10 SES 08 B, Research on Programmes and Pedagogical Approaches in Teacher Education
Views about different assessment systems used throughout the world are diverse and continually evolving, shaped by shifts in the forms of assessment: from exam-dominated systems to school-based assessment; from norm-referenced to criterion-referenced assessment; and from assessment of learning (AoL) to assessment for learning (AfL). As a result, the role of teachers and the conceptualization of their assessment literacy has shifted. However, the level of teacher AfL literacy remains relatively low (Davison & Michell, 2014; Malone, 2013; Popham, 2009). This is particularly the case in Myanmar, where this study takes place, as teachers do not use peer tutoring or self-assessment, their feedback practices are very teacher centre, and they do not seem to know how to build pupils’ answers into subsequent questions (Hardman, Stoff, Aung, & Elliott, 2016). As a result, assessment is still not integrated into classroom teaching.
A range of literature provides both theoretical and empirical support for the necessity of teacher AfL literacy as a critical component in effective teaching (Alonzo, 2016; Black & Wiliam, 1998; Hattie, 2008). However, in terms of teacher preparation, internationally, pre-service teachers (PSTs) are not thought to be well prepared to use appropriate AfL strategies to support pupil learning (Siegel & Wissehr, 2011; Volante & Fazio, 2007). PSTs do not seem to have enough theoretical knowledge and practical knowledge. Many argue that they lack the necessary assessment components in PSTs education (DeLuca & Volante, 2016; James & Pedder, 2006; Siegel & Wissehr, 2011; Stiggins, 1999), and little attention is given to PSTs’ actual classroom assessment of their pupils. Without practice in real classrooms, PSTs are likely to “replicate more traditional, unexamined assessment practices” (Graham, 2005, p. 619). PSTs need opportunities to integrate theory and practice to improve their assessment practices (Davison, 2015).
However, practical use of assessment in a real classroom is problematic for PSTs (Jiang, 2015)as they have complex and unexpected ways of influencing factors in their practice settings. Data from several sources have identified more than one influencing factor in PSTs’ practical application of assessment in a real classroom (Hill & Eyers, 2016; Jiang, 2015; Richardson & Placier, 2001). Therefore, the assessment capability of PSTs, supervising teachers, school leaders, and pupils are needed (Absolum, Flockton, Hattie, Hipkins, & Reid, 2009).
To address these gaps, this study investigates the ways in which teacher education can support PSTs to develop their AfL literacy through professional training before their practicum. Guiding this research are the following questions:
RQ 1. What impact, if any, does a needs-based professional learning intervention have on PSTs AfL literacy and how?
RQ 2. To what extent can PSTs change their assessment practice during practicum?
A design-based research (DBR) approach was used to investigate how PSTs in Myanmar improve their AfL literacy. As DBR is an interventionist and iterative approach, a series of methods or approaches were included depends on the research questions. The participants in this study are pre-service teachers (PSTs) from one of the universities of Education (UoE) in Myanmar. Before the data collection process, the ethics approval was gained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Ethics Committee and the written permission was gained from the Head of the participating university, Myanmar. The non-probability population sampling method was used due to the voluntary nature of participation. First, a total of 335 PSTs, involving 30 PSTs in the intervention group and 305 PSTs in the cohort group, were asked to self-assess their AfL literacy through a survey (Loc, 2016). The survey used in this study has a high internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha index of 0.83. This result is slightly lower compared to Loc’s study (0.85), but the reliability coefficient is still above the acceptable value of 0.80. There are five main sub-constructs in a survey: beliefs and understanding of AfL; confidence in planning assessment; confidence in conducting assessment; confidence in using assessment data; and adherence to ethical issues in assessment. Next, based on the analysis results of the pre-survey, a PD AfL literacy program was developed. The program including AfL strategies was provided to the intervention group (30 PSTs) who responded to the recruitment. Then, they implemented these AfL strategies, provided in the program, in their practicum. In order to explore the practical experiences of PSTs AfL literacy how they implement these strategies and how they improve their assessment practices during their practicum, semi-structured individual interviews before and after their practicum and the practicum data including their lesson plans, observation checklists, and audiotapes, were conducted. Last, the post-survey was conducted to the same participants (a total of 335 PSTs) to explore the changes of their AfL literacy.
