Issues in Educational Research, 32(1), 2022 352

Acquisition of teacher assessment literacy by pre-service

teachers: A review of practices and program designs
Cherry Zin Oo
Yangon University of Education, Myanmar
Dennis Alonzo
University of New South Wales, Australia
Ria Asih
Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang, Indonesia

Teacher assessment literacy research with pre-service teachers (PSTs) has highlighted
that they are not well prepared to use assessments to support student learning. Thus,
initial teacher education (ITE) programs needs to ensure that PSTs are provided with a
range of opportunities to acquire both theoretical and practical assessment knowledge
and skills. We reviewed assessment programs reported in the literature to develop a
framework that will better guide curriculum developers. A total of 12 studies were
considered after an initial literature search from three databases that generated 1002
articles from 1998 to September 2020. We reported the characteristics of assessment
programs, including their orientation, content focus, outcomes measures, approaches
and duration. We also identified some aspects of ITE assessment programs that are least
explored.

Introduction

Teacher assessment literacy is a critical component of effective learning and teaching. In

many educational institutions, the current level of teacher assessment literacy remains
relatively low, including in Australia (Davison & Michell, 2014), the United States
(DeLuca et al., 2013), Europe (Tsagari & Vogt, 2017), Hong Kong (Lam, 2015),
Philippines (Hailaya, 2014), Indonesia (Ahmad, 2020; Zulaiha et al., 2020), and Myanmar
(Hardman et al., 2016). Despite advanced conceptualisations of this construct and many
efforts to engage teachers in professional development, teacher assessment literacy
remains a big concern. This issue can be traced back to the quality of initial teacher
education (ITE) programs (Verberg et al., 2016). Studies in ITE programs show that the
curriculum design does not support pre-service teachers (PSTs) for more effective
assessment knowledge acquisition and practical skills development (Grainger & Adie,
2014; Oo, 2020). There is a consensus across different contexts that the assessment
component of ITE curriculum is insufficient for PSTs to be assessment literate (James &
Pedder, 2006; Siegel & Wissehr, 2011). In particular, ITE programs have an insufficient
emphasis on developing and administering the assessment and interpreting the results,
using data to inform their teaching and improve student learning (Craven et al., 2014).
This has been corroborated by PSTs who believe that they do not have sufficient support
and preparation to improve their assessment knowledge and skills (McGee & Colby, 2014;
Rwehera, 2017; Volante & Fazio, 2007).

To effectively address this issue, researchers have argued that ITE programs need to
ensure that PSTs are provided with a range of opportunities to develop their theoretical
Oo, Alonzo & Asih 353

knowledge and acquire practical skills in assessment (Grainger & Adie, 2014; McGee &
Colby, 2014). Despite making assessment an integral part of the ITE curriculum, research
evidence continues to report that PSTs are not fully supported. This is largely due to the
quality of the design and implementation of an assessment program for promoting
acquisition of PST assessment literacy (Greenberg & Walsh, 2012) embedded in their
learning experience.

Assessment experts and curriculum developers have varied views on what assessment
programs best support PST assessment literacy. This is evident in different approaches
used in assessment courses implemented in various higher education institutions (Xu &
Brown, 2016). To develop a more responsive ITE assessment program, a scoping review
of the research literature can help us understand current practices, to provide an effective
model of designing an ITE assessment program. This is not to say that a single design is
needed, but the program's development should be guided by a framework to ensure that
all components of the program support PST assessment literacy development.

In this scoping review, we aimed to examine extant ITE assessment programs to answer
the following research questions:

1. What are the characteristics of ITE assessment programs in terms of their orientation,
content focus, outcomes measure, approaches and duration?
2. What are the limitations of the extant literature in terms of defining an effective ITE
assessment program?

Assessment literacy: What knowledge and skills are needed?

In building PST assessment literacy, we need to respond to the question: What knowledge
and skills are needed for teachers to be literate in assessment? Clarifying this construct will provide
an overarching framework for the content of ITE assessment programs and clear
measuring of the outcomes fromthese programs.

The most common conceptualisations used are assessment for and as learning, those
assessments being conducted by teachers regularly or daily to gather data aimed at
improving learning were collectively referred to as formative assessment (FA). In contrast,
assessment of learning is referred to as summative assessment (SA) that includes all type of
teacher SA and large scale national and international testing. Researchers have identified
the main difference between FA and SA as residing in their aims and effects on students’
learning, not in such superficial factors as the format or timing of the assessments (Gipps,
1995; Sadler, 1989). However, with years of researching the distinction and effectiveness
of these two types of assessment, many authors have argued that they are supporting each
other in terms of functions (Davison, 2007; Taras, 2009) contrary to the claim of Sadler
(1989), “many of the principles appropriate to summative assessments are not necessarily
transferable to formative assessment, the latter requires a distinctive conceptualisation and
technology" (p. 120).
354 Acquisition of teacher assessment literacy by pre-service teachers

Even Black and Wiliam, who published extensively on FA (1998a, 1998b), have
acknowledged that the distinction between FA and SA is irrelevant when assessment is
conceptualised in the broader pedagogical model (Black & Wiliam, 2018). A view which
was earlier argued by Kennedy et al. (2006) that the distinction between formative and
summative assessment is "no longer useful, even though such a distinction has resulted in
some excellent research and development work on formative assessment" (p. 14), because
summative assessment needs to be used formatively to improve student learning
(Davison, 2013; Harlen, 2005; Kennedy et al., 2007).

This conceptualisation of assessment was formalised by the Assessment Reform Group in

1999 with their push to use assessment for learning to highlight that any forms and types
of assessment should support student learning. They highlighted the term AfL rather than
formative assessment as “the term ‘formative’ itself is open to a variety of interpretations
and often means no more than that assessment is carried out frequently and is planned at
the same time as teaching” (Assessment Reform Group, 1999, p. 7). Meanwhile,
assessment of learning is used for the evaluative purpose of students’ learning collected at
the end of the unit or course.

Therefore, teachers should be prepared to engage all assessment strategies in effective

learning and teaching towards improving student learning. In addition, teachers should be
prepared to design assessment tasks for different levels of students' ability (Wurf & Povey,
2020) and provide personalised feedback to students (Walker et al., 2021). This definition
implies that teachers need to have an adaptive disposition in using their assessment
literacy to support individual students (Loughland & Alonzo, 2018). If teachers are literate
in assessment, they can use these assessments appropriately. Alonzo (2016) highlighted
that teachers' assessment literacy requires them not only to use assessment data to inform
their teaching and to increase students' learning, but also to give information to other
stakeholders. Alonzo provided strong theoretical and empirical evidence to the
dimensionality of teacher AfL literacy. He stressed that “teacher assessment literacy
comprises the knowledge and skills to make highly contextualised, fair, consistent and
trustworthy assessment decisions to inform learning and teaching to effectively support
both students and teachers’ professional learning (p. 58).”

