Introduction

The word “assessment” has taken on a variety of meanings within the educational milieu (Musial, Nieminen, Thomas, & Burke, 2009). The term can refer to the process teachers use to grade student subject assignments (Harlen, 2008), to standardized testing imposed in schools (Stiggins & Chappus, 2005), 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 (Cohen & Hill, 2000). 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.

As a general rule, the primary reason why teachers carry out classroom assessment is to collect information about the performance of their students in school (Harlen, 2007). However, teachers also realize that they are not only the end-users of the information gathered from the process. Undeniably, students also want to know how they performed in an assessment process (Cohen & Hill, 2000) in the form of feedback or feed-forward (Mbelani, 2008). While feedback focuses on the past, on what has already occurred, feed-forward focuses on the future by providing individuals, teams and organizations with suggestions for the future and to help them achieve a positive change in behavior (Goldsmith, 2012). The results of the assessment process must allow students to know how they can improve their performance (Mory, 1992). Parents, too, may also be interested in knowing how their children are performing in school (Stiggins, 2002). School administrators and other teachers often use information gathered from assessment processes and exercises to make educational decisions such as grading, promotion and certification (Sheppard, 2000).

To be effective, teachers must be aware that it is not enough to present a lesson to their students and hope they understand it. They should also realize that learning occurs when there is interplay between the teaching process and the outcomes (Bond, 1995; Mory, 1992). When teachers assess learning, they identify specific goals and objectives for each subject or lesson, systematically gauge the extent to which these anticipated outcomes actually occur and determine to what degree learning takes place (Raty, Kasanen, & Honkalampi (2006). ). In addition, when they carry out assessment in the classrooms, teachers are also required to define the role of assessment in making instructional and educational decisions (Danielson, 2008).

Review of Literature

Assessment Preferences: Balancing Assessment Purposes

The traditional concept of assessment is heavily influenced by conventional theories, such as the behaviorist learning theory, objective and standardized testing (Sheppard, 2000), and testing being separated from instruction. However, in the last few decades, the shift to a constructivist learning paradigm, with the implementation of new learning environments have changed the role of assessment in education (Van de Watering, Gjibels, Dochy & Van de Rijt, 2008). They are rooted in constructivist theory and intend to develop an educational setting to meet the challenge for today’s educational system, making the students’ learning the core issue and defining instruction as enhancing the learning process. In short, instruction and assessment are integrated. With this integration, assessment has been re-focused to encompass threedistinct, but inter-related purposes for classroom assessment: (1) assessment for learning (Stiggins, 2008); (2) assessment of learning (Bennet & Gitomer, 2009); and (3) assessment as learning (Biggs, 1995). This present study looked into the preferences of classroom teachers, particularly language teachers, in assessing language learning considering the three purposes of classroom assessment and the assessment tools and strategies adopted from the model popularized by Earl and Katz (2006).

Figure 1 presents the conceptualization of the three distinct but interrelated purposes of classroom assessment as alternative forms of assessment: assessment FOR learning, assessment AS learning, and assessment OF learning. Binding and balancing these three purposes are the specific tools and strategies that teachers use in their classroom assessment activities as illustrated below.

Figure1. Conceptual Paradigm of Classroom Assessment Practices: Balancing Assessment Purposes

Assessment for learning is designed to give teachers information to modify and differentiate teaching and learning activities. It is roughly equivalent to formative assessment. It intends to promote further improvement of student learning by performing assessment procedures while the instructional process is going on. When teachers conduct assessment for learning, they do continuous assessment during the instructional period because they want to ensure that students will get the most from the instructional process. Teachers utilize formative tests learning tests, practice tests, quizzes, unit tests, to name a few. These assessments typically cover a predetermined segment of instruction (e.g., a chapter or particular set of skills) and thus encompass a rather limited sample of learning outcomes. In conducting an assessment for learning, it is necessary that there is a balance in the types of test items and more complex performance assessment tasks need to be selected with care to ensure that the full range of critical instructional objectives is assessed. Ideally, the tests and assessment measures should be constructed in such a way that corrective prescriptions can be given for learning objectives that are yet to be achieved. Results of assessment for learning allow teachers to improve the instructional process. For example, when all of the students fail in a set of items in mathematics or perform
poorly on a task in a science laboratory exercise, a group review may be applicable. On the other hand, when a small number of students have errors, alternative methods of study may be prescribed (e.g., reading assignments, practice exercises, etc.).

