This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]On: 26 November 2014, At: 04:56Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Teacher EducatorPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utte20

Pedagogies for Preservice AssessmentEducation: Supporting TeacherCandidates' Assessment LiteracyDevelopmentChristopher DeLuca a , Teresa Chavez b , Aarti Bellara b & ChunhuaCao ba Faculty of Education , Queen's University , Canadab College of Education, University of South FloridaPublished online: 17 Apr 2013.

To cite this article: Christopher DeLuca , Teresa Chavez , Aarti Bellara & Chunhua Cao (2013)Pedagogies for Preservice Assessment Education: Supporting Teacher Candidates' Assessment LiteracyDevelopment, The Teacher Educator, 48:2, 128-142, DOI: 10.1080/08878730.2012.760024

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2012.760024

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Teacher Educator, 48:128–142, 2013

Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0887-8730 print/1938-8101 online

DOI: 10.1080/08878730.2012.760024

RESEARCH ARTICLE

PEDAGOGIES FOR PRESERVICE ASSESSMENT EDUCATION:

SUPPORTING TEACHER CANDIDATES’ ASSESSMENT

LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

CHRISTOPHER DELUCA

Faculty of Education, Queen’s University, Canada

TERESA CHAVEZ, AARTI BELLARA, and CHUNHUA CAO

College of Education, University of South Florida

Despite assessment-based accountability movements throughout educational systems in the United States,

teacher assessment literacy continues to be an identified area of concern. Contributing to this concern is

a dearth of research on preservice assessment education including both its curricular and pedagogicalapproaches. The purpose of this study was to examine pedagogies that support positive changes

in teacher candidates’ conceptions of assessment. Drawing on open-ended questionnaire data from

teacher candidate participants, this study found four explicit pedagogical constructs that teachercandidates identified as instrumental in contributing to their learning about assessment. Specifically,

these constructs were: (a) perspective-building conversations, (b) praxis activities, (c) modeling, and

(d) critical reflection and planning for learning. In addition to providing practical descriptive examplesof each pedagogical approach, this article concludes with suggestions for future research and practice

in assessment education.

In the September 2011 issue of The Teacher Educator, Popham asserted that assessmenthas been an overlooked component of teacher preparation programs and that effectiveteachers must be assessment literate. His argument was predicated on assessment researchthat demonstrated significant student achievement gains when teachers integrated assess-ment throughout their instruction and employed data-based decision making (Stiggins,2005; Wiliam, 2007/2008, 2011). However, despite the need for teacher assessment literacy,research has shown that teachers are largely unprepared to effectively integrate assessmentinto their practice, with beginning teachers particularly lacking in confidence in this area(Maclellan, 2004; Mertler, 2004; Volante & Fazio, 2007). Limited preservice assessmenteducation and a lack of research on the pedagogies that support teacher candidate learningin this area have been identified as dominant factors contributing to these low assessment

Address correspondence to Christopher DeLuca, Faculty of Education, Queen’s University, A218 DuncanMcArthur Hall, 511 Union Street, Kingston, ON, Canada K7M 5R7. E-mail: cdeluca@queensu.ca

128

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

4:56

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Pedagogies for Assessment Education 129

literacy levels (DeLuca, Klinger, Searle, & Shulha, 2010; Graham, 2005; Popham, 2004,2011).

To date, the majority of research on assessment education has focused on the effective-ness of explicit preservice assessment courses on promoting teacher candidate assessmentliteracy (e.g., DeLuca & Klinger, 2010; Chen, 2005). Across these studies, findings con-sistently suggest that when teacher candidates are provided with explicit opportunities tolearn about assessment they demonstrate positive growth and development as measured bytheir perceived confidence, competency, and readiness to assess student learning (Camp-bell, Murphy, & Holt, 2002; Mertler, 2004; Mertler & Campbell, 2005). What remainsabsent from the literature on assessment education is an understanding of the pedagogicalconditions that support teacher candidates’ assessment literacy development (DeLuca,Chavez, & Cao, 2013; Quilter & Gallini, 2000; Volante & Fazio, 2007).

Gaining an understanding of the pedagogical conditions that facilitate learning aboutassessment is critical for the design and delivery of effective teacher preparation programs.Loughran (2006) asserted that pedagogy in teacher education is the predominant forcethat changes teacher candidates’ conceptions and practices of education, which have beendeveloped ‘‘from years of an apprenticeship of observation’’ (p. 173). For many teachercandidates, these observational years have been predicated on negative experiences ofassessment that operate from traditional assumptions of measurement and that largelyemphasized summative assessment processes (DeLuca & Klinger, 2010; Grossman, 1991;Harrison, 2005). In order to change teacher candidates’ perceptions and practices, Croweand Berry (2007) further recognized that effective teacher education pedagogies mustinvolve an explicit conceptualization of teaching, rooted in research and situated withina context of practice. Hence without research-informed assessment education pedagogies,there is concern that future teachers will employ the same assessment strategies they expe-rienced as students, with little integration of contemporary assessment practices and thecontinued use of an assessment philosophy rooted in traditional theoretical assumptionsand practices (Maclellan, 2004).

The purpose of this study was to examine the pedagogical conditions that supportedteacher candidates’ learning about assessment (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). Specif-ically, through open-ended questionnaire data, we were interested in gaining the perspec-tives of teacher candidates enrolled in an assessment education course as to the instruc-tional strategies that facilitated their assessment literacy development. Based on results, fourpedagogical constructs emerged that teacher candidates identified as contributing to theirlearning about assessment. We specifically chose to articulate our findings as pedagogical‘‘constructs’’ because we did not want to suggest a prescriptive list of instructional strategies;rather, we endeavored to communicate the broader pedagogical conditions within whichteacher candidates learned.

Assessment Education Pedagogies

Research suggests that explicit assessment education at the preservice level has the potentialto support positive changes in teacher candidates’ conceptions of assessment and promotetheir assessment literacy (Campbell et al., 2002; Mertler & Campbell, 2005; Volante & Fazio,2007). Although this research points to the value and impact of assessment education,studies have yet to explicate and provide empirical support for pedagogies that facilitatethese conceptual transitions in teacher candidates (DeLuca et al., 2013).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

4:56

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

130 C. DeLuca et al.

From the teacher education discipline of inclusion and culturally based teaching,McAllister and Irvine (2000) identified two general forms of pedagogy that we assert bearrelevance and implications for assessment education pedagogy: content-based teaching andprocess-based teaching. Content-based teaching refers to didactic instruction with a focus onthe transmission and application of knowledge and skills, typically through lecture-based,text-based, or case-based learning. In teacher education, this pedagogical approach is com-monly used for learning about educational policies, procedures, and theories (Grossman,2005), and has been a core pedagogical approach for topics in assessment (Graham, 2005;Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation [JCSEE], 2000).

In contrast, process-based pedagogies seek to engage students in active meaning-making through processes of critical reflection, dialogue, and experiential and authenticlearning. Based on the assessment education literature, we identified three dominantprocess-based pedagogies relevant to preparing assessment literate teacher candidates. Thefirst pedagogy involves practicing the art of assessment. Shepard, Hammerness, Darling-Hammond, and Rust (2005) stressed that teacher candidates need experience in design-ing, scoring, and interpreting assessments for a variety of purposes with an emphasison formative assessment processes. Specifically, they suggested that teacher candidatesshould engage in: (a) individual and group analysis of student work and learning, (b) de-signing and constructing standards-based student assessments, and (c) explicitly exam-ining the various connections between learning motivation and classroom assessmentpractices.

The second pedagogical approach recognizes the importance of establishing connec-tions and coherence across the preservice program and providing opportunities to im-plement course-based learning into field-based teaching experiences (Darling-Hammond,2006; Russell, McPherson, & Martin, 2004). Through this approach, learning is contextual-ized, related, and reinforced with an emphasis on the linkage between educational theoryand practice. Brookhart (1999) also argued for a contextualized approach to assessmenteducation. She stated, ‘‘teachers need to understand a wider range of assessments : : :

and need to be offered methods that can be used within the constraints of classroomtime and space and school district policies’’ (p. 5). As credence for this notion, Graham’s(2005) study of 38 secondary teacher candidates found that candidates achieved substantialgains through their field-based placement with increased knowledge of specific assessmentpractice and implementation as well as recognition of challenges related to designinggoals, grading issues, validity, and time. Brookhart (1999) further suggested that variousassessment principles may need to be taught collectively to provide teacher candidates withan appreciation of the complexities associated with assessment activities. In addition, Ediger(2002) recognized that assessment education must make room for teacher candidates toconsider and explore the philosophical underpinnings of educational assessment as relatedto the practice of teaching.

Finally, as a pedagogy that not only enables learning about assessment but also pro-motes teacher candidates’ metacognitive development, James and Pedder (2006) assertedthe importance of utilizing assessment for learning approaches with teacher candidates. As-sessment for learning involves actively engaging teacher candidates in formative assessmentprocesses (including self-, peer-, and instructor-based assessments), throughout learning,with the goal of providing them with a positive and authentic experience of assessment(James & Pedder, 2006; Wiliam, 2011). It is through this experiential approach that teachercandidates can begin to unlearn their negative conceptions of assessment and reformulateassessment as a positive process in teaching and learning (Harlen & Gardner, 2010). An

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

4:56

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Pedagogies for Assessment Education 131

assessment for learning pedagogy further supports the development of a stance of inquiryas teacher candidates are encouraged to critically assess their experiences and knowledge asthe basis for establishing learning goals and plans for continued professional development(Earl, 2003).

Method

This study employed a qualitative methodology to identify the pedagogical conditions thatsupported teacher candidates’ learning about assessment. Consistent with previous researchapproaches to assessment education (i.e., Chen, 2005; DeLuca et al., 2013; Maclellan,2004), data were collected from teacher candidates enrolled in a semester-long, preservicemeasurement course at one university in Florida.

Course Context

The measurement course was a senior-level, mandatory course for all teacher candidatesin the College of Education, regardless of teaching division and subject area. The focusof the course was on providing an introduction to measurement theory and practice, withan emphasis on developing teacher candidates’ abilities to construct, use, and interpretstudent assessment data in relation to teaching and learning processes. Further, the coursewas intended to support teacher candidates in measuring and evaluating their students’progress toward state and district curricular goals, evaluate their own professional perfor-mance, and interpret the results of district, state, and national level assessments. Teachercandidates learned to design and develop objective- and performance-based assessments,and to adapt these assessments according to learners’ specific needs (e.g., second languagelearners, students with exceptionalities). Teacher candidates also engaged in analyzingauthentic assessment dilemmas and issues, while integrating content from their respec-tive disciplines with principles of learning, measurement, and evaluation. Guiding coursedelivery were the following pedagogical principles as identified on the course syllabus:

� An inclusive learning environment that values diverse perspectives and experiences� Authentic learning tasks that are applicable and relevant to measurement in schools� An integrated understanding of assessment as a central process in teaching and learning� Use of contemporary assessment practices to support and measure teacher candidate

learning

Participants

All 97 teacher candidates enrolled in four sections of the Spring 2011 administration of themeasurement course were invited to participate in this study. The majority of participantswere in their junior or senior year and majoring in one of four program specializationsincluding Elementary Education, Secondary Education, Special Education, and PhysicalEducation. Approximately two-thirds of participants were females, which corresponded tothe general gender distribution in the teacher education population. Although participantsmay have had informal and previous experience working in classrooms, none of the partic-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

4:56

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

132 C. DeLuca et al.

ipants had completed their final practicum internship within their teachable subject areasand none maintained teacher certification. Participants reflected the general demographicdistribution pattern of the College’s senior-level cohort.

Three authors of this article taught three of the four sections of the Spring 2011administration of the course with the fourth section taught by another instructor. Sectioninstructors were responsible for participant recruitment and data collection throughout thestudy. Having recently engaged in revising course content and pedagogical approaches,the authors of this article were particularly interested in understanding the utility of thesepedagogies in supporting student learning. The authors ranged in their experience teach-ing this specific course from two terms to eight terms. Prior to course revisions, the courselargely emphasized a content-based pedagogical approach. Although the authors werealso instructors, student participation in the study was entirely voluntary and anonymous,following ethical clearance guidelines and consenting procedures.

Data Collection and Analyses

Data were collected from participants through three open-ended questionnaires adminis-tered at equal time intervals throughout the course. Participant response rates for thesequestionnaires varied with 55 for the first questionnaire, 45 for the second questionnaire,and 41 for the third. Questionnaires focused discretely on course pedagogies, askingparticipants to identify specific examples of instructional approaches that they foundeffective in learning about assessment and a rationale for why they found these instructionalapproaches effective. It is important to note that data centered on teacher candidates’experiences in their on-campus assessment course and does not extend to their clinicalexperiences. To ensure that participants expressed their true opinions, data were collectedanonymously and securely stored until final course grades were submitted. Additionally,questionnaires from various sections were combined for analysis to not identify patternsassociated with specific course instructors. Despite these precautions, we recognize that datacollected in this study were based on participants’ self-reports related to their perceptionsof course pedagogies and knowledge level.

Data were analyzed in relation to participants’ identified pedagogies that supportedtheir learning about assessment. Data from across questionnaires were analyzed through aninductive thematic analysis (Patton, 2002). From an initial analysis of data, a code list wasgenerated and then codes were grouped into broader thematic categories. For example,codes of multiple-perspective conversations, analytic scaffolding, and metacognitive development

were grouped into the theme of perspective-building conversations. In total, four themeswere identified representing pedagogical constructs. These pedagogical constructs were(a) perspective-building conversations, (b) praxis: connecting theory to practice, (c) modeling: practice

what you preach, and (d) critical reflection and planning for learning. The specific terminologyfor these constructs was derived from the researchers as based on participant language. Inaddition to identifying pedagogical constructs, participants expressed examples of specificinstructional activities that effectively supported their learning. As a further delineation ofeach pedagogical construct, and as guidance for those involved in planning and deliveringpreservice assessment education, we present illustrative examples for each. We presentthese examples to help elucidate one way that the pedagogical constructs could be oper-ationalized, with the caveat that there are multiple ways to interpret and implement theidentified pedagogical constructs. Two researchers independently coded all data in this

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

4:56

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Pedagogies for Assessment Education 133

study with an interrater agreement of 96%. When researchers disagreed on coding, datawere discussed and re-coded.

Results

Four pedagogical constructs emerged that supported teacher candidate learning aboutassessment. These constructs were: (a) perspective-building conversations, (b) praxis: connecting

theory to practice, (c) modeling: practice what you preach, and (d) critical reflection and planning for

learning. We describe each construct below along with illustrative examples to help guideassessment educators.

Perspective-Building Conversations

One of the most prominent themes across data sources was the value of engaging inconversations and activities that facilitated the analysis of multiple perspectives. Specifically,three codes emerged that explicated various dimensions of perspective-building conversa-tions as a useful pedagogy in promoting teacher candidate learning. These codes relatedto the: (a) multiple-perspective conversations, (b) analytic scaffolding, and (c) metacognitive

development.Overwhelmingly, participants commented that engaging in conversations with peers

about readings, assessment scenarios, and dilemmas of practice introduced multiple-perspectives and broadened their understanding of educational assessment. For example,participants stated, ‘‘classroom discussions were very helpful because we could feed off ofeach other and get our thoughts out there while also hearing new points we may havenever thought about’’; ‘‘the group discussions were great because we get to show differentthoughts and ideas’’; and finally, ‘‘the group work was helpful because we were able to gainmultiple viewpoints for each scenario. It was also good because it forced us to read andresearch beforehand, discuss it, and then finally listen to others. Learning was easier whenwe listened and became involved.’’ These quotations suggested that group work offeredan opportunity to engage multiple perspectives, which unto itself supports the learningof assessment as a multidimensional, complex educational construct. Further, perspective-building conversations and activities required students to articulate and synthesize theirperspectives by drawing together assessment theory, terminology, and experience. Thisnotion was directly supported by one student who stated, ‘‘the small group discussions ofarticles and scenarios provided a closer look at the readings and material that I feel helpsmy comprehension and ability to talk about assessment issues.’’

The second dimension of a perspective-building conversational pedagogy that par-ticipants described as important to their learning was the analytic scaffolding and scalefor these conversations. Rather than simply giving teacher candidates case studies andassessment dilemmas and asking them to discuss them, teacher candidates were typicallyprovided with a guide to structure their discussions. For example, students may have beenasked to approach the case study or dilemma through specific educational stakeholderperspectives or specific theoretical perspectives. These activities often began with an in-dividual response, followed by a small group conversation, and concluding with wholeclass discussion. Each of these scales enables meaning-making and perspective-buildingby enlarging the dialogue based on participants’ initial individual perspectives structuredthrough a common analytic scaffold.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

4:56

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

134 C. DeLuca et al.

As support for this pedagogical structure, one participant commented, ‘‘I found thegroup-based instruction helpful because it allowed for scaffolding amongst me and mypeers.’’ Another participant noted that, ‘‘the group activities that led to class discussionswere good because they exposed me to many different ideas about the given topics and ex-panded my understanding about assessment.’’ Similar comments were echoed throughoutthe questionnaires. Finally, the scaffolded structure of perspective-building conversationspotentially encouraged greater student participation in small group and class conversationsas one participant expressed, ‘‘as a student, I can be slightly shy but when I’m involved witha small group as an individual I’m more open. I feel more comfortable and I feel better insharing my thoughts and opinions.’’ Accordingly, creating a scaffolded, dialogical contextbased on perspective-building activities may serve to promote inclusivity and extend thereach of learning to students who may otherwise be less engaged in class discussions.

The final dimension of perspective-building conversations that participants recog-nized as beneficial to their learning was the ability of this pedagogy to provoke theirmetacognitive development. Participants asserted that this pedagogical structure madethem more aware of how to think about their own thinking on assessment. One par-ticipant noted, ‘‘higher order group discussions helped me to think metacognitively abouthow I think or understand the concepts being presented and therefore I am able tocompare my thoughts on the topic to those of my peers and instructor.’’ Participants alsoshowed evidence of using these conversations for metacognitive development and to plantheir future learning. One student described an instance in which a group conversationabout accommodating students with exceptionalities led him to reconsider his perspectiveon re-testing. Based on this reconsideration, the student identified that he needed tolearn more about the relationship between standards-based assessments and students withspecific learning needs. Although this particular dimension was less emphasized acrossthe data, it represents an important dimension for assessment education pedagogy; asone aim of assessment in classrooms should be to support students’ metacognitive de-velopment (e.g., Earl, 2003). Having teacher candidates experience and explicitly iden-tify activities that promote their metacognitive development supports the modeling ofassessment principles, further encouraging changes in teacher candidates’ conceptions ofassessment.

While participants identified multiple examples of this pedagogical approach through-out the course, we have selected one specific perspective-building activity to describe indetail as an illustration of this pedagogical approach. This example relates to discussionson assessment fairness and specifically issues of assessment reliability, validity, and bias.

Perspective-Building Example: Conversation on Assessment Fairness

In developing teacher candidates’ conceptions on the broad topic of assessment fairness,it is necessary for teacher candidates to understand independently and interconnectedlyconcepts of reliability, validity, and bias (Ediger, 2002). In this perspective-building activity,teacher candidates are first asked to write keywords related to the concept of ‘‘fairness inassessment’’ on index cards and place them in the center of their group table. Specifically,teacher candidates are given the prompt: When you think of fairness in assessment, whatwords come to mind? Teacher candidates are then invited to free write a personal definitionfor the concept of ‘‘assessment fairness.’’ After an instructor-led short presentation onassessment fairness based on the textbook and a typology of assessment fairness that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

4:56

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Pedagogies for Assessment Education 135

includes consideration of assessment reliability, validity, and bias, teacher candidates areasked to revise their initial definition and discuss in groups what changes they made totheir definitions. Then teacher candidates are asked to work in groups to classify theirinitial keywords on assessment fairness as related to either an issue of reliability, validity,and bias. Once agreed upon in groups, teacher candidates post their keywords underthe three headings on the blackboard. As a class, each cluster of keywords is discussedand words are repositioned based on their relationship to the core fairness concepts. Inthis way, individual student learning is compared with group learning and then to classlearning.

Praxis: Connecting Theory and Practice

Teacher candidates discussed the benefits of various activities that facilitated connectionsbetween assessment theory and classroom practice as related to two praxis codes: (a) class

structure and activities and (b) authentic learning tasks. Class sessions were generally structuredwith an inquiry-based warm-up activity, followed by a short presentation and discussionof the core concept for the session and then an individual or group learning activity.Sessions would end with a link to teacher candidates’ portfolios, which were collections oftasks related to class sessions that demonstrated teacher candidates’ learning. This generalclass structure and the embedded activities were described by one teacher candidate asenabling ‘‘a lot of differentiated learning styles through instruction.’’ Teacher candidatesalso indicated benefits of this class structure and activities with statements including, ‘‘classactivities have been helpful in showing me the concepts’’; ‘‘hands-on activities were greatbecause it allowed us to see concretely aspects of measurements’’; and ‘‘for me, applyingthe information as I learned it helped me to remember it.’’ While we recognize thatthis class structure does not represent a particularly innovative pedagogy, its emphasis onestablishing connections between concepts, revisiting concepts through various learningmodalities and experiences, and engaging in hands-on tasks appeared a salient structurefor reinforcing assessment ideas for teacher candidates.

