Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Validity and the design of classroom assessment in teacher teams

  • Published:
The Australian Educational Researcher Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The validity of evidence obtained from classroom assessments in schools is an important concept as significant decisions are made from teachers’ judgments of this evidence. However, what is not clear are the classroom assessment practices that teacher teams use to ensure that the evidence of student learning produced from classroom assessments is valid for their purpose. This qualitative study examined the assessment practices, focussing on validity, from three primary school teacher teams in Australia as they designed classroom assessments in mathematics. From the analysis, four broad themes associated with validity were identified: alignment with curriculum and instruction, catering for student abilities, the scoring rubric and using classroom assessments data to meet students’ needs. These findings could contribute to research and assessment practices in schools that enhance the validity of the evidence collected from classroom assessments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ado, K. (2013). Designing their own: Increasing urban high school teacher capacity for creating interim assessments. High School Journal, 97(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2013.0020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council of Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Education Council. (2019). Alice springs (Mparntwe) education declaration. Melbourne: Australian Education Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayala, C. C., Shavelson, R. J., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Brandon, P. R., Yin, Y., Furtak, E. M., et al. (2008). From formal embedded assessments to reflective lessons: The development of formative assessment studies. Applied Measurement in Education, 21(4), 315–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957340802347787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beuving, J., & de Vries, G. (2014). Doing qualitative research: The craft of naturalistic inquiry. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2018). Classroom assessment and pedagogy. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 25(6), 551–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2018.1441807

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonner, S. (2013). Validity in classroom assessments: Puposes, properties and principles. In J. H. McMillan (Ed.), SAGE handbook of research on classroom assessment (pp. 87–106). SAGE Publications Inc.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bonner, S. (2017). Using learning theory and validity theory to improve classroom assessment research, design, and implementation. Paper presented at the National Council on Measurement in Education San Antonio, Texas.

  • Bonner, S., & Chen, P. (2019). Systematic classroom assessment: An approach for regulated learning and self-regulation. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Coombs, A., DeLuca, C., LaPointe-McEwan, D., & Chalas, A. (2018). Changing approaches to classroom assessment: An empirical study across teacher career stages. Teaching and Teacher Education, 71, 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.12.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fives, H., & Barnes, N. (2017). Informed and uninformed naïve assessment constructors’ strategies for item selection. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(1), 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487116668019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frederiksen, J. R., & White, B. Y. (2004). Designing assessments for instruction and accountability: An application of validity theory to assessing scientific inquiry. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 103(2), 74–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7984.2004.tb00049.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. B., Petersen, S., Edwards, L. M., Pedrotti, J. T., & Peyton, V. (2005). Item-writing rules: Collective wisdom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(4), 357–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.01.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. B., & Schmitt, V. L. (2010). Teachers’ classroom assessment practices. Middle Grades Research Journal, 5(3), 107–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulton, K., & Britton, T. (2011). STEM teachers in professional learning communities: From good teachers to great teaching. Washington, DC: National Commission on Teaching and Americas Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gale, N. K., Heath, G., Cameron, E., Rashid, S., & Redwood, S. (2013). Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13(1), 117. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goss, P., Hunter, J., Romanes, D., & Parsonage, H. (2015). Targeted teaching: How better use of data can improve student learning. Grattan Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haladyna, T. M., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2013). Developing and validating test items. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heredia, S. C., Furtak, E. M., Morrison, D., & Renga, I. P. (2016). Science teachers’ representations of classroom practice in the process of formative assessment design. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27(7), 697–716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9482-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hermansen, H. (2014). Recontextualising assessment resources for use in local settings: Opening up the black box of teachers’ knowledge work. Curriculum Journal, 25(4), 470–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2014.956771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hermansen, H., & Nerland, M. (2014). Reworking practice through an AfL project: An analysis of teachers’ collaborative engagement with new assessment guidelines. British Educational Research Journal, 40(1), 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lingard, B., Sellar, S., Hogan, A., & Thompson, G. (2017). Commercialisation in public schooling (CIPS). Sydney: NSW Teachers Federation.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMillan, J. H. (2013). Why we need research on classroom assessment. In J. H. McMillan (Ed.), SAGE handbook of research on classroom assessment (pp. 3–16). SAGE Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messick, S. (1990). Validity of test interpretation and use. Princeton: Educational Testing Service.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. M., Linn, R. L., & Gronlund, N. E. (2013). Measurement and assessment in teaching (11th ed.). Singapore: Pearson Education South East Asia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moolenaar, N. M., Sleegers, P. J. C., & Daly, A. J. (2012). Teaming up: Linking collaboration networks, collective efficacy, and student achievement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(2), 251–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.10.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NSW Education Standards Authority (2019). Recording evidence. https://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/nesa/k-10/understanding-the-curriculum/assessment/recording-evidence.

  • Pellegrino, J. W. (2016). Introduction to special section of educational psychologist on educational assessment: Validity arguments and evidence—blending cognitive, instructional, and measurement models and methods. Educational Psychologist, 51(1), 57–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1150786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pellegrino, J. W., DiBello, L. V., & Goldman, S. R. (2016). A framework for conceptualizing and evaluating the validity of instructionally relevant assessments. Educational Psychologist, 51(1), 59–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1145550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pellegrino, J. W., & Wilson, M. (2015). Assessment of complex cognition: Commentary on the design and validation of assessments. Theory Into Practice, 54(3), 263–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2015.1044377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popham, W. J. (1997). Consequential validity: Right concern - wrong concept. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(2), 9–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popham, W. J. (2009). Assessment literacy for teachers: Faddish or fundamental? Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802577536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santiago, P., Donaldson, G., Herman, J., & Shrewbridge, C. (2011). OECD reviews of evaluation and assessment in education: Australia. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shepard, L. A. (2019). Classroom assessment to support teaching and learning. Annals of the American Academy of Political & Social Science, 683(1), 183–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716219843818

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veldhuis, M., & van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2019). Supporting primary school teachers’ classroom assessment in mathematics education: Effects on student achievement. Mathematics Education Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-019-00270-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, University of Wollongong, Northfields Avenue, New South Wales, 2525, Australia

    Kellie Buckley-Walker & Kylie Lipscombe

Authors
  1. Kellie Buckley-Walker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kylie Lipscombe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kellie Buckley-Walker.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix

Initial interview questions

  1. 1.

    What does the term classroom assessment mean to you?

  2. 2.

    Explain how your beliefs on assessment are similar and/or different to your colleagues?

  3. 3.

    Describe your experiences (e.g. what types of assessments have you designed, how many tasks have you designed) of designing assessments

    1. a.

      On your own.

    2. b.

      As a part of a team (e.g. did you have specific roles).

  4. 4.

    Thinking of your experiences of designing assessments on your own, describe the processes or steps that you go through in designing assessments. What are the strengths and limitations of this process?

  5. 5.

    Thinking about your experiences in designing collaborative assessments.

    1. a.

      Describe how the processes of designing assessments as part of a team are similar and/or different to designing assessments on your own.

    2. b.

      Who participates in the design of collaborative assessment tasks?

    3. c.

      How do team members participate with one another?

    4. d.

      How do the collaborative processes impact the final product of the assessment task?

    5. e.

      What are the strengths and limitations of this process?

    6. f.

      What did you learn from the collaborative process of designing classroom-based assessments?

Final interview questions

The Final Interview Questions will be based on the answers supplied in the initial interview and the recorded meetings and final assessment produced. Stimulated recall will be used on the final product to aid the participants with their recall of the experiences.

Example questions:

  1. 1.

    As we view the final product of the assessment task, can you tell me about:

    1. a.

      The processes that took place in the design of the assessment task?

    2. b.

      Your contributions to the final product?

    3. c.

      Your team member’s contributions to the final product?

  2. 2.

    How would you judge the success of the collaborative processes of your team?

    1. a.

      What elements contributed to the success?

    2. b.

      What elements were obstacles or challenges?

  3. 3.

    How would you judge the success of the collaborative processes on the final product?

    1. a.

      What elements contributed to the success?

    2. b.

      What elements were obstacles or challenges?

  4. 4.

    Did your beliefs on assessment change due the collaborative process? Do you think you were able to influence the belief of your colleagues, if so in what way?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Buckley-Walker, K., Lipscombe, K. Validity and the design of classroom assessment in teacher teams. Aust. Educ. Res. 49, 425–444 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-021-00437-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-021-00437-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation