Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice

ISSN: 0969-594X (Print) 1465-329X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/caie20

Reconceptualising the role of teachers as

assessors: teacher assessment identity

Anne Looney, Joy Cumming, Fabienne van Der Kleij & Karen Harris

To cite this article: Anne Looney, Joy Cumming, Fabienne van Der Kleij & Karen Harris (2017):
Reconceptualising the role of teachers as assessors: teacher assessment identity, Assessment
in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, DOI: 10.1080/0969594X.2016.1268090

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2016.1268090

Published online: 02 Jan 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 101

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=caie20

Download by: [Dublin City University] Date: 19 January 2017, At: 08:56
Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 2017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2016.1268090

Reconceptualising the role of teachers as assessors: teacher

assessment identity
Anne Looneya,b*, Joy Cummingb, Fabienne van Der Kleijb and Karen Harrisb*
a
Institute of Education, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland; bLearning Sciences Institute Australia, Australian
Catholic University, Brisbane, Australia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Teachers’ capabilities to conduct classroom assessment and use Received 12 August 2015
assessment evidence are central to quality assessment practice, Accepted 10 November 2016
traditionally conceptualised as assessment literacy. In this paper KEYWORDS
we present, firstly, an expanded conceptualisation of teachers’ Teacher identity; assessment
assessment work. Drawing on research on teacher identity, we posit identity; assessment literacy;
that teachers’ identity as professionals, beliefs about assessment, teachers’ work
disposition towards enacting assessment, and perceptions of their
role as assessors are all significant for their assessment work. We term
this reconceptualisation Teacher Assessment Identity (TAI). Secondly,
in support of this conceptual work, we present findings from a
systematic review of self-report scales on teacher assessment literacy
and teacher identity related to assessment. The findings demonstrate
that such scales and previous research exploring teacher assessment
practices have paid limited attention to what we identify as essential
and broader dimensions of TAI. We share our reconceptualisation and
analyses to encourage others to consider teacher assessment work
more broadly in their research.

Introduction
The significant role of assessment in student learning has been increasingly recognised over
the last three decades – not only the impact of externally-conducted accountability and
high stakes certification examinations but also the need for quality classroom assessment
in teacher practice (Baird, Hopfenbeck, Newton, Stobart, & Steen-Utheim, 2014; Black,
McCormick, James, & Pedder, 2006; Black & Wiliam, 1998; Shepard, 2000). What and
how student learning is assessed identify what is valued or important for students to learn
(Looney, 2014).
Assessment, simply defined as the process to establish what students know and are able
to do, is generally classified into two broad categories; assessment designed to support
teaching and learning in classrooms; and assessment programmes for public reporting,
certification, for selection and for system accountability (Barber & Hill, 2014). While these
two broad categories are sometimes referred to as formative and summative, respectively,

CONTACT Joy Cumming [email protected]

*
At time of conduct of research.
© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2  A. LOONEY ET AL.

these titles can be misleading. For example, on occasions, summative assessment, point-in-
time judgement of student achievement, can be designed with the sole purpose of improving
teaching and learning. On other occasions, evidence of student learning gathered primarily
through formative assessment to provide feedback to students and teachers on next steps
for teaching and learning may be included for assessment for reporting or certification.
This complex and overlapping interplay of assessment purposes and types adds to the
technical complexity of assessment as a process. Further complexity arises from the cur-
rent focus on assessment as a lever for school and system reform and for delivering hard-
to-achieve change in teaching and learning practices (Assessment Reform Group, 1999;
Heitink, Van der Kleij, Veldkamp, Schildkamp, & Kippers, 2016; Herman, 2004). Black
(2001) suggested at the turn of the millennium that assessment was beginning to feature
more and more in the dreams of educational reformers, not just as an object of reform, but
as the main instrument of reform. Looney (2014) described this optimism about the poten-
tial of educational assessment as ‘viral and normative in the networks of education policy
makers across the globe’ (p. 234). Assessment data have become a ‘publically acceptable
code for quality’ (Broadfoot & Black, 2004, p. 9).

Assessment literacy
In this context, it is not surprising that teacher capabilities to plan and implement quality
assessment tasks, to interpret evidence and outcomes appropriate to the assessment purpose
and type, and to engage students themselves as active participants in assessment of their
own learning have been the subject of considerable research.
These capabilities are often referred to as assessment literacy, a concept first introduced
by Stiggins (1991) writing in the context of the United States. Assessment literacy is usually
broadly defined, encompassing both assessment knowledge and skills related to teacher
practice (Popham, 2009; Stiggins, 1995) as well as use and interpretation of evidence to
inform instruction, generate feedback, guide student learning, and report student achieve-
ment (Stiggins & Duke, 2008; Webb, 2002).
Stiggins (1991) suggested that assessment literacy involved understanding how to pro-
duce good achievement data on both large-scale and classroom tests, and the ability to
interrogate and critique the tests or assessment approaches used and the data produced.
He referred to the ‘built-in alarms’ (p. 535) that alert those who are assessment literate,
that sound ‘when an assessment target is unclear, when an assessment method misses the
target, when a sample of performance is inadequate, when extraneous factors are creeping
into the data, and when the results are simply not meaningful to them’ (p. 535). Of note, he
emphasised that knowing that there is a problem is not enough – those who are literate will
demand or make changes when that alarm sounds. Fullan and Watson (2000) added a colle-
gial dimension in their definition of assessment literacy as ‘the capacity of teachers – alone
and together – (a) to examine and accurately understand student work and performance
data, and, correspondingly, (b) to develop classroom, and school plans to alter conditions
necessary to achieve better results’ (p. 457).
Some years after he first introduced the concept, Stiggins noted positive developments
in the field of assessment literacy including the articulation of assessment competencies
for teachers developed jointly by the National Council on Measurement in Education, and
American Federation of Teachers, and the National Education Association (Stiggins, 1995).
 ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION: PRINCIPLES, POLICY & PRACTICE  3

More recently, Popham (2009) suggested that assessment literacy was needed not only to
inform the assessment decisions teachers need to make, but also to challenge the high stakes
accorded to accountability tests that abound in education in the US.

Beyond assessment literacy

While the concept of assessment literacy continues to be widely used (see Khadijeh & Amir,
2015; Siegel & Wissehr, 2011, for example), a number of scholars have extended the concept
beyond teachers’ knowledge, understanding and skills. In his investigation of teachers’
conceptions of assessment in New Zealand, Brown (2011) draws on the earlier work of
Thompson (1992) in the field of the beliefs held by teachers about mathematics teaching and
learning. In addition to considering these beliefs, Thompson also proposed using the idea
of teacher’s conceptions ‘viewed as a more general mental structure, encompassing beliefs,
meanings, concepts, propositions, rules, mental images, preferences and the like’ (1992, p.
130). She further suggested that such conceptions might be ‘the rudiments of a philosophy
of mathematics’ (p. 131), although warned that in general they may be ‘eclectic’ (p. 135),
informed by classroom experience rather than any engagement with theory or research.
Brown (2011) suggests that conceptualisations act as a framework through which a teacher
views, interprets and interacts with the teaching environment. Such conceptions may not
be consistent with the expectations of policy, nor even with classroom practice.
Brown (2011) also notes that teachers have been reported as having multiple and con-
flicting conceptions of assessment. He points out that teachers have, in the same studies, at
once agreed that assessment can improve learning yet indicated that they treat assessment
as irrelevant. Other work by Brown and colleagues in Queensland, Australia, found that
further differences between beliefs and practice emerge when teachers are working with
different assessment purposes (Brown, Lake, & Matters, 2011).
Interestingly, work by Smith, Hill, Cowie, and Gilmore (2014) specifically explored the
assessment beliefs of pre-service teachers. Hypothesising that pre-service teachers bring
their personal histories to their perceptions of assessment, their study found that pre-service
teachers’ ‘experience of formal summative assessment, such as those they have experienced
in gaining qualifications, dominated their thinking and emotions’ (p. 313). Assessment
beliefs were shaped by their past experiences of being assessed, rather than by anything
they had been taught about assessment theories or the requirements of policy.
A similar case is made by James and Pedder (2006). They argue that insufficient atten-
tion is paid to teachers’ values and beliefs which provide the necessary reason for teachers
to act. In their view, this failure to consider this dimension will lead to assessment for
learning (the focus of their study) being seen as simply another set of techniques to add to
the teaching repertoire. They suggested that ‘teachers’ values and the moral dimension of
their practice that these values express, needs to be acknowledged in a discourse that goes
beyond instrumental questions of method’ (p. 131).
Conceptions of assessment presume a more complex and iterative relationship between
knowledge and practice, than the relatively straightforward and apparently technical and
instrumental relationship enshrined in assessment literacy. Further, conceptions foreground
teachers’ beliefs about assessment (even those that may well be non- or ir-rational) as
significant in shaping classroom practice and are informed by a sociological as well as
psychological perspective. Assessment is seen a sociocultural activity that involves social
4  A. LOONEY ET AL.

