Geography Teachers’ Practices regarding Summative Assessment: A Study of Pre- Vocational Education in the Netherlands

Abstract

To start a teacher professional development programme on the relationship between classroom summative assessment and learning, the current practices and dispositions of geography teachers towards internal school-based examinations in pre-vocational education in the Netherlands were investigated. A questionnaire provided data on how teachers construct these examinations and how they perceive the extent to which they use test items in these examinations that appeal to distinct cognitive processes. The data were statistically analysed to explore teachers’ practices regarding the construction of the examinations and the correlation with their perceptions on test items appealing to distinct cognitive processes. The results showed that teachers rarely construct test items themselves; instead, they rely to a considerable degree on test items created by outside sources. In particular, older teachers and teachers with greater teaching experience tend to use more test items from outside sources. According to the respondents, about two-thirds of the test items appeal to higher cognitive processes. When teachers do construct test items themselves, however, they perceive to use more test items that appeal to higher cognitive processes. Furthermore, teachers’ dispositions regarding the purpose of the internal school-based examinations seem to be highly influenced by high-stakes tests, such as the national exam.

  

Keywords

• Geography Education,Teacher Professional Development,Teachers’ Practices,Teachers’ Dispositions,Summative Assessment

Kaynakça

1. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
2. Bandura, A. (1989). Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived self -efficacy. Developmental psychology, 25(5), 729-735.
3. Berkel, H., & Bax, A. (2006). Toetsen in het hoger onderwijs [Testing in higher education]. Houten: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum.
4. Bijsterbosch, H., van der Schee, J. A., & Kuiper, W. (2016). Meaningful learning and summative assessment in geography education: An analysis in secondary education in the Netherlands. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education. doi:10.1080/10382046.2016.1217076.
5. Black, P., Harrison, C., Hodgen, J., Marshall, B., & Serret, N. (2010). Validity in teachers' summative assessments. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17(2), 215-232.
6. Black, P., Harrison, C., Hodgen, J., Marshall, B., & Serret, N. (2011). Can teachers’ summative assessments produce dependable results and also enhance classroom learning? Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(4), 451-469.
7. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and Classroom Learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74.
8. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: raising standards through classroom assessment. London: NferNelson.

9. Cizek, G. J., Fitzgerald, S. M., & Rachor, R. E. (1996). Teachers' Assessment Practices: Preparation, Isolation, and the Kitchen Sink. Educational Assessment, 3(2), 159-179.
10. Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and teacher education, 18(8), 947-967.
11. Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff Development and the Process of Teacher Change. Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5-12.
12. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 8(3), 381-391.
13. Harlen, W. (2004a). A systematic review of the evidence of reliability and validity of assessment by teachers used for summative purposes. In: Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education.
14. Harlen, W. (2004b). A systematic review of the evidence of the impact on students, teachers and the curriculum of the process of using assessment by teachers for summative purposes. In: Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education.
15. Harlen, W. (2005). Teachers' summative practices and assessment for learning – tensions and synergies. Curriculum Journal, 16(2), 207-223.
16. Harlen, W., & Deakin Crick, R. (2002). A systematic review of the impact of summative assessment and tests on students' motivation for learning (EPPI-Centre Review, version 1.1). In: Research Evidence in Education Library. Issue 1. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education.
17. Harlen, W., & Deakin Crick, R. (2003). A systematic review of the impact on students and teachers of the use of ICT for assessment of creative and critical thinking skills. In: Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education.
18. James, M., & Gipps, C. (1998). Broadening the basis of assessment to prevent the narrowing of learning. Curriculum Journal, 9(3), 285-297.
19. Jo, I., & Bednarz, S. W. (2014). Dispositions Toward Teaching Spatial Thinking Through Geography: Conceptualization and an Exemplar Assessment. Journal of Geography, 113(5), 198-207.
20. Klenowski, V., & Wyatt-Smith, C. (2011). The impact of high stakes testing: the Australian story. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 19(1), 65-79.
21. Schunk, D. H. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling, goal setting, and self-evaluation. Reading &Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 159-172.
22. Schussler, D. L. (2006). Defining Dispositions: Wading Through Murky Waters. The Teacher Educator, 41(4), 251-268.
23. Schussler, D. L., Stooksberry, L. M., & Bercaw, L. A. (2010). Understanding teacher candidate dispositions: Reflecting to build self-awareness. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(4), 350- 363.
24. Stimpson, P. (2006). Changing assessments. In L. Lidstone & M. Williams (Eds.), Geographical Education in a Changing World: Past Experience, Current Trends and Future Challenges. (pp. 73-84). Dordrecht: Springer.
25. Weeden, P. (2013). How do we link assessment to making progress in geography? In D. Lambert & M. Jones (Eds.), Debates in Geography Education (pp. 143-154). London: Routledge.
26. Wertheim, J. A., Edelson, D. C., & The Road Map Project Assessment Committee (2013). A Road Map for Improving Geography Assessment. The Geography Teacher, 10(1), 15-21.
27. Wiliam, D. (1993). Validity, dependability and reliability in National Curriculum assessment. Curriculum Journal Curriculum Journal, 4(3), 335-350.