Assessment as learning develops and supports metacognition of students – the knowledge of one’s own thought processes. Earl and Katz (2006) explain that assessment as learning emerges from the idea that learning is not just a matter of transferring ideas from someone who is knowledgeable (in this case, the teacher) to someone who is not (the students), but it is an active process of cognitive restructuring that occurs when individuals interact with new ideas. With this view of learning, students are the critical connectors between assessment and learning (Earl & Katz, 2006, p. 41). They further argue that when students are active, engaged, and critical assessors, they make sense of information, relate it to prior knowledge, and use it for new learning. This is the regulatory process in metacognition; that is, assessment as learning takes place when students try to monitor their own learning and use the feedback provided by their teachers to make adjustments, adaptations, and even major changes in what they understand and learn. However, this assessment also requires that teachers help their students to develop, practice and become comfortable with reflection and with a critical analysis of their own learning.

Assessment of learning is concerned with how students have performed at the end of the instructional process. It is roughly analogous to summative assessment, wherein it aims to determine the current status of student achievement against learning outcomes and in some cases, how they are placed in relation to others. The main purpose of assessment of learning is to make use of the results of the assessment process in making instructional and educational decisions. Assessment of learning is generally given at the end of a segment of instructions (e.g., unit or course). The main interest is to measure the extent to which the intended learning outcomes have been achieved. Although these end-of-instruction tests or assessment of learning tools are used primarily for summative assessment (e.g., to certify accomplishment or assign grades), they can also serve other functions. Results from assessment of learning provide accurate and sound statement of students’ proficiency, so that the recipients of the information can use the information to make reasonable and defensible decisions (Earl & Katz, 2006).

Another type of classroom assessment is assessment for instruction which is related to the assessment for learning. However, the focus is more on how teachers used assessment results to improve their instructional process (Sheppard, 2000). Teachers who prefer assessment for instruction use assessment information to streamline and target instruction and resources, and to provide feedback to students to help them advance their learning through effective instruction (Earl & Katz, 2006). Teachers who prefer this factor will use assessment data to enhance the quality of classroom instruction and to explore effective classroom teaching methods to improve student learning (Danielson, 2008).

Finally, assessing to inform deals with the communicative function of assessment; that is, reporting and utilizing results for various stakeholders (Jones and Tanner, 2008). Preference to this factor implies that teachers perform assessment to provide information not only to students but to parents, other teachers, schools, and future employers regarding students performance in class (Sparks, 2005).

When teachers begin to plan, design and construct assessment based on learning targets and with a specific purpose in mind, Kizlik (2009) opines that it is absolutely necessary for them to be clear about what the actual behavior of the learning outcomes means and how the outcomes are measured by specific tools and strategies. Stiggins, Arter, Chappuis and Chappuis (2004) strongly argue that classroom assessment must always begin with clear statements of the intended learning targets and benefits of our teaching. They further explain that if teachers do not begin with a clear statement of learning targets, they would not end with sound assessments –considering the tools, techniques and strategies. Once the learning targets are defined, the next crucial step in developing assessment measures is to determine what types of questions or tasks and what form of tests to use. Teachers are required to observe the basic principles and guidelines in constructing an assessment tool including adherence to sound testing process, objective scoring and responsible reporting of assessment results. Angelo and Cross (1993) suggest that assessment must include various techniques – from a one minute paper to an essay, from a simple illustration to a portfolio, from writing a summary of readings to identifying everyday social and ethical dilemmas.

Objectives of the Study

While teachers have been trained to develop sound and valid assessment measures, what they believe or have in mind may affect the way they conduct their classroom assessment activities. Researchers have recognized that teachers’ beliefs, knowledge and preferences greatly influence their classroom practices (Borko & Putnam, 1996). However, most previous studies have focused only on teachers’ beliefs and conceptions of assessment and learning (Brown, 2002) and on the perception of students towards assessment (van de Watering & van de Rijt, 2006). In other words, there is a limited amount of research on teachers’ assessment preferences. The term “preference” is defined in this study as inclinations, habits and customs of teachers towards conducting classroom assessment alternatives – from test planning to the reporting of test results and student grades. Assessment preference is also defined as the imagined choice between alternatives in assessment and the possibility of practicing these assessment alternatives (van de Watering et al., 2008).