interactions among stakeholders and the nature of learning itself (Broadfoot, 1996; Gipps,
2002). It occurs in a social context, influenced by national and state policies, expected learn-
ing (curriculum), pedagogical directions, and community expectations. Teacher assessment
knowledge is therefore a complex structure rather than a simple set of delineated skills that
can be implemented in any context.
While Stiggins promotes the concept and importance of teacher assessment literacy, he
also noted barriers to teacher assessment practice, including what he called ‘fear of assess-
ment and evaluation’ (1995, p. 243) arising from experiences of assessment and testing used
as compliance rather than learning or measurement tools:
For most practicing educators, this fear of assessment has been cultivated over many years as a
direct result of many levels of unpleasant assessment experiences. The foundation was laid in
during our youth, when our own teachers often left us wondering what would be on the test,
and how to prepare for it. In our youth, assessment was frequently used to gain compliance
rather than to promote improvement. (1995, p. 243)
In Stiggins’ analysis, referring to the US context, this negative association with assessment
continues through teacher preparation courses, and on into professional practice. There,
he maintained, the negative backwash from regimes of standardised testing leaves teachers
‘feeling victimised by assessment once again’ (p. 243).
This emotional aspect of assessment, not included in Brown’s conceptions of assessment
(2011), is not only associated with personal assessment biography or the strictures of high-
stakes accountability. It can also emerge from consideration of the role of the teacher in the
assessment process. The complexity of the task of judging student work in school classrooms
and in higher education is emphasised by Pryor and Crossouard (2008, 2010). It arises,
they suggest, from new conceptualisations of knowledge which see learning as ‘an onto-
logical as well as an epistemological accomplishment’ (Pryor & Crossouard, 2010, p. 265)
because it has consequences for the identity of the learner and the teacher. In proposing
their socio-cultural theory of formative assessment Pryor and Crossouard describe the latter
as a ‘complex and tricky process’ (2008, p. 6). Drawing on their research with teachers, they
noted that while task criteria were generally straightforward, the quality criteria were often
problematic because they drew on knowledge held only by the teacher, and because they
were generally influenced by conceptions of summative assessment. They conclude that ‘the
full implication of the social nature of formative assessment is that it is a site where both
teacher and student identities are formed’ (p. 9). Each aspect of teachers’ work is associated
with a particular version of the teacher:
The different identities of the educator as assessor, teacher, subject expert and learner all involve
different divisions of labour and rules shaping their interaction with students. The educator
therefore teaches different definitions of themselves to the students and develops different
relations with the students through them. (2008, p. 10)
Writing in 2004, Rea-Dickins noted that teachers face significant dilemmas in their assess-
ment practices; ‘sometimes torn between their role as facilitator and monitor of language
development and that of assessor and judge of language performance and achievement’
(p. 253).
Given that teachers’ conceptions, beliefs, experiences, and feelings are all significant in
their assessment work and in the role of assessor, we suggest that assessment literacy is not
sufficient to represent the range and complexity of these dimensions.
 ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION: PRINCIPLES, POLICY & PRACTICE  5

Towards teacher assessment identity

Teacher identity is as familiar a concept in education literature as assessment literacy. It has
been explored in a variety of very different ways:
• from the perspective of the multiple re-inventions that teachers undergo in the course
of their professional lives (Hargreaves & Goodson, 1996; Mitchell & Weber, 1999);
• in terms of the narratives that teachers create to explain themselves and their work
(Connelly & Clandinin, 1999) and the metaphors that guide and inform how they see
themselves in relation to their students and professional settings (Leavy, McSorley, &
Boté, 2007); and
• in response to structural or political changes in education that re-frame or change how
teachers are understood and understand themselves (Mockler, 2011).
Most interpretations of teacher identity adopt a socio-cultural perspective, suggesting that
it is framed and re-framed over a career and mediated by the contexts in which teachers
work and live. Most also agree that teacher identity is not stable, but shifts over time as a
result of a range of external contextual and internal factors (Beijaard, Meijer, & Verloop,
2004; Day, Kington, Stobart, & Sammons, 2006; Mockler, 2011). Identity development is
neither simple nor linear: rather it is responsive to events and circumstances.
Mockler (2011) groups these events and circumstances under three headings: personal
experience; professional context; and external political environment (p. 521). While these
are not mutually exclusive, each has its own particular focus. Personal experience includes
biography and personal social history. In the case of teachers, over and above other pro-
fessional identities, it also includes influential personal experience of teachers, teaching
and schooling, including, as Stiggins noted, their historical experience of assessment. For
Shulman (1986) these ‘remembrances of teachings past’ (p. 12) can be valuable in guiding
the work of a teacher, and generally work as a source and a heuristic for teacher deci-
sion-making. In contrast, Wiggins and McTighe (2007) take a less optimistic view of such
memories suggesting that they have met many teachers in the course of their research
who misunderstand the role of the teacher because they imitate the teacher practice they
experienced as a student in class.
The professional context identified by Mockler (2011) comprises those factors that shape
the classroom work of teachers – curriculum, assessment system, school climate culture and
organisation, collegial relationships and experience of reform. Closely related to the latter
is Mockler’s third set of factors, the political and the public, including media commentary
and debates about education and about teachers and their work, which reflect the degree
of public trust in teachers and in the teaching profession.
Beijaard et al. (2004) identified two further important dimensions of teacher identity.
They suggest that identity comprises a number of sub-identities, and that the emotional
dimensions of identity are important. They believe that in any analysis or discussion of
identity, place should be given to the question of how it ‘feels’ to be a teacher in the school
system at any point in time. Such emotion becomes particularly significant, it is suggested,
at times of educational reform (Hargreaves, 2003; Hargreaves & Lo, 2000), but tends to be
under-researched.
Day et al. (2006) have also noted that insufficient attention has been paid to emotional
factors in the discussion of teacher identity. In their review of the theme of personal and
6  A. LOONEY ET AL.

professional identities, they point to the important tension between the structures within
which teachers work and which exert influence on that work, and the agency of teachers,
which they describe as the ability to pursue valued goals. Both are significant in the con-
struction of teacher identity, and, suggest Day and colleagues, ‘emotions are the necessary
link between the social structures in which teachers work and the ways they act’ (p. 613).
Mockler notes the recent preference for the term teacher role which is associated with
the function of teachers, what they do, over consideration of teacher identity, associated
with who teachers are. The former is easy to see, codify and measure. This instrumentalist
perspective is reflected in debates about effective teaching, and in the professional codes or
standards developed and adopted across a number of jurisdictions to regulate entry into or
licence the teaching profession or to evaluate teacher performance (Mockler, 2011; Wyatt-
Smith & Looney, 2016). In contrast to the relatively constrained and check-list friendly
term teacher role, teacher identity is a more unwieldy concept, lending itself to multiple
interpretations and perspectives.
Arguably, a similar tension can be identified between the concept of teacher assessment
literacy, which we have suggested may be overly narrow and instrumentalist, and some of
the broader and more complex dimensions of teachers’ assessment work discussed above.
The latter, we suggest, might be more accurately represented as teacher assessment identity.

Conceptualising teacher assessment identity

Adie (2013), investigating teacher participation in an online moderation process, specifi-
cally referenced the concept of teacher assessment identity. In her study she used the term
to refer to the perception teachers had of themselves as assessors and discussed how teacher
participants had some concerns that they themselves might be personally judged by others
(their peers) in the discussion of how they had executed professional judgement (of students’
work). Concurrent with the development of our reconceptualisation of teacher assessment
identity, Xu and Brown (2016)1 had undertaken a scoping review of 100 studies on teacher
assessment literacy and developed the framework of Teacher Assessment Literacy in Practice
(TALiP). A specific focus was to link education assessment research with implications for
teacher education. Three of the reviewed studies addressed teachers’ identity as assessor in
different contexts. Xu and Brown’s conceptual model presented a pyramid of six components
including knowledge base, teacher conceptions of assessment and emotional interactions
with assessment that might be resistant to change. The pinnacle of TALiP is ‘teachers’ identity
(re) construction as assessors’ (p. 158) as teachers develop from students to professionals
interacting with others and taking on the role of assessor.
Ecclestone and Pryor (2003), researching formative assessment, also addressed the ques-
tion of learner and teacher identity in assessment interactions. The focus of their analysis is
the learner and the experience of assessment, how ‘children bring complex dispositions to
the field of educational assessment’ (p. 474), and how ‘assessment systems have an impor-
tant impact on learning identities and dispositions as children become young adults and
then adult “returners” in an increasingly long life of formal learning’ (p. 472). For these
researchers, this socially complex interaction between assessment systems and learner iden-
tity has implications for teacher identity on two fronts. First, effective formative assessment
requires teachers to be ‘intellectually curious about the understandings of learners’ (p. 472),
and demands an openness to the learner’s experience of learning. Second, the interactions
 ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION: PRINCIPLES, POLICY & PRACTICE  7

