Elementary school teachers’ and principals’ views regarding components of optimal formative teacher assessment

IF 2 4区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Irit Levy-Feldman , Barbara Fresko
{"title":"Elementary school teachers’ and principals’ views regarding components of optimal formative teacher assessment","authors":"Irit Levy-Feldman ,&nbsp;Barbara Fresko","doi":"10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2025.102697","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Formative teacher assessment models aim at identifying individual strengths and weaknesses as a basis for planning actions to stimulate professional development. School principals and teachers may perceive the process of teacher assessment differently which ultimately may influence its efficacy. In the present study the views of elementary school teachers and principals were compared concerning four major components of an optimal formative teacher assessment scheme: assessment criteria, sources of information, active partners, and actions following assessment. Data were collected by questionnaire from 1166 teachers and 177 principals, who rated the importance of including different aspects of the four components in such a scheme. Overall, teachers and principals held comparable visions that emphasize a comprehensive and varied assessment model encompassing a multiplicity of criteria, several active partners, various sources of information, and the use of teacher assessment for planning individual and staff development. However, consistent differences were found in the strength of their ratings, suggesting that principals tend to be more confident of their views than teachers. Identifying similarities and differences in what principals and teachers expect to be included in optimal formative teacher assessment can inform the design of assessment schemes to effectively support professional development. The findings of this study have broader relevance to formative dialogic assessment practices by emphasizing the importance of agreement between evaluators and those being evaluated regarding the process and purpose of assessment, as well as the need for linkage between assessment results and a concrete plan for their utilization to improve educational processes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48046,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation and Program Planning","volume":"113 ","pages":"Article 102697"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation and Program Planning","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718925001648","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Formative teacher assessment models aim at identifying individual strengths and weaknesses as a basis for planning actions to stimulate professional development. School principals and teachers may perceive the process of teacher assessment differently which ultimately may influence its efficacy. In the present study the views of elementary school teachers and principals were compared concerning four major components of an optimal formative teacher assessment scheme: assessment criteria, sources of information, active partners, and actions following assessment. Data were collected by questionnaire from 1166 teachers and 177 principals, who rated the importance of including different aspects of the four components in such a scheme. Overall, teachers and principals held comparable visions that emphasize a comprehensive and varied assessment model encompassing a multiplicity of criteria, several active partners, various sources of information, and the use of teacher assessment for planning individual and staff development. However, consistent differences were found in the strength of their ratings, suggesting that principals tend to be more confident of their views than teachers. Identifying similarities and differences in what principals and teachers expect to be included in optimal formative teacher assessment can inform the design of assessment schemes to effectively support professional development. The findings of this study have broader relevance to formative dialogic assessment practices by emphasizing the importance of agreement between evaluators and those being evaluated regarding the process and purpose of assessment, as well as the need for linkage between assessment results and a concrete plan for their utilization to improve educational processes.
小学教师与校长对最优形成性教师评价要素之看法
形成性教师评估模型旨在确定个人的优势和劣势,作为计划行动以促进专业发展的基础。学校校长和教师对教师评估过程的认知可能存在差异,最终可能影响评估的有效性。本研究比较了小学教师和校长对最优形成性教师评估方案的四个主要组成部分的看法:评估标准、信息来源、积极伙伴和评估后的行动。我们以问卷的方式,向1166名教师及177名校长收集资料,让他们评估在该计划中纳入四个组成部分的不同方面的重要性。总体而言,教师和校长都有类似的愿景,强调全面和多样化的评估模式,包括多种标准、几个积极的合作伙伴、各种信息来源,以及利用教师评估来规划个人和员工的发展。然而,在他们的评分强度上发现了一致的差异,这表明校长往往比教师更相信自己的观点。找出校长和教师期望在最佳形成性教师评估中纳入的内容的异同,可以为评估方案的设计提供信息,从而有效地支持专业发展。这项研究的结果与形成性对话评价实践具有更广泛的相关性,因为它强调评价者和被评价者之间就评价的过程和目的达成协议的重要性,以及评价结果与利用评价结果改进教育过程的具体计划之间的联系的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Evaluation and Program Planning
Evaluation and Program Planning SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
6.20%
发文量
112
期刊介绍: Evaluation and Program Planning is based on the principle that the techniques and methods of evaluation and planning transcend the boundaries of specific fields and that relevant contributions to these areas come from people representing many different positions, intellectual traditions, and interests. In order to further the development of evaluation and planning, we publish articles from the private and public sectors in a wide range of areas: organizational development and behavior, training, planning, human resource development, health and mental, social services, mental retardation, corrections, substance abuse, and education.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信