








































Emerging Perspectives 
ep.journalhosting.ucalgary.ca 

Corresponding author: cadamson@cesd73.ca 

 

New Teacher Assessment Literacy: Determining and Narrowing the Gaps 

Christopher Adamson 

University of Calgary 

Assessment literacy is a fundamental prerequisite for effective student learning; 
therefore, determining and narrowing the gaps in teachers’ assessment literacy is an 
important educational endeavour.  The purpose of this research was to explore the 
gaps in new teacher assessment literacy within a rural Alberta school division. The 
researcher administered a modified assessment literacy inventory to teachers within 
their first four years of practice.  Results have indicated that gaps in new teacher 
assessment literacy exist in four of the nine standards used; choosing assessment 
methods, developing assessment methods, administering, scoring, and interpreting 
results, and using assessment results in decision making.  These findings reflect the 
need to improve the assessment literacy within this context and they hint at a more 
widespread issue.  This article offers recommendations to narrow the gaps with 
tailored professional development through professional learning communities. 

Keywords: assessment literacy, student learning, new teacher 

Adamson, C. (2020). New teacher assessment literacy: Determining and narrowing the gaps. 
Emerging Perspectives, 4(2), 89-105. 

 

Improving student achievement is a priority for all educational stakeholders and 
administration are continuously seeking effective approaches to reach these priorities.  Literature 
indicates that student achievement is tied to sound assessment practices (Black, Harrison, Lee & 
Marshall, 2003; Campbell & Collins, 2007; Gregory, Cameron & Davies, 2000; Mertler, 2004; 
Mertler & Campbell, 2005; Stiggins, 2008) and that new teachers make assessment-related 
decisions without sufficient confidence or training (Brookhart, 2001; DeLuca, 2012; Popham, 
2009).  Gaps in new teacher assessment literacy exist and need to be identified, explored, and 
narrowed to ameliorate student achievement priorities. 

The term assessment literacy was first introduced by Stiggins (1991) who stated that 
assessment literate educators effectively use assessments that produce clear, specific, and rich 
data that reflects a precisely defined learning target.  Assessment literacy encompasses the 
knowledge and skills educators use to identify or create assessments optimally designed for 
various purposes, and the use of the evidence gathered to make appropriate decisions to improve 
instructional decisions and subsequently students’ learning (Kahl, Hofman, & Bryant, 2013).  
The existing research attempts to identify the assessment literacy of preservice, new, and 
experienced teachers using both qualitative and quantitative methods (DeLuca & Klinger, 2010; 
Mertler, 2003; Remesal, 2011).  Most qualitative methods determine teachers’ perceived 



Adamson - Emerging Perspectives (2020)  90 

 

 

confidence levels in assessment practices and the quantitative methods measure teachers’ 
assessment literacy using measures such as the Assessment Literacy Inventory (ALI; Mertler & 
Campbell, 2005) or the Classroom Assessment Literacy Inventory (CALI; Mertler, 2003).  The 
majority of these studies indicate that teachers need to improve their assessment literacy (Arter, 
2001; Brookhart, 2001; Popham, 2006).  Despite an increase in research regarding assessment 
literacy, “many of today’s teachers know little about educational assessment” (Popham, 2009, p. 
5) and teachers generally lack confidence in their assessment practices, and are in dire need of 
assessment training, resources, and opportunities (Volante & Fazio, 2007).  However, for 
training to be effective, it must be tailored to narrow the specific gaps in the assessment literacy 
of teachers. 

To address this problem, this study focused on determining the gaps in new teacher 
assessment literacy within a rural Alberta school division using a version of the ALI that was 
modified by the researcher. This article offers recommendations on how to provide tailored 
professional development (PD) to improve the assessment practices of these teachers.  For the 
purpose of this study, new teachers are defined as those within their first four years of teaching.  
This study has the potential to impact teacher assessment practices and subsequently, student 
achievement.  The results will be relevant to teacher participants, post-secondary faculty, school 
administrators, school division learning coaches, and researchers interested in the topic. Each 
stakeholder will be better equipped to make data-driven decisions regarding assessment-related 
PD with the purpose of narrowing the specific gaps in new teacher assessment literacy.  Teachers 
use diagnostic and formative assessments to best meet the learning needs of their students.  
These same assessments will help determine and narrow the gaps in new teacher assessment 
literacy. The following research question guided this study: Where do the gaps in new teacher 
assessment literacy exist in this rural Alberta school division, as measured by the modified ALI? 

Value of Assessment 

Black and Wiliam (1998) determined that a focus by teachers on assessment practices 
produced a substantial increase in students’ achievement, and Wiliam (2018) stated “the fact that 
assessment is essential for effective instruction is so obvious” (p. 42).  Also, Stiggins (2002) 
indicated that to maximize student achievement, educators must pay far greater attention to the 
improvement of classroom assessment; both assessment of learning and assessment for learning.  
Stiggins (2006) outlined five indicators of sound assessment practices: clear purposes: 
assessment processes and results serve clear and appropriate purposes; clear targets: assessments 
reflect clear and valued student learning targets; sound design: expectations are translated into 
assessments that yield accurate results; effective communication: assessment results are managed 
well and communicated effectively; and student involvement: students are involved in their own 
assessment.  A meta-analysis conducted by Kingston and Nash (2011) clearly outlined the 
evidence of the positive impact formative assessment practices has on student achievement and 
the importance of assessment training.  

