Teacher attributes as predictors of assessment practices in public universities of Ethiopia

Introduction

Assessment is a process of getting information about learners’ performance, using clearly defined assessment criteria to determine what the learners know or can do and then using that information as evidence for making judgments about learners’ achievements (Department of Basic Education, 2012). The roles of assessment are a critical aspect of ensuring quality education and student development in any academic institution (Brown, et al., 2019). In fact, according to Brown et al. (2019), no factor influences a learning environment as much as assessment. Teachers are actively engaged on various classroom assessment practices as part of making the learning process as effective as it could possibly be. These assessment practices entail a wide range of dimensions such as assessment design, assessment administration, scoring and interpretation, assessment grading, and assessment data utilization or evaluation (Koloi-Keaikitse & Traynor, 2023). Thus, teachers’ assessment practices are a very important aspect of the learning process and they are directly related to students’ learning achievement (Crichton & McDaid, 2016) and key components to effective teaching and learning (Pastore & Andrade, 2019).

Higher education assessment practices play a crucial role of ensuring the achievement of student learning outcomes by providing feedback for improvement. They are the cornerstones of informing instructional decision-making teachers have to rely on (Moss & Brookhart, 2019). In this regard, assessment in Ethiopian universities is one of the major components of the teaching learning process throughout the academic year. Teachers engage themselves on various assessment activities that range from devising an assessment technique to practically putting that in to practice and giving feedback to students. This requires the teachers to make appropriate decisions related to for example, what sorts of assessments are suitable for students, when and how to carry out assessments, what sorts of resources are required to conduct assessments, and how to utilize the information obtained from the assessments effectively. This indicates that teachers are the key drivers of the classroom assessment process from start to end. Therefore, as teachers’ classroom assessment practices are a means by which student learning outcomes are ensured, they need to be sufficiently taken care of Hunduma et al. (2023).

Studies such as Bailey and Garner (2010) found that teachers play a critical role in designing and implementing assessments, and their academic levels influence the quality and effectiveness of their assessment practices. Holmboe et al. (2010) also argued that teachers with higher academic levels demonstrate a deeper understanding of assessment principles and are more likely to employ effective assessment strategies in their teaching. Moreover, Furtak et al. (2016) indicated that teachers with higher academic qualifications and specialized training in formative assessment demonstrated greater proficiency in implementing effective formative assessment strategies. Similarly, students under the guidance of academically qualified teachers demonstrated higher levels of academic achievement through improved self-assessment practices (Yan, 2019). Other studies also outlined the importance of teachers’ level of academic status in designing and implementing assessment tools that effectively measure students’ skills and knowledge (Paiva et al., 2022; Brown et al., 2019; Yan & Brown, 2021).

On the other hand, teaching experience was found to play a crucial role in shaping teachers’ approaches to assessing student learning (Popham, 2011). It is reported that more experienced and academically qualified teachers provide more comprehensive and constructive assessment feedback compared to their less experienced counterparts (Bailey & Garner, 2010). Moreover, other studies (such as Gamage et al., 2020; Susan & Catherine, 2017; Moss & Brookhart, 2019; Black and Wiliam, 2018) argue that experienced teachers demonstrate a deeper understanding of assessment principles and are adept at implementing formative and summative assessment techniques more effectively.

The other attribute having a profound effect on teachers’ assessment practice differences is the assessment training received by teachers. In this regard, Jacob, Hill, and Corey (2017) indicated that training programs can significantly improve teachers’ knowledge and instructional practices, which could also extend to assessment practices. Similarly, Brookhart (2011) provided insights into the educational assessment knowledge and skills for teachers and indicated that teachers who have undergone specific trainings in assessment exhibit more confidence and competence in designing and implementing appropriate assessment techniques. Some aspects of the assessment practices of the academic staff may be explained in relation to subject specializations (DeLuca et al., 2016) but the importance of educational assessment knowledge and skills for teachers acquired through objective training is emphasized (Brookhart, 2011; DeLuca et al., 2016; Yan & Brown, 2021). Therefore, regardless of a teacher’s field of specialization, there definitely is a need to put an emphasis on assessment literacy in teacher training programs to ensure that educators are equipped with the necessary assessment skills and preparedness.