The main purpose of this research was to conduct a comparative investigation on the assessment preferences of Japanese language teachers in the Philippines and English language teachers in Japan. The study aimed to find out the differences, if there were any, in language teachers’ classroom assessment preferences using the CAPSQ-LT. Specifically, it sought to answer the following questions:
1. Is there a significant difference between Japanese language teachers in the Philippines and English language teachers in Japan in the most endorsed and least endorsed statements in CAPSQ-LT?
2. Is there a significant difference between Japanese language teachers in the Philippines and English language teachers in Japan in the five factors of sub-scales of CAPSQ-LT?
3. Is there a significant difference in the assessment preferences when the respondents were grouped according to language subject, gender, educational degree, class size, years of teaching, and in-service training on assessment.

Methods

Participants

The participants consisted of 116 language teachers from tertiary institutions in Japan and in the Philippines. Out of the 116 teachers from colleges and universities, 55 or 47% are English teachers in Japan while 61 or 53% are Japanese language teachers in the Philippines. There are 27 or 23% males and 89 or 77% are female teachers. A majority or 53% of the respondents have a master’s degree, while 44% have a bachelor’s degree and 3% have a doctorate degree. Seventy-eight or 67% reported to have undergone inservice training on assessment for the past three years. Seventy-four or 64% of the respondents have been teaching English and Japanese language for more than six years.

Instrument

The instrument used for this study is Classroom Assessment Preferences Survey Questionnaire for Language Teachers. CAPSQ-LT consists of 35 items that assess five factors of classroom assessment preferences, namely: assessment as learning, assessment of learning, assessment for learning, assessment for instruction, and assessing to inform. The first factor, assessment as learning, consists of ten items. One example statement in the questionnaire is “In my teaching practices, I do classroom assessment to guide students to set their goals and monitor heir own learning progress. The second factor, assessment of learning, has seven items. This type of assessment includes statements such as conducting classroom assessment to learn alternative approaches to assess learning outcomes, and evaluate the level of competence of students at the end of an instructional program. The third factor, assessment for learning, consists of six items. Examples of items include doing classroom assessment to provide feedback to students in order to improve their learning process, and make suggestions to students about how they develop better learning strategies. The fourth factor, assessment for instruction, has six items. This type of assessment consists of statements
such as conducting classroom assessment to enhance the quality of classroom instruction, and explore effective classroom teaching methods and strategies. Finally, the fifth factor, assessing to inform, consists of five items. Among the items included in this kind of assessment are doing classroom assessment to provide information to parents about the performance of their children in school, and examine how one student performs relative to others in a class.

The questionnaire showed good psychometric properties, having Cronbach’s alpha coefficients that range between .822 (for assessing to inform) and .939 (for assessment as learning). The complete questionnaire has total reliability index of .964 and the five factors can explain 64.45% of the variance measured by the questionnaire.

Procedure

Data from the Japan samples were gathered in several ways – during the seminar sponsored by the Research Institute for Communication and the English Education Department of Kansai University of International Studies in Hyogo, Japan, and the Japan Association of Language Teachers (JALT) Osaka Chapter, and through referrals, emails and SurveyMonkey. These many ways of administration did not affect the results because the questionnaire contained clear instructions on how to respond to each question. For the data from the Philippine samples, the questionnaire was applied to teachers at several colleges and universities in Metro Manila, Northern Luzon and Southern Luzon. It was administered at meetings, through emails and referrals. The data were encoded using Excel. The analysis was done using the IBM SPSS Version 19 software (2010). Descriptive statistics such as mean and standard deviation for each variable were computed and were then used to differentiate the responses and other variables included in this study of the Japanese language teachers in the Philippines and the English language teachers in Japan. Differences were determined by using t-test and analysis of variance (ANOVA) or F test.

Results

Table 1 shows the comparison of assessment preferences between English language teachers in Japan and Japanese language teachers in the Philippines. The results revealed that the Japanese language teachers in the Philippines have scored significantly higher than English language teachers in Japan in regard to the factors of assessment for learning and assessment for instruction (p<.05; df =116). The English language teachers in Japan obtained a significantly higher mean score in assessing to inform (p<.01; df =116). Although no significant difference was found, it was noted that the English language teachers in Japan scored higher in assessment of learning than the Japanese language teachers in the Philippines, while the Japanese language teachers in the Philippines yielded higher mean score in assessment as learning.