Gaps in Assessment Literacy 

According to Stiggins (1991), “most decision makers - educators and non-educators alike - 
are not sufficiently literate in the basics of assessment to know whether their achievement data 



Adamson - Emerging Perspectives (2020)  91 

 

 

are sound or unsound” (p. 536); therefore, they struggle to make sound educational decisions.  
Despite this long awareness of a need for teacher competency in the area of assessment, the 
literature suggests that teachers and administrators continue to lack relevant assessment training 
and skills.  The majority of teacher education programs do not adequately prepare preservice 
teachers to fulfill their expected classroom assessment responsibilities and new teachers continue 
to feel unprepared in this area (DeLuca & Bellara, 2013; Popham, 2009; Stiggins, 2010).  
Likewise, assessment training is rare in instructional leadership programs designed for 
administrators (Stiggins, 2008).  This deficiency in new teacher assessment literacy can cripple 
the quality of education (Popham, 2009).  This is particularly true in rural Alberta school 
divisions due to the high levels of staff turnover and the struggle to maintain a strong 
professional knowledge base regarding assessment.  It is estimated that teachers spend between 
30% and 50% of their professional time engaged in assessment practices (Stiggins, 1999) and 
that assessment literacy is increasingly being recognized as an integral part of teacher 
professionalism (Brookhart, 2002).  Why are teachers’ assessment practices inadequate if they 
are investing so much of their valuable time on this endeavour and where do these assessment 
related inadequacies exist?   

Measuring Assessment Literacy 

To address the issue of assessment illiteracy, we must first determine the current level of 
assessment literacy and any efforts to improve it.  According to Gotch and French (2014), the 
most widely used measure was the Teacher Assessment Literacy Questionnaire (Plake, Impara, 
& Fager, 1993), later revised as the Classroom Assessment Literacy Inventory (Mertler, 2003), 
which has appeared in 11 studies.  These tests were intended to be objective and measure teacher 
knowledge regarding the prescribed competencies and to identify strengths and weaknesses in 
their assessment literacy (Xu & Brown, 2016).  Volante and Fazio (2007) indicated that the ALI 
developed by Mertler and Campbell (2005) could be used “as a diagnostic instrument geared 
toward the identification and remediation of classroom assessment misconceptions or 
weaknesses of in-service teachers” (p. 762).  Mertler and Campbell (2005) indicated that when 
the ALI is used with preservice teachers the internal consistency of the measure demonstrates 
acceptable reliability within the measure (rKR= .74).  Also, the validity of the ALI has been tested 
by Hailaya, Alagumalai, and Ben (2014) and according to their research,  

The ALI has some psychometric qualities that make it useful for measuring teachers’ 
assessment literacy. At the item level, the ALI can be a potential instrument in examining 
teachers’ knowledge on classroom concepts and application, and can be used among in-
service teachers. (Hailaya, Alagumalai, & Ben, 2014, p. 313) 

Gotch and French (2014) expressed a need for increased work on assessment literacy 
measures and indicate that both the CALI and ALI fail to incorporate aspects of formative 
assessment.  Formative assessment is a crucial part of classroom assessment that is often missing 
and according to Brookhart (2011), “what’s new in formative assessment is the importance of 
students as formative decision-makers who need information of a certain type (descriptive) at a 
certain time (in time to act) in order to make productive decisions about their own learning” (p. 



Adamson - Emerging Perspectives (2020)  92 

 

 

4).  In addition, the extent to which students are involved in their own assessment is determined 
by their understanding of classroom learning outcomes; therefore, teachers must clarify and 
share learning intentions and criteria for success with their students (Wiliam, 2014).  Providing 
effective feedback is also key to effective formative assessment (Hattie & Timperley, 2007).  
Wiliam, Lee, Harrison, and Black (2004) reported an effect size of 0.32 on student achievement 
when teachers participated in collaborative PD focused on developing formative assessment 
strategies.  Therefore, due to the importance of formative assessment and feedback, a modified 
version of the ALI that incorporates both formative assessment and feedback was used for this 
study. 

Gaps in Assessment Training 

Research has continued to show that teachers’ assessment and evaluation practices are 
largely incongruent with recommended best practice (Galluzo, 2005; Mertler, 2003; Xu & 
Brown, 2016), which is alarming given the growing trend towards assessment-based 
accountability models within North America (Volante & Fazio, 2007).  According to Stiggins 
(2002), there continues to be relatively little emphasis on assessment directed PD in North 
America.  Unfortunately, assessment practices covered in course work and practica are 
incomplete or superficial in many teacher education programs, leaving graduates unable to 
effectively meet the demands of today’s classrooms (Kahl et al., 2013).  In addition, performance 
measures used to measure the assessment literacy of preservice teachers are inadequate at 
determining candidates’ mastery (Kahl et al., 2013).  Teacher educator programs need more than 
a brief mention of assessment in a course and must place more emphasis on developing the 
assessment literacy of their preservice teachers (Popham, 2011; Siegel & Wissehr, 2011).  
Findings by DeLuca and Klinger (2010) support the need for assessment training with specific 
learning topics identified to develop the assessment literacy of preservice teachers.   

As graduates leave their teacher education programs, the research suggests additional 
assessment training is required to become assessment literate professionals. Therefore, effective 
PD for new teachers must fill this void.  A current systematic review by Vangrieken, Meredith, 
Packer, and Kyndt (2017) indicates the best approach to teacher learning is through structured 
collaboration with their peers complemented with targeted learning sessions; not the one-shot 
workshops teachers typically experience.  Some evidence indicates that schools with embedded 
collaboration also have higher levels of student achievement (Goddard, Goddard, & Tschannen-
Moran, 2007).  Koh (2011) also provided evidence to support this approach by reporting positive 
effects for students when their teachers showed improvement in assessment literacy after 
attending PD with a focus on assessment. 

Gaps in the Literature 

Despite the small pockets of success, limited research has been conducted to better 
understand the assessment literacy of classroom teachers (Volante & Fazio, 2007).  Based on the 
research by Gotch and French (2014), it appears that current assessment literacy measures are 
weak at assessing teachers’ ability to assess.   



Adamson - Emerging Perspectives (2020)  93 

 

 

Furthermore, it is apparent that PD initiatives are most effective when a comprehensive 
understanding of the specific gaps exists and training is tailored to address those gaps (Stiggins, 
1991; Volante & Fazio, 2007).  According to Mertler (2009) there is little research on teachers’ 
current assessment practices from which to construct PD structures aimed at promoting teacher 
assessment literacy.  Stiggins (1991) stated that “it is essential that we provide high-quality, 
efficient in-service training for all those teachers and administrators who have completed their 
degree programs without relevant assessment training” (p. 358).  Current and future educators in 
need of assessment training can be identified using a similar approach to the method used in this 
study and once identified, tailored PD can be implemented. This approach to addressing the gaps 
in assessment literacy presents a deficiency in the literature where this study can be located.  

The emerging theme is evident; sound assessment is important for student learning and 
value exists in determining and narrowing the gap of new teacher assessment literacy within this 
rural Alberta school division. 

Research Methods 

The inclusion criteria for participants involved teachers in the rural Alberta school division 
who were within their first four years of teaching due to the importance of providing PD to new 
teachers as they begin to establish their professional practice.  Teachers with five or more years 
of experience were excluded as data sources because more experienced teachers often have a 
better understanding of assessment due to their years of practice.  In addition, teachers at the 
researcher’s school were excluded from the study due to the researcher’s administrative position.   

An explanation of the research study and an invitation to participate was communicated via 
email to teachers who qualified to be participants based on the inclusion criteria.  Individuals 
were given two weeks to complete and return the consent forms.  The participants included 10 
teachers (n = 10).  Two participants were in their first year, three in their second year, two in 
their third year, and three in their fourth year.  Their teaching assignments ranged from 
kindergarten to grade twelve and 60% of the participants were female, 40% were male. 

Data Collection and Instrumentation 

Once the participants were identified by signed consent forms, they completed the survey 
under the direct supervision of the researcher at division office and data for the study was 
collected using the modified assessment literacy inventory (MALI).  The original ALI is a user-
friendly version of the Teacher Assessment Literacy Questionnaire (Plake, Impara, & Fager, 
1993).  However, new modifications to the original ALI were necessary to account for an 
important development in educational assessment; formative assessment and feedback 
(Brookhart, 2011); these modifications were made by the researcher.  Black and Wiliam (1998) 
also highlighted the importance of formative assessment for improving student achievement.  In 
addition, studies have revealed that student achievement improves when teachers emphasize 
proper questioning techniques, feedback without grades, peer assessment, self-assessment, and 
use of formative data to alter instructional strategies (Black et al., 2004; Black & Wiliam, 1998).   

The original ALI contained 35 questions that were developed to mimic real-world 
applications of assessment standards. The ALI consists of five scenarios, each followed by seven 



Adamson - Emerging Perspectives (2020)  94 

 

 

questions. The questions are related to the seven Standards for Teacher Competence in the 
Educational Assessment of Students (1990), in Mertler and Campbell (2005).  The modification 
for this study involved removing one of the scenarios and adding eight questions related to 
formative assessment and feedback; two questions for each remaining scenario, resulting in a 
survey of 36 questions.  Therefore, each of the nine standards has four related questions.  The 
new questions regarding formative assessment and feedback were created in alignment with the 
standards F1 (assessment purpose), F2 (learning expectations), U2 (effective feedback), and U3 
(instructional follow-up) in the new revised document titled Classroom Assessment Standards 
for PK-12 Teachers (JCSEE, 2015, as cited in DeLuca, LaPointe-McEwan & Luhanga, 2015).  
Table 1 outlines how the MALI aligns to the Standards for Teacher Competence in the 
Educational Assessment of Students (American Federation of Teachers, 1990) and specific 
formative assessment and feedback standards from the Classroom Assessment Standards for PK-
12 Teachers (JCSEE, 2015, as cited in DeLuca, LaPointe-McEwan & Luhanga, 2015).  In 
addition, three questions related to the educational background of the participants were asked 
following the MALI. 

Table 1 

Modified Assessment Literacy Inventory Alignment to Standards (1990 and 2015)   

Description Standard Item Alignment 

Teachers should be skilled in choosing assessment 
methods appropriate for instructional decisions. 

Choosing Assessment 
Methods 

1, 10, 19, 27 

Teachers should be skilled in developing assessment 
methods appropriate for instructional decisions. 

Sound Design 2, 11, 20, 29 

The teacher should be skilled in administering, scoring 
and interpreting the results of both externally-produced 
and teacher produced assessment methods. 

Scoring 3, 12, 21, 30 

Teachers should be skilled in using assessment results 
when making decisions about individual students, 
planning teaching, developing curriculum, and school 
improvement. 

Using Results 4, 13, 22, 31 

Teachers should be skilled in developing valid pupil 
grading procedures which use pupil assessments. 

