Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Development of self-efficacy towards using alternative assessment scale

  • Published:
Asia Pacific Education Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Determining the candidate teachers’ opinions regarding self-efficacy towards alternative assessment will be beneficial in that this will improve their competencies while using these approaches in their applications within the classroom. In this article, the development and validation of the “Self-efficacy towards Using Alternative Assessment Scale” (SUAAS) is introduced. The SUUAS is a 26-item scale for assessing candidate teachers’ self-efficacy towards using alternative assessment. Data collected from 424 candidate teachers provide evidence for the validity and reliability of the scale. The results provide evidence for a valid and reliable self-efficacy scale with 3 factors, which are named as “Self-efficacy towards Using”, “Self-efficacy towards Challenges” and “Self-efficacy towards Using Sources”. The Cronbach’s alpha value of the entire scale has been found as 0.89, while those of the sub-factors are 0.88, 0.86 and 0.71, respectively. Followed by additional validation studies, the SUAAS will serve as a valuable tool for both instructors and researchers in education to assess teachers’ and candidate teachers’ beliefs related to their self-efficacy towards using alternative assessment approaches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alan, I. R. (1996). Advantages of portfolio assessment. Web:http://www.alan.bgnet.bgsu.edu.

  • Back, S. G., & Hwang, E. H. (2005). A quasi-experimental research on the educational value of performance assessment. Asia Pacific Education Review, 6(2), 179–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baki, A., & Birgin, O. (2004). Reflectıons of using computer-based portfolios as an alternative assessment tools: A Case Study. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational. 3, 3(11).

  • Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior Vol. 4, (pp. 71–81). New York: Academic Press. (Reprinted in Encyclopedia of mental health, by H. Friedman, Ed., 1998, San Diego: Academic Press). http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/BanEncy.html. Accessed 10 Dec 2009.

  • Biggs, J. B. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bol, L., Nunnery, J. A., Stephenson, P. L., & Mogge, K. (2000). A preliminary investigation of teachers’ assessment practices in the New American Schools restructuring models adopted by Memphis City Schools. Teachers and Change, 7, 128–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bol, L., Ross, S., Nunnery, J., & Alberg, M. (2002). A comparison of teachers’ assessment practices in school restructuring models by year of implementation. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 7(4), 407–423. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long term learning. Assessment&Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 399–413. doi:10.1080/02602930600679050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S., Rust, C., & Gibbs, G. (1994). Strategies for diversifying assessment in higher education. Oxford: The Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, Oxford Brookes University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bushman, L. & Schnitker, B. (1995). Teacher attitudes on portfolio assessment, implementation and practicability. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED388661).

  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2008). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı: İstatistik, araştırma deseni SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.

    Google Scholar 

  • Büyüköztürk, Ş., Akgün, Ö., Kahveci, Ö., & Demirel, F. (2004). The validity and reliability study of the Turkish version of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 4(2), 207–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak Kılıç, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2009). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caprara, G., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. (2006). Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students’ academic achievement: A study at the school level. Journal of School Psychology, 44(6), 473–490. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.09.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Century, D. N. (2002). Alternative and traditional assessments: their comparative impact on students’ attitudes and science learning outcomes: An exploratory study. Unpublished PhD thesis (UMI No.3057062).

  • Cheng, H. M. (2006). Junior secondary science teachers’ understanding and practice of alternative assessment in Hong Kong: Implications for teacher professional development. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics & Technology Education, 6(3), 227–243. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, K. M. (1995). Achieving positive attitudes toward science through alternative assessments. Unpublished PhD thesis. (UMI No. 1380599).

  • Culbertson, L. D. (2000). Alternative assessment: Primary grade literacy teachers’ attitudes and practices. Unpublished PhD thesis, Indınana University of Pennsylvania (UMI No 9961569).

  • Culbertson, L. D., & Wenfan, Y. (2003). Alternative assessment: Primary grade literacy teachers’ attitudes and practices. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED479794).

  • Darling-Hammond, L. (1993). Setting standards for students: The case for authentic assessment. NASSP Bulletin, 77(556), 18. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duru, S. (2006). Pre-service elementary education teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning in Turkey. Unpublished PhD thesis. (UMI No. 3243776).

  • Ellington, H. & Brown, S. (1999). Teach with excellence. Times Higher Education Supplement, 1382, 32. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

  • Elliott, S., & Roach, A. (2007). Alternate assessments of students with significant disabilities: Alternative approaches, common technical challenges. Applied Measurement in Education, 20(3), 301–333. doi:10.1080/08957340701431385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flippo, R. F. (2003). Assessing readers: Qualitative diagnosis and instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flowers, C., Ahlgrim-Delzell, D., Browder, D., & Spooner, F. (2005). Teachers’ perceptions of alternate assessments. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30(2), 81–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk-Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 479–507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, P. (2005). Classroom-based assessment: Changing knowledge and practice through preservice teacher education. Teaching & Teacher Education, 21(6), 607–621. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.05.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tahtam, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis. (5th edn.). Pearson Education

  • Hambleton, R., & Murphy, E. (1992). A psychometric perspective on authentic measurement. Applied Measurement in Education, 5(1), 1. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