In different levels of academic institutions including universities, although teachers play a key role in the overall classroom assessment process, there are disparities among them. This is supported by researchers such as Bruggeman et al. (2021) and Matovu and Zubairi (2015) who found out that assessment practices vary among teachers of different higher education institutions as well as in their departments, faculties, and universities. As a result, they suggested consistency of assessment policies and strategies among institutions and within their constituent departments and faculties. Moreover, other studies reported inconsistencies in the factors influencing teachers’ assessment practices (Boud & Associates, 2010; Zhang & Burry-Stock, 2003; Koloi-Keaikitse & Traynor, 2023; Popham, 2009; Koloi-Keaikitse, 2017; Borghouts, et al., 2016). However, many of these studies have been done in primary and secondary schools although a few (such as Postareff et al., 2012; Xu, & Liu, 2009) have been done in universities.

In Ethiopia, a few researchers (Soromessa, 2015; Mekonnen, 2014; Chalchisa, 2014; Belay, 2017; Abera et al., 2017; Moges, 2018) investigated some aspects of assessment such as implementation and challenges of continuous assessment. Tulu and Tolosa (2018) studied classroom assessment in secondary schools but it was limited to the techniques used and the challenges faced by the teachers during their assessment works. Hunduma et al. (2023) investigated perceptions and practices of continuous assessment in government higher learning institutions. However, no research exists regarding the differences in assessment practices of teachers with respect to their attributes in public universities of Ethiopia. Thus, understanding assessment practices of university teachers serves as a way of finding out whether they adopt or use quality assessment practices to meet the learning needs of students and the varying needs of other stakeholders. Therefore, this research was aimed to investigate the relationship of teachers’ academic status, years of teaching experience, field of specialization, and levels of assessment training with their classroom assessment practices. Thus, the study formulated the following basic research questions and hypotheses.

Methods

Results

Discussion

The study revealed that level of academic status, years of teaching experience and assessment training teachers received depicted significant differences in teachers’ assessment practices. Moreover, significant interaction effects of academic status and specialization was observed on the assessment practices of teachers. In a more detailed analysis, the different levels of each of the independent variables (academic status, teaching experience, field of specialization, and assessment training) were compared on the basis of the four dependent variables of assessment practices (designing assessments; administering, scoring and interpreting assessments; grading assessments; and application of assessment results).

Academic status (graduate assistants, lecturers, assistant professors, associate professors, and professors) was compared against each of the dependent variables and significant differences were observed among the different levels among them. For instance, in designing assessments, graduate assistants and lecturers were significantly different from all the other higher academic statuses and with each other as well. Higher academic statuses (assistant professors, associate professors, professors) were significantly different from the relatively lower academic statuses (graduate assistants and lecturers) but not with each other.

In administering, scoring, and interpreting assessments, graduate assistants and lecturers significantly differed from all the other higher academic statuses and with each other as well. Assistant professors were significantly different from graduate assistants, lecturers, and professors but not with associate professors. Associate professors were significantly different from graduate assistants and lecturers but not from assistant professors and professors. Lastly, professors were significantly different from graduate assistants, lecturers and with assistant professors. However, significant difference was not observed with associate professors.

In assessment grading, graduate assistants and lecturers were significantly different from all the other levels. Assistant professors were significantly different in assessment grading form graduate assistants and lecturers but not from associate professors and professors. Similarly, associate professors and professors were significantly different in assessment grading form graduate assistants and lecturers but not with assistant professors. Lastly, in application of assessment results, graduate assistants and lecturers were significantly different from all the other academic levels. However, assistant professors, associate professors and professors had significant differences with graduate assistants and lecturers in a similar way but not significantly with each other.

