Developing assessment literacy of future mathematics teachers: An integrative approach

Introduction. Assessment of student learning outcomes, properly carried out by a teacher, can be a powerful tool for improving the quality of school education. In this regard, the development of the assessment literacy of future teachers around the world is recognised as an important task of their university training. The urgency of solving this problem increases even more in connection with the transition of educational systems to criteria-based assessment.

Aim. The present research aims to characterise the features of integrative approach to the formation of assessment literacy of a future teacher and present the experience of its implementation in the framework of the training of teachers of mathematics in a Kazakh university.

Methodology and research methods. Comparative and aspect-based analysis of scientific and methodological literature on the development of teachers’ assessment literacy became the basis for the theoretical stage of the study. 36 undergraduate students studying in the Mathematics programme were selected as participants in the experimental phase of the study. The collection of quantitative data on changes in student assessment literacy was carried out using the ACAI tool, which consists of three parts with closed questions concerning various aspects of teacher assessment approaches. Methods of mathematical statistics were used for data processing. The collection of additional qualitative data on what had the greatest impact on the development of the assessment literacy of future mathematics teachers was carried out on the basis of a focus group interview.

Results and scientific novelty. In the process of theoretical analysis, the authors summarised the characteristics of assessment literacy as a significant component of a teacher’s professional competence. Also, the authors identified five areas, whose implementation in the process of university training will contribute to the development of the readiness of future teachers to carry out competent professional assessment activities. The empirical data obtained confirmed that an integrative approach has a significant impact on the development of assessment literacy of future teachers as it combines: special assessment course; assignments and assessment practices in the study of mathematical, pedagogical and methodological university disciplines; personal experience in the implementation of assessment activities in the course of teaching practice at school; and the possibility of interacting with experienced acting teachers on educational assessment.

Practical significance. The study contributes to the expansion of ideas about the features of assessment in university training teacher. In addition, the experience presented in the article can be used in determining the directions for improving the professional training of teachers in various contexts of subject areas.

1. Baird J. A. The currency of assessments. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. 2013; 20 (2): 147–149. DOI: 10.1080/0969594X.2013.787782

2. Hopfenbeck T. N. Assessment reforms and grading. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. 2019; 26 (3): 255–258. DOI: 10.1080/0969594X.2019.1625510

3. Shapovalova O. N., Efremova N. F. The didactic potential of formative assessment of meta-disciplinary results of schoolchildren: Russian and foreign experience. Mir nauki. Pedagogika i psikhologiya = World of Science. Pedagogy and Psychology [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2023 May 05]; 7 (6). Available from: https://mirnauki.com/issue-6-2019.html (In Russ.)

4. Chikova O. A., Davydova N. N., Simonova A. A. Independent assessment of the quality of conditions for implementing educational activities in the region: Statistical analysis of the results. Perspektivy nauki i obrazovania = Perspectives of Science and Education. 2021; 54 (6): 606–620. DOI: 10.32744/pse.2021.6.40 (In Russ.)

5. Shmigirilova I. B., Rvanova A. S., Grigorenko O. V. Assessment in education: Current trends, problems and contradictions (review of scientific publications). Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2021; 23 (6): 43–83. DOI: 10.17853/1994-5639-2021-6-43-83 (In Russ.)

6. Shmigirilova I. B., Rvanova A. S., Tadzhigitov A. A., Kopnova O. L. Education reform in Kazakhstan: Ways of teacher assessment literacy development. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2022; 24 (4): 140–167. DOI: 10.17853/1994-5639-2022-4-140-167 (In Russ.)

7. Abukhanova A. B. Contents of professional development of teachers in terms of updating the content of education. Vestnik KAZNPU imeni Abaja, serija “Pedagogicheskie nauki” = Bulletin of the Abai university – “Pedagogical Sciences” [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2023 May 03]; 2 (62): 284–287. Available from: http://sp.kaznpu.kz/docs/jurnal_file/file20190529031400.PDF (In Russ.)

8. Kenzhetaeva R. O., Nurzhanova S. A. Evaluation component in the activities of the teacher of initial classes. Vestnik Kazahskogo nacional’nogo zhenskogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta = Bulletin of Kazakh National Women’s Teacher Training University [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2023 May 03]; 3 (79): 222–227. Available from: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=47236603 (In Russ.)

9. Omarov Y. B., Toktarbayev D. G., Rybin I. V., Saliyeva A. Z., Zhumabekova F. N. Methods of forming professional competence of students as future teachers. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2023 May 04]; 11 (14): 6651–6662. Available from: http://www.ijese.net/makale/948.html

10. Sarybayeva A. K., Berkinbayev M. O., Kurbanbekov B. A., Berdi D. K. The conceptual approach to the development of creative competencies of future teachers in the system of higher pedagogical education in Kazakhstan. European Journal of Contemporary Education. 2018; 7 (4): 827–844. DOI: 10.13187/ejced.2018.4.827

11. Meterbaeva K., Kiyassova K. Updated content of education in terms of criteria-based assessment of students’ educational achievements. Vestnik KAZNPU imeni Abaja, serija “Pedagogicheskie nauki” = Bulletin of the Abai university. Series “Pedagogical Sciences”. 2020; 1 (65): 83‒87. DOI: 10.51889/2020-1.1728-5496.14

12. Shmigirilova I. B., Rvanova A. S. Experience in the formation of evaluative competence of future mathematics teachers. In: Bozhenkova L. I., Egupova M. V. (Eds.). Actual Problems of Teaching Mathematics and Computer Science at School and University. Proceedings of the VI International Scientific Internet Conference [Internet]. Moscow; 2021 [cited 2023 May 02]; p. 373–379. Available from: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=45670771 (In Russ.)

13. Shumeiko T. S. Innovative approaches in the formation of the future teachers’ readiness for assessment of the training activity on computer science. Vestnik KAZNPU imeni Abaja, serija “Pedagogicheskie nauki” = Bulletin of the Abai university. Series “Pedagogical Sciences” [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2023 May 13]; 4 (64): 209‒214. Available from: http://sp.kaznpu.kz/docs/jurnal_file/file20200113110758.pdf (In Russ.)

14. Andersson C., Palm T. Сharacteristics of formative assessment that enhance student achievement in mathematics. Education Inquiry. 2017; 8 (2): 104–122. DOI: 10.1080/20004508.2016.1275185

15. Efremova N. F. The motivational aspect of the independent assessment of academic achievement. Rossiiskii psikhologicheskii zhurnal = Russian Psychological Journal. 2017; 14 (2): 227–244. DOI: 10.21702/rpj.2017.2.13 (In Russ.)

16. Temnyatkina O. V. Mechanisms of formative assessment in the additional professional education of teachers. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2023; 25 (5): 106‒134. DOI: 10.17853/1994-5639-2023-5-106-134 (In Russ.)

17. Kalashnikova N. G., Zharkova E. N., Belorukova E. M The content and diagnostics of the teacher’s evaluative competence. Innovacionnye proekty i programmy v obrazovanii = Innovative Projects and Programs in Education [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2023 May 14]; 3: 58‒66. Available from: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=35575176 (In Russ.)

18. Looney A., Cumming J., van Der Kleij F., Harris K. Reconceptualising the role of teachers as assessors: Teacher assessment identity. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. 2018; 25 (5): 442–467. DOI: 10.1080/0969594X.2016.1268090

19. Pastore S., Andrade H. Teacher assessment literacy: A three-dimensional model. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2019; 84: 128–138. DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2019.05.003

20. Savinykh G. P., Volchek M. G. Teacher evaluation competencies as a component of intra-school assessment. Sibirskiy uchitel’ = Siberian Teacher. 2021; 3 (136): 80−85. (In Russ.)

21. Xu Y., Brown G. T. L. Teacher assessment literacy in practice: A reconceptualization. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2016; 58 (1): 149–162. DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.010

22. Brookhart S. Educational assessment knowledge and skills for teachers. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. 2011; 30: 3–12. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2010.00195.x

23. Andersson C., Palm T. Reasons for teachers’ successful development of a formative assessment practice through professional development – a motivation perspective. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. 2018; 25 (6): 576–597. DOI: 10.1080/0969594X.2018.1430685

24. Primerov D. A., Bolshakova Z. M. Scientific approaches to the building of evaluation competence. Mir nauki, kul’tury, obrazovanija = The World of Science, Culture and Education [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2023 May 17]; 3 (34): 67–69. Available from: http://amnko.ru/index.php/russian/journals (In Russ.)

25. Selyukov R. V. Modeling of process of formation of estimated competence of future teachers in the conditions of dual training. Sovremennoe pedagogicheskoe obrazovanie = Modern Teacher Education [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2023 May 17]; 6: 79–83. Available from: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=36425580& (In Russ.)

26. Vladimirova L. M. Development of teacher assessment competence as a pedagogical problem. Nauka i shkola = Science and School. 2020; 3: 93–98. DOI: 10.31862/1819-463X2020-3-93-99 (In Russ.)

27. DeLuca C., Bellara A. The current state of assessment education: Aligning policy, standards, and teacher education curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education. 2013; 64 (4): 356–372. DOI: 10.1177/0022487113488144

28. Gotch C. M., French B. F. A systematic review of assessment literacy measures. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. 2014; 33 (2): 14–18. DOI: 10.1111/emip.12030

29. Schneider C., Bodensohn R. Student teachers’ appraisal of the importance of assessment in teacher education and self-reports on the development of assessment competence. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. 2017; 24 (2): 127–146. DOI: 10.1080/0969594X.2017.1293002

30. Vladimirova L. M. Main difficulties in the development of the assessment competence of teachers. Izvestija Saratovskogo universiteta. Novaja serija. Serija: Filosofija. Psihologija. Pedagogika = Izvestiya of Saratov University. Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy. 2021; 21 (3): 339–343. DOI: 10.18500/1819-7671-2021-21-3-339-343 (In Russ.)

31. DeLuca C., Johnson S. Developing assessment capable teachers in this age of accountability. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. 2017; 24 (2): 121–126. DOI: 10.1080/0969594X.2017.1297010

32. Grainger P. R., Adie L. How do pre-service teacher education students move from novice to expert assessors? Australian Journal of Teacher Education. 2014; 39 (7): 88–105. DOI: 10.14221/ajte.2014v39n7.9

33. Deneen C. C., Brown G. T. L. The impact of conceptions of assessment on assessment literacy in a teacher education program. Cogent Education. 2016; 3 (1): 1–14. DOI: 10.1080/2331186X.2016.1225380

34. DeLuca C., Braund H. Preparing assessment literate teachers. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. 2019. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.487

35. Bystritskaya E. V., Alenina A. A., Labazova A. V., Antonova V. V. Theoretical and methodological foundations of the process of formation of the evaluation competence in the future teacher of general cultural disciplines. Global’nyj nauchnyj potencial = Global Scientific Potential [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2023 May 18]; 12 (117): 89–91. Available from: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=44847011 (In Russ.)

36. Ayalon M., Wilkie K. J. Developing assessment literacy through approximations of practice: Exploring secondary mathematics pre-service teachers developing criteria for a rich quadratics task. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2020; 89: 103–111. DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2019.103011

37. Chick H., Beswick K. Teaching teachers to teach Boris: A framework for mathematics teacher educator pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education. 2018; 21 (5): 475–499. DOI: 10.1007/s10857-016-9362-y

38. Tumasheva O. V. Methodical training of future teachers: Immersion in professional reality. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2023 May 23]; 12 (218): 63‒70. Available from: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=30770725 (In Russ.)

39. Grossman P., Hammerness K., McDonald M. Redefining teaching, reimagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice. 2009; 15 (2): 273–289. DOI: 10.1080/13540600902875340

40. Hill M. F., Ell F., Grudnoff L., Haigh M., Cochran-Smith M., Chang W.-C., Ludlow L. Assessment for equity: Learning how to use evidence to scaffold learning and improve teaching. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. 2017; 24 (2): 185–204. DOI: 10.1080/0969594X.2016.1253541

41. Ball D. L., Thames M. H., Phelps G. Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education. 2008; 59: 389–407. DOI: 10.1177/0022487108324554

42. Charalambous C. Y., Litke E. Studying instructional quality by using a content-specific lens: The case of the mathematical quality of instruction framework. ZDM Mathematics Education. 2018; 50 (3): 445–460. DOI: 10.1007/s11858-018-0913-9