Issues in ITE assessment programs

Issues regarding the assessment component in teacher education include insufficient or
inappropriate assessment components in teacher preparation, concerns with the quality of
assessment courses in teacher education, and insufficient practical knowledge in
assessment courses (Brookhart, 1999; Greenberg & Walsh, 2012; Popham, 2011). In what
follows, a detailed description of each issue is presented.

Insufficient and inappropriate assessment components in teacher education are one of the
key issues that needs to be addressed. According to the findings of Poth (2013) who
analysed 57 assessment course syllabi provided in Western Canadian teacher education
programs, most assessment courses are related to summative purposes. Only a few
courses covered broader assessment concepts, including in the general curriculum or
Oo, Alonzo & Asih 355

educational studies courses in teacher education (DeLuca & Klinger, 2010). The impact of
this narrow focus on assessment literacy is reflected in the study of Ogan-Bekiroglu &
Suzuk (2014) that shows PSTs did not have adequate training related to many areas in
assessment.

Another issue is the competing focus of assessment components in teacher preparation.

Xu and Brown (2016) indicated that current assessment courses have a different emphasis
on assessment content. The general description and the basic concept of the assessment in
the course cannot provide adequate support to be literate in assessment (Greenberg &
Walsh, 2012). Greenberg & Walsh's analysis of 455 assessment courses from over 180
initial teacher education qualifications demonstrated that only 3% of these assessment
programs showed adequate assessment preparation for student teachers in ITE. This issue
has also been cited and argued that the assessment course needs to include more than a
brief coverage of assessment (Oo et al., 2021; Popham, 2011).

There is also an issue related to the quality of the assessment courses. The assessment
component of the teacher education curriculum should be clearly articulated and aligned
with the learning objectives of the assessment context (Hill et al., 2014). Brookhart (2011)
suggested that communicating assessment results and using assessment data needs to
emphasise teacher preparation greatly. Therefore, Ogan-Bekiroglu and Suzuk (2014)
pointed out that the “content and context of an assessment course in teacher education
programmes are prominent issues” (p. 362).

Due to these issues, various approaches are used to build PST assessment literacy.
Assessment programs are provided as a separate or stand-alone course on enhancing
theoretical and practical knowledge. Assessment programs that focus mainly on enhancing
theoretical knowledge prioritise on-campus learning over in-school assessment
(Bloomfield et al., 2013). Strong support in research and practices in PSTs extending
knowledge in their professional experience is still needed in teacher education (Ellis &
Loughland, 2017). The amount of assessment knowledge acquired by PSTs cannot fully
support their effective implementation of assessment in the classroom (Siegel & Wissehr,
2011).

An integrated curriculum course is an approach that embeds assessment concepts in other

methods courses. This approach supports PSTs to learn how to develop integrated units
of work, and design appropriate assessment strategies with specific key learning areas.
However, these courses could not meet PST needs (Craven et al., 2014) because they
provide limited opportunities for PSTs to apply their assessment knowledge and skills in
an authentic classroom setting. The topics on assessment require a more focused
approach to highlight its central role in learning and teaching rather than just a part of the
learning activities (Popham, 2008). Assessment programs are also provided as professional
development (PD) or intervention programs that target the specific needs of PSTs. For
example, McGee and Colby (2014) explored the impact of an assessment course
implemented in the form of PD. Their findings revealed that PSTs increased their
assessment literacy in some areas after the program.
356 Acquisition of teacher assessment literacy by pre-service teachers

Method

To answer the research questions, we conducted a literature review search and analysis
from the initial data search through databases to the study selection for data synthesis
according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)
guidelines (Moher et al., 2009).

Data sources and literature search

An initial search of the literature was conducted through three databases: ProQuest, Scopus
and Web of Science. The time frame for this review was from 1998 to September 2020,
starting at the time when Black and Wiliam (1998) published their seminal paper in
formative assessment that became the basis for major educational reforms in many
educational institutions across the world. The combination of keywords assessment course,
assessment program, assessment training, assessment workshop, assessment curriculum, assessment
pedagog*, and teacher were used to identify the papers in every database. The detailed search
strategy syntax used for each database can be seen in Table 1. Articles were included in
this review if they were published in peer-reviewed journals in English. There were no
restrictions regarding the design of studies: quantitative, qualitative or mixed-methods.

Table 1: Search strategy syntax

No. of
Database Syntax
articles
ProQuest noft ("Assessment Course" OR "assessment program" OR "assessment 472
training" OR "assessment workshop" OR "assessment curriculum" OR
"assessment pedagog*") AND noft(teacher)
Web of TOPIC (("Assessment Course" OR "assessment program" OR 210
Science "assessment training" OR "assessment workshop" OR "assessment
curriculum" OR "assessment pedagog*") AND (teacher))
Refined by: DOCUMENT TYPES: (ARTICLE)
Timespan: 1988-2020.
Scopus TITLE-ABS-KEY (("Assessment Course" OR "assessment program" 281
OR "assessment training" OR "assessment workshop" OR "assessment
curriculum" OR "assessment pedagog*") AND (teacher)) AND
PUBYEAR > 1997 AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, "ar")) AND
(LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, "English"))

Study selection

The literature search based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria identified a total of 1002
articles (Figure 1). After removing the duplicates, the titles and abstracts of the articles
were reviewed if they met the criteria. As the purpose of the review is to help
contextualise the key features of the assessment programs for pre-service teachers, the
following criteria were used: (1) use of terms “course”, “program”, “training”,
“workshop”, “curriculum” or “pedagog*” in defining their assessment program; (2)
Oo, Alonzo & Asih 357

context of pre-service teachers as the nature of the programs are varied between pre-
service and in-service teachers; (3) peer-reviewed journal articles; (4) use of English
language; and (5) access to full-text. After applying these criteria, 39 articles remained for
full-text review.

Records identified through database

searching (n = 963)
Identification

ProQuest (n = 472); Web of Science Additional records identified

(n = 210); Scopus (n = 281) through other sources
(n = 9)

Records after duplicates removed

(n = 614)
Screening

Records excluded
Records screened (n = 575)
(n = 614) Reasons: Not meeting
the inclusion criteria

Full-text articles excluded,

with reasons (n = 27)
Eligibility

Full-text articles assessed for Reasons: Not about provision

eligibility (n = 39) of assessment training/ prog-
rams for pre-service teachers;
conference proceedings; and
non-English papers
Included

Studies included in
qualitative synthesis
(n = 12)

Figure 1: Study selection flow diagram

Approach to analysis and synthesis

The 39 full-text articles were reviewed if there was clear information about an ITE
assessment program. Papers that did not clearly articulate an assessment program for
PSTs were excluded from final analysis and synthesis. In addition, articles were excluded if
the full text was presented in another language with only their abstracts in English.
358 Acquisition of teacher assessment literacy by pre-service teachers

Following the same shortlisting and consensus-building process above, 12 articles

remained for the purpose of qualitative evidence synthesis.