  • Hamdorf, J. M., & Hall, J. C. (2001). Surgical education. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery, 71, 178–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huffman, P. D. (1995). “Look what I did” why portfolio-based assessment works. Early Childhood News, 1, 20–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isikoglu, N., Basturk, R., & Karaca, F. (2009). Assessing in-service teachers’ instructional beliefs about student-centered education: A Turkish perspective. Teaching & Teacher Education, 25(2), 350–356. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.08.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janisch, C., Liu, X., & Akrofi, A. (2007). Implementing alternative assessment: Opportunities and obstacles. The Educational Forum, 71, 221–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kane, M., & Khattri, N. (1995). Assessment reform: A work in progress. Phi Delta Kapan, 77(1), 30–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoblauch, D., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2008). “Maybe I can teach those kids.” The influence of contextual factors on student teachers’ efficacy beliefs. Teaching & Teacher Education, 24(1), 166–179. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.05.005.

  • Kohn, A. (2000). Burnt at the high stakes. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(4), 315–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotaman, H. (2008). Self-efficacy belief and enhancement of learning performance. The Journal of the Faculty of Education of Uludag University XXI, (I), 111–133.

  • Linn, R. (1990). Essentials of student assessment: From accountability to. Teachers College Record, 91(3), 422–436. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

  • Martens, R., Gulikers, J., & Bastiaens, T. (2004). The impact of intrinsic motivation on e-learning in authentic computer tasks. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(5), 368–376. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00096.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D., & McTighe, J. (1993). Assessing student outcomes: Performance assessment using the dimensions of learning model. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maslovaty, N., & Kuzi, E. (2002). Promoting motivational goals through alternative or traditional assessment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 28, 199–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, D. K., & Tusin, L. F. (1999). Preservice teachers’ perceptions of portfolios: Process versus product. Journal of Teacher Education, 50(2), 131–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2001). In J. Pelligrino, N. Chudowski & R. Glaser (Eds.), Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Committee on the foundation of assessment. Board on Testing and Assessment, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

  • Ogan-Bekiroglu, F. (2008). Assessing assessment: Examination of pre-service physics teachers’ attitudes towards assessment and factors affecting their attitudes. International Journal of Science Education, 31(1), 1–39. doi:10.1080/09500690701630448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owings, C. A., Follo, E. (1992). Effect of portfolio assessment on students attitudes and goal setting abilities in mathematics (pp. 352–394).

  • Pierce, L. V., & O’Malley, J. M. (1992). Performance and Portfolio Assessment for Language Minority Students. Program Information Guide Series, 9. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED347747).

  • Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). (2003). Learning from subject review 1993–2001: Sharing good practice. Glouchester: Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Şaşmaz-Ören, F., & Tatar, N. (2007). Perceptions of classroom teachers about alternative assessment 9. Journal of Buca Education Faculty, 22: 15–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scouller, K. (1998). The influence of assessment method on students’ learning approaches: Multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay. Higher Education, 35(4), 453–472. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serafini, F. (2000). Three paradigms of assessment: Measurement, procedure, and inquiry. Reading Teacher, 54(4), 384. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepard, L. (2008). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Journal of Education, 189(1/2), 95–106. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiggins, R. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment for learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(10), 758. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

    Google Scholar 

  • Struyf, E., Vandenberghe, R., & Lens, W. (2001). The evaluation practice of teachers as a learning opportunity for students. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 27(3), 215–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tourangeau, R., Rips, J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Trotter, E. (2006). Student perceptions of continuous summative assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(5), 505–521. doi:10.1080/02602930600679506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Schaaf, M., Stokking, K., & Verloop, N. (2008). Teacher beliefs and teacher behavior in portfolio assessment. Teaching & Teacher Education, 24(7), 1691–1704. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watering, G., Gijbels, D., Dochy, F., & Rijt, J. (2008). Students’ assessment preferences, perceptions of assessment and their relationships to study results. Higher Education, 56(6), 645–658. doi:10.1007/s10734-008-9116-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waters, H. F., Smeaton, S. P., & Burns, S. G. (2004). Action Research In The Secondary Science Classroom: Student Response To Differentiated, Alternative Assessment. American Secondary Education, 32, 3

  • Watt, H. (2005). Attitudes to the use of alternative assessment methods in mathematics: A study with secondary mathematics teachers in Sydney, Australia. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58(1), 21–44. doi:10.1007/s10649-005-3228-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, G. (1993). Assessing student performance: Exploring the purpose and limits of teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolters, C. (2003). Regulation of motivation: Evaluating an underemphasized aspect of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(4), 189–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This study is supported by the Scientific Research Project Fund of Cumhuriyet University under the project number EGT-015.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, Cumhuriyet University, Sivas, Turkey

    Serkan Buldur & Nilgün Tatar

  2. Elementary Education, Cumhuriyet University, 58140, Sivas, Turkey

    Nilgün Tatar

Authors
  1. Serkan Buldur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nilgün Tatar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nilgün Tatar.

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Table 4.

Table 4 Self-efficacy towards using alternative assessment scale
Full size table

Appendix 2

See Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The path diagram showing standardized coefficients between item-latent variable and latent variables

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Buldur, S., Tatar, N. Development of self-efficacy towards using alternative assessment scale. Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. 12, 485–495 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-010-9140-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-010-9140-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation