2019_International Journal of Psychology 2019_23_Book 1.indb SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS International Journal of Psychology: Biopsychosocial Approach 2019 / 23 ISSN 1941-7233 (Print), ISSN 2345-024X (Online) https://doi.org/10.7220/2345-024X.23.2 TEACHERS’ MISCONCEPTIONS AND CURRENT PERFORMANCE IN IMPLEMENTING STUDENT PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IN THAIL AND Kamonwan Tangdhanakanond1 Chulalongkorn University, Thailand Teara Archwamety University of Nebraska at Kearney, USA Abstract. As a result of the enactment of the National Education Act B.E. 2542 in Thai- land, teachers have been encouraged to employ various methods for students’ learning assessment including student portfolio. Student portfolio is a collection of evidence that systematically reflects students’ learning processes and their learning outcomes in various aspects. The purposes of this study were to examine teach- ers’ misconceptions in implementing student portfolio assessment, and to compare teachers’ current performance in implementing student portfolio assessment be- tween teachers who had attended the training sessions concerning portfolio as- sessment and those who had not. Four hundred and fifty-four elementary school teachers were randomly sampled to be participants in this study. Questionnaires were employed to collect data on teachers’ misconceptions about the principles of student portfolio assessment and the utilization of the results from student port- folio assessment, as well as their current performance in implementing four main steps of student portfolio assessment [i.e., (a) planning for portfolio assessment, (b) collecting created products, (c) selecting products and reflecting on selected products, and (d) revising and evaluating products]. Results revealed that, overall, teachers had misconceptions in nine concepts. Six concepts were about the prin- ciples of student portfolio assessment and three concepts were about the utiliza- tion of the results from student portfolio assessment. Performance, which consisted 1 Please send all paper correspondence to: Kamonwan Tangdhanakanond, Ph.D. Dept. of Educational Research and Psychology Faculty of Education Chulalongkorn University Phyat- hai Rd., Pathumwan, Bangkok Thailand 10330 Tel. +(66) 22182582 Fax +(66) 22182578 Please direct all e-mail messages to: tkamonwan@hotmail.com 39 Kamonwan Tangdhanakanond, Teara Archwamety 40 of implementing four main steps of student portfolio assessment, was higher for teachers who had attended the training sessions concerning student portfolio as- sessment than for those teachers who had not attended the training sessions. The findings of this study could help related public sector personnel and teacher train- ers from universities change teachers’ misconceptions more effectively. Keywords: elementary school, misconception, portfolio, Thailand. Educational reform in Thailand which includes (a) curriculum re- form, (b) teaching and learning reform, and (c) assessment reform, was enhanced after the enactment of the National Education Act of 1999. In the assessment reform, teachers have been encouraged to employ vari- ous methods for students’ learning assessment as mentioned in the Sec- tion 26 of the National Education Act. Authentic assessment, therefore, gained more interest from schoolteachers. Authentic assessment allows students to demonstrate the knowledge and skills learned from their lessons by creating a response or a task in real life situations (Cole, Ryan, Kick, & Mathies, 2000; Kinay, 2018; Mueller, 2005; Tangdhanakanond, Pitiyanuwat, & Archwamety, 2006a; Tangdhanakanond, 2016). Student portfolio is potentially an authentic assessment tool that teachers have been encouraged to use. Student portfolio is a collection of evidence that systematically reflects students’ learning processes and their learning outcomes in various aspects, such as achievement, skills, and characteristics (Chap- puis, Stiggins, Chappuis, & Arter, 2012; Poowipadawat, 2001; Tangd- hanakanond, 2016; Tangdhanakanond & Wongwanich, 2016; Tangd- hanakanond & Wongwanich, 2012; Tangdhanakanond, et al., 2006a). In addition, portfolio could be used to monitor students’ learning de- velopment continuously. Therefore, portfolio could be used for both formative and summative assessment purposes. Another advantage of portfolio is that its process could promote students’ achievement (Sootthipong, 2000; Chinnawong, 2000; Tangdhanakanond, Pitiyanu- wat, & Archwamety, 2006b), achievement motivation (Chinnawong, 2000), critical thinking (Koraneekid, 2007; Tyler & Dibble, 2019), ana- lytic thinking (Tyler & Dibble, 2019), creative thinking (Sujarittanarugse, 2005), meta-cognition (Gencel, 2016), self-directed learning (Elango, Jutti, & Lee, 2005; Tomkins & Quette-Frenette, 2010), and self-efficacy (Nicolaidou, 2012). Moreover, while students create their portfolios 2019, 23, 39–62 p.Misconceptions And Current Per formance In Por tfolio Assessment 41 (especially in the step of selecting products and reflecting on selected products, as well as the step of revising and evaluating products), they are encouraged by teachers to analyze their strengths and weaknesses in learning (Tangdhanakanond, 2005; Priest & Robert, 1998 as cited in McMullan, 2006). Portfolio is also used as a tool for communication be- tween teachers and parents about students’ learning development and their characteristics (Kingkore, 1995; Benson & Barnett, 1999). Literature proposes different steps in the portfolio process, depend- ing on the learning activities, and portfolio purposes. Portfolio process is therefore flexible. However, the four common essential steps in the portfolio process are (a) planning for portfolio assessment, (b) collect- ing created products, (c) selecting products and reflecting on selected products, and (d) revising and evaluating products (Burke, Forgerty, & Belgrad, 1994; Epstein, 2001; Educational Technique Department, 1996; Moonkum, 2000; Morin, 1995; Pearson Education Development Group, 2001; Poowipadawat, 2001; Prawarnpruek, 1997; Punngam, 2000; Saer- eerat, 1997; Siladech, 1997). Kornketkamon (2001) found that Thai teachers had some difficul- ties in the use of student portfolio assessment, especially in remind- ing students to organize the products in their portfolios, reflecting on the created products, as well as revising and evaluating products in the portfolios. Moreover, Tangdhanakanond and Wongwanich (2015) found that Thai teachers lacked knowledge and deep understanding in implementing student portfolio assessment. They also recommended that an analysis of misconceptions of teachers in implementing student portfolio assessment should be