Overall, the findings revealed that academic status of university teachers is significantly related to their assessment practices. This is supported by Park et al. (2016) who revealed that the academic level of teachers is a sole contributor to their assessment practices because teachers with higher academic levels demonstrate a more nuanced understanding and use of assessment practices. Gable et al. (2012) also found that teachers with higher academic levels and academic status exhibited greater preparedness to implement evidence-based assessment practices. Other studies also suggested that teachers with a higher academic levesl demonstrate a deeper understanding of assessment principles and are more likely to employ effective assessment strategies in their teaching (Bailey and Garner, 2010; Scarino, 2013; Holmboe et al., 2010).

Differences were observed among university teachers with different years of teaching experience (1 to 5, 6 to 10, 11 to 15, 16-20, 21 and above years) with respect to the different assessment practices dependent variables. For example, in designing assessments, teachers with 1 to 5 and 6 to 10 years of teaching experience were significantly different from all the other groups with more than 10 years of teaching experience. Teachers with more than 10 years of experience had significant differences from those with below 10 years of experience, but were not significantly different from one another.

In administering, scoring and interpreting assessments, teachers having below 10 years of teaching experience had significant differences with all the other groups with more than 10 years of experience. Teachers with 11 to 15 years of experience had significant differences from those with below 10 years and 21 and above years of experience but not from those with 16 to 20 years of experience. Teachers with 16 to 20 years of experience had significant differences with those less than 10 years of experience but not from the other groups with more than 10 years of experience. Lastly, those teachers with 21 and above years of experience had significant differences with those less than 15 years of experience but not from those with 16 to 20 years. In grading assessments, the groups below 10 years of experience had significant differences with those groups having experience of 16 years and above. Similarly, those with 21 and above years of experience had significant differences from all the other groups except from those with 16 to 20 years of experience which were not significant. This scenario in grading was similar in application of assessments as well.

Overall, these findings revealed that teaching experience matters in classroom assessment practices of teachers and has practical implications for institutional administrators who work with both inexperienced and experienced teachers. In this respect, studies found that teaching experience significantly influences teachers’ assessment practices and that experienced teachers demonstrate a deeper understanding of assessment principles and are adept at implementing formative and summative assessment techniques (Berendonk et al., 2012; Gamage et al., 2020; Cook and Ellaway, 2015). Similarly, other studies emphasized the dynamic nature of assessment practices and the need for teachers to develop multifaceted assessment literacy through training and practical experiences to develop their confidence to adapt to changing educational landscapes (Willis et al., 2013; Brookhart, 2011). As it has been shown that teachers with more teaching experience gain more confidence in using different assessment practices, they can therefore be asked to mentor the novice teachers in their institutions, departments etc.

In the different levels of assessment training (no assessment training at all, training on only some topics of assessment, training on one course dedicated to assessment, and training on more than one courses of assessment), significant differences were observed when compared on the basis of the four assessment practices dependent variables. For example, in designing assessments, teachers who received no assessment training at all depicted significant differences from all the other groups. Teachers who received training on some topics of assessment had significant differences with all the other groups except from those who had a course dedicated to assessment. Those who received a course dedicated to assessment had significant differences from all the other groups except from those with training on some topics of assessment. Those who received more than one course of assessment had significant differences from all the other groups.

In assessment administration, scoring and interpretation, teachers who received no assessment training at all had significant differences from all the other groups. Those teachers who received training on only some topics of assessment had significant difference with all the other groups except with those who took a course dedicated to assessment which showed no significant difference. Those teachers who received one course dedicated to assessment had significant differences from all the other groups except those who took some topics of assessment which significant difference was not observed. Lastly, those teachers who received training on more than one course of assessment had significant differences with all the other groups.

In relation to grading of assessments, those who received no assessment training at all and those who received training on only some topics of assessment had significant differences with all the other groups. This scenario was similar for those who received training on one course of assessment and also more than one courses of assessment as well. Lastly, in application of assessment results, those teachers who received no assessment training at all had significant differences with all the other groups. This scenario was also similar for the other groups as well. Therefore, the findings of this study clearly depict that assessment training teachers acquire fundamentally influences their assessment practices and have implications for teacher educators.

With training, it is noted that the quality of assessment training attained by the academic staff can determine the effectiveness of assessments they use in any learning institution (Yan and Brown, 2021). For this reason, delivering assessment training courses are some of the ways institutions can equip their academic staff with the required assessment competencies and skills (DeLuca et al., 2016; Livingston, & Hutchinson, 2016). Similarly, Shernoff et al. (2017) emphasized the necessity of integrating a course in assessment with an appropriate text to provide beginning teachers with a more comprehensive understanding of assessment.

Generally, no significant differences were observed among different specializations with respect to teachers’ overall assessment practices. However, significant interaction effects of teachers’ academic status and specialization was observed in this case. This meant that teachers of different specializations with different academic levels were different in their assessment practices. Moreover, significant differences were observed in assessment design between education and behavioral sciences and the other specializations (engineering and technology, agricultural sciences, computational sciences, computing and informatics, and social sciences and humanities). In administering, scoring and interpreting assessments also education and behavioral sciences had significant differences with all the other specializations. Similarly, Matovu and Zubairi (2015) reported statistically significant differences in the interpretation of assessment results in the specializations of Education and Arts. This difference is attributed to the fact that teachers from the education discipline are provided with assessment trainings as part of their university course works. This highlights the importance of developing teachers’ general assessment knowledge and skills that are applicable across different disciplines. This is because assessment skills and practices are not limited to subject-specific knowledge, but rather require a broader understanding of the assessment process, which is not heavily influenced by the teacher’s field of specialization (Brookhart, 2011; Scarino, 2013; Matovu and Zubairi, 2015; Popham, 2011). Therefore, prospective teachers need to be equipped with sufficient assessment knowledge and expertise that would make it possible for them to undertake effective assessments irrespective of their specializations.

As teachers play a pivotal role in the classroom assessment process, understanding how their attributes such as academic status, teaching experience, assessment training they received and specializations relate to their classroom assessment practices is very important. Therefore, findings from this study may provide valuable insights for understanding teachers’ personal attributes with respect to their classroom assessment practices in Ethiopia and elsewhere. This helps to adequately emphasize teachers’ readiness during their training to adequately conduct classroom assessments relative to the significant amount of time they spend on assessment-related activities.

Conclusions

As teachers are primarily responsible for conducting classroom assessment, their classroom assessment practices are fundamental to the education process. Therefore, this study examined differences in assessment practices of public university teachers of Ethiopia with respect to their different academic status, teaching experience, assessment training and specializations. The study concluded that different levels of academic status, teaching experience and assessment training have significant relationships with assessment practices and that they trigger significant differences in the overall assessment practices of teachers. There are significant differences in the different assessment practice variables between teachers with higher academic statuses and those with relatively lower ones. This scenario works in a similar way for years of teaching experience as well as levels of assessment training they received. There are significant differences in the different levels of experience and assessment training teachers received with respect to the specific assessment practices dependent variables. Therefore, the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference in assessment practices of teachers with respect to their different academic status, teaching experience, and assessment training is rejected. The claim that there is no relationship between these variables is also rejected. Moreover, significant differences were observed among some specializations with respect to some specific assessment practices dependent variables although significant differences were not observed with respect to the combined dependent variable (assessment practice).

Therefore, the findings from this study indicate that professional development programs having practical implications for classroom assessment should be devised and provided to university teachers based on appropriate needs. Real time assessment experiences and training opportunities for teachers should be arranged according to the curriculum needs and existing gaps in assessment irrespective of their fields of specializations. The content of teacher education course requirements should be analyzed based on the curriculum needs and ensure the inclusion of assessment courses. In addition, any form of in-service workshop offerings should consider teachers’ needs based on the curriculum requirements to narrow persistent assessment practice gaps among teachers of different academic status, experiences and specializations. Training targeted directly towards critical assessment skills that teachers are required to have with respect to their specializations and the academic level of their students. This is fundamental in ensuring that all learners are assessed appropriately. Future studies who wish to study teachers’ classroom assessment practices should be able to corroborate findings from appropriate qualitative methods to complement findings from quantitative analyses. In future studies, besides the teacher related factors, considering other variables which are potentially related to assessment practices in universities would be appropriate.