43. Morris A. K., Hiebert J. Mathematical knowledge for teaching in planning and evaluating instruction: What can preservice teachers learn? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2023 May 23]; 40 (5): 491–529. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40539354

44. Alqassab M., Strijbos J. W., Ufer S. Training peer-feedback skills on geometric construction tasks: Role of domain knowledge and peer-feedback level. European Journal of Psychology Education. 2018; 3 (1): 11–30. DOI: 10.1007/s10212-017-0342-0

45. Masingila J., Olanoff D., Kimani P. Mathematical knowledge for teaching teachers: Knowledge used and developed by mathematics teachers educators in learning to teach via problem solving. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education. 2018; 21: 429–450. DOI: 10.1007/s10857-017-9389-8

46. Sokolova E. V. Construction of diagnostic tasks in the conditions of criteria-based assessment of students’ achievements in the study of school geometry course. Prepodavatel’ XXI vek [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2023 May 21]; 4‒1: 491–529. Available from: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=27633963 (In Russ.)

47. Lipatnikova I. G. Assessment as a diagnostic procedure of forming the final results of teaching mathematics. Pedagogicheskoye obrazovaniye v Rossii = Pedagogical Education in Russia [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2022 Jun 02]; 7: 177–182. Available from: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=26638542 (In Russ.)

48. Patterson C. L., Parrott A., Belnap J. Strategies for assessing mathematical knowledge for teaching in mathematics content courses. The Mathematics Enthusiast [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2022 May 12]; 17 (2/3): 807–842. Available from: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/tme/vol17/iss2/15/

49. Dalinger V. A. Case method in teaching future mathematics teachers the course “typical mistakes, their causes and ways of prevention”. Mezhdunarodnyj zhurnal jeksperimental’nogo obrazovanija = International Journal of Experimental Education [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2023 May 27]; 3(5): 571–573. Available from: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=23372679 (In Russ.)

50. Shaughnessy M., DeFino R., Pfaff E., Blunk M. I think I made a mistake: How do prospective teachers elicit the thinking of a student who has made a mistake? Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education. 2021; 24: 335–359 DOI: 10.1007/s10857-020-09461-5

51. Aksu Z., Ozkaya M., Gedik S. D., Konyalıoglu A. C. Mathematics self-efficacy and mistake-handling learning as predictors of mathematics anxiety. Journal of Education and Training Studies. 2016; 4 (8): 65–71. DOI: 10.11114/jets.v4i8.1533

52. Shestakova L. G. Integrative approach to bachelors training in the direction 44.03.05 of pedagogical education. Mezhdunarodnyy nauchno-issledovatel’skiy zhurnal = International Research Journal. 2019; 10 (88): 47–50. DOI: 10.23670/IRJ.2019.88.10.032 (In Russ.)

53. Milanković J. J., et al. Is the integrative teaching approach beneficial for learning? International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education. 2022; 10 (2): 173–183. DOI: 10.23947/2334-8496-2022-10-2-173-183

54. DeLuca C., LaPointe-McEwan D., Luhanga U. Approaches to classroom assessment inventory: A new instrument to support teacher assessment literacy. Educational Assessment. 2016; 21 (4): 248–266. DOI: 10.1080/10627197.2016.1236677

55. Zemlyanskaya E. N. Formative assessment of students’ academic achievements in primary general education: Teacher training. Pedagogika. Voprosy teorii i praktiki = Pedagogy. Theory & Practice. 2022; 7 (4): 449–455. DOI: 10.30853/ped20220071 (In Russ.)

56. Livingston K., Hutchinson C. Developing teachers’ capacities in assessment through career-long professional learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. 2017; 24 (2): 290–307. DOI: 10.1080/0969594X.2016.1223016

57. Chetvertnykh T. V. Teachers’ readiness for using the forming assessment in the educational process. Vestnik Omskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta. Gumanitarnyye issledovaniya = Bulletin of the Omsk State Pedagogical University. Humanities Research [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2023 Jun 02]; 4 (21): 146‒150. Available from: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=36961492

58.