around assessment require teachers to strike a difficult balance between being supportive of
learners and being critical of them. The tensions of this dual role, the demands of respond-
ing to the complex dispositions of learners in the assessment process, and a recognition of
the ontological as well as the epistemological dimensions of learning all contribute to our
conceptualisation of teacher assessment identity.
Also significant in the literature on teacher identity, and for our conceptualisation of
teacher assessment identity, is the concept of teacher self-efficacy. This emerged from two
influential psychological theories: Locus of Control (Rotter, 1966) and Social Cognitive
Theory (Bandura, 1977, 1986). The latter is particularly significant in considering a con-
cept of teacher assessment identity as it connects self-efficacy with classroom actions. Self-
efficacy of teachers has been defined as ‘individual beliefs in their capabilities to perform
specific teaching tasks at a specified level of quality in a specified situation’ (Dellinger,
Bobbett, Olivier, & Ellett, 2008, p. 4). It reflects previous experiences and beliefs, Shulman’s
‘remembrances of teaching past’, and is a predictor of future classroom practice (Smylie,
1988) including, it can be assumed, assessment practice. Dellinger et al. (2008) made spe-
cific reference to self-efficacy beliefs as a separate construct from self-efficacy, developing
a scale specifically associated with these beliefs which they describe as a ‘personal belief
that one is able to do what it takes (plan and act) to accomplish a task at a particular level
of quality’ (p. 752).
Closely aligned to the literature on the emotional dimensions of teacher identity is the
concept of teacher dispositions, a term which emerged in the education landscape in the early
1990s, thanks in no small part to the standards for teaching published in 2001 by the
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) in the United States
(NCATE, 2001). The standards codified the knowledge, skills and dispositions required of
teaching candidates. A definition of dispositions was offered:
The values, commitments and professional ethics that influence behaviors towards students,
families, colleagues and communities, and affect student learning, motivation, and development
as well as the educator’s own professional growth. Dispositions are guided by beliefs and atti-
tudes related to values such as caring, fairness, honesty, responsibility, and social justice. (p. 53)
Describing dispositions as a ‘murky concept’ (p. 253), and the field as lacking an agreed
definition, Schussler (2006) noted that this ambiguity did not prevent test companies from
constructing tests to ‘measure’ the dispositions of teachers and teacher candidates in the US
through a proliferation of questionnaires and other instruments. She added that ‘although
dispositions are addressed as entities that are conceptually distinct from skills and knowl-
edge, the existing paradigm of measuring observable behaviours is being used to assess
whether a teacher candidate possesses appropriate dispositions’ (p. 256). Schussler contends
that it is neither useful nor accurate to separate dispositions from understanding and skills.
Instead she proposes a view of dispositions as a point of convergence where the external
influences such as the system demands for assessment, or curriculum requirements or
school organisation for example, meet the teacher’s individual internal schemata of beliefs,
values, history and experience and a point of inception for teacher thinking and actions.
As ‘filters’ between the external requirements of assessment work in classroom and in the
education system, and the beliefs and values held by teachers about student learning and the
quality of student work, some of which have in turn been shaped by educational histories,
dispositions are a significant component of assessment identity.
8  A. LOONEY ET AL.

This conceptualisation of teachers as assessors has demonstrated that a broader dimen-

sionalisation of teachers’ work in assessment is needed to inform future research and quality
teacher assessment work. Many different aspects of teacher assessment knowledge, confi-
dence, personal disposition and emotional engagement with assessment affect teachers’ own
assessment practices in classrooms with learners. The conceptual analysis evolved from an
empirical large-scale project being undertaken by the authors to examine, and hence iden-
tify appropriate measures of, teacher assessment work. Having completed the conceptual
analyses, we then turned to examination of existing scales on teacher assessment literacy
and teacher identity related to assessment. Findings from a systematic review of these scales
within the new conceptualisation of teacher assessment identity follow.

Analysis of existing scales on teacher assessment literacy and teacher

identity related to assessment
As noted, the theoretical conceptualisation of teacher assessment identity emerged from an
externally-funded large scale research project to examine the relationship between teachers’
assessment practices and student learning and the need to identify an appropriate instru-
ment to gauge teachers’ knowledge of and engagement with assessment. For the project, such
an instrument needed to be broadly encompassing of the areas identified in the conceptual
analysis that might relate to teacher assessment practice.
As the starting point, we identified a number of scales developed for use in teacher
assessment literacy and teacher identity research. We confined our review and analysis to
self-report scales as such a format was not only necessary for our large-scale project but
would also enable adaptation in recognition of the important influence of different cultural
contexts on teacher assessment. The review of existing scales required two steps: firstly,
appropriate scale and item identification; and secondly, development of a coding schema
of items against both our conceptual framework and aspects of teacher assessment work.
The method employed to review and code existing scales, and findings of the analyses are
reported in the following sections.

Method: determining sources and trial development of coding schema

A recent systematic review of teacher assessment literacy measures reported in published
research (Gotch & French, 2014) provided an initial source of scales. Gotch and French
searched research publications in comprehensive education and social science databases
from 1991, following the introduction of ‘assessment literacy’ as an important component of
teachers’ work, to 2012. Search terms included assessment literacy, assessment, teacher com-
petence/y, and teacher understanding. They identified 36 instruments from 50 publications,
with different response formats such as objective tests, self-report scales and rubrics. While
Gotch and French’s purpose was to analyse the scales identified through their systematic
search from a psychometric perspective, the sources and scales they identified formed the
initial starting point for our consideration of dimensions of existing assessment instruments.

Trial and initial coding framework

The first phase of the analysis was to examine dimensions of teacher assessment work
addressed in ten of the scales identified by Gotch and French (2014, Appendix A, pp.
 ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION: PRINCIPLES, POLICY & PRACTICE  9

46–58) as teacher self-reports of assessment literacy (Arter & Busick, 2001; Bandalos, 2004;
DeLuca & Klinger, 2010; Hambrick-Dixon, 1999; Kershaw, 1993; Mertler, 2000; O’Sullivan &
Johnson, 1993; Vanden Berk, 2005; Zhang & Burry-Stock, 1994, 2003). An initial framework
for coding categories was developed, based on the knowledge of the four members of the
research team, all of whom have expertise in the field of assessment. Initial coding of items
from the ten scales focused both on dimensions of teachers’ work as well as the topics they
addressed. Two team members independently examined the ten scales and trialled item
coding for 206 items. After initial coding, discrepancies were discussed and issues/nuances
in the coding scheme were identified and discussed by the four researchers. The development
of the coding scheme was iterative, taking place in parallel to the identification of relevant
scales, with several iterations and revisions occurring before the final coding scheme was
determined. All items were then coded according to the final coding scheme.

Identification of additional sources and items

As our conceptualisation of teacher assessment identity is more comprehensive than assess-
ment literacy, the focus of the review by Gotch and French (2014), a further database search
for scales related to teachers, teacher identity and assessment was undertaken. Additional
self-report scales were identified by searching scientific journal articles or book chapters
using Google Scholar and online databases such as ERIC. Search terms used included, for
example, ‘teacher’ in combination with ‘assessment literacy’, ‘assessment identity’ or ‘class-
room assessment’, and ‘questionnaire’, ‘survey’, ‘scale’ or ‘(audit) instrument’. Prominent
journals in the area of assessment and measurement were searched.
A requirement for final analysis was that scale items were available in the publication
itself, or in supplementary materials. Items had to be related to teachers’ assessment knowl-
edge/skills/practices, confidence or disposition, not, for example, what students typically do
in classrooms. Some scales included items that were not specific to assessment, but applied,
for example, to instruction. In this case, the scale was included, but only items relevant to
assessment were selected. Items that had a very strong focus on psychometric test devel-
opment were also excluded from the item coding. Such items addressed teachers’ technical
skills in this area, such as the ability to conduct item and test analyses or calculate z-scores
for a test. Such conceptualisations of assessment literacy dominated US measurement in
the 1990s (DeLuca, LaPointe-McEwan, & Luhanga, 2016), but are not contemporary assess-
ment skills teachers would be universally expected to develop or hold (Joint Committee on
Standards for Education Evaluation [JCSEE], 2015). However, items addressing concepts
such as reliability and validity were included.
The additional search process resulted in 18 new scales from 10 publications, providing
a further 312 items for analysis (Brown, 2004; Dellinger et al., 2008; James & Pedder, 2006;
Leighton, Gokiert, Cor, & Heffernan, 2010; Lysaght & O’Leary, 2013; Panadero, Brown, &
Courtney, 2014; Pat-El, Tillema, Segers, & Vedder, 2013; Schulte, Edick, Edwards, & Mackiel,
2004; Smith et al., 2014; Young & Jackman, 2014). The results of the additional search and
details on all scales used for analyses are presented in Appendix 2, available as additional
online material. In total, 28 self-report scales based on 19 instruments described in 20 pub-
lications related to teacher assessment literacy and teacher identity related to assessment and
518 items were identified as suitable for coding (sources indicated with * in Reference list).
10  A. LOONEY ET AL.