From the beginning of the course, activities offered students opportunities to connecttheir personal ideas and experiences with assessment to others’ experiences and to assess-ment theory. This approach not only served to invoke a socio-constructivist frameworkto learning but also facilitated natural praxis linkages that allowed students to articulateconnections between theory and practice. One specific activity that appeared repeatedlyin questionnaire responses was the opportunity to engage in structured debates. Forexample, in one class session, teacher candidates were asked to debate the benefits andchallenges to various forms of assessment (i.e., assessment for learning, assessment aslearning, and assessment of learning), and then pose rebuttal arguments to further situateand problematize these assessment conceptions in relation to classroom practices andpracticalities. Respondents described the benefit of debates as ‘‘helpful in order to talkand ask questions about specific topics’’ and ‘‘I really enjoy the approach of having studentstake sides on an issue and present their pros and cons to it.’’

Also embedded within the class structure and activities code was the recognition thatlearning about assessment could be fun. ‘‘I especially enjoy when we do activities becausethey really give me helpful information and they are usually fun’’ one teacher candidatenoted. Another participant commented, ‘‘I like the breaks we get by getting up and doingactivities.’’ This quotation is particularly impressive because the teacher candidate has

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

4:56

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

136 C. DeLuca et al.

assimilated ‘‘doing activities’’ with ‘‘breaks.’’ This notion suggests a view that separates thetraditional association of learning as ‘‘hard work’’ and instead recognizes that active andeffective learning about assessment can feel like a break from traditional learning struc-tures. Another teacher candidate coupled the ideas of fun and active/engaged learningby stating, ‘‘When I first signed up for this course I thought it was going to be boring,but after taking it, it was fun and engaging. I never thought I would think that assessmentcould be fun.’’ This quotation harkens the negative baggage that teacher candidates bringto assessment courses and highlights the importance of changing their conception ofassessment through active and fun learning experiences.

The second code within the praxis theme related to engaging teacher candidatesin authentic learning tasks. Participants expressed an appreciation for hands-on tasks thatrequired them to explicitly link assessment theory to practical contexts of teaching. Further,participants noted the value of authentic learning tasks within both class learning activitiesand course assignments. One teacher candidate noted, ‘‘I like that the info becomesmore real to me because I’m moving and applying it.’’ Another candidate commented,‘‘it is very helpful when the assignment connects to actual things teachers need to do,like in our Assessment Portfolio entries.’’ One teacher candidate described another as-signment, the Assessment Dilemma Presentation, as being ‘‘a student directed study’’that allowed ‘‘us to look at something that matters to us in our teaching.’’ This grouppresentation assignment required teacher candidates to connect assessment theory to apractical assessment dilemma that extended beyond the covered course content and thatmaintained at least two opposing perspectives. Another teacher identified a more globalbenefit of this assignment, linking it to the authentic tasks of professional collaborationand teaching to peers: ‘‘I like the group projects. It gets all the students involved in thelearning process and is collaborative. It also gives us practice standing in front of a classteaching.’’

In order to further articulate the pedagogical theme of praxis, we detail the AssessmentPortfolio assignment below as it was widely represented in participant data as a corelearning task that facilitated connections between theory and practice.

Praxis Example: The Assessment Portfolio

The Assessment Portfolio was a large-scale project that documented teacher candidates’learning about assessment over the semester. The portfolio consisted of seven praxis-based entries, two critical reflection statements, and two peer evaluations. The praxis-basedentries included: creating a table of specifications based on classifying state standards,outlining a standards-based assessment plan for a unit of study, constructing objectiveand performance assessments to measure student learning, writing letters communicatingresults from a teacher-made assessment and a standardized assessment report to parentsand administrators, and articulating a pedagogical plan for integrating assessment to servediverse student learning needs. Entries were completed on an ongoing basis throughout thesemester and submitted for formative instructor-based feedback. Additionally, at two pointsthroughout the term, teacher candidates’ received feedback from their peers throughstructured, in-class peer evaluation sessions. All feedback was provided based on a commonrubric for the assignment in addition to qualitative comments.

The portfolio entries were viewed by teacher candidates as relevant and authentictasks, as noted in the following specific comments:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

4:56

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Pedagogies for Assessment Education 137

� ‘‘By adding Bloom’s into the lesson plan, it can solidify that teachers can provideinformation that students will be able to master’’;

� ‘‘The link between what we learn in class and the assessment portfolio has helped meunderstand what it will potentially look like in the classroom’’;

� ‘‘Portfolio entries have aided me in being able to group together all the conceptslearned thus far and then I’m able to combine new information learned with previousinformation and how it can be applied to my career as an educator’’; and

� ‘‘Learning to create a valid and reliable assessment was useful because I was able toutilize the assessment in my level 2 internship and I feel that creating tests and rubricsin this course will help me in the future as I measure my students’ understanding.’’

As evidenced by these quotations, the portfolio project emphasized praxis and connectingassessment theory to authentic teaching performance tasks.