Three stages of thematic synthesis in systematic reviews as highlighted by Thomas and

Harden (2008) were used. These three stages are (i) coding text: the line-by-line coding
that was done using NVivo software; (ii) developing 'descriptive' themes; and (iii)
generating analytical themes. The first author developed descriptive and analytical themes
that were reviewed by the second and third authors. Then, these data-driven themes and
coding were reviewed again by all authors. The results of the thematic synthesis are
presented in the following section.

Results

This section presents the results of thematic analysis of the literature on assessment
programs for PSTs to answer the research questions.

Characteristics of included articles

This section presents the approaches of assessment programs used in the 12 studies to
build PST assessment literacy, the skills/assessment types the program focused upon, and
the length of the program (Table 2). Geographically, there were articles from the USA
(21%), South America (14%), Canada (21%), Europe (14%), and the Middle East (29%).

Table 2: Characteristics of the included articles

Skills focus
Content Outcomes
Authors Country Approaches /Assess- Duration
orientation measures
ment types
Brevik et Europe Theory-driven; Integrated AfL/FA Changes in One term
al. (2017) Policy-driven; curriculum assessment skills
Classroom unit
practice-driven
Childs & Canada Audience- Intervention/ Large scale Changes in perc- Two
Lawson oriented; Workshop /Standard- eption/concept- months
(2003) Theory-driven ised assess- ion about assess-
ment ment; Changes in
assessment
knowledge
DeLuca & Canada Theory-driven; Stand-alone AfL/FA Changes in One term
Klinger Policy-driven; course AoL/SA confidence in
(2010) Classroom assessment
practice-driven
Oo, Alonzo & Asih 359

Deneen & USA Audience- Stand-alone AfL/FA Changes in perc- 12 weeks

Brown oriented; Policy- course AoL/SA eption/concept-
(2016) driven; Large scale ion about assess-
Classroom /Standard- ment; Changes in
practice-driven ised assess- assessment
ment knowledge
Changes in
assessment skills
Giraldo & Colombia, Audience-orien- Intervention/ AfL/FA Changes in 16 weeks
Murcia South ted; Classroom Workshop AoL/SA assessment
(2019) America practice-driven knowledge
Izci & Middle Policy-driven; Stand-alone AfL/FA Changes in perc- 14 weeks
Caliskan East Classroom course eption/concept-
(2017) practice-driven ion about assess-
ment
Levy- Middle Policy-driven; Stand-alone AfL/FA Changes in perc- 28 hours
Vered & East Classroom course AoL/SA eption/ concept-
Alhija practice-driven ion about assess-
(2018) ment
McGee & USA Audience- Stand-alone AfL/FA Changes in One assess-
Colby oriented; course AoL/SA assessment ment
(2014) Classroom Large scale knowledge course
practice-driven /Standard-
ised assess-
ment
Ogan- Middle Theory-driven; Stand-alone AfL/FA Changes in ass- One assess-
Bekiroglu East Classroom course AoL/SA essment knowl- ment
& Suzuk practice-driven edge; Changes in course
(2014) assessment skills
Reeves & USA Theory-driven Intervention/ Large scale Changes in perc- 6 hours
Chiang Classroom Workshop /Standard- eption/concept-
(2017) practice-driven ised assess- ion about assess-
ment ment; Changes in
assessment skills
Sluijsmans Europe Audience- Intervention/ AfL/FA Changes in perc-
4 hours
et al. oriented; Workshop eption/concept-
(2002) Theory-driven; ion about assess-
Classroom ment; Changes in
practice-driven assessment skills
Yurdabak- Middle Audience- Intervention/ AfL/FA Changes in 8 weeks
an (2012) East oriented; Workshop AoL/SA assessment skills
Classroom
practice-driven
*AfL = Assessment for learning; AoL = Assessment of learning; FA = Formative assessment; SA =
Summative assessment
360 Acquisition of teacher assessment literacy by pre-service teachers

Content orientation

Four key content designs in assessment programs emerged from the 12 articles: audience-
oriented; theory-driven; policy-driven; and classroom practice-driven in designing
assessment programs.

Audience-oriented assessment program

Audience-oriented is defined as developing an assessment program based on the needs of

a specific cohort. The programs are prepared to ensure the relevance and usefulness for
targeted PSTs and to reflect the assessment system of a particular context. Two sub-
themes of this key feature emerged: (i) needs of the target audience, and (ii) refinement of
the program.

Thirty-three per cent of the articles developed the assessment programs to address PST
assessment knowledge and skills. For example, an assessment workshop was provided in
the study by Childs and Lawson (2003) as the PSTs requested it. This workshop was an
addition to the prescribed assessment course to prepare classroom-ready teachers in
Ontario. Giraldo and Murcia (2019) designed their classroom language assessment course
grounded in the findings of the previous diagnostic study to meet the needs of
participants and also professors.

Few authors mentioned the refinement of the programs for PSTs grounded in the
perspectives of course instructors and stakeholders. For example, Sluijsmans et al. (2002)
embedded peer assessment training in their second-year course "Designing creative
lessons" which was a modification of the existing course. They considered the teachers'
perspectives (course instructors) in redefining the course objectives and the tasks in their
course. Similarly, Giraldo & Murcia (2019) modified the program's content derived from
the diagnostic stage of their study.

Theory-driven assessment program

Of the reported articles, 50% highlighted that their assessment programs were
underpinned by a theoretical framework or teacher standards. The most common
theoretical frameworks used are the Vygotskian sociocultural approach (Brevik et al.,
2017), Tittle’s framework dimensions of assessment (Ogan-Bekiroglu & Suzuk, 2014),
Mandinach and Gummer’s framework for teacher assessment literacy (Reeves & Chiang,
2017), and the standards for teacher competence in educational assessment of students
(Childs & Lawson, 2003).