Determination of final coding scheme

Developing a coding schema went through many iterations. We considered the elements of
assessment each item addressed, initially listing different aspects in an exhaustive list. As
we moved from initial coding of items to coding consensus and the final coding scheme,
it became evident that no singular classification of items, separating elements in a linear
fashion, would be sufficient to capture teacher assessment work. The coding of each item
needed to reflect multiple dimensions of the role of teachers as assessors (identity) as well
as different aspects and contexts of teacher assessment work, but in a manner that provided
overall cohesion. As elaborated below, the final coding scheme that emerged was a frame-
work whereby items were coded according to four identified classifications: (1) the teacher
assessment identity dimension; (2) aspect of assessment; (3) purpose of assessment; and
(4) external or classroom-based contexts of assessment.
Classification 1 addressed the dimensions of teacher assessment identity that related
teacher assessment knowledge and skills, their beliefs about assessment, their confidence in
their assessment knowledge, skills and practices, and their overall disposition to assessment,
including how they engage with assessment or view their assessment work or role.
Classification 2 addressed traditional aspects of teachers’ assessment practice in seven
subclasses: items that related to conceptual/theoretical frameworks of assessment; assessment
purpose and use of outcomes; assessment design and implementation; interpretation and
use of assessment information; collaboration with others in and out of school; connections
between assessment and instruction/curriculum; and developing a classroom assessment
environment for students.
Classification 3 addressed distinctions often seen in assessment literature regarding the
purpose of assessment in terms of formative, summative or diagnostic assessment, given the
focus in current assessment research on the influence of teachers’ enactment of formative
assessment and assessment for learning and student learning outcomes. When the purpose
of an item was unclear or unspecified, the item was coded as unspecified.
The final classification, Classification 4, referred to the assessment context, distinguishing
between teacher- and externally-developed assessment instruments or processes. When the
context was not clear, items were coded as teacher-developed.
Classification 2 involved the most complex analysis. The subclass codes emerged initially
through examination of scales identified from Gotch and French’s (2014) review and clas-
sifying items according to focus. Additional areas of teacher assessment practice identified
in research as good practice were also incorporated under Classification 2, even if not
present in the reviewed scales and items. For example, work from formative assessment and
assessment for learning identifies the importance of feedback, collaboration among teachers
and students sharing expectations and understandings of quality, and developing student
agency in assessment (Assessment Reform Group, 2002; Baird et al., 2014; Black & Wiliam,
1998; Fullan & Watson, 2000; Wyatt-Smith & Klenowski, 2013). The influence of teacher
assumptions about student learning progressions also needs consideration (Popham, 2011).
An identified issue in much assessment literature is the focus on generic assessment
strategies without an evidentiary basis for their applicability in different contexts (Coffey,
Hammer, Levin, & Grant, 2011; Cowie & Moreland, 2015; Svanes & Skagen, 2016).
Differentiating assessment by subject areas, by student level of schooling and to meet the
needs of diverse students was also identified by the research team as significant for teachers’
assessment work (Abedi, 2010; Cumming, 2012; European Agency for Development in
 ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION: PRINCIPLES, POLICY & PRACTICE  11

Special Needs Education, 2009; Trumbull & Lash, 2013). Teachers with subject specialisa-
tions may be responsible for students of different ages but not confident in their assessment
knowledge and skills for these different students, or have different dispositions to assess-
ment for students of different ages. Effective assessment for students must be responsive
to different critical stages of learning, such as students in the middle years who are highly
self-aware, needing to build confidence, develop autonomy and sense of strengths (Wyatt-
Smith, Adie, Van der Kleij, & Cumming, in press). Teachers in contexts such as elementary
school may have responsibility for different subjects with the same age cohorts. Are teach-
ers necessarily knowledgeable about and confident in appropriate assessment strategies
in different subjects (Hodgen & Marshall, 2005)? In current equity policy contexts and
inclusive schooling, teachers express anxiety about creating fair and equitable assessments
for all students including students with disability (Forlin, Keen, & Barrett, 2008). Different
strategies may be needed for effective assessment with students with languages different
from the language of instruction (Trumbull & Lash, 2013).
Items in Subclasses 1 and 2, conceptual/theoretical frameworks and purpose and use of
outcomes (validity) were items that addressed global assessment concepts.
Items coded as Subclass 3, design and implementation, addressed activities in assessment
construction, designing assessments to align with curriculum expectations, administra-
tion related to implementation of standardised assessment procedures, developing and
using scoring models such as rubrics, judging student performance against rating scales
or criteria (marking), and tailoring assessment processes suited for students with diverse
learning needs.
Subclass 4 encompassed items that looked at how to interpret or use information for
instructional decisions (planning teaching), providing feedback to students, assigning grades
(determining an overall grade based on a student’s portfolio of evidence or multiple pieces
of assessment work), and reporting student achievement to parents or students.
Subclass 5 was developed specifically to identify items that reflected teacher work as
assessor as a partnership with colleagues.
Subclass 6 emerged to encompass items that investigated links between assessment and
curriculum and instruction generally, in terms of teachers’ assessment-related pedagogical
content knowledge and discipline area knowledge, particularly related to classroom-based
activities, rather than the formal assessment practices coded as Subclass 3. Items that investi-
gated teacher knowledge and understanding with respect to specified learning progressions
were coded under learning progressions. Questioning and techniques identified as assess-
ment for learning intended to assess students’ learning informally in ongoing classroom
interactions constituted the final subclass in this level. Identification and placement of
these last items caused considerable discussion, as they could also be related to formative
assessment purposes such as feedback under Subclass 4. Initially some items that involved
teacher questioning were coded under Subclass 3, as assessment construction. However,
Subclass 4 resulted to enable separation of assessment practices aligned with formal expec-
tations and more fine-grained informal assessment practices integrated with instruction.
Items coded under Subclass 7 reflect principles related to student engagement and agency
in assessment. These included sharing and/or negotiating goals and expectations (sharing
direction of learning), engagement of students in self-assessment, and peer assessment.
Thus, in the final coding scheme, an individual item from a scale could be coded, for
example, as related to teacher confidence in their assessment practices (Classification 1),
12  A. LOONEY ET AL.

interpretation and use of information (Classification 2), for formative assessment purposes
(Classification 3), in teacher-developed assessment (Classification 4). All items were coded
using the final coding scheme. The detailed coding scheme and results are provided in
Appendix 1.

Coding reliability
Initial inter-rater agreement between the two raters was 75% for the 206 items from ten
scales in Gotch and French (2014). Initial discrepancies related to ambiguity for interpre-
tation of items. Many items related to confidence interrelated with knowledge and skills, or
affective aspects. For example, a teacher’s response to ‘I am confident using assessments for
diagnostic evaluation’, by itself, could not determine whether a lack of confidence was linked
to their level of knowledge/skills/practices of diagnostic evaluation. This interrelationship
was not usually able to be investigated in existing scales.
Discussions of discrepancies and nuances clarified defining aspects of the final coding
scheme which improved inter-rater agreement. The 18 scales from the second search stage
were then coded, with inter-rater agreement for these scales of 88%. Disagreement in cod-
ing was again due principally to double-barrelled questions or ambiguities presented by
possibilities for multiple coding of items. For example, an item coded as Disposition, ‘My
assessment practices have little impact on student achievement’ (self-rated from Strongly
Disagree to Strongly Agree), was ambiguous as to whether a teacher was rating their belief
of the role of assessment in their practice (not valuing or a strong objection to assessment)
or their confidence with their assessment practices. Each item for which there were different
initial rater codings was assigned a final consensus code following discussion.

Results and discussion

Results of the analysis of items from existing scales are provided in Appendix 1. As might be
expected, given the focus of much research on assessment literacy and despite our search to
identify more broadly conceptualised scales that identified any aspect of teacher identity and
assessment work or role, most scales and items focused on those areas strongly associated
with assessment literacy. For the coded items, 87% addressed teacher-developed assessment,
possibly reflecting exclusion of items focused on psychometric skills, but also reflecting the
overall focus of research on teacher assessment practice.
Over three-quarters of the items (78%) focused on the dimension of teacher assessment
knowledge, skills and practices (Classification 1). Nearly all of these were in the context of
teacher-developed assessment practices. Twelve per cent of items related to teacher con-
fidence in assessment, again predominantly for teacher-developed assessment activities.
Less than 10% of items were identified as relating to teacher dispositions in assessment,
with disposition compounded in only a small number of confidence items. These included
items such as ‘My assessment practices have little impact on student achievement’ (Vanden
Berk, 2005, p. 144) or ‘I consider the most worthwhile assessment to be assessment that
is undertaken by the teacher’ (James & Pedder, 2006, p. 118). More than half of the last
group of items were related to conceptual or theoretical assessment frameworks with the
remainder spread lightly across other assessment aspects.
The assessment content focus of items (Classification 2) was more distributed: 19%
of items investigated teachers’ engagement with conceptual and theoretical frameworks;
 ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION: PRINCIPLES, POLICY & PRACTICE  13

13% were associated with assessment purpose and use of outcomes; 21% addressed assess-
ment design and implementation, including administration of assessment, and item and
assessment construction; 22% examined teacher interpretation and use of information;
6% addressed connections between assessment and instruction and curriculum; and, 18%
related to development of the classroom assessment environment for students.
The purpose of more than half the items (Classification 3) across all dimensions and
aspects was coded as unspecified. Twenty-two per cent and 24% of items overall addressed
formative or summative assessments, respectively. For items coded as related to knowledge,
skills and practices under Classification 1, 26% were identified as related to formative assess-
ment, 20% were related to summative assessment (of which 63% were for teacher-developed
assessment), and only 4 items, that specifically identified a diagnostic purpose, for example,
‘Diagnostic information from standardised tests is used to identify strengths and needs in
teaching and learning’ (Lysaght & O’Leary, 2013, p. 11), were coded as related to diagnostic
assessment. Nearly half of these items (48%) did not have a specific focus.
It is evident that the existing scales encompass a range of aspects of teacher work in
implementing assessment activities, especially in their classroom assessment. However, even
when viewed from the established perspective of assessment literacy, there are gaps. The
tendency of most scales was to have a generic focus; teacher assessment knowledge, skills
and practices were not distinguished according to the age of the learner or system stages
such as primary or secondary schooling. Most items that asked teachers about their knowl-
edge did not necessarily seek information on their confidence in applying their knowledge,
nor the extent to which they do so. From our perspective, the issue became the gaps and
omissions in the items coded – missing areas that could be considered important within
existing definitions of assessment literacy, and the additional conceptual dimensions we
identify for teacher assessment identity.
While some scales were contextualised within a subject area, generic scales did not
seek information about assessment within specific pedagogical content knowledge frame-
works. We only identified three items relating to such knowledge, for example, ‘Identify a
curriculum area that lends itself to performance assessment’ (O’Sullivan & Johnson, 1993,
p. 22). Teachers generally teach more than one subject area, especially in primary schools.
Questions arise as to whether teachers consider their knowledge, and confidence as equally
strong or weak across different subject contexts, or whether their beliefs about assessment
differ between mathematics for example, and areas such as art and music.
Diversity, even in its broadest definitions, was also a gap. Only seven items were coded as
addressing flexibility or adaptability of assessment for students with diverse needs, whether
due to language background, disability, or range of achievement levels within classrooms,
such as ‘Establishing student expectations for determining grades for special education
students’ (Zhang & Burry-Stock, 2003, p. 342) and ‘Accommodating assessment for ESL
students’ (DeLuca & Klinger, 2010, p. 432).
While items were identified that related to emphases in current research on formative
assessment and assessment for learning, including use of evidence from a range of sources
to direct teaching and improve student learning, there were still omissions. Major omissions
identified in the items coded, were items about teacher assessment practice in collaboration
with other teachers, valuable in developing teachers’ professional assessment knowledge
and deeper understanding of demonstrated quality of student work. Aspects of formative
assessment and assessment for learning addressing sharing learning goals, and peer and
14  A. LOONEY ET AL.

self-assessment, were relatively limited. Very few items addressed teacher and student agency
in assessment.
Most importantly, from our conceptual framework for teacher assessment identity, while
a proportion (10%) of items were coded as related to teachers’ assessment disposition, very
few of these related to engagement with specific assessment knowledge and skills or con-
fidence, such as ‘I want to learn new formative assessment strategies’ (Young & Jackman,
2014, p. 406). This is an area that needs to be addressed more deeply.

Conclusion
The principal focus and significant contribution of this paper is the reconceptualision of
teachers’ assessment work and the proposal of a new concept, beyond assessment literacy,
of teachers’ assessment identity. We have also identified that while existing scales, and
related research which focus on strategic and technical assessment skills have at least face
validity on many aspects of teachers’ work as understood in assessment literacy, their over-
all representation of teachers’ assessment work is limited. They ignore the more complex
dimensions of this assessment work. Recent work by Xu and Brown (2016) addresses these
complex dimensions and points to the significance of identity in teachers’ assessment work,
and in particular, in taking on the role of assessor. Our conceptualisation goes further;
we propose a dynamic and interactive teacher assessment identity constituted by beliefs,
feelings, knowledge and skills.
While we are undertaking further research to develop a Teacher Assessment Identity
Instrument to address the gap in current scales, we present these conceptual and analytical
findings to promote a broader perspective in research by assessment and, more generally,
education researchers on teacher assessment practices and engagement.
In summary, we propose that the role of the teacher as an assessment practitioner goes
beyond what has been previously identified through conceptualisations of assessment liter-
acy and what has been established through existing scales. This previous work has focused
on teacher knowledge and capabilities as distinct bases of practice. It is our contention
that when teachers assess more is in play than simply knowledge and skills. They may have
knowledge of what is deemed effective practice, but not be confident in their enactment of
such practice. They may have knowledge, and have confidence, but not believe that assess-
ment processes are effective. Most importantly, based on their prior experiences and their
context, they may consider that some assessment processes should not be a part of their
role as teachers and in interactions with students. Teachers can, quite literally, have mixed
feelings about assessment. These interlinked dimensions of teacher assessment identity are
represented in Figure 1 below.
We include the various dimensions of assessment literacy as described by Stiggins (1991,
1995) and Popham (2009) under the heading ‘I know’. How a teacher feels about assessment,
the emotional dimensions of assessment identity as discussed by Beijaard et al. (2004), is
included under the ‘I feel’ category, but the categories are intentionally linked to highlight
the interconnectedness of the disparate dimensions. The very particular and complex ‘role’
dimensions of teacher assessment identity, reflected in the work of Pryor and Croussouard
(2010) and Ecclestone and Pryor (2003), are identified as a further dimension, although this
dimension, together with assessment ‘feelings’ and ‘knowledge’ is informed and shaped by
teachers’ assessment dispositions, those points of inception to use Schussler’s terminology
 ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION: PRINCIPLES, POLICY & PRACTICE  15

Figure 1. Reconceptualising teacher assessment identity.

(2006). Drawing on Shulman (1986), Broadfoot (1996) and Mockler (2011), we propose that
teachers’ beliefs about assessment, some of which are informed by their personal assessment
histories, also shape assessment identity. Finally, we consider that teachers’ sense of self-ef-
ficacy in assessment work, and the degree to which they feel in control of their practice,
drawing on the work of Bandura (1977, 1986), are also significant for assessment identity.
These cannot be considered in isolation from teachers’ understanding and experience of
their role as assessor, particularly in the light of the work of Day et al. (2006) on teacher
agency, and the importance of teachers’ sense that they can pursue valued goals. We have
presented these dimensions as associated with a teacher subject, rather than as abstractions,
to emphasise our contention that who teachers are in the process of assessment is as impor-
tant as what they know and are able to do. This is at the heart of teacher assessment identity.
Following this work to date, we are now in the process of developing a new instrument,
the Teacher Assessment Identity Instrument (TAII) that will be cognisant of the multiple
dimensions and contexts of teachers’ assessment enactment that we have conceptualised.
The work is being undertaken within the Learning Sciences Institute Australia, Australian
Catholic University, supported by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment,
Ireland and the National Institute of Education, Singapore. The intention is that the
Instrument will have international applicability, albeit with the need for local adaptations
in recognition of cultures and contexts of different education systems. Challenges to date
have been designing a new framework, based on Figure 1, for piloting and validation, in
combination with user-friendly self-report response forms. Once the TAII has been vali-
dated in three international educational systems, it will be used in our current project to
examine the import of teacher assessment identity in conjunction with classroom practices
and student learning, and for initial teacher education.
We present the findings in this paper to encourage international colleagues to engage
with the reconceptualised representation of teacher as assessor and to broaden research on
teacher assessment capability and engagement. This reconceptualisation of teacher assess-
ment identity encompasses not only a range of assessment strategies and skills, and even
confidence and self-efficacy in undertaking assessment, but also the beliefs and feelings
16  A. LOONEY ET AL.

about assessment that will inform how teachers engage in assessment work with students,
and focuses not simply on what teachers do, but on who they are.

Note
1. 
Submitted January 2016, while this paper was under review.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, Dublin and the
Australian Research Council Discovery Program [Project 15010169].

Notes on contributors
Anne Looney commences as founding Executive Dean, Institute of Education, Dublin City University,
Dublin, in 2017, following a role as Interim Chair of the Higher Education Authority, Ireland.
Previously, Looney was professorial research fellow at the Learning Sciences Institute Australia,
Australian Catholic University (ACU), Australia, in 2014–2015. She served as Chief Executive of
the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, Ireland, for fifteen years. Her research publi-
cations include curriculum and assessment, school ethos, civic and political education and the work
of teachers.
Joy Cumming is Research Director of the Assessment, Evaluation and Student Learning research area
in the Learning Sciences Institute Australia (ACU). Her core research focus is educational assessment,
in particular, equity and social justice in assessment, including work in education law that examines
the impact of educational policy and legislation in assessment and accountability on students.
Fabienne van der Kleij is a research fellow in the Assessment, Evaluation and Student Learning
research area in the Learning Sciences Institute Australia (ACU). Her main research interests are
formative assessment and feedback. Her work has involved several systematic reviews of formative
assessment and feedback. Current research is focused on student perceptions and engagement with
feedback to improve their learning.
Karen Harris worked in the Assessment, Evaluation and Student Learning research area in the
Learning Sciences Institute Australia (ACU) during the development of this research. She has had an
extensive career in educational assessment and measurement, including roles at National Institute of
Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Educational Testing Services, Princeton,
US, and the Australian Council for Education Research.

References
References marked with an asterisk (*) indicate scales relating to teacher assessment.
Abedi, J. (2010). Research and recommendations for formative assessment with English language
learners. In H. Andrade & C. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 181–197). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Adie, L. (2013). The development of teacher assessment identity through participation in online
moderation. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 20, 91–106. doi:10.1080/096
9594X.2011.650150
 ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION: PRINCIPLES, POLICY & PRACTICE  17

*Arter, J. A., & Busick, K. U. (2001). Practice with student-involved classroom assessment: A workbook
and learning team guide. Portland, OR: Assessment Training Institute.
Assessment Reform Group. (1999). Assessment for learning: Beyond the black box. England: University
of Cambridge School of Education. Retrieved from http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/
default/files/files/beyond_blackbox.pdf
Assessment Reform Group. (2002). Assessment is for learning: 10 principles. Research-based principles
to guide classroom practice. Retrieved from http://assessmentreformgroup.files.wordpress.
com/2012/01/10principles_english.pdf
Baird, J., Hopfenbeck, T., Newton, P., Stobart, G., & Steen-Utheim, A. (2014). State of the field review: Assessment and
learning. Report for the Norwegian Knowledge Centre for Education. Retrieved from http://taloe.up.pt/
wp-content/uploads/2013/11/FINALMASTER2July14Bairdetal2014AssessmentandLearning.pdf
*Bandalos, D. L. (2004). Can a teacher-led state assessment system work? Educational Measurement:
Issues and Practice, 23, 33–40. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2004.tb00157.x
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychological
Review, 84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Barber, P., & Hill, M. (2014). Preparing for a renaissance in assessment. London: Pearson. Retrieved
from https://research.pearson.com/content/plc/prkc/uk/open-ideas/en/articles/preparing-for-
a-renaissanceinassessment/_jcr_content/par/articledownloadcompo/file.res/Preparing_for_a_
Renaissance_in_assessment.pdf
Beijaard, D., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers’ professional
identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 107–128. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2003.07.001
Black, P. (2001). Dreams, strategies and systems: Portraits of assessment past, present and future.
Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 8, 65–85. doi:10.1080/09695940120033261
Black, P., McCormick, R., James, M., & Pedder, D. (2006). Learning how to learn and
assessment for learning: A theoretical inquiry. Research Papers in Education, 21, 119–132.
doi:10.1080/02671520600615612
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education:
Principles, Policy & Practice, 5, 7–74. doi:10.1080/0969595980050102
Broadfoot, P. (1996). Education, assessment and society: A sociological analysis. Bristol: Open University
Press.
Broadfoot, P., & Black, P. (2004). Redefining assessment? The first ten years of assessment in education.
Assessment in Education: Principles Policy and Practice, 11, 7–26. doi:10.1080/0969594042000208976
*Brown, G. T. L. (2004). Teachers’ conceptions of assessment: Implications for policy and
professional development. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 11, 301–318.
doi:10.1080/0969594042000304609
Brown, G. T. L. (2011). Teachers’ conceptions of assessment: Comparing primary and secondary
teachers in New Zealand. Assessment Matters, 3, 45–70.
Brown, G. T. L., Lake, R., & Matters, G. (2011). Queensland teachers’ conceptions of assessment:
The impact of policy priorities on teacher attitudes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 210–220.
Coffey, J. E., Hammer, D., Levin, D. M., & Grant, T. (2011). The missing disciplinary substance of
formative assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 1109–1136. doi:10.1002/tea.20440
Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1999). Shaping a professional identity: Stories of education practice.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Cowie, B., & Moreland, J. (2015). Leveraging disciplinary practices to support students’ active
participation in formative assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22,
247–264, doi:10.1080/0969594X.2015.1015960
Cumming, J. (2012). Valuing students with impairments: International comparisons of practice in
educational accountability. Dordrecht: Springer.
Day, C., Kington, A., Stobart, G., & Sammons, P. (2006). The personal and professional selves of
teachers: Stable and unstable identities. British Educational Research Journal, 32, 601–616.
doi:10.1080/01411920600775316
18  A. LOONEY ET AL.

*Dellinger, A. B., Bobbett, J. J., Olivier, D. F., & Ellett, C. D. (2008). Measuring teachers’ self-efficacy
beliefs: Development and use of the TEBS-Self. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 751–766.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.02.010
*DeLuca, C., & Klinger, D. A. (2010). Assessment literacy development: Identifying gaps in teacher
candidates’ learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17, 419–438. doi:10.
1080/0969594X.2010.516643
DeLuca, C., LaPointe-McEwan, D., & Luhanga, U. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy: A review of
international standards and measures. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability,
28, 251–272
Ecclestone, K., & Pryor, J. (2003). ‘Learning careers’ or ‘assessment careers’? The impact of assessment
systems on learning. British Educational Research Journal, 29, 471–488. doi:10.1080/0141192032000099324
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. (2009). Assessment for learning
and pupils with special educational needs. Retrieved from https://www.european-agency.org/sites/
default/files/assessment-for-learning-and-pupils-with-special-educational-needs_assessment_for_
learning_en.pdf
Forlin, C., Keen, M., & Barrett, E. (2008). The concerns of mainstream teachers: Coping with
inclusivity in an Australian context. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education,
55, 251–264.
Fullan, M., & Watson, N. (2000). School-based management: Reconceptualizing to improve learning
outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11, 453–473. doi:10.1076/sesi.11.4.453.3561
Gipps, C. (2002). Sociocultural perspectives on assessment. In G. Wells & G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning
for life in the 21st century (pp. 73–83). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Gotch, C. M., & French, B. F. (2014). A systematic review of assessment literacy measures. Educational
Measurement: Issues and Practice, 33, 14–18. doi:10.1111/emip.12030
*Hambrick-Dixon, P. J. (1999, April). Meeting the challenges to urban school reform: Assessment
portfolios for teachers’ professional development. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Montreal, QC.
Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society. Education in the age of insecurity. New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
Hargreaves, A., & Goodson, I. (1996). Teachers’ professional lives: Aspirations and actualities. In
I. Goodson & A. Hargreaves (Eds.), Teachers’ professional lives (pp. 1–27). London: Falmer.
Hargreaves, A., & Lo, L. N. (2000). The paradoxical profession: Teaching at the turn of the century.
Prospects, 30, 167–180.
Heitink, M. C., Van der Kleij, F. M., Veldkamp, B. P., Schildkamp, K., & Kippers, W. B. (2016). A
systematic review of prerequisites for implementing assessment for learning in classroom practice.
Educational Research Review, 17, 50–62. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2015.12.002
Herman, J. (2004). The effects of testing on instruction. In S. Fuhrman & R. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning
accountability systems for education (pp. 141–167). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Hodgen, J., & Marshall, B. (2005). Assessment for learning in English and mathematics: A comparison.
The Curriculum Journal, 16, 153–176. doi:10.1080/09585170500135954
*James, M., & Pedder, D. (2006). Beyond method: Assessment and learning practices and values.
Curriculum Journal, 17, 109–138. doi:10.1080/09585170600792712
Joint Committee on Standards for Education Evaluation (JCSEE). (2015). Classroom assessment
standards for PreK-12 teachers [Kindle version]. Retrieved from https://www.amazon.com.au/
dp/B00V6C9RVO/ref=docs-os-doi_0
*Kershaw, I. (1993). Ohio vocational education teachers’ perceived use of student assessment
information in educational decision-making (Order No. 9411987). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Global. (304060852). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/
docview/304060852?accountid=8194
Khadijeh, B., & Amir, R. (2015). Importance of teachers’ assessment literacy. International Journal
of English Language Education, 3, 139–146. doi:10.5296/ijele.v3i1.6887
Leavy, A. M., McSorley, F. A., & Boté, L. A. (2007). An examination of what metaphor construction
reveals about the evolution of pre-service teachers beliefs about teaching and learning. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 23, 1217–1233. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.07.016
 ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION: PRINCIPLES, POLICY & PRACTICE  19

*Leighton, J. P., Gokiert, R. J., Cor, M. K., & Heffernan, C. (2010). Teacher beliefs about the cognitive
diagnostic information of classroom–versus large-scale tests: Implications for assessment literacy.
Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17, 7–21. doi:10.1080/09695940903565362
Looney, A. (2014). Assessment and the reform of education systems. In C. Wyatt-Smith, V. Klenowski,
& P. Colbert (Eds.), Designing assessment for quality learning (pp. 233–247). Heidelberg: Springer.
*Lysaght, Z., & O’Leary, M. (2013). An instrument to audit teachers’ use of assessment for learning.
Irish Educational Studies, 32, 217–232. doi:10.1080/03323315.2013.784636
*Mertler, C. A. (2000). Teacher-centered fallacies of classroom assessment. Mid-Western Educational
Researcher, 13, 29–35.
Mitchell, C., & Weber, S. (1999). Reinventing ourselves as teachers: Beyond nostalgia. London: Falmer.
Mockler, N. (2011). Beyond ‘what works’: Understanding teacher identity as a practical and political
tool. Teachers and Teaching, 17, 517–528. doi:10.1080/13540602.2011.602059
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (2001). Standards for professional
development schools. Washington, DC: NCATE. Retrieved from http://www.ncate.org/documents/
pdsstandards.pdf
*O’Sullivan, R. G., & Johnson, R. L. (1993, April). Using performance assessments to measure teachers’
competence in classroom assessment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
*Panadero, E., Brown, G., & Courtney, M. (2014). Teachers’ reasons for using self-assessment: A
survey self-report of Spanish teachers. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21,
365–383. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2014.919247
*Pat-El, R. J., Tillema, H., Segers, M., & Vedder, P. (2013). Validation of assessment for learning
questionnaires for teachers and students. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 98–113.
doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02057.x
Popham, J. (2009). Assessment literacy for teachers: Faddish or fundamental? Theory Into Practice,
48, 4–11. doi:10.1080/00405840802577536
Popham, J. (2011). Transformative assessment in action: An inside look at applying the process.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Pryor, J., & Crossouard, B. (2008). A socio-cultural theorisation of formative assessment. Oxford
Review of Education, 34, 1–20. doi:10.1080/03054980701476386
Pryor, J., & Crossouard, B. (2010). Challenging formative assessment: Disciplinary spaces and identities.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 37–41. doi:10.1080/02602930903512891
Rea-Dickins, P. (2004). Understanding teachers as agents of assessment. Language Testing, 21, 249–
258. doi:10.1191/0265532204lt283ed
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs:
General and Applied, 80(1), 1–28.
*Schulte, L., Edick, N., Edwards, S., Mackiel, D. (2004). The development and validation of the
teacher dispositions index. Essays in Education, 12(4). Retrieved from http://www.usca.edu/essays/
vol122004/schulte.pdf
Schussler, D. (2006). Defining dispositions: Wading through murky waters. The Teacher Educator,
41, 251–268. doi:10.1080/08878730609555387
Shepard, L. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29, 4–14.
doi:10.3102/0013189X029007004
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher,
15, 4–14. doi:10.3102/0013189X015002004
Siegel, M. A., & Wissehr, C. (2011). Preparing for the plunge: Preservice teachers’ assessment literacy.
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22, 371–391. doi:10.1007/s10972-011-9231-6
*Smith, L. F., Hill, M. F., Cowie, B., & Gilmore, A. (2014). Preparing teachers to use the enabling
power of assessment. In C. Wyatt-Smith, V. Klenowski, & P. Colbert (Eds.), Designing assessment
for quality learning (pp. 303–323). Dordrecht: Springer.
Smylie, M. (1988). The enhancement function of staff development: Organizational and psychological
antecedents to individual teacher change. American Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 1–30.
doi:10.3102/00028312025001001
Stiggins, R. (1991). Assessment literacy. Phi Delta Kappan, 72, 534–539.
20  A. LOONEY ET AL.

Stiggins, R. (1995). Assessment literacy for the 21st century. Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 238–245.
Stiggins, R., & Duke, D. (2008). Effective instructional leadership requires assessment leadership.
Phi Delta Kappan, 90, 285–291. Retrieved from http://www.pdkmembers.org/members_online/
publications/Archive/pdf/k0812sti.pdf
Svanes, I. K., & Skagen, K. (2016). Connecting feedback, classroom research and Didaktik perspectives.
Journal of Curriculum Studies. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/00220272.2016.1140810
Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In D.
A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 127–146).
New York, NY: MacMillan.
Trumbull, E., & Lash, A. (2013). Understanding formative assessment: Insights from learning theory
and measurement theory. San Francisco, CA: WestEd. Retrieved from http://www.wested.org/
online_pubs/resource1307.pdf
*Vanden Berk, E. (2005). Improving the evaluation of students through teacher training: An investigation
of the utility of the student evaluation standards (Order No. 3202970). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Global. (304987564). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/
docview/304987564?accountid=8194
Webb, N. L. (2002, April). Assessment literacy in a standards-based urban education setting.
Paper presented at American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, New
Orleans, LA. Retrieved from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/archive/mps/AERA2002/Assessment
literacyNLWFinal32602.pdf
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2007). Schooling by design: Mission, action and achievement. Alexandria,
VA: ASCD.
Wyatt-Smith, C., Adie, L., Van der Kleij, F., & Cumming, J. (in press). Assessment. In D. Pendergast,
K. Main, & N. Bahr, Teaching middle years: Rethinking curriculum, pedagogy and assessment (3rd
ed.). Sydney: Allen & Unwin. (Accepted 4 July 2016)
Wyatt-Smith, C., & Klenowski, V. (2013). Explicit, latent and meta-criteria: Types of criteria at play in
professional judgement practice. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 20, 35–52.
doi:10.1080/0969594X.2012.725030
Wyatt-Smith, C. M., & Looney, A. (2016). Professional standards and the assessment work of teachers.
In D. Wyse, L. Hayward, & J. Pandaya (Eds.), The Sage handbook of curriculum, pedagogy and
assessment (pp. 805–820). London: Sage.
Xu, Y., & Brown, G. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy in practice: A reconceptualization. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 58, 149–162. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.010
*Young, J. E. J., & Jackman, M. G. (2014). Formative assessment in the Grenadian lower secondary
school: Teachers’ perceptions, attitudes and practices. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy
& Practice, 21, 398–411. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2014.919248
*Zhang, Z., & Burry-Stock, J. A. (1994). Assessment practices inventory. 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, 323–342. doi:10.1207/
S15324818AME1604_4
Appendix 1: Coding schema and outcomes for analysis of 28 self-report scales related to teacher assessment practices aligned to conceptual
framework
Classification 1: Dimension
Knowledge, skills, practices Confidence Disposition
Classification 3: Summa- Diag- Form- Sum- Sum-
Purpose Formative tive nostic Unspecified ative mative Diagnostic Unspecified Formative mative Diagnostic Unspecified Total
Classification 2: Aspect
1. Conceptual/Theoret- 4 9(14) 33(1) 2 6(2) 2 22(3) 78(20)
ical framework
2. Purpose & use of 1(2) 12(4) 31(5) 1(3) 4 1 2(3) 52(17)
outcomes (validity)
3. Design & implementation
a) Item and assess- 2 3(1) 22 6 1 1 35(1)
ment construction
b) Alignment 2(5) 11(2) 13(7)
c) Administration 3 6(1) 10 2 1 1 23(1)
d) Scoring models 2 3 2 7
e) Marking (3) 7 1 5 13(3)
f) Students’ diverse 1 1 1 4 7
needs
4.Interpretation & use (2) 1 1(2)
of information
a) Instructional 6 1 1(2) 8(1) 3 1 4 5 29(3)
decisions
b) Feedback 14 6(2) 17 2 1 40(2)
c) Grading 3(5) 2 1 1 7(5)
d) Reporting 6(2) 7 7 1 21(2)
5. Collaboration 2 1 1 4
6. Connections
between assessment
and instruction/cur-
ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION: PRINCIPLES, POLICY & PRACTICE 

riculum
Continued
21
 22

Appendix 1: (Continued).
Classification 1: Dimension
Knowledge, skills, practices Confidence Disposition
Classification 3: Summa- Diag- Form- Sum- Sum-
Purpose Formative tive nostic Unspecified ative mative Diagnostic Unspecified Formative mative Diagnostic Unspecified Total
a) Pedagogical content 1 1 1 3
knowledge for
 A. LOONEY ET AL.

assessment
b) Curriculum area 3 3
knowledge
c) Learning progres- 1 1
sions
d) Questioning & 20 3 1 24
techniques (AFL)
used in classrooms
(to gather evidence
of learning on the
spot)
7. Developing class- 6 6
room assessment
environment for
students
a) Sharing and nego- 17 1 13 1 1 1 34
tiating goals and
expectations
b) Student self-assess- 17 5(3) 15 1 3 41(3)
ment
c) Peer assessment 8 2 10
Subtotal–dimension & 100(5) 65(39) 1(2) 186(9) 5 18(3) 1 33(2) 4 3 0 36(6) 452(66)
purpose
Totals by dimension 407 62 49 518
Note. Classification 4 is represented by the coding format X(Y), where X refers to the number of items relating to classroom assessment and Y refers to the number of items relating to externally-con-
trolled assessment.
Appendix 2: Overview of scales
Reference Study purpose Dimension Focus of instrument Intended use Respondents
Arter and Evaluate the results of an assess- Confidence in knowl- (1) Clear achievement targets, (2) assessing Evaluate impact of a professional • Principals
Busick (2001). ment professional development edge and skills student achievement, (3) student-involved development programme and • Teachers
(extracted programme classroom assessment, (4) communicating inform future professional
information effectively and accurately about student development programs
about research achievement. Addressing specific standards
from Arter, of classroom assessment quality from the
2001–confer- Assessment Training Institute (ATI).
ence paper)
Bandalos (2004) Investigate the benefits and draw- Knowledge and Aspects of classroom assessment. Contribute to an evaluation • Primary school
backs of a teacher led assessment practices of the effects of Nebraska’s teachers
system. Investigate whether Standards-Based Teacher-Led • Secondary school
teachers had learned more about Assessment and Reporting teachers
assessment as a result of the System (STARS)
implementation of the system.
Brown (2004) Investigate teachers’ conceptions of Conceptions (beliefs) Four conceptions of assessment: (1) Assess- Inform policy and professional • Primary school
assessment ment improves teacher instruction and development teachers
student learning (2) Assessment makes • Managers
students accountable for their learning (3)
Teachers or schools are made accountable
through assessment (4) Assessment is
irrelevant to the work of teachers and life of
students.
Dellinger et al. Report on the development and Self-efficacy (beliefs A variety of aspects considered essential to ef- Inform grouping of teachers, Primary school
(2008) validation of a teacher self-effica- in capabilities; fective teaching and learning in a classroom assessing needs of teachers teachers
cy beliefs instrument knowledge, skills and context. and informing professional
confidence) development
DeLuca and Investigate the effects of a local Confidence in knowl- Practice, theory and philosophy related to Inform pre-service teacher edu- Pre-service teachers
Klinger (2010) teacher education programme in edge assessment of and for learning. cation programmes and inform (primary and
developing assessment literacy. future research and practices secondary)
Hambrick-Dixon Investigate teachers’ self-reported Knowledge and skills Principles of assessment in Assessment of and Evaluation of a course Teachers enrolled
(1999) knowledge of assessment and for learning. Approaches and methods for in an education
assessment literacy before and assessment. Rigour in Assessment. Based on course
after a course evaluation and various US standards.
assessment of multiethnic and
ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION: PRINCIPLES, POLICY & PRACTICE 

racially diverse students.

Continued
23
 24

Appendix 2: (Continued).

Reference Study purpose Dimension Focus of instrument Intended use Respondents

James and Ped- Report on the development and Practices and values Teacher classroom assessment: Purposes, Inform professional development • Primary school
der (2006) implementation results of a ques- (importance of goals and functions, classroom practices research project and future teachers
tionnaire to measure teachers’ practices) and learning processes, context, roles and research • High school
values of classroom assessment responsibilities, and approaches to class- teachers
and contrast levels of assessment room assessment.
practice with their values
 A. LOONEY ET AL.

Kershaw (1993) Investigate teachers’ use of student Perception of compe- A wide range of formal assessment design and Inform research and teacher Secondary voca-
assessment information in mak- tence (knowledge and evaluation activities, partly training programmes and future tional education
ing educational decisions skills) (we did not con- based on ‘Standards for Teacher research teachers
sider the section of Competence in Educational
the questionnaire that Assessment of Students’ (American
focused on practices Federation of Teachers, National Council on
and attitudes) Measurement in Education, &
National Education
Association, 1990).
Leighton et al. Investigate teachers’ beliefs about Beliefs Focus on three categories of cognitive Inform theory and professional Secondary school
(2010) cognitive diagnostic information diagnosis: development policies for teach- teachers
from classroom assessment (1) providing information about student ers and pre-service teachers
versus large-scale tests learning process
(2) influence meaningful student learning
and
(3) eliciting learning or test taking skills.

Lysaght and Report on the development and Knowledge and Assessment for Learning with four scales: (1) Self-reflection tool for teachers Primary school
O’Leary (2013) validation of an Assessment for practices sharing learning intentions and success and inform professional devel- teachers
Learning audit instrument criteria, (2) questioning and classroom opment
discussions, (3) feedback, and (4) peer- and
self-assessment.
Mertler (2000) Examine the current assessment Confidence Formal classroom assessments; assigning Inform teacher education • Primary school
practices of teachers and spe- grades. (only self-report items were con- programmes and professional teachers
cifically the use of methods to sidered) development • Secondary school
ensure the validity and reliability teachers
of their classroom assessments
O’Sullivan and (1) Describe the development and Competency in skills (1) Formal classroom assessment instru- Inform teacher education course Teacher education
Johnson (1993) pilot testing of an instrument to and knowledge ments: development, analysis, validity and students (Masters
measure teachers’ assessment reliability. level)
competencies (2) Developing performance tasks.
(2) evaluate the effectiveness of a (3) Using standardised tests.
teacher education course (4) Ethical issues.
In line with ‘Standards for Teacher Com-
petence in Educational Assessment of
Students’ (1990). Strong focus on psycho-
metrics.
Panadero et al. Explore teachers’ beliefs about stu- Conceptions (beliefs Using self-assessment in classrooms including Inform theory and policy about • Primary school
(2014) dent self-assessment in relation to about purposes) and advantages and disadvantages. the impact of a reform to teachers
their use of self-assessment practices include self-assessment in • Secondary school
classroom practice teachers
• University/
adult education
teachers

Pat-El et al. Report on the development and Practices Assessment for learning, focusing on (1) Mon- Use by teachers (and students) to Secondary school
(2013) validation of an instrument to itoring student progress and (2) Scaffolding identify and reflect on practices teachers (and
measure teacher and student to assist students’ self-assessment. students, this
perceptions to Assessment for scale was not
Learning practices in classrooms considered).
and identify differences in their
perceptions.
Schulte et al. Report on the development and Dispositions Numerous aspects of instruction and class- Teacher candidate using self-as- Pre-service teacher
(2004) validation of an instrument for room management, some of which are sessment of their dispositions education stu-
measuring teacher disposition. relevant to formative assessment [used a over the course of their dents
subset of items] that align with the disposi- pre-service education to help
tions of effective teachers as specified under them reflect on their future
INTASC’s (1991) Model Standards for Begin- profession.
ning Teacher Licensing and Development.
ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION: PRINCIPLES, POLICY & PRACTICE 

Smith et al. Examine the impact of a 3-year Beliefs Assessment of and for learning: Principles, Inform pre-service teacher educa- Pre-service primary
(2014) teacher education programme on approaches and methods for assessment tion programme teachers
beliefs about assessment and rigour.
Continued
25
 26

Appendix 2: (Continued).
 A. LOONEY ET AL.

Reference Study purpose Dimension Focus of instrument Intended use Respondents

Vanden Berk Evaluate and report on the develop- Knowledge, attitudes Aspects of the Student Evaluation Standards Evaluate the effectiveness of the High school
(2005) ment of a training programme for and confidence ([SES] JCSEE, 2003): propriety, utility, feasi- SES, inform research on teacher teachers
teachers in assessment bility, and accuracy. training
Young and Jack- Specifically investigates untrained Perceptions, attitudes Formative assessment: Inform policy on teacher Secondary school
man (2014) and trained teachers’ perceptions and practices (1) perceptions of formative assessment education and professional teachers
of, attitudes to and use of strate- (2) attitude to practices development
gies in formative assessment (3) frequency of practices.

Zhang and Investigate teachers’ assessment Practices:• Use of A broad range of classroom assessment activ- Inform teacher education, profes- • Primary school
Burry-Stock practices and self-perceived • Skilled in ities such as test construction, interpreting sional development and future teachers
(2003) assessment skills, relative to their test results, grading and using evidence research. • Middle school
teaching experience and meas- from assessment in decision-making (partly teachers
urement training based on Standards for Teacher Competence • High school
in Educational Assessment of Students (AFT, teachers
NCME, and NEA, 1990)).