Modeling: Practice What You Preach

Following James and Pedder’s (2006) approach of integrating assessment in teacher profes-sional development, the measurement course was designed to model assessment practicesfor teacher candidates, while explicitly instructing on assessment concepts and practices.Most of the comments that addressed in-class learning activities identified (both directlyand indirectly) the modeling of formative and summative assessment practices as highlysupportive to teacher candidates’ learning. The majority of participant feedback aboutmodeling aligned with the first code in this theme, that of modeling through assessment

pedagogy. Participants recognized the value of this code through statements such as:

� ‘‘Modeling has been of huge help in this class. Specific and explicit feedback from theteacher is great’’;

� ‘‘I found the examples given, as well as the assessment methods of approaching thematerial to be very helpful’’; and

� ‘‘There was a clear effort to use the assessment practices we were learning to help uslearn.’’

Further, participants identified specific assessment instructional strategies that facilitatedtheir learning. These instructional strategies included: (a) assessment warm-up activities(including assessment simulations, case studies, and formative quizzes) used as diagnosticassessments and as learning structures to engage in course topics; (b) ongoing feedback onportfolio entries including self-, peer-, and instructor-based feedback; (c) in-class activitiesthat involved small group and whole group discussions to check for understanding; (d) theexamination (further explained below); and (e) the structured opportunities to providethe instructor with feedback on course content and delivery.

Aligning course content and grading scheme was identified as a second code related to thetheme of modeling, although far less frequently expressed than modeling through assessment

pedagogy. One teacher candidate noted, ‘‘it is nice that our grades reflect the differencebetween formative assessments and summative assessments.’’ This quotation speaks of thenecessity to maintain a congruent approach between concepts taught about assessment andthe mechanism for grading teacher candidates’ work. For instance, the assessment warm-upactivities, which sometimes involved quizzes on readings and previous course topics, were

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

4:56

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

138 C. DeLuca et al.

never included in students’ final course grades. Similarly, teacher candidates identified theformative feedback opportunities associated with the Assessment Portfolio to be useful indeveloping their ideas and work prior to grading: ‘‘Getting feedback on our work and thenhaving time to revise it before it was graded for the course was helpful.’’ Thus, maintainingalignment between taught assessment concepts and course grading practices served notonly to support teacher candidates’ learning through formative assessment opportunitiesbut also to teach assessment concepts through explicit modeling of grading practices. Thefollowing example illustrates this theme.

Modeling Example: Analyzing Classroom Assessment Data

There was one objective-item examination administered at the mid-point of the semesterto assess teacher candidates’ understanding of foundational concepts in educational mea-surement. The examination consisted of three distinct parts to provide a complete edu-cational assessment experience for the teacher candidates. The first part involved teachercandidates individually sitting for the test. Once complete, they submitted their individualresponses to the instructor. During the second part of the examination, teacher candidatesworked in groups of three to discuss the exam questions and select a response based onthe group discussion and feedback. Both response forms were graded and the averagescore was taken (up to a five point increase) for teacher candidates’ final examinationgrade. During part three, grades were entered into a statistical software program (i.e.,MS Excel) and the class engaged in a joint analysis of examination scores. The analysisinvolved calculating measures of central tendency and variability, discrimination values,and item difficulty indices. Based on the analysis, teacher candidates were asked to makean argument to support modifications to grading of specific items used as part of theirfinal examination grade.

This three-part approach to the examination enabled the individual measurement ofteacher candidate learning, a collaborative group learning opportunity, and an analysis ofexamination scores that had consequences on teacher candidates’ final grades. Thus thisexamination served to model assessment for and of learning principles while engagingstudents in an authentic learning experience. In general, this assessment process waspositively received by teacher candidates, as several participants identified benefits to theirlearning:

� ‘‘I love how we went over the test and got to discuss it with each other’’ and ‘‘themidterm helped me learn some materials because we were able to discuss questions insmall groups’’;

� ‘‘I found it helpful that the teacher actually went through how to do an excel sheet w/the class’’; and

� ‘‘Using our grades on the exam to determine averages and test discrimination madeit more engaging and interesting. I was able to relate to the scores rather than havingthem be random scores that were not real.’’

Critical Reflection and Planning for Professional Learning

While critical reflection and planning for learning was expressed the least among parti-cipant data, we elaborate on it as a pedagogical theme because we believe it represents a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

4:56

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Pedagogies for Assessment Education 139

potentially significant area for promoting teacher candidate development. Critical reflec-tion has been identified in research on teacher pedagogy as a dominant method for sup-porting learning (Cochran-Smith & Landy Lytle, 2009; Schön, 1983). In addition, criticalreflection and planning for learning are congruent activities with an assessment as learning

orientation (Earl, 2003), which seeks to build students’ metacognition through structuredand explicit assessment tasks. In accordance with this previous research, critical reflectionwas explicitly integrated into the assessment course through structured reflections at threepoints throughout the term as part of teacher candidates’ final portfolios. Specifically,teacher candidates were asked to describe and analyze their learning about assessmentsince beginning the assessment course and to identify areas for future development.