conducted. Therefore, an examination of teachers’ misconceptions and current performance of teachers in implementing student portfolio assessment should be conducted. The purposes of this study were (a) to examine teachers’ misconceptions in implementing student portfolio assessment, and (b) to compare teach- ers’ current performance in implementing student portfolio assessment between teachers who had attended the training sessions concerning portfolio assessment and those who had not. Findings on teachers’ mis- conceptions and current performance of student portfolio assessment would produce valuable information for related sectors and personnel to conduct a conceptual change in teachers in the use of student port- folio assessment in the future. Kamonwan Tangdhanakanond, Teara Archwamety 42 ME THODS Participants Participants were 454 elementary school teachers (134 male and 320 female) from all regions (northern, middle, northeastern and south- ern parts) of Thailand selected by multi-stage random sampling. Partici- pants included 66 Thai language teachers, 69 mathematics teachers, 59 sciences teachers, 58 career and technology teachers, 46 art teachers, 54 social study teachers, 56 English language teachers, and 46 physical education teachers. Two hundred and thirteen participants taught in the lower elementary school levels (i.e., grades 1 to 3), whereas 241 partici- pants taught in the upper elementary school levels (i.e., grades 4 to 6). In these numbers of participants, 229 teachers had 20 years of teaching experience or less, while 225 teachers had more than 20 years’ teach- ing experience. Two hundred and nineteen participants had attended the training sessions related to student portfolio assessment, while the other 235 participants had not. Instrument A survey questionnaire was employed in this research study. Before creating the questionnaire, related literature on portfolio process was studied (Burke et al., 1994; Educational Technique Department, 1996; Ep- stein, 2001; Moonkum, 2000; Morin, 1995; Pearson Education Develop- ment Group, 2001; Poowipadawat, 2001; Prawarnpruek, 1997; Punngam, 2000; Saereerat, 1997; Siladech, 1997). Subsequently, five experts in the field of educational measurement and evaluation were selected to be interviewed about teachers’ possible common misconceptions in imple- menting student portfolio assessment. The survey questionnaire was di- vided into three parts. In part one, respondent gender, education level, teaching experience, as well as grades and subjects the respondents taught in schools were requested as the respondents’ demographic in- formation. Respondents were also asked whether they had attended the training sessions related to student portfolio assessment in part one of the questionnaire. In part two, teachers’ misconceptions in implement- ing student portfolio assessment were examined. Teachers were asked 2019, 23, 39–62 p.Misconceptions And Current Per formance In Por tfolio Assessment 43 to rate their understanding of various statements about the principles of student portfolio assessment and the utilization of the results from student portfolio assessment on a five-point rating scale (1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=undecided, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree). In part three, the respondents were asked to rate their current performance in implementing student portfolio assessment on a five-point rating scale (1=never, 2=rarely, 3=occasionally, 4= frequently, 5= very frequently). As mentioned earlier, student portfolio assessment was divided into 4 main steps, i.e., (a) planning for portfolio assessment, (b) collecting created products, (c) selecting products and reflecting on selected products, and (d) revising and evaluating products. The content validity of the ques- tionnaire was examined by using the index of item-objective congruence (IOC). Five experts in the field of educational measurement and evalua- tion were asked as content experts to independently rate the individual items on the degree to which they do or do not measure the specific objectives listed earlier by the researchers. More specifically, the content experts evaluated each item, for each objective, by giving the item the rating (1 = clearly measuring; 0 = degree to which it measures the objec- tive is unclear; and -1 = clearly not measuring). Experts also were asked to suggest wording changes to improve the items. Then, the questionnaire was distributed to 30 elementary school teachers to check the reliability of the questionnaire. The reliability of the questionnaire was determined by Cronbach’s generalizability (G) coefficient in terms of internal con- sistency of the items in each separate part of the questionnaire, as well as the total items in the questionnaire. It was found that the reliability of the various sets of items in regard to the teachers’ misconception in implementing student portfolio assessment (in the second part of the questionnaire) was 0.79, whereas the reliability of those in regard to the current performance in implementing student portfolio assessment (in the third part of the questionnaire) was 0.98. Overall, the reliability of this questionnaire (parts two and three combined) was 0.96. Procedure The questionnaires were randomly distributed to 640 elemen- tary school teachers in all regions (northern, middle, northeastern and southern parts) of Thailand in a month. Four hundred and seventy-three Kamonwan Tangdhanakanond, Teara Archwamety 44 questionnaires were returned. Then, the 454 completed returned ques- tionnaires were analyzed. Means and standard deviations were em- ployed to analyze teachers’ misconceptions and their current perfor- mance in the use of student portfolio assessment. An analyzed mean of the misconception analysis of less than 3.50 was interpreted as miscon- ception (according to Waedramae’s (2004) study on the analysis of mis- conceptions in educational quality assessment), whereas the analyzed mean of the current performance rating in implementing student port- folio assessment was interpreted by following the labels (i.e., 4.50 - 5.00 = very high, 3.50 - 4.49 = high, 2.50 - 3.49 = medium, 1.50 - 2.49 = low, and 1.00 - 1.49 = very low). In addition, independent-sample t-test was also used to compare teachers’ current performance in implementing student portfolio assessment between teachers who had attended the training sessions concerning student portfolio assessment and those who had not. RESULTS Teachers’ Misconceptions in Implementing Student Portfolio Assessment Teachers’ misconceptions in implementing student portfolio assess- ment, measured by using the five-point rating scale, were as shown in Table 1. Overall, teachers (combining those who had attended the train- ing sessions concerning student portfolio assessment with those who had not) had misconceptions in nine concepts (six concepts were about the principles of student portfolio assessment and three concepts were about the utilization of the results from student portfolio assessment). The most important teachers’ misconception concerning the principles of student portfolio assessment was: (a) portfolio is a container of all of the exercises done by students in a whole course (M= 2.24, SD=1.00); followed by (b) the same format of portfolios (e.g., an introduction part, a table of contents) should be set among students to follow the same standards (M= 2.35, SD=1.01); (c) portfolio must only be used to assess students’ learning separately for each course (M= 2.41, SD=1.08); (d) portfolio must only be used in a course that assigns students to 2019, 23, 39–62 p.Misconceptions And Current Per formance In Por tfolio Assessment 45 create learning products (M= 2.58, SD=1.05); (e) portfolio is consistent with a lecture style instruction method (M= 2.94, SD=1.06); and (f ) it is not necessary that teachers plan the learning activities at the begin- ning of the courses (M= 3.31, SD=1.18). As for the misconceptions about the utilization of the results from student portfolio assessment, it was found that the most important misconception was: (a) after finishing the portfolio process, teachers should keep all of the students’ portfolios to reflect the quality of their teaching (M= 2.28, SD=1.98); followed by (b) portfolio is better used for summative assessment rather than formative assessment (M= 2.90, SD=1.04); and (c) portfolio is a supplementary as- sessment method, therefore it is not necessary to utilize the results from portfolio assessment (M= 2.83, SD=1.07), respectively. As for consider- ing each group of participants, it was also found that teachers in both groups had the same misconceptions about the principles of student portfolio assessment and the utilization of the results from student port- folio assessment as mentioned earlier. The above results are consistent with the results on the misconceptions of teachers who had attended the training sessions and those who had not attended the training ses- sions. A two-way analysis of variance with repeated measure on one factor was also performed to compare teachers’ score on the misconception in implementing student portfolio assessment between two groups. The independent factor was group (teachers who had attended the train- ing sessions concerning student portfolio assessment and those who had not), and the repeated-measure factor was teacher’s score on the misconception in implementing student portfolio assessment in two aspects [(a) principles of student portfolio assessment, and (b) utiliza- tion of the results from student portfolio assessment]. A teacher’s score for each of the two aspects was calculated by averaging the two ratings of survey items corresponding to each aspect. It was found that overall mean ratings of teachers’ scores on the first aspect of misconception (principles) in implementing student portfolio assessment by teachers who had attended the training sessions concerning student portfolio assessment and those who had not were not statistically significant different, F(1,452) = 0.04, p > .05. Moreover, there was no statistically significant difference between the mean ratings of the teachers’ scores on the second aspect of misconception (utilization) in implementing Kamonwan Tangdhanakanond, Teara Archwamety 46 student portfolio assessment, F(1,452) = 0.01, p > .05. It was also found that there was no significant interaction effect between the group fac- tor and the aspect of misconception factor, F(1,452) = 0.90, p > .05. The independent-sample t-test was employed to compare teach- ers’ scores on the misconception in implementing student portfolio assessment between teachers who had attended the training sessions concerning student portfolio assessment and those who had not. It was found that, mostly, the two groups of teachers did not have significant differences in the misconception scores. Among the few significant dif- ference findings, the most notable is that there was one concept (i.e., the same format of portfolio should be set among students to follow the same standards) that teachers had not attended the training sessions had more misconception than those who had attended the training ses- sions (t= 2.73, p<.01). Table 1. Mean (1=low, 5=high) and Standard Deviation of Teachers’ Misconceptions in Implementing Student Por tfolio Assessment by Teachers Who Had Attended the Training Sessions Concerning Student Por tfolio Assessment and Those Who Had Not. Portfolio Concepts Train (n=219) No train (n=235) Combined (n=454) t M SD M SD M SD 1. Principles of Student Portfolio Assessment 1.1 Portfolio is a container of all of the exercises done by students in a whole course. 2.31 1.07 2.17 0.92 2.24 1.00 1.40 1.2 Portfolio is one of the student learning assessment instruments. 4.04 0.81 4.03 0.71 4.04 0.75 0.04 1.3 Portfolio is a tool for developing students’ learning. 4.02 0.79 4.03 0.75 4.03 0.77 -0.16 1.4 Portfolio is consistent with a lecture style instruction method. 2.88 1.09 2.99 1.03 2.94 1.06 -1.11 1.5 Portfolio could be used to assess students’ cognitive learning. 3.79 0.84 3.71 0.93 3.75 0.89 0.85 1.6 Portfolio could be uses to assess students’ practical skills. 4.00 0.74 3.84 0.96 3.92 0.86 1.95 1.7 Portfolio could be used to assess students’ desirable characteristics. 3.90 0.74 3.74 1.01 3.81 0.89 1.98* 2019, 23, 39–62 p.Misconceptions And Current Per formance In Por tfolio Assessment 47 Portfolio Concepts Train (n=219) No train (n=235) Combined (n=454) t M SD M SD M SD 1.8 Portfolio is a container of stu- dents’ artifacts that reflect students’ learning outcomes. 4.09 0.81 4.07 0.86 4.08 0.84 0.24 1.9 Portfolio is a container of stu- dents’ artifacts that reflect students’ learning process. 4.18 0.76 4.00 0.80 4.09 0.78 2.45* 1.10 Portfolio must only be used to assess students’ learning separately for each course. 2.47 1.04 2.35 1.12 2.41 1.08 1.20 1.11 Portfolio must only be used in a course that assigns students to create learning products. 2.57 1.04 2.59 1.06 2.58 1.05 -0.21 1.12 It is not necessary that teachers plan the learning activities at the beginning of the courses. 3.32 1.20 3.30 1.16 3.31 1.18 0.24 1.13 It is necessary that students understand each step of portfolio process at the beginning of the courses. 4.04 0.74 3.97 0.75 4.00 0.74 0.95 1.14 The same format of portfolios (e.g., an introduction part, a content table) should be set among stu- dents to follow the same standards. 2.49 1.06 2.23 0.95 2.35 1.01 2.73** 1.15 The most important activity of portfolio process is encourag- ing students to reflect about their learning and criticize their created products in the portfolios. 3.92 0.83 4.02 0.72 3.97 0.77 -1.43 1.16 Opportunities should be provided to students to revise or improve the products in their portfolios. 4.03 0.72 4.04 0.69 4.03 0.71 -0.16 1.17 Scoring criteria or rubrics for evaluating the products in port- folios should be provided at the beginning of the courses. 4.15 0.72 4.17 0.71 4.16 0.71 -0.36 Table 1 cont. Kamonwan Tangdhanakanond, Teara Archwamety 48 Portfolio Concepts Train (n=219) No train (n=235) Combined (n=454) t M SD M SD M SD 1.18 The benchmark products for each evaluation criteria should be provided to students to make them better understand the evaluation criteria. 4.10 0.72 4.10 0.66 4.10 0.69 0.07 1.19 Opportunities should be pro- vided to students to evaluate the products in their portfolios. 4.12 0.71 4.12 0.64 4.12 0.67 0.07 1.20 Other related people (e.g., peers, parents) should be given the opportunities in evaluating stu- dents’ products in the portfolios. 3.91 0.76 4.01 0.78 3.96 0.77 -1.45 2. Utilization of the Results from Student Portfolio Assessment 2.1 Portfolio is a supplementary as- sessment method, therefore it is not necessary to utilize the results from portfolio assessment. 3.18 1.02 3.15 1.11 2.83 1.07 0.34 2.2 Portfolio is better used for sum- mative assessment rather than formative assessment. 2.92 1.03 2.87 1.05 2.90 1.04 0.51 2.3 Students’ learning development could be monitored by implement- ing portfolio assessment. 4.13 0.69 4.19 0.59 4.16 0.64 -0.99 2.4 The results from portfolio assess- ment could be used in adjusting or improving teachers’ instruction methods. 3.94 0.74 4.07 0.67 4.01 0.70 -2.00* 2.5 The results from portfolio assessment could be used to solve students’ learn- ing problems. 4.02 0.73 4.07 0.66 4.05 0.69 -0.69 2.6 The results from portfolio assess- ment could be used to support or enhance students’ learning process. 4.11 0.67 4.14 0.61 4.12 0.64 -0.59 2.7 The results from portfolio assess- ment could be used as a basic infor- mation to plan for the instruction of the next grade level. 4.07 0.73 4.05 0.66 4.06 0.69 0.41 Table 1 cont. 2019, 23, 39–62 p.Misconceptions And Current Per formance In Por tfolio Assessment 49 Portfolio Concepts Train (n=219) No train (n=235) Combined (n=454) t M SD M SD M SD 2.8 After finishing the portfolio process, teachers should keep all of the students’ portfolios to reflect the quality of their teaching. 2.33 1.01 2.24 0.95 2.28 0.98 0.94 Teachers’ Current Performance in Implementing Student Portfolio Assessment Teachers’ current performance in implementing student portfolio assessment is as shown in Table 2 and Figure 1. It was found that overall (combining teachers who had attended the training sessions concern- ing student portfolio assessment and those who had not), teachers implemented the four main steps of student portfolio assessment at a medium to high level. The step of planning for portfolio assessment and the step of collecting created products were implemented at a high level (M=3.50, SD=0.82 and M=3.52, SD=0.93, respectively), whereas the step of selecting products and reflecting on the selected products as well as the step of revising and evaluating products were implemented at a medium level (M=3.34, SD=0.95 and M=3.39, SD=0.96, respectively). For the current performance of teachers who had attended the train- ing sessions concerning student portfolio assessment, it was found that teachers also implemented the four main steps of student portfolio as- sessment at a medium to high level. The step of planning for portfolio assessment, the step of collecting created products, as well as the step of revising and evaluating products were implemented at a high level (M=3.58, SD=0.79; M=3.66, SD=0.88, and M=3.52, SD=0.92, respectively), whereas the step of selecting products and reflecting on the selected products were implemented at a medium level (M=3.49, SD=0.90). As for the current performance of teachers who had not attended the train- ing sessions concerning student portfolio assessment, it was found that teachers implemented the four main steps of student portfolio assess- ment [(a) planning for portfolio assessment, (b) collecting created prod- ucts, (c) selecting products and reflecting on selected products, and (d) Table 1 cont. Kamonwan Tangdhanakanond, Teara Archwamety 50 revising and evaluating products] at a medium level (M=3.43, SD=0.84; M=3.39, SD=0.96; M=3.20, SD=0.97; and M=3.26, SD=0.97, respectively) A two-way analysis of variance with repeated measure on one factor was also performed to compare teachers’ current performance in imple- menting student portfolio assessment between two groups. The inde- pendent factor was group (teachers who had attended the training ses- sions concerning student portfolio assessment and those who had not), and the repeated-measure factor was teachers’ current performance in implementing student portfolio assessment [(a) planning for portfolio as- sessment, (b) collecting created products, (c) selecting products and re- flecting on selected products, and (d) revising and evaluating products]. A teacher’s score for each of the four performances was calculated by averaging the various ratings of survey items corresponding to each per- formance. It was found that overall mean rating of teachers’ performance in implementing student portfolio assessment by teachers who had at- tended the training sessions concerning student portfolio assessment and those who had not were statistically significant different, F(1,452) = 8.94, p < .01. Moreover, there was a statistically significant difference among the Figure 1. Teachers’ per formance rating of teachers who had attended the training sessions concerning student por tfolio assessment and those who had not. 2019, 23, 39–62 p.Misconceptions And Current Per formance In Por tfolio Assessment 51 four mean ratings of the performance of teachers in implementing stu- dent portfolio assessment, F(3,1356) = 29.76, p < .01. It was also found that there was a significant interaction effect between the group of teachers and their student portfolio assessment performance, F(3,1356) = 3.04, p < .05. A simple effect analysis following significant interaction indicated sig- nificant differences (p < .01) in favor of teachers who had attended train- ing in all four performances except “Planning” performance--(a) Planning, F(1,557) = 3.48, p = .063; (b) Collecting, F(1,557) = 10.00, p = .002; (c) Select- ing, F(1,557) = 10.83, p = .001; (d) Revising, F(1,557) = 8.95, p = .003. The independent-sample t-test was employed to compare teachers’ current performance in implementing student portfolio assessment be- tween teachers who had attended the training sessions concerning stu- dent portfolio assessment and those who had not. It was found that, over- all, teachers who had attended the training sessions performed at a higher level in implementing the four main steps of student portfolio assessment than those who had not. However, it is noted that the two groups of teach- ers did not have significant differences in performing some activities in the four main steps of portfolio assessment, i.e., (a) reviewing the learning standards and indicators of the courses, (b) identifying numbers of prod- ucts required to produce in the courses, (c) informing students at the be- ginning of the courses about the use of student portfolio assessment, (d) allowing students to participate in setting the purposes of creating port- folios, (e) encouraging students to collect their created products in their working folders, and (f ) providing students with opportunities to revise or improve the products/evidence in their portfolios. Table 2. Mean Ratings (1=low, 5=high) and Standard Deviation of Current Per formance in Implementing Student Por tfolio Assessment by Teachers Who Had Attended the Training Sessions Concerning Student Por tfolio Assessment and Those Who Had Not. Portfolio Concepts Train (n=219) No train (n=235) Combined (n=454) t/F M SD M SD M SD 1. Planning for Portfolio Assessment 3.58 0.79 3.43 0.84 3.50 0.82 F = 3.48 0.1 Reviewing the learning stand- ards and indicators of the courses. 3.78 0.86 3.76 0.97 3.77 0.92 t = 0.22 Kamonwan Tangdhanakanond, Teara Archwamety 52 Portfolio Concepts Train (n=219) No train (n=235) Combined (n=454) t/F M SD M SD M SD 1.2 Identifying numbers of prod- ucts required to produce in the courses. 3.59 0.86 3.61 0.88 3.60 0.87 t = -0.18 1.3 Informing students at the beginning of the courses about the use of student portfolio assessment. 3.50 0.98 3.39 1.03 3.44 1.01 t = 1.22 1.4 Allowing students to partici- pate in setting the purposes of creating portfolios. 3.46 0.93 3.32 1.07 3.39 1.01 t =1.42 1.5 Informing students at the beginning of the courses about numbers and attributes of prod- ucts required to be produced. 3.53 0.99 3.40 1.01 3.49 1.03 t = 2.01* 1.6 Informing students at the beginning of the courses about portfolio process. 3.60 0.92 3.35 0.98 3.49 1.01 t = 2.74** 1.7 Explaining how to use evalua- tion forms in the portfolio process to students at the beginning of the courses. 3.57 0.97 3.36 1.04 3.47 0.96 t = 2.20* 1.8 Providing students with the benchmark products for each level of evaluation criteria to make them understand the evalu- ation criteria. 3.53 1.03 3.28 1.03 3.46 1.01 t = 2.57* 2. Collecting created products 3.66 0.88 3.39 0.96 3.52 0.93 F = 10.00** 2.1 Providing students with mate- rial for collecting their created products or evidence. 3.56 0.96 3.26 1.03 3.40 1.00 t = 3.25** 2.2 Encouraging students to col- lect their created products in their working folders. 3.69 0.96 3.52 1.07 3.60 1.02 t = 1.74 2.3 Providing students with op- portunities to examine the com- pleteness of their created prod- ucts or evidence before collecting them in their working folders. 3.75 0.94 3.43 1.03 3.59 1.00 t = 3.41** Table 2 cont. 2019, 23, 39–62 p.Misconceptions And Current Per formance In Por tfolio Assessment 53 Portfolio Concepts Train (n=219) No train (n=235) Combined (n=454) t/F M SD M SD M SD 2.4 Providing students with op- portunities to organize products or evidence in their portfolios to be consistent with learning objectives. 3.64 0.98 3.35 1.03 3.49 1.01 t = 3.13** 3. Selecting products and reflect- ing on selected products 3.49 0.90 3.20 0.97 3.34 0.95 F = 10.83** 3.1 Setting the specific times for selecting products and reflecting on the selected products. 3.51 0.99 3.22 1.03 3.36 1.02 t = 3.01** 3.2 Providing students with op- portunities to select the created products from their working folders to be kept in their portfolios. 3.55 0.99 3.26 1.01 3.40 1.01 t = 3.03** 3.3 Encouraging students to use the evaluation criteria or scoring rubrics as a guideline for select- ing the qualified products in their working folders to be kept in their portfolios. 3.60 0.99 3.25 1.03 3.42 1.03 t = 3.74** 3.4 Providing students with op- portunities to put new selected products/evidence in their portfo- lios and take some earlier selected products out from their portfolios. 3.57 0.98 3.25 1.05 3.40 1.03 t = 3.40** 3.5 Encouraging students to make a record whenever they collect their learning evidence in their working folders. 3.37 0.98 3.16 1.10 3.26 1.05 t = 2.12* 3.6 Encouraging students to write down their opinions on the se- lected products in their portfolios. 3.43 1.00 3.13 1.10 3.27 1.06 t = 3.05** 3.7 Encouraging students to make plans for revising products in their portfolios. 3.40 1.02 3.14 1.10 3.26 1.07 t = 2.62** 4. Revising and evaluating products 3.52 0.92 3.26 0.97 3.39 0.96 F = 8..95** Table 2 cont. Kamonwan Tangdhanakanond, Teara Archwamety 54 Portfolio Concepts Train (n=219) No train (n=235) Combined (n=454) t/F M SD M SD M SD 4.1 Providing students with op- portunities to revise or improve the products/evidence in their working folders. 3.55 0.93 3.30 1.02 3.44 0.98 t = 2.35* 4.2 Providing students with op- portunities to revise or improve the products/evidence in their portfolios. 3.54 0.96 3.37 1.09 3.45 1.03 t = 1.84 4.3 Providing students with a self-evaluation in evaluating their products. 3.55 0.97 3.23 0.98 3.39 0.99 t = 3.52** 4.4 Providing students with a peer-evaluation in evaluating their products. 3.47 1.01 3.20 1.02 3.33 1.03 t = 2.83** 4.5 Providing students with a teacher-evaluation in evaluating their products. 3.54 1.02 3.22 1.07 3.37 1.06 t = 3.24** 4.6 Providing students with a parent-evaluation in evaluating their products. 