The CAPSQ as a Measure of Classroom Assessment Practices
Items used a 5-point Likert type response scale
describing frequency (1-never to 5-always) of doing an assessment activity.
Three experts on scale development and classroom assessment reviewed the items
in terms of format as well as content clarity and relevance. Items were
subsequently categorized according to the four purposed of assessment based on
a framework currently used by the Western and Northern Canadian Protocol
and described by Earl (2003) and
Earl and Katz (2004). These distinct but interrelated purposes include: 1)
assessment of learning, 2) assessment
as learning, 3) assessment for learning, and 4) assessment to
inform.
Psychometric Evaluation of the CAPSQ
Initial solutions for the
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) that included Bartlett’s test of sphericity, χ2
(210, N = 364) = 5200.62, p < .001, and the size of the
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy (.94) suggest that the
data were satisfactory for factor analysis (Hutcheson & Sofroniou,1999).
Results of the initial PAF yielded a five-factor solution that accounted for a
total variance of approximately 72%. However, promax rotation method with
Kaiser Normalization indicated that only two items (16 and 24) loaded on factor
5, and their content cannot be easily interpreted. Further, items 7, 10, and 18
have similar loadings (i.e., ≥ .30) on two factors. These five items were
subsequently eliminated and EFA was again conducted with the remaining 18
items.
Internal consistency of the factor scores and total score was calculated using Cronbach’s
alpha (α). The four factors demonstrated high internal consistency, with α =
.92 for factor 1, α = .88 for factor 2, α = .83 for factor 3, and α = .85 for
factor 4. Internal consistency for the total score also was high, α = .95.
Inter- factor correlations ranged from .57 (moderate) to .72 (high).
Correlations between CAPSQ factors and total score were all very high (r =
.82-.92), indicating that total score can be the most accurate and valid
estimate of the classroom assessment practices.
The factor structure of the CAPSQ conformed to the
general purposes of classroom assessment that was considered as a framework in
the conceptualization phase of the scale development. All factor and total
scores demonstrated high internal consistency. However, there was strong
evidence of factor-total score overlap suggesting that the total score is the
most valid index when using the CAPSQ to describe classroom assessment
practices. Although this is psychometrically true, item and factor information
may be beneficial when determining teachers’ strengths and weaknesses in
dispensing their roles related to classroom assessment. For example, school
administrators and teachers themselves can examine the pattern of responses at
the factor and item levels for professional development purposes. CAPSQ total
score may be the information to use for research and longitudinal growth
modeling in developmental program evaluation. Descriptions of the empirically
derived four factors of CAPSQ are important to facilitate understanding of
classroom assessment practices
Factor 1: Assessment as learning. This factor refers to the practices
of teachers in giving assessment that is aimed at developing and supporting student’s
knowledge of his/her thought process (i.e., metacognition). Assessment as
learning is translated into practice when teachers assess students by providing
them with opportunities to show what they have learned in class (Murray 2006),
by creating an environment where it is conducive for students to complete an
assigned tasks and by helping students to develop clear criteria of good
learning practices (Hill, 2002). This factor also implies that teachers decide
to assess students to guide them to acquire personal feedback and monitoring of
their learning process (Murray, 2006; Sanchez & Brisk, 2004). Assessment as
learning requires more task-based activities than traditional paper-pencil
tests. This teaching practice provides examples of good self-assessment
practices for students to examine their own learning process (Kubiszyn &
Borich, 2007; Mory, 1992).
Factor 2: Assessment of learning. This factor refers to assessment practices
of teachers to determine current status of student achievement against learning
outcomes and in some cases, how their achievement compare with their peers
(Earl, 2005; Gonzales, 1999; Harlen, 2007). The main focus of assessment of learning is how teachers
make use assessment results to guide instructional and educational decisions
(Bond, 1995; Musial, Nieminem, Thomas & Burle, 2009). Hence, this factor
describes practices that are associated with summative assessment (Glickman,
Gordon, Ross-Gordon, 2009; Harlen, 2007; Struyf, Vandenberghe, & Lens
(2001). In summative assessment, teachers aim to improve
instructional programs based on how students have learned as reflected by various
assessment measures given at the end of the instructional program (Borko et.
al., 1997; Harlen, 2008; Mbelani, 2008). Teachers conduct summative assessment to
make final decisions about the achievement of students at the end of the lesson
or subject (Stiggins, Arter, Chappuis & Chappuis, 2004)
Factor 3: Assessment to inform. This
factor refers to the communicative function of assessment, which is reporting
and utilizing results for various stakeholders (Jones and Tanner, 2008). Teachers
perform assessment to provide information both to students and their parents,
other teachers, schools, and future employers regarding students’ performance
in class (Guillickson, 1984; Sparks, 2005). Assessment to inform is related to assessment
of learning since the intention of assessment is to be able to provide
information to parents about the performance of their children in school at the
end of an instructional program (Harlen, 2008). Teachers use assessment to rank
students and to use assessment results to provide a more precise basis to
represent the achievement of students in class through grades and rating
(Manzano, 2000; Murray, 2006; Sparks, 2005).
Factor 4: Assessment for learning. This factor refers to practices of
teachers to conduct assessment to determine the progress in learning by giving
tests and other tools to measure learning during instruction (Biggs, 1995;
Docky & McDowell, 1997; Murray, 2006; Sadler, 1989; Sparks, 2005). Assessment
for learning or formative assessment requires the use of learning tests,
practice tests, quizzes, unit tests, and the like (Boston, 2002; MacLellan,
2001; Stiggins et al, 2004). Teachers prefer these formative assessment tools to
cover some predetermined segment of instruction that focuses on a limited sample
of learning outcomes Assessment for learning requires careful planning so that teachers
can use the assessment information to determine what students know and gain
insights into how, when and whether students apply what they know (Earl and Katz
(2006).
Interested researchers and users may contact the author (Email: drrichard.gonzales@gmail.com)
You can also find the copy of this study at http://ust-ph.academia.edu/RichardDLCGonzales
Posts