As a result of these reflection tasks, three participants explicitly commented that thesetasks supported their learning: ‘‘allowing reflection on assessment has been helpful,’’ ‘‘Ifind the portfolio quite interesting. It helps with reflection,’’ and ‘‘critical reflections/dailyreflections were helpful.’’ Further to making explicit the learning that has occurred overthe term, our aim for using this pedagogical approach was to provide teacher candidateswith an opportunity to articulate their learning and to provide a basis for future profes-sional development. Instructors explicitly emphasized how these critical reflections wereoften used to improve on the delivery of the course, and identify areas for instructor pro-fessional development, in order to implicitly link reflections and professional development.Unfortunately, none of the participants explicitly asserted the value of critical reflectionfor these purposes. This finding may be in part due to a lack of scaffolding and structurefor planning future professional learning or due to the fact that teacher candidates arenew to the profession of teaching and are unaware of the professional opportunities andresources for continued learning. Ideally, we hope to reinforce this pedagogy so thatteacher candidates begin to value critical reflection and professional development as afoundation for developing assessment literacy.

Discussion

Although assessment education is an accelerating field of scholarship given increasedmandates for accountability and data-based instruction in public education, the majorityof studies to date have focused discretely on evaluating the impact of explicit assessmenteducation courses by measuring teacher candidates’ assessment literacy or competency(e.g., Campbell et al., 2002; Chen, 2005; DeLuca & Klinger, 2010; Volante & Fazio, 2007).Few studies have analyzed and articulated the curricular and pedagogical structures thatsupport teacher candidates’ changing conceptions of assessment through these courses(DeLuca et al., 2013). Accordingly, our research served to respond to the vexing question:What pedagogies support teacher candidates’ assessment literacy development? Althoughthere has been some literature published on pedagogical approaches for assessment ed-ucation (Brookhart, 1999; Ediger, 2002; Shepard et al., 2005), the majority of this worklacks empirical support, with more general discussions on teacher education pedagogieslocated in other preservice content areas (e.g., Grossman, 2005; McAllister & Irvine, 2000).

Results from this study provided empirical support for explicit pedagogical constructsthat teacher candidates perceived as effectively supporting their learning. Specifically, thesepedagogical constructs were (a) perspective-building conversations, (b) praxis: connecting theory

to practice, (c) modeling: practice what you preach, and (d) critical reflection and planning for

learning. Aligned with process-based pedagogies used in other teacher education contexts

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

4:56

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

140 C. DeLuca et al.

(McAllister & Irvine, 2000), these four pedagogies provide a basis for articulating the‘‘how’’ of assessment education. However, given that this research was only conductedin one teacher education program, we strongly assert that these pedagogies are only abeginning step in articulating a pedagogical framework for preservice assessment educationand we call for additional research on the pedagogical conditions that support teachercandidate learning.

Cross-cutting the four pedagogies presented in this research are the development offoundational skills to help teacher candidates negotiate and navigate their professionallearning. The emphasis on using assessment to support teacher candidates’ metacognitivedevelopment (i.e., assessment as learning) and the reliance on engaging in perspective-basedcritical reflections served as a basis to promote a stance of professional inquiry (Cochran-Smith & Landy Lytle, 2009) toward assessment. Although not all teacher candidates in thisstudy realized the value of critical reflection or assessment as learning approaches, there wassome evidence that these underlying structures supported the emergence of assessmentliteracy. Given the short duration of the measurement course (i.e., one semester), werecognize that these structures need to be continued, scaffolded, and explicitly practicedthroughout initial teacher education in order to hold more value in promoting teachers’commitment to a stance of inquiry on assessment. In addition, we seek to continue toexplore ways of strengthening teacher candidates’ critical reflection and planning for learn-ing dispositions as a foundation for their continued learning about assessment throughouttheir teaching careers.

What did appear salient across the data on assessment education pedagogies wasthe importance of enacting the four pedagogies in relation to authentic and multiple-perspective activities that connected assessment theory to educational practice. Each ofthe four constructs served to connect assessment theory, practice, and philosophy togetherto support a multifaceted understanding of assessment in education. Whether throughpracticing what you preach or by drawing explicit linkages between assessment theory andthe construction of assessment tasks (e.g., portfolio entries) these pedagogical constructswere able to engage with the complexity of educational assessment, rather than simplypresenting teacher candidates with a ‘‘how to’’ for assessment. We assert that engagingassessment as a complex, multifaceted educational competency is at the core of devel-oping assessment literate teachers–teachers who can meaningfully integrate assessmentwith other aspects of their teaching and learning while considering the technical, ethical,and pragmatic elements of assessing student learning. As such, we assert that there is acontinued need to demonstrate ways of engaging teacher candidates in deep learningabout the evolving complexities of assessment in relation to teaching and learning.

In addition to articulating the four pedagogies identified in our study, we also wantedto present descriptive accounts of specific activities that aligned with each pedagogy toguide future assessment educators as they implement the theoretical constructs identifiedin this research. By doing this, we hope to stimulate further research that documents andreports useful approaches to challenge and change teacher candidates’ conceptions ofassessment. As assessment education scholarship is relatively new as a demarcated field inteacher education, providing descriptive, empirically supported pedagogical strategies willbe useful in expanding teacher education in this area to support teacher candidates asthey develop expertise in assessment.

Further to the previously described limitations of this study, we caution that findingsshould be interpreted with the understanding that data were contextually based and notwidely generalizable. To this end, we assert that this research intended to provide an initial

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

4:56

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Pedagogies for Assessment Education 141

basis for developing empirically supported pedagogical constructs and to articulate specificexamples to help guide the design and implementation of these constructs within localcontexts. Second, we advise that the examples presented in this article are not the onlyinstructional strategies that operationalize the pedagogical constructs; instead, they areintended to stimulate additional instructional strategies within the vein of the constructsdescribed. Lastly, we recognize that these four pedagogical constructs do not represent theentire spectrum of pedagogies that could support teacher candidate assessment literacydevelopment and encourage continued research in this area.

Despite these limitations, this research offers a foundation for continued inquiry intothe pedagogical conditions supporting effective assessment education. Future researchshould explore the utility and value of the pedagogical constructs presented in this studyin relation to other teacher education programs and populations. We also see a needfor additional descriptive accounts of how assessment educators operationalize these andother pedagogical constructs to support teacher candidate learning. Finally, future researchshould continue to investigate the relationship between teacher candidates’ course expe-riences and their actual competency and readiness to assess students once they enter thefield. Given the current reliance on assessment integration across U.S. public educationsystems, these areas of research are necessary to enhance teacher preparation programs tomore effectively support assessment literate beginning teachers.

References

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience

and school. Washington, DC: National Academy.Brookhart, S. M. (1999). Teaching about communicating assessment results and grading. Educational

Measurement: Issues and Practice, 18(1), 5–14.Campbell, C. M., Murphy, J. A., & Holt, J. K. (2002, October). Psychometric analysis of an assessment

literacy instrument: Applicability to preservice teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theMid-Western Educational Research Association, Columbus, OH.

Chen, P. (2005). Teacher candidates’ assessment literacy. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 62(5), 62–66.Cochran-Smith, M., & Landy Lytle, S. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation.

New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Crowe, A., & Berry, A. (2007). Teaching prospective teachers about learning to think like a teacher:

Articulating our principles of practice. In T. Russell & J. Loughran (Eds.), Enacting a pedagogy of

teacher education: Values, relationships and practices (pp. 31–44). New York, NY: Routledge.Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Educa-

tion, 57, 1–15.DeLuca, C., & Klinger, D. A. (2010). Assessment literacy development: Identifying gaps in teacher

candidates’ learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17(4), 419–438.DeLuca, C., Chavez, T., & Cao, C. (2013). Establishing a foundation for valid teacher judgement on

student learning: The role of pre-service assessment education. Assessment in Education: Principles,

Policy & Practice, 20(1), 107–126.DeLuca, C., Klinger, D. A., Searle, M., & Shulha, L. M. (2010). Developing a curriculum for assess-

ment education. Assessment Matters, 2, 20–42.Earl, L. (2003). Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximise student learning. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Ediger, M. (2002). Measurement/evaluation courses in teacher education. Education, 121(1), 169–

177.Graham, P. (2005). Classroom-based assessment: Changing knowledge and practice through preser-

vice teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 607–612.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

4:56

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14

142 C. DeLuca et al.

Grossman, P. L. (1991). Overcoming the apprenticeship of observation in teacher education course-work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(4), 345–357.

Grossman, P. L. (2005). Research on pedagogical approaches in teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research

and teacher education (pp. 425–476). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Associationand Lawrence Erlbaum.

Harlen, W., & Gardner, J. (2010). Assessment to support learning. In J. Gardner, W. Harlen, L.Hayward, G. Stobart, & M. Montgomery (Eds.), Developing teacher assessment (pp. 15–28). NewYork, NY: Open University Press.

Harrison, C. (2005). Teachers developing assessment for learning: Mapping teacher change. Teacher

Development, 9, 255–263.James, M., & Pedder, D. (2006). Professional learning as a condition for assessment for learning. In

J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp. 27–44). London, UK: Sage.Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation [JCSEE]. (2000). The need for student eval-

uation standards. Retrieved from: http://www.jcsee.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/SESNeed.pdf

Loughran, J. J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning

about teaching. New York, NY: Routledge.Maclellan, E. (2004). Initial knowledge states about assessment: Novice teachers’ conceptualizations.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 523–535.McAllister, G., & Irvine, J. J. (2000). Cross cultural competency and multicultural teacher education.

Review of Educational Research, 70(1), 3–24.Mertler, C. (2004). Secondary teachers’ assessment literacy: Does classroom experience make a

difference? American Secondary Education, 33(1), 49–64.Mertler, C. A., & Campbell, C. S. (2005). Measuring teachers’ knowledge and application of classroom

assessment concepts: Development of the Assessment Literacy Inventory. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, QC.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Popham, W. J. (2004). Why assessment illiteracy is professional suicide. Educational Leadership, 62(1),

82–83.Popham, W. J. (2011). Assessment literacy overlooked: A teacher educator’s confession. The Teacher

Educator, 46(4), 265–273.Quilter, S. M., & Gallini, J. K. (2000). Teachers’ assessment literacy and attitudes. The Teacher Educator,

36(2), 115–131.Russell, T., McPherson, S., & Martin, A. K. (2004). Coherence and collaboration in teacher education

reform. Canadian Journal of Education, 26(1), 37–55.Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.Shepard, L., Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., & Rust, F. (2005). Assessment. In L. Darling-

Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn

and be able to do (pp. 275–326). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Stiggins, R. (2005). From formative assessment to assessment for learning: A path to success in

standards-based schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(4), 324–328.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.

Wiliam, D. (2007/2008). Changing classroom practice. Educational Leadership, 65(4), 36–42.Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 3–14.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

4:56

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14