The Vygotskian sociocultural approach was used in framing assessment courses based on
the ongoing relationship between PSTs, university, and real school settings (Brevik et al.,
2017). The role of interactions in this approach is the main feature of the learning
activities. Brevik et al. commented that “the Vygotskian framing therefore provides a
perspective on the student teachers’ use of assessment principles to develop their
principles” (p. 168). In the study by Ogan-Bekiroglu and Suzuk (2014), their assessment
Oo, Alonzo & Asih 361

program was based on the second dimension of Tittle (1994), the knowledge, beliefs,
intents, and actions of the assessment of both interpreter and user. As their study focused
on improving PST assessment literacy and their implementation into practice, they viewed
their program from a constructivist epistemology.

The study by Reeves and Chiang (2017) used five knowledge/skill domains of assessment
data literacy proposed by Mandinach and Gummer (2016) to target “PSTs capacity to
transform data into information (e.g., interpret data, understand data representations) and
transform information into a decision (e.g., specify next instructional steps)” (p. 157).
Although DeLuca and Klinger (2010) noted that the approaches to assessment programs
can be varied depending on the needs of PSTs, they prepared assessment programs
reflecting the Ontario College’s Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession, that is, PSTs
are expected to “use appropriate pedagogy, assessment and evaluation” to meet the needs
of students and learning communities (p. 421). In the study by Sluijsmans et al. (2002),
they prepared the program grounded in a peer assessment model including three main
peer assessment skills.

Policy-driven assessment program

Almost half of the included articles (42%) designed assessment programs to enact policy.
For example, in the study by Izci and Caliskan (2017), the concept of assessment for
learning was integrated into their teacher education program as mandated by Turkey’s
Ministry of National Education. Similarly, the assessment program in Levy-Vered and
Alhija (2018) was developed in response to the recommendation of the Ministry of
Education in Israel to promote the use of alternative assessments. Brevik et al. (2017)
prepared an assessment program based on the demands of the Norwegian Education Act.
This policy-driven approach considers the course as evolving within the context of policy
directives that shape teacher assessment practices (Alonzo, Labad, Bejano & Guerra,
2021).

Classroom practice-driven assessment program

There are assessment programs that were based on school assessment practices. Three
themes emerged from the articles: (1) assessment tasks and assignments; (2) students’
actual output; and (3) assessment practices in a real classroom.

Of the included articles, 83% highlighted that assessment tasks and assignments were
included in their assessment programs. The assessment strategies needed in schools
influenced the assessment design. Some of the programs include developing an assessment
scenario; an assessment task and a scoring rubric (Izci & Caliskan, 2017); an assessment plan (Ogan-
Bekiroglu & Suzuk, 2014); a data use schema (Reeves & Chiang, 2017); a content-based
assessment and a performance assessment (McGee & Colby, 2014); and multiple-choice assessments
and rubrics for language assessments (Giraldo & Murcia, 2019). In addition, some programs
included analysing actual classroom assessment tasks and practices as part of the
programs. For example, the assessment course mentioned used by Levy-Vered and Alhija
(2018) asked PSTs to critically analyse a teacher-made achievement test before they
362 Acquisition of teacher assessment literacy by pre-service teachers

designed their own assessment. In the study of Brevik et al. (2017), the tasks for PSTs are
to observe and analyse the formative assessment practices in a video-based classroom.

Assessing actual students’ work is used in assessment programs. Twenty-five percent of

the included articles highlighted that real students’ work was combined in the program
(Brevik et al., 2017; Izci & Caliskan, 2017; McGee & Colby, 2014). This addresses the
issue of extended classroom practice when opportunities to include a practicum
experience for PSTs are limited. The process involved analysing students’ responses if
they met the learning outcomes and then “offer pedagogical ways for how to help low-
level students to develop the concepts” (Izci & Caliskan, 2017, p. 467). In addition, PSTs
participated in further instruction for students based on the analysis of student
performance (McGee & Colby, 2014). In the study by Brevik et al. (2017), PSTs assessed
students’ written text and/or their video recorded presentation, drew up criteria to assess,
and gave feedback on students’ work at the end.

Assessment practices in classrooms is the authentic practical sides of assessment in

programs. Only 14% of the included articles described that assessment practices in actual
classrooms were embedded in their assessment programs. The practicum experience is
crucial for improving PST assessment literacy. DeLuca and Klinger (2010) highlighted that
PSTs gained confidence in using assessment from their practicum experience. Likewise,
Ogan-Bekiroglu and Suzuk (2014) provided opportunities to PSTs for their practical
application of knowledge and skills. Consequently, PSTs can implement feedback from
their instructors (Griffiths et al., 2021) to improve their assessment practices.

Approaches in implementing ITE assessment programs

A closer look at the assessment approaches used to build PST assessment literacy reveals
that there are six articles about a stand-alone course, one article reported an integrated
curriculum unit and six articles used intervention/workshop (Table 2). All assessment
approaches are designed to cover assessment concepts that are deemed important by the
course developers.

The stand-alone courses (DeLuca & Klinger, 2010; Deneen & Brown, 2016; Izci &
Caliskan, 2017; Levy-Vered & Alhija, 2018; McGee & Colby, 2014; Ogan-Bekiroglu &
Suzuk, 2014) were provided as either elective or mandatory courses in an ITE curriculum.
An elective course raises two important concerns: it is not deemed as an important course
that every PST should take, and consequently, not all PSTs who graduate have the same
level of assessment knowledge and skills.

Integrated curriculum courses (Brevik et al., 2017) embed assessment concepts to support
PSTs to design appropriate assessment strategies for specific key learning areas. This
approach is consistent with the nature of assessment which is context-driven and the
design should be carefully planned within the context of content and pedagogical
knowledge (Wiliam, 2013). However, it raises the issue of the sufficiency of time allocated
for this course to cover important assessment knowledge and skills.
Oo, Alonzo & Asih 363

The third approach reported is the use of intervention programs or workshops enabling
PSTs to enhance their existing assessment knowledge and skills (Childs & Lawson, 2003;
Giraldo & Murcia, 2019; Reeves & Chiang, 2017; Sluijsmans et al., 2002; Yurdabakan,
2012). This approach is often used when assessment courses are not an integral part of the
ITE curriculum.

Skills focused/assessment types

In terms of specific knowledge and skills-focus of the programs, the papers reported
assessment for learning (AfL), formative assessment (FA), assessment of learning (AoL),
summative assessment (SA), and large scale or standardised assessment. Most assessment
programs covered more than one type of assessment (Table 2). Seventy-eight percent of
the articles emphasised AfL and/or FA, while 14% included only large scale/standardised
assessment, provided as an additional program with the existing ones. For example, the
study by Childs and Lawson (2003) provided large scale assessment as another workshop,
because was requested by course instructors.

The varied content-focus of the programs is due largely to the competing

conceptualisations of effective assessment practices (Alonzo, 2016) and policy
requirements (Davison, 2013). It is evident that the construct of teacher assessment
literacy needs to be clearly articulated.