Grading 5, 14, 23, 32 

Teachers should be skilled in communicating assessment 
results to students, parents, other lay audiences, and 
other educators. 

Communicating Results 6, 15, 24, 33 

Teachers should be skilled in recognizing unethical, 
illegal, and otherwise inappropriate assessment methods 
and uses of assessment information. 

Ethical Assessment 7, 16, 25, 34 

  



Adamson - Emerging Perspectives (2020)  95 

 

 

Classroom assessment practices should have a clear 
purpose that supports teaching and learning. 
Learning expectations should form the foundation for 
aligning classroom assessment practices with appropriate 
instruction and learning opportunities for each student. 

Foundations of Formative 
Assessment 8, 17, 26, 35 

Classroom assessment practices should provide timely 
and useful feedback to improve student learning. 
Analysis of student performance should inform 
instructional planning and next steps to support ongoing 
student learning. 

Use of Formative 
Assessment 9, 18, 27, 36 

Note. Adapted from American Federation of Teachers (1990). 

Data Analysis 

Following data collection, descriptive statistics regarding minimum, maximum, mean, 
standard deviation (SD), levels of achievement, and percentage (%) were used to analyze the 
data.  

Results 

The minimum score, maximum score, mean (maximum of four), and SD for each of the 
nine standards are presented in Table 2.  In addition, the minimum and maximum total score of 
all participants is displayed with associated mean and SD. 

The results revealed that the highest and lowest total score of all participants was 28 and 
15, respectively, with a mean of 23.6 and SD of 4.06.  The mean scores based on the MALI 
ranged from 2.0 to 3.7, with a SD between 0.48 and 1.23.  The standard with the highest mean 
was standard 9: use of formative assessment (mean = 3.7; SD = 0.48).  The standards with the 
lowest means were standard 2: sound design (mean = 2.0; SD = 0.82) and standard 3: scoring 
(mean = 2.0; SD = 1.05).   

Table 2 

Participant Scores on the Modified Assessment Literacy Inventory 

Description Standard Min. Max. Mean SD 
Teachers should be skilled in choosing 
assessment methods appropriate for 
instructional decisions. 

Choosing Assessment 
Methods 

0 4 2.2 1.03 

Teachers should be skilled in developing 
assessment methods appropriate for 
instructional decisions. 

Sound Design 1 3 2 0.82 

Teachers should be skilled in 
administering, scoring and interpreting the 
results of both externally-produced and 

Scoring 0 4 2 1.05 



Adamson - Emerging Perspectives (2020)  96 

 

 

teacher produced assessment methods. 
Teachers should be skilled in using 
assessment results when making decisions 
about individual students, planning 
teaching, developing curriculum, and 
school improvement. 

Using Results 1 3 2.2 0.79 

Teachers should be skilled in developing 
valid pupil grading procedures which use 
pupil assessments. 

Grading 1 4 2.8 1.03 

Teachers should be skilled in 
communicating assessment results to 
students, parents, other lay audiences, and 
other educators. 

Communicating Results 0 4 2.8 1.23 

Teachers should be skilled in recognizing 
unethical, illegal, and otherwise 
inappropriate assessment methods and uses 
of assessment information. 

Ethical Assessment 1 4 2.7 0.95 

Foundations 1 - Assessment Purpose 
Foundations 2 - Learning Expectations 

Foundations of 
Formative Assessment 

2 4 3.2 0.63 

Use 2 - Effective Feedback 
Use 3 - Instructional Follow up 

Use of Formative 
Assessment 

3 4 3.7 0.48 

Total score out of 36 points 15 28 23.6 4.06 
 
 To get a better understanding of the degree of assessment literacy based on the nine 

standards, participants’ scores were divided into three levels; low, medium, and high (Table 3).  
The low level of achievement represents the number of participants who scored lower than 50 
percent on a standard (zero or one out of the four questions correct), medium represents 
participants who scored 50 - 75 percent on a standard (two or three out of the four questions 
correct), and high represents participants who scored higher than 75 percent on a standard (all 
four questions correct).  The number of participants that achieved a total score on a low, 
medium, and high level are also represented in Table 3.   

 The levels of achievement based on the nine standards of the MALI revealed that 
participants had scores for eight standards at the medium level and one at the high level (standard 
9: use of formative assessment).  The standards that were achieved at the lowest levels were the 
following; standard 2: developing assessment methods, standard 3: administering, scoring, and 
interpreting results, and standard 4: using assessment results in decision making. 

  



Adamson - Emerging Perspectives (2020)  97 

 

 

Table 3 

Levels of Achievement on the Modified Assessment Literacy Inventory 

 
 

 
Standard 

Assessment Literacy 

Low Medium High 

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

1. Choosing an assessment 
method 

1 10% 8 80% 1 10% 

2. Developing assessment 
methods 

3 30% 7 70% 0 0% 

3. Administering, scoring, and 
interpreting results 

2 20% 7 70% 1 10% 

4. Using assessment results in 
decision making 

2 20% 8 80% 0 0% 

5. Using valid student 
assessments to determine levels 
of student achievement 

1 10% 6 60% 3 30% 

6. Communicating assessment 
results to all stakeholders 

1 10% 6 60% 3 30% 

7. Recognizing unethical, 
illegal, and inappropriate 
assessment methods and uses of 
assessment information 

1 10% 7 70% 2 20% 

8. Identifying the purpose of 
assessment and learner 
expectations 

0 0% 7 70% 3 30% 

9. Using feedback and 
instructional follow up 

0 0% 3 30% 7 70% 

Total out of 10 participants 1 10% 7 70% 2 20% 
 

Table 4 summarizes the data by highlighting the standards that were achieved at the lowest 
level (gaps in assessment literacy) and begins to answer the research question.  The mean, SD, 
and percentage of participants that achieved at a low level for the given standards are displayed.  

  



Adamson - Emerging Perspectives (2020)  98 

 

 

Table 4 

Gaps in New Teacher Assessment Literacy 

Standard Mean SD Percentage 
2. Developing assessment methods 2 0.82 30% 
3. Administering, scoring, and interpreting results 2 1.05 20% 
4. Using assessment results in decision making 2.2 0.79 20% 
1. Choosing an assessment method 2.2 1.03 10% 

Discussion 

Gaps in new teacher assessment literacy exist, and the results support this statement. The 
gaps in new teacher assessment literacy within the rural Alberta school division were primarily 
within four of the nine standards used in the MALI: standard two: developing assessment 
methods, standard three: administering, scoring, and interpreting results, standard four; using 
assessment results in decision making, and standard one: choosing an assessment method.   

In the study performed by the original creator of the ALI, (Mertler, 2009), standard two 
was also the lowest achieved standard among the research participants; however, standard two 
showed the second greatest amount of improvement when reassessed following a two-week in-
service training in classroom assessment.  Standard two: developing assessment methods, 
incorporates questions that discuss validity coefficients, reliability coefficients, item difficulty 
value, and other assessment vocabulary that the participants possibly were not familiar with.  
This may explain why it was the lowest achieved standard.  In addition, survey questions 
included the associated numerical values for these terms and perhaps participants couldn’t make 
sense of the statistics.   

The work by Stiggins (2010) provided overwhelming evidence that student achievement is 
strongly related to their teachers’ ability to identify or create high-quality classroom assessments 
and the meta-analysis by Hattie and Timperley (2007) revealed how the productive use of 
formative assessment data can have a positive impact on student achievement.  The low level of 
achievement on the four standards is concerning since it suggests that participants struggle to 
develop and select appropriate assessment methods and make sound decisions based on 
assessment data.  However, the lack of assessment-based courses, assessment PD, teaching 
experience, and available time to digest assessment data appropriately likely accounts for the low 
achievement on the other standards.  New teachers have not had the opportunity to experience 
the difference between unsound and sound assessment nor do they feel confident or 
appropriately prepared for assessment when they graduate from their teacher education programs 
(Volante & Fazio, 2007).  Although assessment self-efficacy was not a focus of this study, this 
statement supports a large body of literature that advocates greater support for new teachers to 
improve the quality of teaching and teacher retention, which is a struggle in this rural Alberta 
school division (Volante & Fazio, 2007).   
  



Adamson - Emerging Perspectives (2020)  99 

 

 

Formative Assessment 

The standards that were achieved at the highest level were standards eight and nine; 
identifying the purpose of assessment and learner expectations, and using feedback and 
instructional follow-up, respectively.  According to Black and Wiliam (1998), the effect size of 
formative assessments is larger than most found for educational intervention; therefore, it is 
promising that participants achieved standards eight and nine at a high level.  Nonetheless, this 
may have occurred given the fact that these two standards and associated questions were 
additions to the original ALI; therefore, these questions had not been exposed to any item 
analysis (validity testing, item difficulty index, item discriminatory index, distractor analysis, 
etc.).  As a result, the questions are not as rigorous as the other 28 in the MALI.  This could 
explain the high level of achievement that participants experienced on these standards.  

Limitations 

In addition to the psychometric limitations of standards eight and nine, this study is limited 
by other factors.  The sample size (n = 10) should encourage readers to be cautious when making 
interpretations and generalizations of the whole population based on the results of this study.  
Although a sample is useful when estimating trends for a population, increasing the duration and 
scope of this study would allow for a larger sample size and a more accurate picture of new 
teacher assessment literacy in this rural Alberta school division.  Furthermore, generalizations 
cannot be made for the province or country at large since the results represent a unique subgroup 
of Alberta.  However, there is still value in looking at individual participant scores.  When 
individual participant scores are analyzed and interpreted it becomes apparent to teacher 
participants, post-secondary faculty members, school administrators, school division learning 
coaches, and other relevant stakeholders where the gaps in individual new teacher assessment 
literacy exist.  Although, “measuring teachers’ mastery of the principles drawn from the 
knowledge base can give an estimate of teacher assessment literacy, transfer to the practical 
realm is not guaranteed” (Xu & Brown, 2016, p. 153).  Therefore, to get a more holistic view of 
new teacher assessment literacy, the MALI data should be paired with qualitative data from 
classroom observations of practical assessment skills. 

Implications and Recommendations 

With this information, post-secondary faculty members, school administrators, school 
division learning coaches, and central office executive staff can tailor PD to target the needs of 
individual participants.  A core component of effective PD involves teachers engaging in 
ongoing professional development that is tailored to their needs (Desimone, 2009).  The 
significance of this study is to demonstrate the purpose and opportunity of measurement tools 
like the MALI to serve as a diagnostic assessment for teachers.  The results of this study have 
implications for the structure of future PD models given the fact that the data can be used to 
tailor PD with the intent of improving teachers’ assessment literacy and subsequently, student 
achievement.  This endeavour is of interest to all educational stakeholders.   

Post-secondary faculty members must begin to close the gap in new teacher assessment 
literacy by providing more rigorous assessment training in teacher education programs.  A 



Adamson - Emerging Perspectives (2020)  100 

 

 

measure such as the MALI would help identify the gaps and thus allow faculty members to tailor 
their courses to the specific standards of assessment literacy in need of improvement. Preservice 
teachers would benefit from purposeful introductions to competing assessment philosophies and 
“specific course work focused on assessment, embedding assessment topics in content and 
methods courses, and providing real-world opportunities to enable candidates to apply what they 
have learned” (Kahl et al., 2013, p. 3).  In addition, post-secondary faculty members must 
increase the congruency between their teaching and their practice on the topic of assessment.  
When faculty members explicitly model sound assessment practices, preservice teachers have an 
opportunity to experience consistent and effective formative assessment as learners and are far 
more likely to practice formative assessment in their own classrooms as a result (DeLuca & 
Volante, 2016; Poth, 2012).  Using formative assessment as a means of teaching preservice 
teachers will potentially trickle down to improve the learning of K-12 students across the entire 
educational system (DeLuca & Volante, 2016).  Munroe, Mitton-Kükner, and Graham (2015) 
indicated that a fundamental prerequisite for the above recommendations is effective 
collaboration and collegial team support from like-minded educators.  Munroe et al. (2015) 
stated “meeting regularly throughout the semester to plan course activities, to debrief preservice 
teachers’ responses, and to discuss our marking contributes to our abilities to be adaptive, 
reflective, open-minded, and organized” (p. 121). 

The use of professional learning communities to complement or replace more traditional 
professional development activities is an effective way to tailor PD for new teachers using the 
data obtained from this type of research (Popham, 2009).  In addition, “in-service teachers may 
need to utilize daily classroom practices as sites for their assessment literacy development by 
implementing assessment for learning” (Xu & Brown, 2016, p. 154).  Teachers acquire 
assessment knowledge in the field through reflection and collaboration about classroom 
experiences (Howley, Howley, Henning, Gilla, & Weade, 2013) and this supports the 
professional learning community (PLC) approach to narrowing the gaps in new teacher 
assessment literacy.  Incorporating PLCs into a school’s culture and structure is an effective way 
administrators can encourage teachers to share and create common assessments, review research 
on the power of formative assessments, use evidence of student learning to improve teaching, 
and be accountable for their results.  In order for PLCs to be effective, teacher teams with 
common professional goals need to exist and by including teacher mentors, new teachers will 
have access to an invaluable tacit knowledge base.  Furthermore, PLCs must meet frequently 
throughout the year and focus on topics specific to the needs of those teachers and their students.  
Measurements such as the MALI can influence the focus of PLCs to ensure the gaps in new 
teacher assessment literacy are being rectified.  Teachers must also periodically monitor the 
implementation of the practices developed in PLCs and the related teacher and student outcomes 
to determine if positive associations exist between them.  PLCs involve teacher teams engaging 
in a structured collective inquiry to decide on the work that will most benefit their students and 
when administrators increase their involvement in these teams, they can have a greater impact on 
teacher practice and subsequently, student learning (DuFour & Mattos, 2013; Hewson, 2013).   

Once effective PLCs are established, according to DuFour and Mattos (2013), teachers will 
be more likely to do the following: take collective responsibility for student learning; share 
teaching practices; make results transparent; improve their professional practice and student 



Adamson - Emerging Perspectives (2020)  101 

 

 

achievement; share leadership; and express higher levels of professional satisfaction.  Teachers 
that engage in a structured collaborative model for PD improve their practice at greater rates and 
schools that are characterized by a collaborative culture have higher levels of student 
achievement (Ronfeldt, Farmer, McQueen, & Grissom, 2015). 

Conclusion 

According to this literature review, it is evident that sound assessment practices are tied to 
improved student learning and teachers have varying levels of assessment literacy.  Measuring 
the assessment literacy of a teacher is a difficult task.  By interpreting the data from the MALI, 
educators can make suggestions on where and how to improve new teacher assessment literacy.  
Gaps exist in new teacher assessment literacy and participants in this rural Alberta school 
division are no different.  The findings reflect the need to improve the assessment literacy of new 
teachers in this rural Alberta school division, and they raise the question: how assessment literate 
are all teachers; not just those within their first four years? 

 Stiggins (1991) indicated that we spend a lot of resources training teachers to produce 
learning but very little to train teachers to assess the outcomes of those very efforts, and this 
appears to still be true.  Establishing a better understanding of what assessment literacy is and 
how it can be measured is crucial to improving teacher assessment literacy via tailored PD and 
subsequently, student learning.  A measurement tool that stands up to validity testing and is 
aligned with contemporary standards, such as the ones developed by the Joint Committee on 
Standards for Educational Evaluation (JCSEE, 2015, as cited in DeLuca, LaPointe-McEwan & 
Luhanga, 2015) is necessary.  The standards issued by the JCSEE (2015) are the only 
educational standards approved by the American National Standards Institute which means 
“great care has been taken to follow a strict process of review to develop standards that are 
widely supported by researchers and practitioners who are knowledgeable about classroom 
assessment” (JCSEE, 2015, location 73, as cited in DeLuca, LaPointe-McEwan & Luhanga, 
2015).  An updated version of the ALI based on the most current assessment standards and 
paired with classroom observations of practical assessment skills would be beneficial in 
assessing teacher assessment literacy.  This would result in more up-to-date standards and 
provide valuable data which would allow post-secondary faculty members, school 
administrators, school division learning coaches, and central office executive staff to make 
appropriate data-driven decisions regarding assessment-related PD. 

Teachers need to shift their paradigm to understand how assessment can drive instruction 
and positively impact student learning by ensuring their classroom assessments are assessments 
for learning, rather than of learning. (Popham, 2009; Volante & Fazio, 2007).  Quality 
instruction involves sound decision making and sound decisions require quality assessments and 
data (Stiggins, 1991).   

The ability to tailor PD to what in-service teachers specifically need in the area of 
assessment is a critical feature to ensure their training is successful (Volante & Fazio, 2007).  
The PLC process has two powerful motivators for changing adult behavior; irrefutable evidence 
of better results and positive peer pressure (Elmore, 2004; Fullan, 2010, Hattie, 2009).  
Furthermore, Popham (2009) stated that “it must be professional development that will supply 



Adamson - Emerging Perspectives (2020)  102 

 

 

the nation’s teachers with assessment-related skills and knowledge they need” and these 
“professional development programs focused on assessment need to be tailored” (p. 5).  
Investing in PD geared towards assessment will pay dividends in terms of improved teaching and 
learning (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Volante & Melahn; 2005) and may also help retain some of the 
most effective teachers (Volante & Fazio, 2007), which is crucial in any educational context 
including this rural Alberta school division.  In addition, Volante and Fazio (2007) believed that 
“an ounce of assessment literacy promotion may act as a pound of retention cure” (p. 762). 

Engaging teachers in structured collaborative PLCs with a focus on their assessment 
learning needs, identified by measures such as the MALI, is a step in the right direction to 
improving instruction and subsequently student achievement.  Additional research focused on the 
implementation and effectiveness of the above recommendations on how to improve new teacher 
assessment literacy would be beneficial to all educational stakeholders. 

References 

American Federation of Teachers. (1990). Standards for teacher competence in educational  
 assessment of students. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 9(4), 30–32. 
Arter, J. (2001). Learning teams for classroom assessment literacy. NASSP Bulletin, 85(621), 53- 
 65. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263650108562107 
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., & Marshall, B. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into 
 practice. Berkshire, England: McGraw-Hill International (UK). 
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom  
 assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-148. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171009200119 
Brookhart, S. M. (2001, March). The standards and classroom assessment research. The role of  
 the standards for teacher competence in educational assessment of students in developing 

the quality teacher assessors. Paper presented in a symposium at the annual meeting of the 
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Dallas, TX. Retrieved from 
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED451189.pdf 

Brookhart, S. M. (2002). What will teachers know about assessment, and how will 
 that improve instruction. In R. W. Lissitz & W. D. Schafer (Eds.), Assessment in education 

reform: Both means and ends (pp. 2-17). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. 
Brookhart, S. (2011). Educational assessment knowledge and skills for teachers. Educational  
 Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30, 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-

3992.2010.00195.x 
Campbell, C., & Collins, V. L. (2007). Identifying essential topics in general and special  
 education introductory assessment textbooks. Educational Measurement: Issues and 

Practice, 26(1), 9-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2007.00084.x 
Elmore, R. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance.  
 Boston: Harvard Educational Press. 
Fullan, M. (2010). The moral imperative realized. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. 
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: 
 Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181-199. 

https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x08331140 



Adamson - Emerging Perspectives (2020)  103 

 

 

DeLuca, C. (2012). Preparing teachers for the age of accountability: Toward a framework for 
assessment education. Action in Teacher Education, 34(5/6), 576-591. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2012.730347 

DeLuca, C., & Bellara, A. (2013). The current state of assessment education: Aligning policy,  
 standards, and teacher education curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(4), 356-

372. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487113488144 
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 
DeLuca, C., LaPointe-McEwan, D., & Luhanga, U. (2015). Teacher assessment literacy: A  
 review of international standards and measures. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and 

Accountability, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-015-9233-6 
DeLuca, C., & Volante, L. (2016). Assessment for learning in teacher education programs:  
 Navigating the juxtaposition of theory and praxis. Journal of the International Society for 

Teacher Education, 20(1), 19-31. Retrieved from 
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1177153.pdf 

DuFour, R., & Mattos, M. (2013). How do principals really improve schools? Educational 
 Leadership, 70(7), 34-40. 
Goddard, Y. L., Goddard, R. D., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). A theoretical and empirical  
 investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in 

public elementary schools. Teacher College Record, 109(4), 877–896. Retrieved from 
https://education.illinoisstate.edu/downloads/casei/collaboration_studentachievement.pdf 

Gotch, C. M., & French, B. F. (2014). A systematic review of assessment literacy measures.  
 Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 33(2), 14-18. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12030 
Gregory, K., Cameron, C., & Davies, A. (2000). Knowing what counts: Self-Assessment and  
 goal setting. Merville, BC: Connections. 
Hailaya, W., Alagumalai, S., & Ben, F. (2014). Examining the utility of assessment literacy  
 inventory and its portability to education systems in the Asia Pacific region. Australian 

Journal of Education, 58(3), 297-317. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944114542984 
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to student  
 achievement. New York: Routledge. 
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research,  
 77(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487 
Hewson, K. (2013). Time shift: Developing teacher teams. Principal, 92(3), 14-17. Retrieved  
 from https://www.naesp.org/sites/default/files/Hewson_JF13.pdf 
Howley, M. D., Howley, A., Henning, J. E., Gilla, M. B., & Weade, G. (2013). Intersecting  
 domains of assessment knowledge: School typologies based on interviews with secondary 

teachers. Educational Assessment, 18(1), 26-48. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2013.761527 

Kahl, S. R., Hofman, P., & Bryant, S. (2013). Assessment literacy standards and performance 
 measures for teacher candidates and practicing teachers. Prepared for the Council for the 

Accreditation of Educator Preparation. Dover, NH: Measured Progress.  
Klinger, D., McDivitt, P., Howard, B., Rogers, T., Munoz, M., & Wylie, C. (2015). Classroom  
 assessment standards for prek-12 teachers: Joint committee on standards for educational  
 evaluation [Kindle Version]. Retrieved from Amazon.ca. 



Adamson - Emerging Perspectives (2020)  104 

 

 

Koh, K. H. (2011). Improving teachers’ assessment literacy through professional development.  
 Teaching Education, 22(3), 255-276. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2011.593164 
Mertler, C. A. (2003). Preservice versus inservice teachers' assessment literacy: Does  
 classroom experience make a difference? American Secondary Education, 33(2), 76-92. 

Retrieved from 
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.556.4217&rep=rep1&type=pdf 

Mertler, C. A. (2004). Secondary teachers' assessment literacy: Does classroom experience  
 make a difference? American Secondary Education, 33(1), 49-64. 
Mertler, C. A. (2009). Teachers’ assessment knowledge and their perceptions of the impact of  
 classroom assessment professional development. Improving Schools, 12(2), 101–113. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480209105575 
Mertler, C. A. & Campbell, C. (2005, April). Measuring teachers’ knowledge & application of  
 classroom assessment concepts: Development of the assessment literacy inventory. 

Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research 
Association, Montreal, QC. 

Munroe, E. A., Mitton-Kükner, J., & Graham, D. (2015). Inquiring into the assessment  
 education of preservice teachers: A collaborative self-study of teacher educators. In  
Education, 21(2), 110-126. Retrieved from 

https://journals.uregina.ca/ineducation/article/view/214 
Plake, B. S., Impara, J. C., & Fager, J. J. (1993). Assessment competencies of teachers: A  
 national survey. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12(4), 10-12. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1993.tb00548.x 
Popham, W.J. (2009). Assessment literacy for teacher: Faddish or fundamental? Theory into  
 Practice, 48(1), 4-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802577536 
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. (2012). What assessment knowledge and skills do initial teacher education programs  
 address? A Western Canadian perspective. Alberta Journal of Educational 

Research, 58(4), 634-656. Retrieved from 
https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/ajer/article/view/55670/42588 

Remesal, A. (2011). Primary and secondary teachers’ conceptions of assessment: A qualitative  
 study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 472-482. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.09.017 
Ronfeldt, M., Farmer, S. O., McQueen, K., & Grissom, J. A. (2015). Teacher collaboration in  
 instructional teams and student achievement. American Educational Research 

Journal, 52(3), 475-514. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215585562 
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 
Stiggins, R. J. (1991). Assessment literacy. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(7), 534-39.  
 https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721714553413 
Stiggins, R. J. (1999). Evaluating classroom assessment training in teacher education programs. 
 Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 18(1), 23–27. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1999.tb00004.x 
Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment for learning. Phi Delta  
 Kappan, 83(10), 758-765. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170208301010 



Adamson - Emerging Perspectives (2020)  105 

 

 

Stiggins, R. J. (2008). Assessment manifesto: A call for the development of balanced assessment  
 systems. A position paper. Portland, OR: ETS Assessment Training Institute. Retrieved 

from https://www.nyscoss.org/img/uploads/file/Assessment_Manifesto_Article_-
_Rick_Stiggins.pdf  

Stiggins, R. J. (2010). Essential formative assessment competencies for teachers and school  
 leaders. In H. L. Andrade, & G. J. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of Formative Assessment (pp.  
 233-250). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. 
Stiggins, R. J., Arter, J. A., Chappuis, J., & Chappuis, S. (2006). Classroom assessment for  
 student learning: Doing it right--using it well. Portland, OR: Assessment Training  
 Institute. 
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. https://doi.org/10.2307/20466661 
Volante, L., & Melahn, C. (2005). Promoting assessment literacy in teachers: Lessons from the  
 Hawaii school assessment liaison program. Pacific Educational Research Journal, 13(1), 

19-34. Retrieved from http://hawaii.edu/crdg/perj/perj2005/perj2005.pdf 
Wiliam, D. (2014, April). Toward a theory of classroom assessment as the regulation of  
 learning. In Formative assessment and contingency in the regulation of learning  
 processes. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the American Educational 

Research Association, Philadelphia, PA.  
Wiliam, D. (2018). How can assessment support learning? A response to Wilson and  
 Shepard, Penuel, and Pellegrino. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 37(1), 

42-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12192 
Wiliam, D., Lee, C., Harrison, C., & Black, P. (2004). Teachers developing assessment for  
 learning: Impact on student achievement. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & 

Practice, 11(1), 49-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594042000208994 
Xu, Y., & Brown, G. T. (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 
 


	Value of Assessment
	Gaps in Assessment Literacy
	Measuring Assessment Literacy
	Gaps in Assessment Training
	Gaps in the Literature
	Research Methods
	Data Collection and Instrumentation
	Data Analysis

	Results
	Discussion
	Formative Assessment
	Limitations

	Implications and Recommendations
	Conclusion
	References

