S. B., Koretz, D. M., & Hoover, H. D. (1991). Quality control in the
development and use of performance assessments. Applied
Measurement in Education, 4(4), 289-303.
Earl, L. (2005 Spring). Classroom assessment: Making learning paramount.
Mass Journal, 5(1), 14-15.
Earl, L., & Katz, S. (2006). Rethinking classroom assessment with purpose in
mind. Western and Northern Canadian Protocol for Collaboration in
Education. [on-line] Available: www.wncp.ca
Galluzzo, G. R. (2005). Performance assessment and renewing teacher
education. Clearing House, 78(4), 142-145.

 Essentials on Counseling and Education

 238

Guskey, T. (2003). What makes professional development effective? Phi Delta

Kappan, 84(10), 748-750.
Gielen, S., Dochy, F., & Dierick, S. (2003). Evaluating the consequential
validity of new modes of assessment: The influence of assessment on
learning, including pre-, post-, and true assessment effects. In M.
Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of
assessment: In search of qualities and standards (pp. 37–54).
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Gijbels, D., Dochy, F., Van den Bossche, P., & Segers, M. (2005). Effects of
problem based learning: A meta-analysis from the angle of
assessment. Review of Educational Research, 75(1), 27–61.
Gijbels, D., van de Watering, G., Dochy, F., & Van den Bossche, P. (2005). The
relationship between students’ approaches to learning and the
assessment of learning outcomes. European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 20(4), 327–341.
Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2009). Supervision and
instructional leadership: a developmental approach. Boston, MA: Allyn
and Bacon.
Gonzales, R. DLC. (1999). Assessing thinking skills in the classroom: Types,
techniques and taxonomy of measures of thinking skills in higher
education. Philippines Journal of Educational Measurement, 9(1), 17-
26.
Gonzales, R. DLC. (2011). Classroom assessment preferences of English and
Japanese languages teachers in Japan and in the Philippines: A
comparative study. A research report submitted to The Sumitomo
Foundation for Japan-Related Studies Research Grant.
Gonzales, R. DLC., & Fuggan, C. G. (2012). Exploring the conceptual and
psychometric properties of the classroom assessment. The
International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment,
10(1), 45-60.
Gregory, R. J. (1996). Psychological testing: History, principles, and
applications (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Gronlund, N. E. (2006). Assessment of student achievement (8th ed.). Boston:
Pearson.
Guillickson, A. R. (1984) Teachers perspectives of their instructional use of
test. Journal of Educational Research, 77(4), 244-248.

 Essentials on Counseling and Education

 239

Guillickson, A. R. (1986). Teacher education and teacher-perceived needs in

educational measurement and evaluation. Journal of Educational
Measurement, 23(4), 347-354.
Harlen, W. (2007). Assessment of learning. London: Sage Publication
Harlen, W. (2008). Trusting teachers’ judgment. In S. Swaffield, Unlocking
assessment (pp. 138-153). Abingdon, Ox: Routhledge.
Hill, M. (2002). Focusing on teacher’s gaze: Primary teachers reconstructing
assessment in self-managed schools. Educational Research for Policy
and Practice, 1, 113-125.
Hutcheson, G., & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist:
Introductory statistics using generalized linear models. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Jones, S., & Tanner, H. (2008). Assessment: A practical guide for secondary
teachers (2nd ed.). London: Continuum.
Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of Structural Equation Modeling
(3rd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
Kubiszyn, T., & Borich, G. (2007). Educational testing and measurement:
Classroom application and practice, (8th ed.). New Jersey: John Wiley &
Sons.
Linn, R., & Miller, M. (2005). Measurement and assessment in teaching (9th
Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill-Prentice Hall.
Lowden, C. (2005). Evaluating the impact of professional development.
Journal of Research in Professional Learning.
MacLellan, E. (2001). Assessment for learning: The differing perceptions of
tutors and students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26,
307–318.
Magno, C., & Gonzales, R. DLC (2011). Measurement and evaluation in the
Philippine higher education: Trends and development. In E.
Valenzuela (Ed.), UNESCO Policy Studies: Trends and development in
Philippine Education (pp. 47-58). Manila: UNESCO.
Manzano, R. (2000). Transforming classroom grading. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. J. (2006). Classroom assessment and grading that work.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Mansour, N. (2009). Science teachers’ beliefs and practices: Issues ,
implications and reseach agenda. International Journal of
Environmental & Science Education, 4(1), 25-48.

 Essentials on Counseling and Education

 240

Mbelani, M. (2008). Winds of change in teachers’ classroom assessment

practice: A self-critical reflection on the teaching and learning of
visual literacy in a rural eastern CAPSQe High School. English
Teaching: Practice and Critique, 7(3), 100-114.
Mertler, C. A. (1998). Classroom assessment practices of Ohio teachers. A
Paper presented at the 1998 Annual Meeting of the Mid-Western
Educational Reseach Association, Chicago, Illinois, October 14-17,
1998.
Mertler, C. A. (2003, October). Preservice versus inservice teachers’ assessment
literary: Does classroom experience make a difference? Paper presented
at the meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association,
Columbus, OH.
Mertler, C.A. (2009). Teachers’ assessment knowledge and their perceptions
of the impact of classroom assessment professional development.
Improving Schools, 12(2), 101-113.
Messick, S. (1989). Educational measurement (3rd Ed.). New York: American
Council on Education/MacMillan.
Mory, E. (1992). The use of informational feedback in instruction:
Implications for future research. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 40(3), 5-20.
Murray, S. (2006). The role of feedback and assessment in language learning.
Rhode University, Grahamstown.
Musial, D., Nieminem, G., Thomas, J., & Burke, K. (2009). Foundations of
meaningful educational assessment. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nitko, A. J., & Brookhart, S. M. (2007). Educational assessment of students (5th
Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Plake, B. S. (1993). Teacher assessment literacy: Teachers’ competencies in
the educational assessment of students. Mid-Western Educational
Researcher, 6(1), 21-27.
Popham, W. J. (2003). Seeking redemption for our psychometric sins.
Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22(1), 45-48.
Popham, W. J. (2008). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know (5th
ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Preacher, K. J., & MacCallum, R. C. (2002). Exploratory factor analysis in
behavior genetics research: Factor recovery with small sample sizes.
Behavior Genetics, 32, 153-161.

 Essentials on Counseling and Education

 241

Raty, H., Kasanen, K., & Honkalampi, K. (2006). Three years later: A follow-up
student of parents’ assessments of their children’s competencies.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(9), 2079-2099.
Rust, C. (2002). Purposes and principles of assessment. Oxford Center for Staff
and Learning Development, Learning and Teaching Briefing Paper
Series.
Sadler, R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional
systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119-144.
Sanchez, M. T., & Brisk, M.E. (2004). Teachers’ assessment practices and
understandings in bilingual program. NABE Journal of Research and
Practice, 2(1), 1993-208.
Sato, M., Wei, R. C., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Improving teachers’
assessment practices through professional development: The case of
National Board Certification. American Educational Research Journal,
45(3), 669-700.
Schafer, W.D. (1991). Essential assessment skills in professional education of
teachers. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10(1), 3-6.
Shultz, K.S., & Whitney, D.A. (2005). Measurement theory in action: Case
studies and exercises Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Segers, M., Dochy, F., & Cascallar, E. (2003). The era of assessment
engineering: Changing perspectives on teaching and learning and the
role of new modes of assessment. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar
(Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities
and standards (pp. 1–12). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Sparks, D. (2005). Learning for results. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin
Press.
Stake, R. E. (2004). Standards-based and responsive evaluation. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Stiggins, R.J. (1997). Student-centered classroom assessment. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Where is our assessment future and how can we get
there from here? In R. W. Lissitz & W.D. Schafer (Eds), Assessment in
educational reform: Both means and ends (pp. 18-48). Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Stiggins, R. J. (2008). An introduction to student-involved assessment FOR
learning. New Jersey: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall

 Essentials on Counseling and Education

 242

Stiggins, R. J., & Chappuis, J. (2005). Using student-involved classroom to

close achievement gaps. Theory into Practice, 44(1), 11-18.
Stiggins, R., & Conklin, N. F. (1992). In teachers’ hands: Investigating the
practices of classroom assessment. Albany: SUNY Press.
Stiggins, R. J., Arter J. A., Chappuis, J., & Chappuis, S. (2004). Classroom
assessment for student learning: Doing it right – Using it well. Portland,
Oregon: Assessment Training Institute.
Struyf, E., Vandenberghe, R., & Lens, W. (2001). The evaluation practice of
teachers as a learning opportunity for students. Studies in Educational
Evaluation, 27(3), 215–238.
Van de Watering, G., Gjibels, D., Docky, F., & Van der Rijt, J. (2008). Students’
assessment preferences, perceptions of assessment and their
relationships to study results. Higher Education, 56, 645–658
Vardar, E. (2010). Sixth, seventh and eight grade teachers’ conception of
assessment. Unpublished masters thesis, Graduate School of Social
Sciences Middle East Technical University.
Volante, L., & Fazio, X. (2007). Exploring teacher candidates’ assessment
literacy: Implications for teacher education reform and professional
development. Canadian Journal of Education, 30(3), 749-770.
Wise, S. L., Lukin, L. E., & Roos, L. L. (1991). Teacher beliefs about training in
testing and measurement. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(1), 37-42.
Zhang, Z. (1995). Investigating teachers’ self-perceived assessment practices
and assessment competencies on the Assessment Practices Inventory.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of
Alabama.
Zhang, Z., & Burry-Stock, J. A. (2003). Classroom assessment practices and
teachers’ self-perceived assessment skills. Applied Measurement in
Education, 16(4), 323-342.

 Essentials on Counseling and Education

 243

Dr. Richard DLC Gonzales is an International

Development Consultant for Education and Human
Resources Development. He is the President of the
Philippine Educational Measurement and Evaluation
Association and a Professorial Lecturer of Psychology and
Educational Measurement at University of Santo Tomas
Graduate School

Mr. Carmelo Callueng has his graduate training in school

psychology at the University of Florida. His research has
focused on areas related to test adaptation, children’s
temperaments, school learning, and positive psychology.

 Essentials on Counseling and Education