Measures of outcomes reported

There are various methods used to measure the impact of assessment programs including
quantitative methods (questionnaire or survey, assessment instrument, checklists),
qualitative methods (interviews, open-ended questionnaire, peer-assessment tasks), and
mixed methods (questionnaire, interviews, project assignment, lecture notes, lesson plans,
and class observation). Four key measures are used to report the impact of the program.
These include:

1. Changes in perception/conception of assessment

2. Changes in confidence in assessment
3. Changes in assessment knowledge
4. Changes in assessment skills

Fifty percent of the studies reported changes in PST perception/conception of

assessment after the program. Giraldo and Murcia (2019) used pre- and post-design to
measure PST changes in perception, and found that PST perception towards designing
assessment tasks changed radically. Perceptions evolved “from limited views to an
intricate and professionalising process-oriented endeavour” (p. 254). Similarly, PST
perceptions in the studies by Izci and Caliskan (2017) and Levy-Vered and Alhija (2018)
changed towards using assessment tasks that can improve student learning, away from
assessment tasks focused on memorisation. PSTs in the study by Sluijsmans et al. (2002)
described positive changes in their perception of assessment and instruction as evidenced
in the results of pre- and post-test.
364 Acquisition of teacher assessment literacy by pre-service teachers

One study used the change in confidence in assessment to report the impact of the
program. DeLuca & Klinger (2010) reported the questionnaire results of PST confidence
levels from experimental and control groups that PSTs who participated in a formal
assessment program were significantly more confident than those who did not. They also
commented that their assessment program had a greater impact on their confidence level
regarding assessment theory and practice.

Another measure is the changes in PST assessment knowledge. Thirty-three percent of the
articles highlighted that assessment programs have a positive impact on PST assessment
knowledge. The pre- and post-test results in the study by Deneen and Brown (2016) and
McGee and Colby (2014) show an increase on PST assessment knowledge. McGee and
Colby (2014) described a positive significant change in all subscales: choosing methods;
sound design; scoring; using results; grading; communicating results, and ethical
assessment.

Fifty percent of the included articles used improvement in assessment skills. PSTs
changed not only their assessment knowledge but also their assessment skills at the end of
the program (Deneen & Brown, 2016; Ogan-Bekiroglu & Suzuk, 2014). This is evident in
the work of Deneen and Brown (2016) that PSTs have developed well-aligned and well-
designed assessment tasks as a result of engagement in the program. Sluijsmans et al.
(2002) and Yurdabakan (2012) used experimental design to measure the impact of the
program and both studies have documented an improvement on PST assessment skills.

Duration of the program

Regarding duration of the assessment programs, the articles described the length of the
program as hours, weeks, months, term or semester. In describing the length of the
programs, the range is from 4 hours to 28 hours, from 8 weeks to 16 weeks (4 months),
and one term or course. In some interventions/workshops, the course duration is shorter
than the stand-alone/separate course (e.g., Reeves & Chiang, 2017; Sluijsmans et al.,
2002). The different duration of the programs raises a critical issue on how much time is
needed to build assessment literacy.

Limitations of the extant literature

Taken as a body of research, we have identified a few areas that have not been reported in
the 12 studies. The results of our review highlight that there is a little reported research on
improving assessment literacy for PSTs, which may explain why graduate teachers have
low assessment literacy (Maclellan, 2004; Oo et al., 2021; Volante & Fazio, 2007) and feel
inadequate to take on their role (Hill & Eyers, 2016; Ogan-Bekiroglu & Suzuk, 2014).

There was no paper reporting the different factors that influence PST assessment literacy
development. There is evidence that teachers’ assessment literacy development is
influenced by various factors including school culture (Alonzo, Leverett, et al., 2021;
Charteris & Dargusch, 2018; Eyers, 2014), non-cognitive skills (Oo, 2020), policies
(Alonzo, Labad, et al., 2021) and sociocultural contexts (Willis & Klenowski, 2018). There
Oo, Alonzo & Asih 365

is an emerging evidence that PST assessment literacy development is not only dependent
on their beliefs and values in using assessment but largely influenced by their supervising
teachers during practicum (Oo et al., 2021). This is an important area to explore to ensure
that enabling factors are leveraged during the program's implementation while managing
limiting factors.

In addition, the definition of assessment literacy is limited to knowledge and skills, but it
has been proven that teaching skills require a much broader definition of knowledge
including confidence (Beswick et al., 2012) and beliefs (Ball et al., 2008). This broader
conceptualisation of assessment literacy would ensure that PSTs will better understand
what constitutes an assessment literate teacher.

Methodologically, no paper reported the impact of the program using effect size. We need
a more rigorous empirical methodology to provide evidence of the effectiveness of the
programs. No paper reports what “works” as an effective program but what have been
reported were the outcomes of research on the design and content imposed by the
researchers. Moreover, there is no critical evaluation of what the best measures for
reporting on the effectiveness of the program.

Furthermore, there no longitudinal study has ascertained whether PST assessment literacy
gained from ITE has been applied in their teaching. The consequential validity (Slomp et
al., 2014) of the programs is critically important to ensure that the knowledge and skills
gained by PSTs are applied in schools.

Discussion

Building upon the findings of this literature review, this paper proposes a framework for
designing and implementing an assessment program (Figure 2). This framework consists
of six key features that are critical components for designing the assessment program.

The framework will guide curriculum developers by addressing the questions provided.
The first key question we need to consider when developing a PST assessment program is,
“What would be the basis for the program?”. What is reported in the literature is either
audience-oriented, theory-driven, policy-driven, or classroom practice-driven. We also
need to consider each aspect of these findings. For example: “What are the assessment literacy
needs of PSTs?” and “What assessment practices are articulated in the assessment policy?”. The
orientation of the program could be a combination of addressing the assessment policy
requirements, adhering to a strong theorisation of effective assessment practices, and
addressing the assessment knowledge and skills needs of PSTs. As assessment is a
context-dependent construct, no single content orientation is effective.

Regarding the content focus of the assessment program, three types of assessment are
found in this review: FA/AfL, SA/AoL, and large scale or standardised assessment.
Curriculum developers need to consider, “What assessment knowledge and skills are needed in
their own context?”. Formative assessment and AfL is the most common assessment type
366 Acquisition of teacher assessment literacy by pre-service teachers

What would be the basis for the program?

§ What does the literature say about effective assessment practices?
§ What assessment practices are articulated in the assessment policy?
Orientation § What are the assessment literacy needs of PSTs?

0 1 23 What should be the specific content of the program?

§ What specific assessment knowledge and skills to be included in the program?
§ What contextual factors will shape these assessment knowledge and skills?
Content focus
How do we know the impact of the program on PSTs?
§ What measures will be used to report the learning of PSTs?
§ Do these measures have consequential validity that could predict the future assessment practices of
Outcomes PSTs?
measure
What is the best approach that can develop those identified assessment knowledge and skills?
§ What learning and teaching design could best develop those assessment knowledge and skills?
§ How to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of the approach given the constrain of higher education curriculum
Approach structure, resources, and capability?

How long does it take to deliver the outcomes of the program?

§ How long would it take to develop those identified assessment knowledge and skills?
§ Is extended practice required to develop those assessment knowledge and skills?
Duration

Has the program been implemented as planned?

§ What components need to be modified?
§ What components work well/did not work well?
Evaluation

Figure 2: A framework for designing and implementing the assessment program in ITE
(Use web or PDF reader 'zoom in' function to view details)

found in this literature. This finding is consistent with the literature that highlights AfL in
teacher preparation is the highest potential of increasing student outcomes (Black &
Wiliam, 1998b; Hattie, 2009). However, with the current conceptualisation of assessment,
where the distinction between FA and SA is becoming irrelevant (Black & Wiliam, 2018)
because both assessment types, including high-stakes tests, can be used to support student
learning and address accountability requirements, a broader content focus is
recommended. Therefore, we also need to consider “What contextual factors will shape these
assessment knowledge and skills?”.

In terms of the outcome measures of the program, this review found four outcome
measures: changes in perception/conception of assessment; changes in confidence in
assessment; changes in assessment knowledge; and changes in assessment skills. This
variability in outcomes reported raises the questions, “How do we know the impact of the
program on PSTs?”, particularly “What measures will be used to report the learning of PSTs?” and
“Do these measures have consequential validity that could predict the future assessment practices of
PSTs?”. Change in assessment practices is considered as one of the critical outcome
measures to prepare classroom-ready teachers (BOSTES, 2016; Volante & Fazio, 2007).
However, as assessment literacy is a broad construct involving not only knowledge and
skills-based but also non-cognitive skills, the measures should be expanded to account for
this broader conceptualisation of assessment literacy.

Having identified the content focus and measures to be used, curriculum developers need
to identify the best approach to develop that knowledge and skills. Our literature review
shows three approaches, separate/stand-alone course, integrated curriculum unit, and
Oo, Alonzo & Asih 367

intervention/workshop. Among these approaches, “What learning and teaching design could
best develop those assessment knowledge and skills?”. There is no consensus as to what is the best
approach as each approach used in various studies reported its effectiveness. However,
owing to the centrality of preparing PSTs to become classroom-ready teachers, curriculum
developers need to consider their theoretical knowledge acquisition and practical skills
development while building their confidence to design and implement various assessment
strategies.

How long does it take to deliver the program? The duration of the program is largely dependent
on the outcomes aimed for, the structural context of ITE program and the regulatory
requirements of accrediting body. In developing those identified assessment knowledge
and skills, our review shows that classroom practices, including assessment tasks and
assignments, students’ actual output and assessment practices in real classroom, were
combined in the program. Therefore, we also need to consider “Is extended practice required
to develop those assessment knowledge and skills?”

One of the missing components of programs reported in the literature is conducting an

evaluation to answer the question: Has the program been implemented as planned? For every
implementation of any assessment program, a clear evaluation must be conducted to
identify the aspects of the program that work well, and those aspects that need further
improvement. This is an iterative process that multiple sources of data will be used to
provide feedback for every aspect of the framework to ensure continuous improvement.

Conclusion

This paper highlights the characteristics of ITE assessment programs in terms of their
orientation, content focus, outcomes measure, approaches and duration. Despite the
peculiarities of each program, all studies reported their effectiveness in improving a
specific area of PST assessment literacy. From our scoping review, it is evident that this
body of knowledge is limited and hence more studies are needed to provide a richer
conceptualisation of ITE assessment programs.

As an output of this review, we develop a framework for designing and implementing an

ITE assessment program. This framework should be taken as a guide rather than a rigid
structure to follow. There should be strong regard to the context of educational system in
which the assessment program would be implemented.

This paper has its limitations, like most research. In terms of searching papers, we only
collected publications from ProQuest, Web of Science, and Scopus. We considered these
publishers as they offer strong indexing quality, written in English that made their journals
readable for international audiences. However, this choice limited our scoping where we
did not review printed books and documents from the government and international
agencies about teacher assessment literacy. This may be an area that can be considered in
future systematic literature reviews. In addition, we did not discuss the relationship
between teacher assessment literacy and subject knowledge (e.g., STEM, languages,
368 Acquisition of teacher assessment literacy by pre-service teachers

humanities, and social sciences) as we put more focus on the general ITE assessment
programs. Further research that investigates the link between teacher assessment literacy
and subject knowledge may be carried out as the content focus of ITE assessment
programs depends on the subject focus. Lastly, building pre-service teachers' knowledge
and skills in high-stake assessment, particularly the national and international
examinations, warrants further investigations. These high-stake assessment and other
broader assessment terminologies can also be used in the future reviews.

Acknowledgment

We would like to thank Dr Carlito Tabelin of the University of New South Wales Sydney
for helping us with Figure 1.

References

Ahmad, I. F. (2020). Alternative assessment in distance learning in emergencies spread of

coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in Indonesia. Jurnal Pedagogik, 7(1), article 1136.
http://doi.org/10.33650/pjp.v7i1.1136
Alonzo, D. (2016). Development and application of a teacher assessment for learning (AfL) literacy
tool. PhD thesis, The University of New South Wales.
http://unsworks.unsw.edu.au/fapi/datastream/unsworks:38345/SOURCE02?view=
true
Alonzo, D., Labad, V., Bejano, J. & Guerra, F. (2021). The policy-driven dimensions of
teacher beliefs about assessment. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 46(3), article 3.
https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2021v46n3.3
Alonzo, D., Leverett, J. & Obsioma, E. (2021). Leading an assessment reform: Ensuring a
whole-school approach for decision-making. Frontiers in Education, 6, article 631857.
https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.631857
Assessment Reform Group (1999). Assessment for learning: Beyond the black box. Nuffield
Foundation and University of Cambridge.
https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/files/beyond_blackbox.pdf
Beswick, K., Callingham, R. & Watson, J. (2012). The nature and development of middle
school mathematics teachers’ knowledge. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 15(2),
131-157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-011-9177-9
Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in
Education, 5(1), 7-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards through
classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-148.
https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171009200119
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
BOSTES (2016). Learning assessment: A report on teaching assessment in initial teacher education in
NSW. NSW Government.
Oo, Alonzo & Asih 369