RQ 1: What impact, if any, does a needs-based professional learning intervention have on PSTs AfL literacy and how? In order to answer this research question, the analysis of pre-survey and post-survey of PSTs AfL literacy was conducted using repeated measures MANOVA. Findings revealed that there was an intervention effect (PD program) on their overall PSTs AfL literacy indicating the importance of a PD program in building PSTs AfL literacy before their professional experience. Moreover, this program demonstrates a significant effect on four sub-constructs of PSTs AfL literacy: belief and understanding of AfL; confidence in planning assessment; confidence in conducting assessment; and confidence in using assessment data. In general, this part highlights the empirical evidence of the PD program which can be used to design a more needs-based PD program in initial teacher education. RQ 2: To what extent can PSTs change their assessment practice during practicum? In order to answer this research question, an in-depth interview with PSTs in the intervention group and the data collected during their practicum allowed us to understand how PSTs develop and implement their AfL literacy in classroom practice. The qualitative results through the thematic analysis indicated that other factors, supervising teachers, pupils’ responses, the physical context, and the personal effort of PSTs influenced PSTs’ assessment practices in the real classroom. The changes of theoretical knowledge in PSTs’ AfL literacy after the program also influenced assessment practice in practicum or vice versa. Therefore, this suggests potentially a bidirectional relationship, that higher AfL literacy helps develop better practice but more opportunities for supported practices develops AfL literacy. Implications of the results for redesigning and utilizing the PD program, and more broadly for integrating AfL in practicum experiences of PSTs will be discussed.
Absolum, M., Flockton, L., Hattie, J., Hipkins, R., & Reid, I. (2009). Directions for assessment in New Zealand: Developing students’ assessment capabilities. Wellington: Ministry of Education. Alonzo, D. (2016). Development and application of a teacher assessment for learning (AfL) literacy tool. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://unsworks.unsw.edu.au/fapi/datastream/unsworks:38345/SOURCE02?view=true Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5, 7–74. Davison, C. (2015). Enhancing teacher assessment literacy: Practising what we preach. In Paper presented at 2015 Assessment in Schools Conference. Sydney: NSW. Davison, C., & Michell, M. (2014). EAL assessment: What do australian teachers want? TESOL in Context, 24(2), 51–72. DeLuca, C., & Volante, L. (2016). Assessment for learning in teacher education programs: Navigating the juxtaposition of theory and praxis. Journal of the International Society for Teacher Education, 20(1). Graham, P. (2005). Classroom-based assessment: Changing knowledge and practice through preservice teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(6), 607–621. Hardman, F., Stoff, C., Aung, W., & Elliott, L. (2016). Developing pedagogical practices in Myanmar primary schools: possibilities and constraints. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 36, 98–118. Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analysis relating to achievement. Routledge. Hill, M. F., & Eyers, G. E. (2016). Moving from student to teacher. In G. T. L. Brown & L. R. Harris (Eds.), Handbook of Human and Social Conditions in Assessment. Routledge. James, M., & Pedder, D. (2006). Beyond method: assessment and learning practices and values. Curriculum Journal, 17(2), 109–138. Jiang, H. (2015). Learning to teach with assessment: A student teaching experience in China. Singapore: Springer. Malone, M. E. (2013). The essentials of assessment literacy: Contrasts between testers and users. Language Testing, 30, 329–344. Popham, W. J. (2009). Assessment literacy for teachers: Faddish or fundamental? Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 4–11. Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 905–946). Washington, D.C: American Educational Research Association. Siegel, M. A., & Wissehr, C. (2011). Preparing for the plunge: Preservice teachers’ assessment literacy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22, 371–391. Stiggins, R. J. (1999). Evaluating classroom assessment training in teacher education programs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 18(1), 23–27. 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.
Some networks have already started to plan their chairperson(s).
But at the moment chairpersons are only pencilled in, as we will still need to check for time conflicts between presentation and chairing duties. EERA office will work on this in due course and then officially let chairpersons know about their chairing duties.
Meanwhile, thank you for your patience.
00. Central Events (Keynotes, EERA-Panel, EERJ Round Table, Invited Sessions)
Network 1. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations
Network 2. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Network 3. Curriculum Innovation
Network 4. Inclusive Education
Network 5. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Network 6. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Network 7. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Network 8. Research on Health Education
Network 9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Network 10. Teacher Education Research
Network 11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality Assurance
Network 12. LISnet - Library and Information Science Network
Network 13. Philosophy of Education
Network 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Network 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Network 16. ICT in Education and Training
Network 17. Histories of Education
Network 18. Research in Sport Pedagogy
Network 19. Ethnography
Network 20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environments
Network 22. Research in Higher Education
Network 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Network 24. Mathematics Education Research
Network 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Network 26. Educational Leadership
Network 27. Didactics – Learning and Teaching
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.