Table 1: Comparison between English language teachers in Japan and Japanese language teachers in the Philippines -- * < .05 ** <.01)

When the respondents were grouped together according to gender, males obtained higher scores in four factors than females. Females only scored higher than males in assessing to inform factor. However, in all of the factors, there was no significant difference found in the classroom assessment preference between males and females.

Table 2: Comparison of assessment preferences by gender

When the respondents were grouped according to the educational degree completed, it was revealed that although those with doctoral degrees comprise of the least number of respondents, they scored higher than those with bachelor’s and master’s degree. However, there was a significant difference (p <.05; df=113) only in Factor 2 (assessment of learning), with those with a doctorate degree scoring the highest and those with a bachelor degree scoring the lowest.

Table 3: Comparison of assessment practices by degree -- *<.05

When the respondents from both countries were grouped according to the average number of students in their classes, it was revealed that teachers with more than 25 students in their classes scored significantly higher than those who have less than 15 students and those with 16-25 students, except for the factor on assessing to inform.

Table 4: Comparison of assessment practices by class size

In terms of years of teaching, the respondents from both countries showed no significant difference in all preference factors as shown in Table 5. It was revealed, however, that those with four to five years of teaching languages scored highest in factors related to assessment as learning, assessment for learning, and assessment for instruction. It was also noted that those with only one to three years of teaching posted lowest scores in all the factors.

Table 5: Comparison of assessment practices by years of teaching

Other demographic information that was used to compare the respondents was the in-service training that they have had on classroom assessment. It was revealed that those with in-service training in classroom assessment scored higher than those without in-service training. However, it is only on assessment for instruction that a significant difference was obtained (p <.05; df =114).

Table 6: Comparison of assessment practices between teachers with in-service training and without in-service training in classroom assessment

Discussion

The results show that language teachers from both countries most preferred assessment practices that are focused towards assessment as learning and they least preferred assessment practices that refer to the communicative function of assessment (assessment to inform). This is a significant finding as it suggests that teachers from both countries are moving towards practicing an assessment process that develops and supports students’ metacognitive skills (Stiggins, 2002). Earl and Katz (2006) explain that assessment as learning emerges from the idea that learning is not just a matter of transferring ideas from teachers to students. It is an active process of cognitive restructuring that occurs when students interact with new ideas. It was also revealed that teachers preferred to perform assessment with the view that it is an integral part of instruction (Segers, Dochy, & Cascallar, 2003).

When the respondents were grouped according to the two countries (Japanese language teachers in the Philippines and English language teachers in Japan), the language teachers from both countries did not significantly differ in their preference and practices for assessment of learning. This implies that teachers from both countries essentially preferred to perform classroom assessment in order to determine what students have learned at the end of an instructional program (Biggs, 1995). They did not differ in their preference to practice summative assessment more than formative assessment. This indicates that they were equally concerned with students achieving a level of proficiency against an identified learning outcome (Borko & Putman, 1996), rather than using assessment to improve the learning and teaching process (Dochy & McDowell, 1997). Their primary focus was to make use of results of an assessment process in making instructional and educational decisions (Sheppard, 2000). Conversely, the two groups of language teachers significantly differed in their preference for assessment as learning, assessment for learning, assessment for instruction and assessment to inform. It was noted that the Japanese language teachers in the Philippine scored significantly higher in assessment as learning, assessment for learning and assessment for instruction, while the English language teachers in Japan scored significantly higher in assessing to inform. The findings of English language teachers in Japan preferring assessing to inform is consistent with the earlier findings in this study that the English language teachers in Japan were more concerned with the communicative functions of assessment.

When the respondents were grouped according to the language that they are teaching (English in Japan and Japanese in the Philippines), it was revealed that they did not differ in their practice and preference for classroom assessment that is geared towards assessment of learning (Stiggins & Conklin, 1992). Although no significant difference was observed, it was noted that those who were teaching English language in Japan scored higher in assessment of learning than those who were teaching Japanese language in the Philippines. This preference is heavily influenced by the fact that English language students in Japan are assessed on how much they have learned through standardized language examinations such as Test of English as a Foreign Language  (TOEFL) or Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC). These two tests in English measure the ability of non-native English-speaking examinees to use English in their studies and in their everyday workplace activities. Both tests also emphasize what students have learned after an instructional program in English (Cheng et al., 2004).

In terms of gender of teachers, although males scored higher than females except in assessing to inform, it was noted that there was no significant difference between males and females preference for any of the assessment alternatives measured by CAPSQ-LT. This implies that gender is not a factor in the preference for classroom assessment. This finding confirms earlier studies of assessment practices of teachers which show that male and female teachers do not have a predominant assessment practice (Gonzales, 1999). This finding also  corroborates earlier findings that male and female teachers do not differ in their assessment practices and understanding in bilingual programs (Sanchez & Brisk, 2004), beliefs about assessment and instruction in literacy (Bliem & Davinroy, 1997), perspective towards instructional use of test (Cizek et al., 1995) ideas and practices about mathematics performance assessment (Borko et al., 1997) and science learning (Mansour, 2009).

With regard to education degrees, results revealed that those with the highest educational attainment obtained the highest mean scores in all the factors measured by CAPSQ. However, it was only seen in factor of assessment of learning that a significant difference among those with bachelor’s, master’s and doctorate degrees was seen. The results show that regardless of educational attainment, teachers preferences towards assessment are encompassing – looking into what students is learning while instruction is going on, how students are learning and what students had learned at the end of the instructional program. These results strongly imply that the educational attainment of teachers does not influence their assessment preferences, which indicates that the assessment preference of teachers depends largely on the purpose they have set for the class, rather than their educational experiences (Earl & Katz, 2006).

Class size or number of students in class was also used as a variable for analyzing the respondents’ assessment preferences. Notably, except for assessing to inform, teachers with different class sizes significantly differed in their assessment preferences. Teachers with smaller class sizes obtained lower scores while teachers with big class sizes scored higher. These results suggest that class size may influence the preference of teachers. Gonzales (1999) argued that teachers with bigger class sizes tend to give more assessment activities to students in order to evaluate them more objectively, while Danielson (2008) noted that teachers tend to integrate assessment activities in instruction, emphasizing assessment for learning, especially to classes with fewer students. Stiggins (1997) and Stiggins and Chappuis (2005) also stressed that assessment should be student-centered and students should be very much involved in the assessment process in order to close achievement gaps. Hence, it can be said that the number of students in class or class size can influence the assessment preferences of teachers.

With regard to years of teaching, teachers of both countries did not show any differences in their classroom assessment practices. This supports the earlier findings on educational assessment, as it was noted indirectly that those with doctorate degrees have taught longer than those with bachelor’s degrees.

Lastly, when teachers are grouped as to whether they have attended inservice training on assessment or not, results revealed that both groups only significantly differed in the assessment for instruction factor of the CAPSQ. It was discovered that those who attended in-service training for the last three years scored higher than those who did not. The finding that the group significantly differed in the assessment for instruction factor strongly suggests that the in-service training provided to teachers would have influenced their assessment preference towards doing assessment to improve instructional process. This preference of teachers for assessment for instruction clearly indicates that they use assessment to provide better and effective instruction to students (Cohen & Hill, 2000).

Implications

This study identified a variety of significant implications for teaching and assessment in general and for language teaching and assessment. The greatest challenge taken from this study is for preferences to turn into actual practices. From the respondents’ viewpoints, there are some conditions that act as barriers to put their preferences into action and practice. The finding that the respondents gave preference for assessment as learning is noteworthy in this study. The concept of assessment as learning  emerges from the idea that learning is not just a matter of transferring ideas, but it is an active process of cognitive restructuring that occurs when students interact with new ideas (Earl & Katz, 2006). If this concept is emphasized, particularly in language learning, then the difficulty that students experience in learning a language, such as Japanese for Filipino students and English for
Japanese students, would be minimized. This means that teachers should use assessment information to allow them to create a learning environment that develops and supports students’ metacognitive skills. Teachers should use assessment to help students learn from the assessment process as well as from the assessment results.

As indicated in the findings, teachers should try to balance assessment alternatives, emphasizing more assessment for learning rather than assessment of learning. This implies the radical shift from measuring student learning outcomes at the end of an instructional program to integrating assessment in the teaching-learning process. Earl and Katz (2006) emphasize that teachers must always have a clear purpose in mind when they assess students. The purpose of assessment would also definitely influence how the instructional process is to be conducted.

Conclusion

It can be concluded that classroom preferences among the respondents is focused on supporting students to develop their own metacognitive skills. This is reinforced by the findings that they do not significantly differ in their preference for assessment as learning. Specifically, the teachers of Japanese in the Philippines were more inclined to perform assessment in order to improve the teaching-learning process, while the English teachers in Japan were more concerned with the assessment of learning and the communicative and administrative functions of assessment (assessing to inform). It can be concluded, too, that educational attainment of teachers did not influence their assessment preferences; that is, the assessment preference of teachers depends largely on the purpose they have set for the class, rather than their educational experiences. Also, in-service training programs provided to teachers might have influenced the preference and practices in conducting assessment activities in their classes.

Authors’ note: This study was conducted through The Sumitomo Foundation’s Fiscal 2009 Grant for Japan-Related Research Projects awarded to the first author. We would also like to acknowledge the time and effort of José M. R. Sánchez, a master’s candidate in Secondary Education Teaching, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, Spain for translating the abstract into Spanish.

References

Angelo, T. & Cross, P. (1993). Classroom Assessment Techniques (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bennett, R. E., & Gitomer, D. H. (2009). Transforming K-12 assessment: Integrating accountability testing, formative assessment, and professional support. In C. Wyatt Smith & J. Cumming (Eds.), Educational Assessment in the 21st Century (pp. 43–61). 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.

Black, P. & William, D. (2001, November 6). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-148.

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. Retrieved October 7, 2010 from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/assessment/as700.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.

Borko, H., & Putnam, R. (1996) Learning to teach. In D.C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 673-709). New York: Macmillan.

Brown, G.T. L. (2002). Teachers’ Conception of Assessment. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Auckland, New Zealand.

Cheng, L., Togers, T & Hu, H. (2004) ESL/EFL instructors’ classroom assessment practices: purposes, methods, and procedures. Language Testing, 21 (3), 360-389.

Cizek, G. J., Fitzgerald, S. M., & Rachor, R.E. (1995). Teachers’ assessment practices: preparation, isolation and the kitchen sink. Educational Assessment, 3 , 159-179.

Cohen, D.K. & Hill, H.C. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. Teacher’s College Record, 102, 294-343.

Danielson, C. (2007. 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.

Dochy, F., & McDowell, L. (1997). Assessment as a tool for learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23 (4), 279–298.

Earl, L. & Katz, S. (2006). Rethinking Classroom Assessment with Purpose in Mind. Western and Northern Canadian Protocol for Collaboration in Education. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from http://www.wncp.ca/english/subjectarea/classassessment.aspx .

Goldsmith, M. (2012, April). A wealth of coaching resources to help you and your team succeed. Retrieved April 15, 2012, from http://www.marshallgoldsmithfeedforward.com.

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.

Harlen, W. (2007). Assessment of Learning. London: Sage Publications.

Harlen, W. (2008). Trusting teachers’ judgment. In S. Swaffield (Ed.), Unlocking Assessment: Understanding for reflection and application (pp. 138-153). Abingdon, Ox: Routhledge.

Jones, S. & Tanner, H. (2008). Assessment: A Practical Guide for Secondary Teachers. (2nd Ed.). London: Continuum.

Kizlik, B. (2012, January). Measurement, assessment and evaluation in education. Retrieved February 8, 2012, from http://www.adprima.com/assessment.htm .

Mansour, N. (2009). Science teachers’ beliefs and practices: Issues, implications and research agenda. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4 (1), 25-48.

Mbelani, M. (2008). Winds of change in teachers’ classroom assessment practice: A selfcritical reflection on the teaching and learning of visual literacy in a rural eastern Cape High School. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 7 (3), 100-114.

Mory, E. (1992). The use of informational feedback in instruction: Implications for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40 (3), 5-20.

Musial, D., Nieminem, G., Thomas, J., & Burke, K. (2009). Foundations of Meaningful Educational Assessment. New York: McGraw-Hill.

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.

Sanchez, M. T. & Brisk, M.E. (2004). Teachers’ assessment practices and understandings in bilingual program. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 2 (1), 193-208.

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.

Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29 (7), 4-14.

Sparks, D. (2005). Leading for Results. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin 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.

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.

van de Watering, G., & Van der Rijt, J. (2006). Teachers’ and students’ perceptions of assessments: A review and a study into the ability and accuracy of estimating the difficulty levels of assessment items. Educational Research Review, 1(2), 133–147.

van de Watering, G., Gjibels, D., Dochy, F., & Van der Rijt, J. (2008). Students’ assessment preferences, perceptions of assessment and their relationships to study results. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, (56), 645–658.