https://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/wcm/connect/c204171e-a570-4947-
8107-dc934ab2f70b/learning-assessment-report.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID
Brevik, L. M., Blikstad-Balas, M. & Engelien, K. L. (2017). Integrating assessment for
learning in the teacher education programme at the University of Oslo. Assessment in
Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 24(2), 164-184.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2016.1239611
Brookhart, S. M. (1999). Teaching about communicating assessment results and grading.
Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 18(1), 5-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-
3992.1999.tb00002.x
Brookhart, S. M. (2011). Educational assessment knowledge and skills for teachers.
Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(1), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-
3992.2010.00195.x
Charteris, J. & Dargusch, J. (2018). The tensions of preparing pre-service teachers to be
assessment capable and profession-ready. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 46(4),
354-368. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2018.1469114
Childs, R. A. & Lawson, A. (2003). What do teacher candidates know about large-scale
assessments? What should they know? Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 49(4),
354-367. https://doi.org/10.11575/ajer.v49i4.55029
Craven, G., Beswick, K., Fleming, J., Fletcher, T., Green, M., Jensen, B., Leinonen, E. &
Rickards, F. (2014). Action now: Classroom ready teachers. Department of Education.
https://www.aitsl.edu.au/tools-resources/resource/action-now-classroom-ready-
teachers
Davison, C. (2007). Views from the chalkface: English language school-based assessment
in Hong Kong. Language Assessment Quarterly, 4(1), 37-68.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15434300701348359
Davison, C. (2013). Innovation in assessment: Common misconceptions and problems. In
K. Hyland & L. L. C. Wong (Eds.), Innovation and change in English language education (pp.
263-275). Oxon: Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Innovation-and-change-in-
English-language-education/Hyland-Wong/p/book/9780415826877
DeLuca, C., Chavez, T., Bellara, A. & Cao, C. (2013). Pedagogies for pre-service
assessment education: Supporting teacher candidates' assessment literacy
development. Teacher Educator, 48(2), 128-142.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2012.760024
DeLuca, C. & Klinger, D. A. (2010). Assessment literacy development: Identifying gaps in
teacher candidates’ learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17(4),
419-438. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2010.516643
Deneen, C. C. & Brown, G. T. L. (2016). The impact of conceptions of assessment on
assessment literacy in a teacher education program. Cogent Education, 3(1).
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1225380
Ellis, N. J. & Loughland, T. (2017). ‘Where to next?’ Examining feedback received by
teacher education students. Issues in Educational Research, 27(1), 51-63.
http://www.iier.org.au/iier27/ellis.pdf
Eyers, G. (2014). Pre-service teachers' assessment learning: Change, development and growth. PhD
thesis, The University of Auckland. http://hdl.handle.net/2292/23757
Gipps, C. (1995). Teacher assessment and teacher development in primary schools.
Education 3-13, 23(1), 8-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279585200021
370 Acquisition of teacher assessment literacy by pre-service teachers

Giraldo, F. & Murcia, D. (2019). Language assessment literacy and the professional
development of pre-service language teachers. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal,
21(2), 243-259. https://doi.org/10.14483/22487085.14514
Grainger, P. R. & Adie, L. (2014). How do pre-service teacher education students move
from novice to expert assessors? Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(7), article 9.
https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2014v39n7.9
Greenberg, J. & Walsh, K. (2012). What teacher preparation programs teach about K - 12
assessment: A review. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED532766.pdf
Griffiths, M., Shean, M. & Jackson, D. (2021). Supervision in initial teacher education: A
scoping review. Issues in Educational Research, 31(2), 476-494.
http://www.iier.org.au/iier31/griffiths-m.pdf
Hailaya, W. M. (2014). Teacher assessment literacy and student outcomes in the Province of Tawi-
Tawi, Philippines. PhD thesis, University of Adelaide, Australia.
https://hdl.handle.net/2440/99098
Hardman, F., Stoff, C., Aung, W. & Elliott, L. (2016). Developing pedagogical practices in
Myanmar primary schools: Possibilities and constraints. Asia Pacific Journal of
Education, 36(sup1), 98-118. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2014.906387
Harlen, W. (2005). Teachers’ summative practices and assessment for learning – tensions
and synergies. The Curriculum Journal, 16(2), 207-223.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585170500136093
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement.
Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Visible-Learning-A-Synthesis-of-Over-800-
Meta-Analyses-Relating-to-Achievement/Hattie/p/book/9780415476188
Hill, M. F., Ell, F., Grudnoff, L. & Limbrick, L. (2014). Practise what you preach: Initial
teacher education students learning about assessment. Assessment Matters, 7, 90-112.
https://doi.org/10.18296/am.0126
Hill, M. F. & Eyers, G. (2016). Moving from student to teacher. In G. T. L. Brown & L.
R. Harris (Eds.), Handbook of human and social conditions in assessment. Routledge.
https://www.routledge.com/Handbook-of-Human-and-Social-Conditions-in-
Assessment/Brown-Harris/p/book/9781138811553#
Izci, K. & Caliskan, G. (2017). Development of prospective teachers’ conceptions of
assessment and choices of assessment tasks. International Journal of Research in Education
and Science, 3(2), 464-474. https://www.ijres.net/index.php/ijres/article/view/241
James, M. & Pedder, D. (2006). Beyond method: Assessment and learning practices and
values. The Curriculum Journal, 17(2), 109-138.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585170600792712
Kennedy, K. J., Chan, J. K.-S., Yu, F. W. & Fok, P.-K. (2007). Assessment for productive
learning: Forms of assessment and their potential for enhancing learning. Presented
at Student assessment and its social and cultural contexts: How teachers respond to assessment
reform. Redesigning Pedagogy - Culture, Understanding and Practice Conference.
Singapore, 28-30 May. https://www.eduhk.hk/fpece_project/QEF/Download
area/1_Assess for productive learning (Kerrypaper).pdf
Lam, R. (2015). Language assessment training in Hong Kong: Implications for language
assessment literacy. Language Testing, 32(2), 169-197.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532214554321
Oo, Alonzo & Asih 371

Levy-Vered, A. & Alhija, F. N. A. (2018). The power of a basic assessment course in

changing pre-service teachers' conceptions of assessment. Studies in Educational
Evaluation, 59, 84-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.04.003
Loughland, T. & Alonzo, D. (2018). Teacher adaptive practices: Examining links with
teacher self-efficacy, perceived autonomy support and teachers’ sense of adaptability.
Educational Practice and Theory, 40(2), 55-70. https://doi.org/10.7459/ept/40.2.04
Maclellan, E. (2004). Initial knowledge states about assessment: Novice teachers’
conceptualisations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(5), 523-535.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.04.008
Mandinach, E. B. & Gummer, E. S. (2016). Data literacy for educators: Making it count in teacher
preparation and practice. Teachers College Press. https://www.tcpress.com/data-
literacy-for-educators-9780807757536
McGee, J. & Colby, S. (2014). Impact of an assessment course on teacher candidates’
assessment literacy. Action in Teacher Education, 36(5-6), 522-532.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2014.977753
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J. & Altman, D. (2009). Preferred reporting items for
systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal
Medicine, 151(4). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535
Ogan-Bekiroglu, F. & Suzuk, E. (2014). Pre-service teachers’ assessment literacy and its
implementation into practice. The Curriculum Journal, 25(3), 344-371.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2014.899916
Oo, C. Z. (2020). Assessment for learning literacy and pre-service teacher education: Perspectives from
Myanmar. PhD thesis, The University of New South Wales, Australia.
http://handle.unsw.edu.au/1959.4/65021
Oo, C. Z., Alonzo, D. & Davison, C. (2021). Pre-service teachers’ decision-making and
classroom assessment practices. Frontiers in Education, 6, article 628100.
https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.628100
Popham, W. J. (2011). Assessment literacy overlooked: A teacher educator’s confession.
The Teacher Educator, 46(4), 265-273. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2011.605048
Poth, C.-A. (2013). What assessment knowledge and skills do initial teacher education
programs address? A Western Canadian perspective. Alberta Journal of Educational
Research, 58(4), 634-656.
https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/ajer/article/view/55670/42588
Reeves, T. D. & Chiang, J. L. (2017). Building pre-service teacher capacity to use external
assessment data: An intervention study. The Teacher Educator, 52(2), 155-172.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2016.1273420
Rwehera, M. (2017). Myanmar National Education Strategic Plan 2016/17-2020/21 (NESP):
Appraisal report. https://www.globalpartnership.org/sites/default/files/2018-05-gpe-
esp-appraisal-report-myanmar.pdf
Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems.
Instructional Science, 18, 119-144.
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/BF00117714.pdf
Siegel, M. A. & Wissehr, C. (2011). Preparing for the plunge: Preservice teachers’
assessment literacy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(4), 371-391.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-011-9231-6
372 Acquisition of teacher assessment literacy by pre-service teachers

Slomp, D. H., Corrigan, J. A. & Sugimoto, T. (2014). A framework for using

consequential validity evidence in evaluating large-scale writing assessments: A
Canadian study. Research in the Teaching of English, 48(3), 276-302.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/24398680
Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Brand-Gruwel, S. & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2002). Peer
assessment training in teacher education: Effects on performance and perceptions.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 443-454.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293022000009311
Taras, M. (2009). Summative assessment: The missing link for formative assessment.
Journal of Further and Higher Education, 33(1), 57-69.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03098770802638671
Thomas, J. & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative
research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, article 45.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45
Tittle, C. K. (1994). Toward an educational psychology of assessment for teaching and
learning: Theories, contexts, and validation arguments. Educational Psychologist, 29(3),
149-162. https:/doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2903_4
Tsagari, D. & Vogt, K. (2017). Assessment literacy of foreign language teachers around
Europe: Research, challenges and future prospects. Papers in Language Testing and
Assessment, 6(1), 41-63.
https://arts.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/2349928/6_1_SI3TsagariVogt.pdf
Verberg, C. P. M., Tigelaar, D. E. H., van Veen, K. & Verloop, N. (2016). Teacher agency
within the context of formative teacher assessment: An in-depth analysis. Educational
Studies, 42(5), 534-552. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2016.1231060
Volante, L. & Fazio, X. (2007). Exploring teacher candidates’ assessment literacy:
Implications for teacher education reform and professional development. Canadian
Journal of Education, 30(3), 749-770. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ780818
Walker, R., Oliver, R. & Mackenzie, R. (2021). Group differences in secondary school
students’ perceptions of feedback. Issues in Educational Research, 31(1), 309-326.
http://www.iier.org.au/iier31/walker.pdf
Wiliam, D. (2013). Assessment: The bridge between teaching and learning. Voices from the
Middle, 21(2), 15-20. https://library.ncte.org/journals/vm/issues/v21-2/24461
Willis, J. & Klenowski, V. (2018). Classroom assessment practices and teacher learning:
An Australian perspective. In H. Jiang & M. F. Hill (Eds.), Teacher learning with
classroom assessment: Perspectives from Asia Pacific. pp.19-37. Springer Singapore.
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-981-10-9053-0
Wurf, G. & Povey, R. (2020). “They show how smart you are”: A mixed methods study of
primary students’ perceptions of assessment tasks. Issues in Educational Research, 30(3),
1162-1182. http://www.iier.org.au/iier30/wurf.pdf
Xu, Y. & Brown, G. T. L. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy in practice: A
reconceptualization. Teaching and Teacher Education, 58, 149-162.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.010
Oo, Alonzo & Asih 373

Yurdabakan, I. (2012). The effect of co- and peer assessment training on self-assessment
skills of teacher trainees. Education and Science, 37(163), 190-202.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232733893_The_Effect_of_Co-
_and_Peer_Assessment_Training_on_Self-
Assessment_Skills_of_Teacher_Trainees_Ortak_ve_Akran_Degerlendirme_Egitimin
in_Ogretmen_Adaylarinin_Oz-degerlendirme_Becerileri_Uzerine_Etkisi
Zulaiha, S., Mulyono, H. & Ambarsari, L. (2020). An investigation into EFL teachers’
assessment literacy: Indonesian teachers’ perceptions and classroom practice.
European Journal of Contemporary Education, 9(1).
https://doi.org/10.13187/ejced.2020.1.189

Dr Cherry Zin Oo (corresponding author) is currently a lecturer in the Department of

Educational Psychology at Yangon University of Education, Myanmar. She is also a
recent PhD graduate from the School of Education, University of New South Wales
(UNSW), Sydney, Australia.
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3227-8010
Email: [email protected]

Dr Dennis Alonzo is a lecturer at the School of Education, Faculty of Arts, Design and
Architecture, University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, Australia.
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8900-497X
Email: [email protected]

Dr Ria A. Asih is a lecturer at the Directorate of Postgraduate Program, Universitas

Muhammadiyah Malang in Indonesia. She is a recent graduate from the School of
Education, University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, Australia.
Email: [email protected]

Please cite as: Oo, C. Z., Alonzo, D. & Asih, R. A. (2022). Acquisition of teacher
assessment literacy by pre-service teachers: A review of practices and program designs.
Issues in Educational Research, 32(1), 352-373. http://www.iier.org.au/iier32/oo.pdf