3.48 1.05 3.21 1.14 3.34 1.10 t = 2.64** * p< .05, ** p< .01 DISCUSSION Teachers’ Misconceptions in Implementing Student Portfolio Assessment The results of this study revealed that teachers in both groups had misconceptions in nine concepts concerning the principles of student portfolio assessment and the utilization of the results from student port- folio assessment. The most serious misconception concerning the prin- ciples of student portfolio assessment was that the portfolio is a con- tainer of all of the exercises done by students in a whole course. This is the most common misunderstanding among Thai teachers. The Thai teachers, generally, probably view that the portfolio is merely used to Table 2 cont. 2019, 23, 39–62 p.Misconceptions And Current Per formance In Por tfolio Assessment 55 keep all students’ works together so that they do not get lost. Therefore, they do not pay enough attention to other steps of portfolio assess- ment, especially the reflection step which is essential. This is consistent with the finding of Saypetch’s (2003) study which revealed that teachers had difficulties at the moderate level in monitoring students to reflect on their opinion of the products or artifacts in their own portfolios and to revise their products or artifacts in their own portfolios. Tangdhana- kanond & Wongwanich (2012) also found that teachers had most critical needs in the use of student portfolio assessment in the step of select- ing products and reflecting on the selected products, respectively. As for the misconception about the utilization of the results from student portfolio assessment, it was found that Thai teachers perceived portfolio to be better used for summative assessment than formative assessment. That resulted in teachers not putting enough emphasis on some impor- tant activities that provide students with learning feedback, such as en- couraging students to do self-assessment, allowing students to revise the products in their portfolios. It was also found that overall, the two groups of teachers did not have significant differences in the miscon- ception scores. This indicated that the current training sessions concern- ing portfolio assessment could not change teachers’ misconceptions in this regard. The findings of this study could help related public sectors and personnel such as supervisors from the Ministry of Education and teacher trainers from universities change teachers’ misconceptions on the issues more effectively. Teachers’ Current Performance in Implementing Student Portfolio Assessment The findings of this study indicated that, overall, teachers in both groups (combining those who had attended the training sessions con- cerning student portfolio assessment and those who had not) imple- mented the four main steps of student portfolio assessment at a me- dium to high level. The step of planning for portfolio assessment and the step of collecting created products were implemented at a high level, whereas the step of selecting products and reflecting on the selected products as well as the step of revising and evaluating products were implemented at a medium level. This is consistent with the previous finding of this study that teachers had a misconception that portfolio Kamonwan Tangdhanakanond, Teara Archwamety 56 is better used for summative assessment rather than formative assess- ment. Therefore, they perform the step of selecting products and reflect- ing on the selected products as well as the step of revising and evaluat- ing products merely at a medium level – not at a high level. The finding is also consistent with other previous research studies (Tangdhanakanond & Wongwanich, 2012; Tangdhanakanond & Wongwanich, 2015). It is also consistent with results from the study by Sripijitworasakul and Tangd- hanakanond (2012), which indicated that the step of revising products, as well as the step of self-assessment and revising products was less fre- quently implemented by Thai language teachers. Similar findings were found in a previous research study of Kornketkamon (2001) which found that teachers had problems in some activities, such as giving students as well as parents a chance to express their opinion on students’ artifacts. In addition, the present research findings are also consistent with research by Srirod (2002) which found that teachers have some difficulties in guiding students in selecting products for their portfolios, encouraging students to reflect on their products, as well as guiding them to evaluate their products and learning. Actually, those two steps (revising and eval- uating products, as well as selecting products and reflecting on the se- lected products) are crucial to develop students’ learning. While students are revising and evaluating the products in their portfolios, they could examine their strengths and weaknesses reflected by the quality of their products, as well as take responsibility for their own learning (Priest & Robert, 1998 as cited in McMullan, 2006; Tangdhanakanond, 2006; Tang- dhanakanond, 2016; Tangdhanakanond & Wongwanich, 2015). It was also found that, overall, the performance in implementing the four main steps of student portfolio of teachers who had attended the training sessions concerning student portfolio assessment was higher than those who had not attended training sessions. Teachers who had attended the training sessions had more opportunities to learn about the portfolio assessment process. Therefore, they performed the four main steps of student portfolio assessment at a higher level than the other group. However, it is noted that the two groups of teachers did not have significant differences in performing some specific activities in the four main steps of portfolio assessment, i.e., (a) reviewing the learning standards and indicators of the courses, (b) identifying numbers of prod- ucts required to produce in the courses, (c) informing students at the 2019, 23, 39–62 p.Misconceptions And Current Per formance In Por tfolio Assessment 57 beginning of the courses about the use of student portfolio assessment, (d) allowing students to participate in setting the purposes of creating portfolios, (e) encouraging students to collect their created products in their working folders, and (f ) providing students with opportunities to revise or improve the products/evidences in their portfolios. That could be because those six activities are basic to the portfolio process and well-known among teachers in both groups. Therefore, teachers in both groups perform those activities equally well. It is also interesting to note that the only step of the portfolio process that teachers in both groups performed differently in every specific activity was the step of selecting products and reflecting on selected products, which is a very important step in the portfolio process (Tangdhanakanond & Wongwanich, 2015; Pasiphol, Koraneekij, & Sotthayakom, 2015; Tangdhanakanond & Wong- wanich, 2012; Pearson Education Development Group, 2001; Poowi- padawat, 2001; Prawarnpruek, 1997; Punngam, 2000; Saereerat, 1997; Siladech, 1997). This should not be surprising considering the fact that teachers who had attended the training session had more opportunities to learn and practice the complete process and the crucial step of the portfolio assessment. Further Consideration Only elementary school teachers were studied in this study. Further research with middle and high school teachers should be conducted. Ex- amining their misconceptions and current performance in implement- ing student portfolio assessment would also be a helpful plan for chang- ing the misconceptions of middle and high school teachers in this issue in the future. CONCLUSION The key concept in the present study (Portfolio Assessment) is an important topic in the field of Educational Psychology. As shown in the definition of “Educational Psychology” given by Ausubel, Novak, and Hanesian (1978), evaluation (or assessment) of school learning is an im- portant area in the field of educational psychology. The purposes of this study were (a) to examine teachers’ misconceptions in implementing Kamonwan Tangdhanakanond, Teara Archwamety 58 student portfolio assessment, and (b) to compare teachers’ current per- formance in implementing student portfolio assessment between teach- ers who had attended the training sessions concerning portfolio assess- ment and those who had not. Results revealed that, overall, teachers had misconceptions in nine concepts. Six concepts were about the principles of student portfolio assessment and three concepts were about the uti- lization of the results from student portfolio assessment. Performance which consisted of implementing four main steps of student portfolio assessment was higher for teachers who had attended the training ses- sions concerning student portfolio assessment than for those teachers who had not attended the training sessions. Findings on teachers’ mis- conceptions and current performance of student portfolio assessment could help related public sectors and personnel such as supervisors from the Ministry of Education and teacher trainers from universities change teachers’ misconceptions on the issues more effectively in the future. In this study, only elementary school teachers were studied. Middle and high school teachers should be studied in further research. REFERENCES Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Benson, B., & Barnett, S. (1999). Student-Led Conferencing Using Showcase Portfolios. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Inc. Burke, K., Forgerty, R., & Belgrad S. (1994). The mindful school: The portfolio connection. Palatine, IL: Skylight. Chappuis, J., Stiggins, R., Chappuis, S., & Arter, J. (2012). Classroom assessment for student learning: Doing it right- Using it well. (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Peason. Chinnawong, S. (2000). Effects of portfolio assessment on mathematics achievement, achievement motivation and attitude toward mathematics of prathomsuksa four students. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Prince of Songkla University, Pattani, Thailand. Cole, D. J., Ryan, C. W., Kick, F., & Mathies, B. K. (2000). Portfolio across the curriculum and beyond. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Educational Technique Department. (1996). Authentic assessment. Bangkok, Thailand: Office of National Education Commission. Elango, S., Jutti, R. C., & Lee, L. K. (2005). Portfolio as a learning tool: Students’ perspective. Annals Academy of Medicine, 34(8), 511–514. 2019, 23, 39–62 p.Misconceptions And Current Per formance In Por tfolio Assessment 59 Epstein, A. (2001). The portfolio process. Retrieved June 4, 2002, from http://www. teachervision.fen.com/lesson-plans/lesson-4537.html Gencel, I. E. (2016). The effect of portfolio assessments on metacognitive skills and attitudes toward a course. Education Sciences: Theory and Practice, 17(1), 293–319. Kinay, I. (2018). Investigation of prospective teachers’ beliefs towards authentic assessment. World Journal of Education, 8(1), 75–82. Kingore, B. (1995). Introducing parents to portfolio assessment: A collaborative effort toward authentic assessment. Gifted Child Today Magazine, 18(4), 12–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107621759501800406 Koraneekid, P. (2007). Development of electronic portfolio model using self- assessment to enhance student teachers’ critical thinking. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. Kornketkamon, D. (2001). A study of problems and opinions of teachers concerning portfolio assessment in basic expansion school in Bureerum province. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Ramkhamhaeng University, Bangkok, Thailand. McMullan, M. (2006). Students’ perceptions on the use of portfolios in pre- registration nursing education: A questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 43(3), 333–343. Moonkum, S. (2000). Portfolio (13th ed.). Bangkok, Thailand: Parppim Publishing. Morin, A. (1995). Portfolio: An effective tool used by prospective teachers to encourage self-evaluation and improvement. Doctoral dissertation, California State University, Los Angeles, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service). Mueller, J. (2005). The authentic assessment toolbox enhancing student learning through online faculty development. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 1(1): 1–7. Nicolaidou, I. (2012). Can process portfolios affect students’ writing self-efficacy? Educational Research, 56, 10-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.08.002 Pasiphol, S; Koraneekij P., & Sotthayakom, P. (2015). Development of electronic portfolio model of reflective feedback through assessment of student learning development under the Office of the Basic Education Commission. Journal of Research Methodology, 28(1), 1–26. Pearson Education Development Group. (2001). Portfolio assessment. Retrieved January, 6, 2005, from http://www.teachervision.com/lesson- plans/;esson-5942.html Poowipadawat, S. (2001). Child-centered learning and authentic assessment (2nd ed.). Chiangmai, Thailand: Knowledge Press. Prawarnpruek, K. (1997). Portfolio. Bangkok, Thailand: Office of Private Education Commission. Punngam, A. (2000). A development of portfolio evaluation process and utilization of portfolio evaluation result: An application of meta-evaluation. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. Kamonwan Tangdhanakanond, Teara Archwamety 60 Saereerat, C. (1997). Portfolio assessment. Bangkok, Thailand: The master group management. Saypetch, P. (2003). A study of conditions and problems of authentic assessment by using portfolio according to the opinions of teachers in primary schools under the Office of Buriram Provincial Primary Education. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Buriram Rajabhat University, Bangkok, Thailand. Siladech, C. (1997). The development of mathayomsuksa 3 English portfolio assessment. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Srinakharinwirot University, Bangkok, Thailand. Sootthipong, B. (2000). Effects of teaching interior architecture by using portfolios on learning achievement of the first-year student at the higher vocational education certificate level, the Division of Interior Architecture, Rajamangala Institute of technology. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. Sripijitworasakul, A., & Tangdhanakanond, K. (2012). Development of a checklist for elementary school student portfolio assessment for Thai language subject area. Online Journal of Education, 7(1), 1681–1692. Srirod, W. (2002). Condition and problems related to using student portfolio assessment under the jurisdiction of the Office of Doi Saket District Primary Education, Chiang Mai Province. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand. Sujarittanarugse, P. (2005). A proposed web-based instructional model based on constructivist concept using electronic portfolio for creative thinking development of undergraduate students in social sciences, Chulalongkorn University. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. Tangdhanakanond, K. (2006). Authentic assessment. Journal of Educational Studies, 34(3), 1–13. Tangdhanakanond, K., Pitiyanuwat, S., & Archwamety, T. (2005). Constructionism: Student learning and development. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 9(3), 259–266. Tangdhanakanond, K., Pitiyanuwat, S., & Archwamety, T. (2006a). A development of portfolio for learning assessment of students taught by full – scale constructionism approach at Darunsikkhalai school. Research in the Schools, 13(2), 24–36. Tangdhanakanond, K., Pitiyanuwat, S., & Archwamety, T. (2006b). Assessment of achievement and personal qualities under constructionist learning environment. Education, 126(3), 495–503. Tangdhanakanond, K., & Wongwanich, S. (2012). Teacher attitude and needs assessment concerning the use of student portfolio assessment in Thailand’s educational reform process. International Journal of Psychology: A Biopsychosocial Approach, 10, 71–88. 2019, 23, 39–62 p.Misconceptions And Current Per formance In Por tfolio Assessment 61 Tangdhanakanond, K., & Wongwanich, S. (2015). State, problems and guidelines for solving problems in implementing student portfolio assessment in elementary school in Thailand. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 171, 1381–1387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.257 Tangdhanakanond, K. (2016). Performance Assessment (2nd ed.). Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press. Tomkins, M., & Quette-Frenette, D. (2010). Learning portfolio models in health regulatory Colleges of Ontario, Canada. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 30(1), 57–64. Tyler, D., & Dibble E. (2019). Toward Authentic Assessment: Using ePortfolio at Salt Lake Community College. New Directions for Community Colleges, 186, 37–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cc.20353 Waedramae, M. (2004). Analysis of misconceptions and practices in educational quality assessment. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This study was supported by the TRF Research Career Development Grant, Thailand Research Fund (TRF) (RSA5880029) and Chulalongkorn University. MOKINIŲ ĮVERTINIMAS PORTFOLIO BŪDU PR ADINĖSE MOKYKLOSE TAIL ANDE: KL AIDINGI MOKYTOJŲ ĮSITIKINIMAI IR TAIKYMO PATIRTIS Kamonwan Tangdhanakanond Chulalongkorn University, Thailand Teara Archwamet y University of Nebraska at Kearney, USA Santrauka. Priėmus nacionalinį švietimo aktą B.E. 2542, Tailande mokytojams siūloma tai- kyti įvairius mokinių vertinimo metodus, taip pat ir portfolio. Mokinių portfolio meto- das – sisteminis įrodymų, kaip jiems sekasi mokytis ir ko yra pasiekę įvairiose srityse, rinkinys. Šio tyrimo tikslai – įvertinti klaidingus mokytojų įsitikinimus, susijusius su mokinių vertinimu portfolio metodu, taip pat palyginti mokytojų, kurie lankė portfolio metodo įgyvendinimo mokymus ir kurie juose nedalyvavo, portfolio metodo taikymo patirtį. 454 pradinių mokyklų mokytojai buvo atsitiktinai atrinkti dalyvauti šiame tyri- me. Klausimynai buvo naudojami siekiant surinkti informaciją apie mokytojų klaidin- gus įsitikinimus taikant portfolio principus mokiniams vertinti. Taip pat klausimynu Kamonwan Tangdhanakanond, Teara Archwamety 62 buvo vertinama, kiek mokytojai naudoja keturis portfolio metodo žingsnius: a) por- folio vertinimo planavimas, b) atliktų užduočių rinkimas, c) užduočių parinkimas ir refleksija jų atžvilgiu, d) užduočių peržiūra ir įvertinimas. Tyrimo rezultatai atskleidė, kad mokytojai turi klaidingų įsitikinimų devyniose srityse. Šešios iš jų susijusios su portfolio vertinimo principais ir trys – su vertinimo rezultatų panaudojimu. Mokyto- jai, kurie buvo mokomi naudoti portfolio vertinimo metodą, geriau taikė keturis šio vertinimo žingsnius, palyginti su nedalyvavusiais mokymuose. Tyrimo rezultatai lei- džia suinteresuotiems visuomenės atstovams, personalui ir mokytojų ugdyme daly- vaujantiems universitetams efektyviau pakeisti klaidingus mokytojų įsitikinimus dėl portfolio metodo. Reikšminiai žodžiai: pradinė mokykla, klaidingi įsitikinimai, portfolio, Tailandas. Received: 2019-01-30 Accepted: 2019-09-26 CONTENTS EDITORIAL NOTE SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS Chandra Díaz, Po Hu, Douglas R. Tillman, David D. Hof CONCEPTS INFLUENCING ATTITUDES AND BELIEFS TOWARD MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES IN A TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAM Kamonwan Tangdhanakanond, Teara Archwamety TEACHERS’ MISCONCEPTIONS AND CURRENT PERFORMANCE IN IMPLEMENTING STUDENT PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IN THAILAND Andrius Šmitas, Loreta Gustainienė IMPORTANCE OF LENGTH OF STUDYING AND ATTITUDES TOWARD OTHERS FOR LIFE SATISFACTION Marija Aušraitė, Kristina Žardeckaitė-Matulaitienė THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IRRATIONAL RELATIONSHIP BELIEFS AND CONFLICTRESOLUTION STRATEGIES IN YOUNG ADULTHOOD Tadas Vadvilavičius, Aurelija Stelmokienė DEVELOPMENT OF SCENARIOS FOR LEADERSHIP PSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH TO REVEAL THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEADERS’ DARK TRIAD TRAITS AND FULL RANGE LEADERSHIP STYLES Laura Alčiauskaitė, Liuda Šinkariova PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE LITHUANIAN VERSION OF THE ACCEPTANCE OFDISABILITY SCALE - REVISED (ADS-R): PILOT STUDY Christina L. Chasek, Judith A. Nelson, Rochelle Cade, Kristin Page, Bryan Stare,George Stoupas ADVOCATING FOR ADOLESCENT SUBSTANCE USE RECOVERY: AN ALTERNATIVE MODEL Ekaterina Zakharchuk, Evgeniy Dotsenko, Tamara Khvesko, Julia Andrejeva NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL AND/OR PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS OF CHILDREN’S TRAUMATIC BEHAVIOR UNDER THE AGE OF 10 YEARS INFORMATION THE 22nd INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM IN PSYCHOLOGY AT UNK & VMU: ABSTRACTS CONTRIBUTORS REVIEWERS 2019 INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS