International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Growth Evaluation  |  ISSN (Online): 2582-7138  |  Double-Blind Peer Review  |  Open Access  |  CC BY 4.0

Current Issues
     2026:7/3

International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Growth Evaluation

ISSN (Online): 2582-7138 | Open Access

Junior High School Teachers’ Conceptions and Practices of Assessment: Basis for Enhanced Faculty Development Program

Author(s):

Published:

Volume: 6 | Issue: 3 | Pages: 890-911

Subject:

Country: Philippines

License: CC BY 4.0

Full Text (PDF)

Open Access - Free to Download

Download Full Article (PDF)

Alternative download link

Abstract

This study determined the conceptions of assessment and assessment practices of the selected private junior high school teachers in the province of Laguna. Based on the results of the study, a proposed enhanced faculty development program was provided.
The researcher utilized a quantitative research design employing an adopted survey questionnaire. One hundred eighty-four (184) private junior high school teachers were randomly selected to serve as respondents. Percentage distribution, mean, and weighted mean were used for the descriptive questions of the study specifically on profile of the respondents, conceptions of assessment and assessment practices. Moreover, Man-Whitney U test and the Kruskal-Wallis H. test were used to determine whether profile and conceptions of assessment have significant difference and whether profile and assessment practices have significant difference. 
Results of the study showed that majority of the respondents were female, teaching for 4-6 years, specialized in English, Bachelor’s degree holders, classroom teachers, and were able to attend 1-5 trainings related to assessment. Respondents strongly agreed on the conceptions of assessment in terms of school accountability, student accountability, improvement, standards-based, concept development, formative assessment and summative assessment. Additionally, the purpose of assessment and classroom assessment are highly practiced assessment practices than assessment strategies. 
Furthermore, there was no significant difference between the conceptions of assessment when respondents were grouped according to sex, number of years in teaching, subject specialization and number of trainings related to assessment attended. There was a significant difference on the conceptions of assessment in terms of school accountability, student accountability, improvement, and formative assessment when respondents were grouped according to highest educational attainment. There was a significant difference observed on the respondents’ conceptions of assessment in terms of school accountability and standards-based when they were grouped according to position. 
Finally, the study also revealed that there was a significant difference on the respondents’ assessment practices in terms of classroom assessment when they were grouped according to sex. But, in terms of purpose of assessment and assessment strategies, there was no significant difference found. There was no significant difference found between the respondents’ assessment practices and the number of years in teaching, subject specialization, highest educational attainment and number of trainings about assessment attended. There was significant difference found in terms of purpose of assessment and assessment strategies when the respondents were grouped according to position. But there was no significant difference in terms of classroom assessment when they were grouped based on position.

How to Cite This Article

John Rey O Depone (2025). Junior High School Teachers’ Conceptions and Practices of Assessment: Basis for Enhanced Faculty Development Program . International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Growth Evaluation (IJMRGE), 6(3), 890-911.

Export Citation:

BibTeX RIS EndNote

References

  1. 3. 50 Highly Practiced
  2. 12. Iincludeavarietyofquestionsinasingletest.3.58 Highly Practiced
  3. 13. Imakesure Igiveclearinstructionsforeverytypeofquestion Iincludeinatest.3.70 Highly Practiced
  4. 14. Iarrangetestquestionsfromeasytodifficult.3.58 Highly Practiced
  5. 15. Iensurethatquestionsandoptionsareonthesamepage.3.63 Highly Practiced
  6. 16. Iavoidincludingitemsthatsuggestracial, ethnicorgenderbiases.3.59 Highly Practiced
  7. 17. Itrytopreparequestionsthatminimizeguessing.3.60 Highly Practiced
  8. 18. Iexplainthebasisofscoringproblemssolvingitemstostudents.3.58 Highly Practiced
  9. 19. Iincludeonthesamepagethediagramsormapsneededinaparticularquestion.3.58 Highly Practiced
  10. 20. Iproofreadalltestquestionsandinstructionsbeforeprintingthem.3.67 Highly Practiced
  11. 21. Iensurethattheclassroomisconducivefortestingactivities.3.67 Highly Practiced
  12. 22. Iseetoitthatcheatingisnotencouragedintheclassroom.3.72 Highly Practiced
  13. 23. Ipreparescoringcriteriaorrubricsbefore Istartmakingtestpapers.3.66 Highly Practiced
  14. 24. Iscoretestpapersatrandom3.21 Practiced
  15. 25. Iensurethat Ihaveenoughtestmaterialsbefore Iadministeratest.3.67 Highly Practiced
  16. 26. Ifollowscoringcriteriastrictlywhenmarkingtestpapers.3.64 Highly Practiced International Journalof Multidisciplinary Researchand Growth Evaluationwww. allmultidisciplinaryjournal. com899|Page Classroom Assessment Mean Verbal Interpretation
  17. 27. Imakesure Ihaveenoughtimetoscoretestpapers.3.67 Highly Practiced
  18. 28. Iprovidefeedbacktostudentsaftereverytest.3.57 Highly Practiced
  19. 29. Igiveagradeequivalenttothetotalscoreinatest.3.55 Highly Practiced
  20. 30. Iexplaintothestudentshowscoresarederived.3.64 Highly Practiced
  21. 31. Isharetestresultswithotherteachersandtheschooldirectorifnecessary.3.48 Highly Practiced
  22. 32. Imakesureparentsareinformedofthetestresultsoftheirchildren.3.59 Highly Practiced
  23. 33. Ideterminethedifficultylevelofeachtestitemafteratest.3.53 Highly Practiced
  24. 34. Iconductanitemanalysistoknowwhether3.35 Highly Practiced
  25. 35. Imakesimpleitembankingforeverysubject.3.36 Highly Practiced
  26. 36. Ipostthenamesofstudentswhoperformedwellinatest.3.10 Practiced
  27. 37. Ireturnallmarkedtestpaperstostudentsontime.3.59 Highly Practiced Overall Weighted Mean3.56 Highly Practiced Shownin Table18aremeanandverbalinterpretationsofichgotthelowesttwoweightedmeansof3.10and3.21, bothverballyinterpretedaspracticed, the35statementswereconceivedtobehighlypracticedbytherespondents. Withaweightedmeanof3.72, verballyinterpretedashighlypracticed, thestatemenhighestweightedmean. Astheresultshowed, thisareareceivedanoverallweightedmeanof3.56whichwasverballyinterpretedashighlypracticed. Thisimpliesthatclassroomassessmentisanon-negotiableprocessthatisdesignedandadministeredbyteacherstotheirstudents. Rightconceptiononwhyclassroomassessmentisgiven, howitisadministered, andhowresultsareusedwillguideteachersintheirperformanceasassessorsofstudentlearning. Table17: Assessment Strategies Mean Verbal Interpretation Iusethefollowingassessmentstrategies: a. Multiplechoice3.58 Highly Practicedb. True-Falseor Rightorwrong3.54 Highly Practicedc. Matchingtypes3.36 Highly Practicedd. Fillintheblanksorshortconstructedresponse3.31 Highly Practicede. Wordproblems3.26 Highly Practicedf. Performanceassessment3.58 Highly Practicedg. Portfolio Assessment3.16 Practicedh. Graded Recitation3.55 Highly Practicedi. Observations3.40 Highly Practicedj. Termpapersorprojects3.37 Highly Practicedk. Classpresentations3.53 Highly Practicedl. Interviewsandconferences3.07 Practicedm. studentreflection/journalwriting/studentself-assessment3.35 Highly Practicedn. assignments3.48 Highly Practiced Overall Weighted Mean3.40 Highly Practiced Itcanbeobservedfrom Table19thatintermsof Assessment Strategies, theoverallweightedmeanis3.40verballyweightedmeansof3.16and3.07, respectively, andverballyinterpretedaspracticed. Onthecontrary, thereare12strategiesfromthetablethatwerehighlypracticedbytherespondents. highestweightedmeanof3.58whichwasverballyverballyinterpretedaspracticed. Thisimpliesthattheschoolsmustprovidementoringoronhowtoemployinterviewsandconferencesandothernotsopopularassessmentstrategies. Teachersstillneedtobetrainedonhowtheycanalsodesignandutilizeotherassessmentstrategiesthatdevelophigher-orderskills.
  28. 4. Significantdifferenceontheconceptionsoftherespondentsintermsofassessmentwhentheyaregroupedbyprofile International Journalof Multidisciplinary Researchand Growth Evaluationwww. allmultidisciplinaryjournal. com900|Page Table18: Summary Table Showingthe Sex Conceptionof Assessment(COA-III, Brown,2004&Rural,2019\Sex Mean Rank Mann-Whitney Up-value Decision Remark
  29. 1. School Accountability Male84.662991.500.162 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant Female95.
  30. 512. Student Accountability Male88.133168.500.434 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant Female94.
  31. 183. Improvement Male91.643240.750.610 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant Female92.
  32. 834. Irrelevance Male96.793172.830.477 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant Female90.
  33. 855. Standards-Based Male89.783253.000.621 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant Female93.
  34. 546. Concept Development Male99.103055.000.251 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant Female89.
  35. 977. Formative Assessment Male89.323229.500.580 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant Female93.
  36. 728. Summative Assessment Male101.482933.500.096 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant Note: Ifpvalueislessthanorequaltothelevelofsignificancewhichis0.05rejectthenullhypothesisotherwiseaccept. Table20onthenextpageshowsthe Mann-Whitney Utesttoverifyifthereexistsasignificantdifferenceontheconceptionsoftherespondentsonassessmentintermsofsex. Itrevealsthatoverall, thereisnosignificantdifferencesexsinceallthepvaluesaregreaterthanthe0.05levelofsignificance. Thefactorstandards-basedgotthehighestp-valueof0.621whichisverymuchgreaterthanthe0.05levelofsignificance. Thisiswhythenullhypothesiswasaccepted. Ontheotherside, thefactorsummativeassessmentobtainedap-valueof0.096whichisthelowestbutisstillgreaterthanthe0.05levelofsignificance. Hence, thenullhypothesiswasaccepted. Basedonafemale-dominatedrespondentssurveyusedinthisstudy, with133or72.3%femalerespondents, thedatashowedthatthemalenessandfemalenessofateacherisnotafactorthatcouldinfluencehowateacherconceivesassessment. Table19: Accordingto Numberofyearsinteaching Conceptionof Assessment(COA-III, Brown,2004&Rural,2019\Numberofyearsinteaching Mean Rank Kruskal-Wallis Hp-value Decision Remark
  37. 1. School Accountability1-3 Years99.839.0500.171 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant4-6 Years92.737-9 Years80.4010-12 Years83.9713-15 Years104.4716-18 Years98.6719 Years&Above69.
  38. 32. Student Accountability1-3 Years94.974.4000.623 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant4-6 Years94.697-9 Years79.5610-12 Years89.9713-15 Years104.0616-18 Years111.0019 Years&Above82.
  39. 283. Improvement1-3 Years124.085.5310.543 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant4-6 Years87.317-9 Years81.4210-12 Years91.6313-15 Years91.4816-18 Years95.1719 Years&Above89.
  40. 214. Irrelevance1-3 Years99.137.8520.324 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant4-6 Years81.907-9 Years80.8410-12 Years94.7513-15 Years84.5316-18 Years88.8919 Years&Above107.
  41. 5. Standards-Based1-3 Years97.956.0220.421 Failto Reject Not International Journalof Multidisciplinary Researchand Growth Evaluationwww. allmultidisciplinaryjournal. com901|Page4-6 Years92.73 Ho Significant7-9 Years74.0010-12 Years89.7013-15 Years99.7616-18 Years72.0019 Years&Above92.
  42. 286. Concept Development1-3 Years101.2110.4580.107 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant4-6 Years84.727-9 Years78.1010-12 Years114.1713-15 Years83.0016-18 Years83.8319 Years&Above79.
  43. 167. Formative Assessment1-3 Years101.3110.7970.095 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant4-6 Years83.167-9 Years75.3310-12 Years106.3313-15 Years100.3816-18 Years85.1719 Years&Above74.
  44. 598. Summative Assessment1-3 Years97.7112.2120.057 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant4-6 Years86.957-9 Years84.5610-12 Years107.7313-15 Years106.9116-18 Years69.1719 Years&Above65.22 Note: Ifpvalueislessthanorequaltothelevelofsignificancewhichis0.05rejectthenullhypothesisotherwiseaccept. Table21onthefollowingpagespresentstheresultwhen Kruskal-Wallis Hwasutilizedtoverifyifthereexistsaassessmentwhentheyweregroupedaccordingtonumberofyearsinteaching. Apparently, thereisnosignificantdifferencebetweentheirconceptionsofassessmentandthenumberofyearstheyareteachingsincethep-valuesareallgreaterthanthe0.05levelofsignificanceandthereforethenullhypothesisisaccepted. Thefactorstudentaccountabilityobtainedthehighestp-valuewhichis0.623andisgreaterthanthe0.05levelofsignificancethereforethenullhypothesisisaccepted. Thisimpliesthatregardlessoftheyearsinteaching, itdoesnotinaidingstudentslearning. Ononehand, thefactorsummativeassessmentgotthelowestp-valueof0.057whichisalsogreaterthanthe0.05levelofsignificanceandthereforethenullhypothesisisaccepted. Althoughthismeansthereisnosignificantdifferencebetweentheconceptionsofassessmentandthenumberofyearsteachingbutthep-valueisalmostneartothelevelofsignificancewhichmeansthatthenumberofyearsteachingwhereteachersareexposedtoassessment. Thisresultissimilartowhat Balagtas, Dacanay, Dizon, and Duque(2010\revealed, ascitedby Balladaand Ali?oin2018, inastudythatexaminedtheliteracyof Filipinopre-serviceandin-serviceteachers. Thementionedresearchersexplainedthatusingaself-reportsurvey, theyfoundoutthat Filipinoteachersbothpre-serviceandin-servicelacktheskillsconcerningthefollowingcompetencies: administeringscoring, andinterpretingresultsofexternally-producedandteacher-madetest, usingassessmentresultstomakedifferenttypesofacademicdecisiontostudents, parentsandotherstakeholdersandrecognizingunethical, illegalandotherinappropriatemethodsanduseofassessment. Thestatusof--serviceyearsinteaching, thenumberofyearsofactualteachingasonassessment. However, theresultsaboveareinconsistentwithwhat Avvisati(2018\reportedthatthoseschoolswithmoreexperiencedteacherstendtoperformbetterin PISA. Table22: Subjectspecialization Conceptionof Assessment(COA-III, Brown,2004&Rural, s.2019\Subjectspecialization Mean Rank Kruskal-Wallis Hp-value Decision Remark
  45. 1. School Accountability AP86.913.1210.874 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant English95.15 Filipino83.98MAPEH83.50 Math90.93 Science92.90TLE102.23 Es P101.
  46. 52. Student Accountability AP84.626.0070.539 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant English104.40 International Journalof Multidisciplinary Researchand Growth Evaluationwww. allmultidisciplinaryjournal. com902|Page Filipino84.40MAPEH80.83 Math95.30 Science86.25TLE100.92 Es P86.
  47. 703. Improvement AP80.785.850.569 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant English92.92 Filipino85.25MAPEH90.40 Math97.82 Science95.42TLE96.73 Es P102.
  48. 64. Irrelevance AP95.389.3770.372 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant English84.33 Filipino111.37MAPEH101.05 Math80.96 Science97.77TLE97.79 Es P73.
  49. 35. Standards-Based AP79.287.1960.409 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant English85.31 Filipino91.43MAPEH83.57 Math99.80 Science97.50TLE106.96 Es P95.
  50. 306. Concept Development AP71.299.1390.243 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant English92.93 Filipino86.90MAPEH89.30 Math105.13 Science94.48TLE98.02 Es P107.
  51. 307. Formative Assessment AP77.297.7110.359 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant English103.28 Filipino81.40MAPEH90.77 Math94.43 Science93.92TLE89.92 Es P113.
  52. 208. Summative Assessment AP78.8811.9540.102 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant English89.69 Filipino88.35MAPEH74.30 Math113.61 Science96.10TLE98.33 Es P88.35 Note: Ifpvalueislessthanorequaltothelevelofsignificancewhichis0.05rejectthenullhypothesisotherwiseaccept. Table22fromthepreviouspagereflectsthatintermsoftheconceptionofassessmentandthesubjectspecialization, thereisnosignificantdifferenceinallaspects. Whileschoolaccountabilitygotthehighestp-valuewhichisequivalentto0.874, summativeassessmentobtainedthelowestvaluewhichis0.
  53. 102. Sincebothvaluesweregreaterthanthelevelofsignificance, whichis0.05, nullhypothesisisaccepted. Therefore, subjectspecializationdoesnotinfluenceconceptionsofassessment. International Journalof Multidisciplinary Researchand Growth Evaluationwww. allmultidisciplinaryjournal. com903|Page Table23: Highest Educational Attainment Conceptionof Assessment(COA-III, Brown,2004&Rural,2019\Highesteducationalattainment Mean Rank Kruskal-Wallis Hp-value Decision Remark
  54. 1. School Accountability Master's(Grad.\51.0011.2850.004 Reject Ho Significant Master's(With Units Earned\75.96 Bachelor's96.
  55. 142. Student Accountability Master's(Grad.\55.616.6680.036 Reject Ho Significant Master's(With Units Earned\84.04 Bachelor's94.
  56. 423. Improvement Master's(Grad.\77.967.6770.040 Reject Ho Significant Master's(With Units Earned\77.25 Bachelor's95.
  57. 424. Irrelevance Master's(Grad.\86.524.1040.230 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant Master's(With Units Earned\74.88 Bachelor's94.
  58. 145. Standards-Based Master's(Grad.\89.615.5990.061 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant Master's(With Units Earned\71.77 Bachelor's94.
  59. 516. Concept Development Master's(Grad.\102.223.1710.205 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant Master's(With Units Earned\76.44 Bachelor's92.
  60. 907. Formative Assessment Master's(Grad.\88.289.0660.011 Reject Ho Significant Master's(With Units Earned\65.38 Bachelor's95.
  61. 738. Summative Assessment Master's(Grad.\92.673.1130.211 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant Note: Ifpvalueislessthanorequaltothelevelofsignificancewhichis0.05rejectthenullhypothesisotherwiseaccept. Table23showsthe Mann-Whitney Utesttoverifyifthereexistsasignificantdifferenceontheconceptionsoftherespondentsonassessmentintermsofhighesteducationalattainment. Itrevealsthatoverall, thereisnosignificantassessmentandtheirpositionexceptschoolaccountability, studentaccountability, improvementandformativeassessmentwhereasignificantdifferencewasobserved. Thisimpliesthatthetrainingprogramtobegiventoteachersshouldtakeintoaccounttheirhighesteducationalbackground. Table24: Position Conceptionof Assessment(COA-III, Brown,2004&Rural,2019\Position Mean Rank Kruskal-Wallis Hp-value Decision Remark
  62. 1. School Accountability Classroom Teacher96.236.6570.036 Reject Ho Significant Coordinator82.47 Principal57.
  63. 862. Student Accountability Classroom Teacher92.881.6360.441 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant Coordinator90.78 Principal69.
  64. 933. Improvement Classroom Teacher95.334.5700.128 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant Coordinator84.11 Principal67.
  65. 794. Irrelevance Classroom Teacher94.912.900.337 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant Coordinator81.46 Principal88.
  66. 955. Standards-Based Classroom Teacher93.216.2490.044 Reject Ho Significant Coordinator93.13 Principal49.
  67. 296. Concept Development Classroom Teacher91.870.5400.764 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant Coordinator92.47 Principal78.
  68. 577. Formative Assessment Classroom Teacher94.622.4510.294 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant Coordinator84.97 International Journalof Multidisciplinary Researchand Growth Evaluationwww. allmultidisciplinaryjournal. com904|Page Principal72.
  69. 798. Summative Assessment Classroom Teacher94.953.3050.192 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant Coordinator84.10 Principal71.79 Note: Ifpvalueislessthanorequaltothelevelofsignificancewhichis0.05rejectthenullhypothesisotherwiseaccept. Table24showsthe Kruskal-Wallis Htesttoverifyifthereexistsa Significant Differenceontheconceptionsoftherespondentsonassessmentintermsof Position. Itrevealsthatoverall, thereisnosignificantdifferencebetweentheeptionofassessmentandtheirpositionexceptforschoolaccountabilityandstandards-basedfactorswhereasignificantdifferencewasobserved. Conceptionsofassessmentintermsofschoolaccountabilityand Standards-basedwereobservedtovarydependingontheirpositions(Classroomteacher, Coordinatorand Principal\. Thismeansthataclassroomteacher, coordinatorandprincipalmayhavecontradictingbeliefinseeingassessmenttoholdschoolaccountableandinconceivingthatassessmentmustbebasedonstandards. Inviewoftheaboveresults, Philippine Professional Standardsfor Teacherswhichwasadoptedandimplementedbythe Departmentof Educationsince2017through Dep Ed Order No.42, s.2017reiteratedtheneedforeveryteachertotakeintoconsideration Domain5ofthestandardswhichisknownas Assessmentand Reporting, iscomposedoffivestrands:
  70. 1. Design, selection, organizationandutilizationofassessmentstrategies,
  71. 2. Monitoringandevaluationoflearnerprogressandachievement,
  72. 3. Feedbacktoimprovelearning,
  73. 4. Communicationoflearnerneeds, progressandachievementtokeystakeholders, and
  74. 5. Useofassessmentdatatoenhanceteachingandlearningpracticesandprograms. Table25: Summary Tab Numberoftrainingsattendedrelatedto Assessment Conceptionof Assessment(COA-III, Brown,2004&Rural, s.2019\Numberoftrainingsattendedrelatedto Assessment Mean Rank Kruskal-Wallis Hp-value Decision Remark
  75. 1. School Accountability None90.056.0400.196 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant1-5 Times97.666-10 Times81.1711-15 Times106.75 More Than15 Times66.
  76. 862. Student Accountability None98.002.9850.560 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant1-5 Times91.466-10 Times81.5011-15 Times118.38 More Than15 Times88.
  77. 3. Improvement None93.071.4350.827 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant1-5 Times92.826-10 Times88.1511-15 Times99.59 More Than15 Times91.
  78. 664. Irrelevance None91.132.8710.584 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant1-5 Times90.786-10 Times94.7311-15 Times107.00 More Than15 Times105.
  79. 705. Standards-Based None95.881.0920.895 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant1-5 Times91.566-10 Times86.7511-15 Times108.88 More Than15 Times90.
  80. 776. Concept Development None94.791.4830.830 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant1-5 Times93.786-10 Times86.4211-15 Times99.00 More Than15 Times78.
  81. 327. Formative Assessment None95.110.6640.956 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant1-5 Times92.406-10 Times90.1911-15 Times100.25 More Than15 Times83.
  82. 508. Summative Assessment None90.950.9940.911 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant1-5 Times94.176-10 Times88.6111-15 Times105.63 More Than15 Times84.64 Note: Ifpvalueislessthanorequaltothelevelofsignificancewhichis0.05rejectthenullhypothesisotherwiseaccept. International Journalof Multidisciplinary Researchand Growth Evaluationwww. allmultidisciplinaryjournal. com905|Page Table25belowdisplaysthatthereisnosignificantdifferencenumberoftrainingstheyattended. Thisissobecausethep-valuesofalltheitemsaregreaterthanthe0.05levelofsignificance. Theitemformativeassessmentreceivedthehighestp-valueof0.978whichisgreaterthanthe0.05levelofsignificance. Hence, nullhypothesiswasaccepted. Withthep-valueof0.196whichisalsogreaterthanthe0.05levelofsignificance, theitemschoolaccountabilitywasdecidedtotrainingsattendedrelatedtoassessment. relatedtoassessmentdoesnotaffecttheirconceptionofassessment.
  83. 5. Significantdifferenceontherespondentsintermsofassessmentpracticeswhentheyaregroupedbyprofile Table26: When Grouped Accordingto Sex Assessment Practices(Lacia,2019\Sex Mean Rank Mann-Whitney Up-value Decision Remark
  84. 1. Purposeof Assessment Male84.212968.500.121 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant Female95.
  85. 682. Classroom Assessment Male81.802846.000.032 Reject Ho Significant Female96.
  86. 603. Assessment Strategies Male84.532985.000.153 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant Note: Ifpvalueislessthanorequaltothelevelofsignificancewhichis0.05rejectthenullhypothesisotherwiseaccept. Table26showsthe Mann-Whitney Utesttoconfirmifpracticesandsex. Itshowsthatinclassroomassessmentthereisasignificantdifferencewithap-valueofwhichislessthanthe0.05levelofsignificance. Ontheotherhand, thereisnosignificantdifferenceaboutpurposeofassessmentandassessmentstrategiesasthetwofactorsreceivedp-valuesof0.121and0.153, respectively. Thisimpliesthatsexinfluencestheconductofclassroomassessment. Table27: Numberofyearsinteaching Assessment Practices(Lacia,2019\Numberofyearsinteaching Mean Rank Kruskal-Wallis Hp-value Decision Remark
  87. 1. Purposeof Assessment1-3 Years98.814.0960.664 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant4-6 Years89.927-9 Years79.5810-12 Years89.1013-15 Years86.5016-18 Years93.8319 Years&Above95.
  88. 972. Classroom Assessment1-3 Years97.928.5950.198 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant4-6 Years94.737-9 Years76.9210-12 Years106.7013-15 Years87.2616-18 Years89.0019 Years&Above78.
  89. 253. Assessment Strategies1-3 Years102.0611.8350.066 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant4-6 Years92.287-9 Years77.4210-12 Years102.0013-15 Years80.5916-18 Years40.0019 Years&Above83.13 Note: Ifpvalueislessthanorequaltothelevelofsignificancewhichis0.05rejectthenullhypothesisotherwiseaccept. Moreover, withthep-valuesthataregreaterthanthe0.05levelofsignificance, resultfrom Table27fromthepreviouspagesshowsthatthereisnosignificantdifferencebetweenyearstheyhadbeenteaching. Thisimpliesthatthenumberofyearsinteachingoftherespondentsdoesnotmakeanydifferencewhendoingoradministeringassessment. International Journalof Multidisciplinary Researchand Growth Evaluationwww. allmultidisciplinaryjournal. com906|Page Table28: Summary Table Showingthe Significant Differenceonthe Res Subject Specialization Assessment Practices(Lacia,2019\Subjectspecialization Mean Rank Kruskal-Wallis Hp-value Decision Remark
  90. 1. Purposeof Assessment AP89.191.2880.989 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant English96.21 Filipino92.10MAPEH91.53 Math95.65 Science84.67TLE93.63 Es P90.
  91. 202. Classroom Assessment AP88.766.5260.480 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant English102.47 Filipino90.38MAPEH86.80 Math94.28 Science87.65TLE80.31 Es P109.20 Assessment Practices(Lacia,2019\Subjectspecialization Mean Rank Kruskal-Wallis Hp-value Decision Remark
  92. 3. Assessment Strategies AP83.244.2040.756 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant English97.24 Filipino97.33MAPEH88.73 Math100.30 Science80.77TLE95.44 Es P90.15 Note: Ifpvalueislessthanorequaltothelevelofsignificancewhichis0.05rejectthenullhypothesisotherwiseaccept. Table28fromthepreviouspagedisplaystheresultwhen Kruskal-Wallis Hwasutilizedtoverifyifthereexistsapracticeswhentheyweregroupedaccordingtosubject-valuesof0.989,0.480, and0.756, respectively. Overall, thenullhypothesisisacceptedsinceallp-valuesaregreaterthan0.05levelofsignificanceandthereforethereisnosignificantdifferencebetweenthevariables. Table29: Summary Table Highest Educational Attainment Assessment Practices(Lacia,2019\Highesteducationalattainment Mean Rank Kruskal-Wallis Hp-value Decision Remark
  93. 1. Purposeof Assessment Master's(Grad.\71.724.6410.098 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant Master's(With Units Earned\78.63 Bachelor's94.
  94. 392. Classroom Assessment Master's(Grad.\103.721.4720.479 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant Master's(With Units Earned\84.85 Bachelor's91.
  95. 313. Assessment Strategies Master's(Grad.\75.113.2880.193 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant Master's(With Units Earned\79.63 Bachelor's94.00 Note: Ifpvalueislessthanorequaltothelevelofsignificancewhichis0.05rejectthenullhypothesisotherwiseaccept. Table29onthenextpagepresentsanosignificantdifferencetheirassessmentpractices. Thethreeitemsgotthep-valuesof0.098,0.479and0.193whichareallgreaterthanthe0.05levelofsignificanceandthus, nullhypothesesareaccepted. Theresultimpliesthattheeducationalattainmentoftherespondentsdoesnotaffecttheiractualpracticeoftheassessmentpurpose, conductofclassroomassessmentandactualchoiceandpracticeofassessmentstrategies. International Journalof Multidisciplinary Researchand Growth Evaluationwww. allmultidisciplinaryjournal. com907|Page Table30: Assessment Practices When Grouped Accordingto Position Assessment Practices Position Mean Rank Kruskal-Wallis Hp-value Decision Remark
  96. 1. Purposeof Assessment Classroom Teacher96.7310.2340.006 Reject Ho Significant Coordinator82.43 Principal48.
  97. 362. Classroom Assessment Classroom Teacher93.753.9670.138 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant Coordinator89.27 Principal62.
  98. 793. Assessment Strategies Classroom Teacher97.2010.8490.005 Reject Ho Significant Coordinator81.22 Principal47.07 Note: Ifthep-valueislessthanorequaltothelevelofsignificancewhichis0.05rejectthenullhypothesisotherwiseaccept. Shownin Table30onthesucceedingpageisthe Kruskal-Wallis Htestusedtoverifyifthereexistsasignificanttheyweregroupedaccordingtotheirposition. Thedatashowedthatthereisnosignificantdifferenceabouttheirassessmentpracticesintermsofclassroomassessment. Thisimpliesthatregardlessoftheirpositionthepracticeofclassroomassessmentdidnothaveadifferenceorpositiondoesnotaffecttheirconductofclassroomassessment. differenceemergedwhentheywerecomparedtooccupydifferentroles, thereisalikelihoodorpossibilitythatthepurposeoftheirassessmentandatthesametimetheirstrategiesmayvaryfromonepositiontoanother. Table31: Numberoftrainingsattendedrelatedto Assessment Assessment Practices(Lacia,2019\Numberoftrainingsattendedrelatedto Assessment Mean Rank Kruskal-Wallis Hp-value Decision Remark
  99. 1. Purposeof Assessment None89.230.6440.958 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant1-5 Times93.556-10 Times89.8911-15 Times101.63 More Than15 Times97.
  100. 142. Classroom Assessment None87.892.1460.709 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant1-5 Times93.326-10 Times98.8311-15 Times74.25 More Than15 Times100.
  101. 183. Assessment Strategies None89.264.2520.373 Failto Reject Ho Not Significant1-5 Times95.516-10 Times100.2811-15 Times62.50 More Than15 Times75.45 Note: Ifpvalueislessthanorequaltothelevelofsignificancewhichis0.05rejectthenullhypothesisotherwiseaccept. relatedtoassessmenthasnosignificantdifferenceontheirassessmentpracticeswiththep-valuesthataregreaterthanthe0.05levelofsignificance. Thisimpliesthatthenullhypothesisisaccepted. practicesarenotaffectedbythenumberoftrainingrelatedtoassessmentthattheyhaveattended. B. Discussion Belowareimportantdiscussionsfromthedatagatheredinthisstudy. a\Outofthe184teacher-respondents, therewere133or72.3%femalewhiletherewere51or27.7%ofthemweremale. Therewere77or41.8%ofthemteachingfor1-3years,32or17.4%ofthemareteachingfor4-6years,24or13%for7-9years,17or9.2%for13-15years,16or8.7%for19yearsandabove,15or8.2%for10-12yearand3or1.6%for16-18years. Therewere34or18.5%ofthemwithspecializationin English,29or15.8%in Araling Panlipunan,27or14.7%in Math,24or13%in Science,24or13%in TLE,20or10.9%in Filipino,15or8.2%in MAPEH,10or5.4%in Edukasyonsa Pagpapakataoand1or0.5%hasspecialization1.1%acquired Doctoraldegreeand1or0.5%hadearnedunitsin Doctoraldegree. Therewere132or71.7%ofthemareclassroomteachers,43or23.4%arecoordinators,7or3.8%areprincipalsand2or1.1%occupyotherpositions. Therewere105or57.1%ofthemwhowereabletoattend1-5times,46or25%ofthemhavenotattendedtrainingrelated International Journalof Multidisciplinary Researchand Growth Evaluationwww. allmultidisciplinaryjournal. com908|Pagetoassessmentyet,18or9.8%attended6-10times,11or6%wereabletoattendtrainingaboutassessmentformorethan15timesand4or2.2%attended11-15times. b\rmsofschoolaccountability, thehighestmeanof3.58whichisverballyinterpretedasstronglyagreewasrevealedtobetheaddtostudenthonestandup-to-Intermsofstudentaccountability, assessmentconceivedtodetermineifstudentsmeetqualificationsstandardsgotthehighestmeanof3.53whichisverballyinterpretedasstrongly Undertheimprovementfactor, thehighestmeanwas3.56wasobtainedbytheitemimprovement-describe. Ontheotherhand, improvement-validitywiththemeanof3.19wasthelowestandverballyinterpretedasagree. Meanwhile, intermsofthefactorirrelevance, itwasrevealedthatthehighestmeanof2.79verballyinterpretedasagreewasthefactorirrelevanceaccurate. Thebeliefthatassessmentisimportantyetignoredgotthelowestmeanof2.03verballyinterpretedasdisagree. Asregardtotheconceptionofassessmentintermsofstandards-obtainedthehighestmeanof3.55, verballyinterpretedasstronglyagreewhilethestatementmeanof3.47whichwasalsoverballyinterpretedasstronglyagree. Intermsofconceptdevelopment, gotthehighestmeanof3.42whichwasverballyinterpretedinformationandretrieverelevantknowledgefromlong-termverballyinterpretedasstronglyagree. Meanwhile, intermsofformativeassessment, thehighestweightedmeanof3.45verballyinterpretedasstronglyagree, revealedthatformativeassessmenthelpspreparelearnersforsummativeassessmentswhileformativeassessmentasinformalgotthelowestweightedmeanof2.95verballyinterpretedasagree. Intermsofsummativeassessment, summativeassessmentasanassessmentoflearninggivenattheendofaparticularunitreceivedthehighestweightedmeanof3.61verballyinterpretedasstronglyagree. Withthelowestweightedmeanof2.96verballyinterpretedasagreewastheconceptionthatsummativeassessmentisusuallyforthebenefitofpeopleotherthanthelearner. c\Regardingthelevelofassessmentpracticesintermsoftasksthatallowmetoknowwhetherstudents: canrecallordrankthestudentsbasedontheirclassperformancetoinformverballyinterpretedaspracticed. Intermsofclassroomassessment, withaweightedmeanof3.72, verballyinterpretedashighlypracticed, thestatementpostthelowestweightedmeanof3.10, verballyinterpretedaspracticed. Withregardtoassessmentstrategies, Multiple Choicewith3.58weightedmeanwasthehighestwhichwasverballyinterpretedashighlypracticed. Onthecontrary, Interviewsinterpretedaspracticed. d\Regardingthedifferenceontheconceptionsofassessmentwhenrespondentsweregroupedaccordingtosex, numberofyearsinteaching, subjectspecialization, andnumberoftrainingsrelatedtoassessmentattended, thestudyfoundoutthatthereisnosignificantdifference. However, thedifferenceontheconceptionsofassessmentintermsofschoolaccountability(p-value=0.004\, studentaccountability(p-value=0.036\, improvement-studentlearning(p-value=0.040\andformativeassessment(p-value=0.011\whenrespondentsweregroupedaccordingtohighesteducationalattainmentwasfoundsignificantsincethep-valueswerealllessthanthe0.05levelofsignificance. Additionally, asignificantdifferencewasalsoobservedonschoolaccountabilityandstandards-basedwhentheyweregroupedaccordingtopositionwiththep-valuesof0.036and0.044, respectively, allwerelessthanthe0.05levelofsignificance. e\practicesintermsofclassroomassessmentwhentheyweregroupedaccordingtosexfoundtobesignificanthavingap-valueof0.032whichwaslessthanthe0.05levelofsignificance. But, intermsofpurposeofassessmentandassessmentstrategies, thereisnosignificantdifferencewasfoundsincethep-values0.121and0.153, respectively, weregreaterthanthe0.05levelofsignificance. Whengroupedaccordingtonumberofyearsinteaching, subjectspecialization, highesteducationalattainment, andnumberoftrainingsaboutassessmentattended, nosignificantdifferencewasobservedbetweenthereassessmentpracticesandthesaidprofiles. However, whentheyweregroupedbasedonpositionasignificantdifferencewasfoundintermsofpurposeofassessmentandassessmentstrategiessincethep-valueswere0.006and0.005, respectively, whichwerealllessthanthe0.05levelofsignificance. Betweenclassroomassessmentandpositionwasfoundtobeofnosignificantdifferencesincethep-valueof0.138wasgreaterthanthe0.05levelofsignificance.
  102. 5. Conclusion Theresearcherconcludesthefollowing: a\Majorityoftherespondentsarefemale, teachingfor4-6classroomteachersandabletoattend1-5trainingsrelatedtoassessment. b\Respondentsstronglyagreedontheconceptionsofassessmentintermsofschoolaccountability, studentaccountability, improvement, standards-based, conceptdevelopment, formativeassessmentandsummativeassessment. Disagreementwasnotedonirrelevance. Thisshowsthatteacherspossesspositiveconceptionsof International Journalof Multidisciplinary Researchand Growth Evaluationwww. allmultidisciplinaryjournal. com909|Pageassessment. Theydidnotseeassessmentasirrelevantorabadpractice. c\Thepurposeofassessmentandclassroomassessmentarehighlypracticedassessmentpracticesthanassessmentstrategies. Thisimpliesthatteachersaremorefamiliarwiththepurposeofassessmentandadministrationoftheclassroomassessmentthanemployingspecificassessmentstrategies. d\Therewasnosignificantdifferencebetweentheconceptionsofassessmentwhenrespondentsweregroupedaccordingtosex, numberofyearsinteaching, subjectspecialization, andnumberoftrainingsrelatedtoassessmentattended. Therewasasignificantdifferenceontheconceptionsofassessmentintermsofschoolaccountability, studentaccountability, improvementandformativeassessmentwhenrespondentsweregroupedaccordingtohighesteducationalattainment. Therewasconceptionsofassessmentintermsofschoolaccountabilityandstandards-basedwhentheyweregroupedaccordingtoposition. Thisprovesthatupgradetheirpositionscanhelpimprovetheirconceptionsofassessment. e\assessmentpracticesintermsofclassroomassessmentwhentheyweregroupedaccordingtosex. But, intermsofpurposeofassessmentandassessmentstrategies, therewasnosignificantdifferencefound. Therewasnoassessmentpracticesandthenumberofyearsinteaching, subjectspecialization, highesteducationalattainmentandnumberoftrainingsaboutassessmentattended. Therewassignificantdifferencefoundintermsofpurposeofassessmentandassessmentstrategieswhentherespondentsweregroupedaccordingtoposition. Butnosignificantdifferenceintermsofclassroomassessmentwhentheyweregroupedbasedonposition. Thismeansthatmorediversefacultymemberscanprovidemorebalancedassessmentpractices. Additionally, changeintheirpositionscanalsohelpimproveassessmentpractices.
  103. 6. Thank-younote Theauthorwouldliketothankpreviousresearchersfortheircontributionsinconductingresearchontheassessmentconceptionsandpractices. Thanksto Mr. Gavin T. Brown, Dr. Joana D. Ruraland Dr. Michelle Lacia, fortheirpreviousworkswereabigcontributiontothisstudy. Theresearchresultsobtainedbypreviousresearchers, Iandotherreaderscanobtaincompleteinformationontheconceptionsofassessmentandpracticesaswell. Thisinformationwillcertainlybeveryusefulasabasisforfurtherresearchtocreateinnovativeandusefulresourceforteachers. Ihopethattheresultsofwritingthisarticlecanprovideabroaderpictureofassessmentandhowteacherscanmaximizeitspurposeanduse.
  104. 7. References
  105. 1. Arikunto S. Research Procedures: APractical Approach. Indonesia: Rineka Cipta;2006.
  106. 2. Looney A, Cumming J, van Der Kleij F, Harris K. Reconceptualizingtheroleofteachersasassessors: teacherassessmentidentity. Assessmentin Education: Principles, Policy&Practice.2018;25(5\:442-
  107. 467. DOI:10.1080/0969594X.2016.1268090.
  108. 3. Atjonen P, P?ntinen S, Kontkanen S, Ruotsalainen P. Enhancingpreserviceteachers'assessmentliteracy: focusonknowledgebase, conceptionsofassessment, andteacherlearning. Frontiersin Education.2022;7:
  109. 891391. DOI:10.3389/feduc.2022.891391.
  110. 4. Azis A. Teachers'conceptionsanduseofassessmentinstudentlearning. Indonesian Journalof Applied Linguistics.2012;2(1\:
  111. 4051. DOI:10.17509/ijal. v2i1.72.
  112. 5. Azis A. Conceptionsandpracticesofassessment: acaseofteachersrepresentingimprovementconception. TEFLINJournal.2015;26(2\:129-
  113. 154. DOI:10.15639/teflinjournal. v26i2/129-154.
  114. 6. Avvisati F. Howareschoolperformanceandschoolclimaterelatedtoteachers'experience?PISAin Focus, No.
  115. 88. Paris: OECDPublishing;
  116. 2018. DOI:10.1787/af992283-en.
  117. 7. Baird M. Exploring Teachers'Perceptionsof Assessment Literacyina High Performing School Districtin New University;
  118. 2021. Availablefrom: https://scholarship. shu. edu/cgi/viewcontent. cgi?article=4032&context=dissertations
  119. 8. Ballada CJA, Alino MAC. Exploring Filipinoteachers'conceptionsofassessment. Educational Measurementand Evaluation Review.2018 Jul:1-15.
  120. 9. Barnes N, Fives H, Dacey CM. U. S. teachers'conceptionsofthepurposesofassessment. Teachingand Teacher Education.2017;65:
  121. 107116. DOI:10.1016/j. tate.2017.02.017.
  122. 10. Bernardo AB. Formativeassessmentandschoolimprovement: prospectsandchallengesinthedevelopmentofformativeassessmentthatcouldhelpimprovestudentlearningoutcomesin Philippineschools. Educational Measurementand Evaluation Review.2018:1-12.
  123. 11. Black P, William D. Classroomassessmentandpedagogy. Assessmentin Education: Principles, Policy&Practice.2018;25(1\:7-
  124. 74. DOI:10.1080/0969594X.2018.1441180.
  125. 12. Brown G. Teachers'conceptionsofassessment: implicationsforpolicyandprofessionaldevelopment. Assessmentin Education: Principles, Policy&Practice.2004;11(3\:301-
  126. 318. DOI:10.1080/0969594042000304609.
  127. 13. Caldone D. The Tensionsof Teacher Assessment Identity: What Secondary Teachers Think, Do, and Learnfrom Experi Pro Quest Dissertations Publishing;
  128. 2021. Availablefrom: https://search. proquest. com/openview/44f16a512c98f5f14aec2ae0c166e48e/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
  129. 14. Celebre-Baird M. Exploring Teachers'Perceptionsof Assessment Literacyina High Performing School Seton Hall University;
  130. 2021. Availablefrom: https://scholarship. shu. edu/dissertations/
  131. 293015. Choong C. Definitionof Assessment, Its Purposein Classroom Assessmentand Assessment Techniqueshttps://www. academia. edu/4935982/Definition_of_Ass International Journalof Multidisciplinary Researchand Growth Evaluationwww. allmultidisciplinaryjournal. com910|Pageessment_Its_Purpose_in_Classroom_Assessment_and_Assessment_Techniques
  132. 16. CNNPhilippines. PHGrade4studentsworstinmathandcitedhttps://www. cnnphilippines. com/news/2020/12/10/PH-Grade-4-students-worst-in-math-and-science-proficiency--study-. html
  133. 17. Dayal HC, Lingam GI. Fijianteachers'conceptionsofassessment. Australian Journalof Teacher Education.2015;40(8\:42-
  134. 58. Availablefrom: https://files. eric. ed. gov/fulltext/EJ1073634. pdf
  135. 18. De Luca C, Klinger D. Assessmentliteracydevelopment: identifyinggapsinteachercandidates'learning. Assessmentin Education: Principles, Policy&Practice.2010;17(4\:419-438.
  136. 19. De Luca C, La Pointe-Mc Ewan D, Luhanga U. Teacherassessmentliteracy: areviewofinternationalstandardsandmeasures. Educational Assessment, Evaluationand Accountability.2016;28(3\:251272.
  137. 20. Departmentof Education. Policyguidelinesonclassroomassessmentforthe Kto12basiceducationprogram. Dep Ed Order No.8, s.
  138. 2015. Philippines: Departmentof Education;2015.
  139. 21. Departmentof Education. Policyguidelinesonsystemassessmentinthe Kto12basiceducationprogram. Dep Ed Order No.29, s.
  140. 2017. Philippines: Departmentof Education;2017.
  141. 22. Departmentof Education. Nationaladoptionandimplementationofthe Philippineprofessionalstandardsforteachers. Dep Ed Order No.42, s.
  142. 2017. Philippines: Departmentof Education;2017.
  143. 23. Dixson DD, Worrell FC. Formativeandsummativeassessmentintheclassroom. Theoryinto Practice.2016;55(2\:
  144. 153159. DOI:10.1080/00405841.2016.1148989.
  145. 24. Doyle A, Conroy Johnson M, Donlon E, Mc Donald E, Sexton P. Theroleoftheteacherasassessor: developingstudentteacher'sassessmentidentity. Australian Journalof Teacher Education.2021;46(12\:1-
  146. 18. DOI:10.14221/ajte.2021v46n12.4.25. vailablefrom: https://www. edutopia. org/assessment-guide-importance
  147. 26. Huber SG, Skedsmo G. Assessmentineducationfromearlychildhoodtohighereducation. Educational Assessment, Evaluationand Accountability.2016;28(3\:
  148. 201203. DOI:10.1007/s11092-016-9245-x.
  149. 27. Lacia M. Classroompracticesinmathematics: effectsonelementaryandsecondaryschoolstudents'achievementinmathematicsin Region XII, Philippines. International Journalof Scientificand Technology Research.2019;8(10\:1-8.
  150. 28. Looney A, Cumming J, van Der Kleij F, Harris K. Reconceptualisingtheroleofteachersasassessors: teacherassessmentidentity. Assessmentin Education: Principles, Policy&Practice.2017;25(5\:442-
  151. 467. DOI:10.1080/0969594X.2016.1268090.
  152. 29. Magno C, Ocampo J. Canstudentsvalueforformativeassessmentdeveloptheiracademicself-regulationandgrit?Educational Measurementand Evaluation Review.2018:1-15.
  153. 30. Malaluan N. Learningassessmenttoplaycrucialroleinpost-Oct9[citehttps://www. bworldonline. com/opinion/2022/10/09/
  154. 47935331. Melaku T, Wudu M. Primaryschoolteachers'conceptionsandpracticesofassessmentandtheirrelationships. Cogent Education.2022;9(1\:
  155. 2090185. DOI:10.1080/2331186X.2022.2090185.
  156. 32. Mertler CA, Campbell C. Measuring Teachers'Knowledge&Applicationof Classroom Assessment Concepts: Developmentofthe"Assessment Literacyhttps://eric. ed. gov/?id=ED
  157. 49035533. Manitoba Education. Rethinking Classroom Assessmentwith Purposein Mind. Winnipeg: Manitoba Education, Citizenshipand Youth;
  158. 2006. Availablefrom: https://www. edu. gov. mb. ca/k12/assess/wncp/full_doc. pdf
  159. 34. Mirian BM, Zulnaidi H. Mathematicsteachers'conceptionsofassessment: genderandacademicqualificationcomparisons. International Journalof Instruction.2020;13(2\:
  160. 239252. DOI:10.29333/iji.2020.13217a.
  161. 35. Monteiro V, Mata L, Santos NN. Assessmentconceptionsandpractices: perspectivesofprimaryschoolteachersandstudents. Frontiersin Education.2021;6:
  162. 631185. DOI:10.3389/feduc.2021.631185.
  163. 36. OECD. Evaluationandassessmentframeworksforimprovingschooloutcomes. Paris: OECDPublishing;
  164. 2009. Availablefrom: https://www. oecd. org/education/school/46927511. pdf
  165. 37. Opre D. Teachers'conceptionsofassessment. Procedia-Socialand Behavioral Sciences.2015;209:
  166. 229233. DOI:10.1016/j. sbspro.2015.11.222.
  167. 38. Ounis T. Exploringsecondaryteachers'perceptionsofclassroomassessmentina Tunisiancontext. International Journalof Languageand Literature.2017;4(2\:148-
  168. 158. Availablefrom: http://ijllnet. com/journals/Vol_4_No_2_June_2017/15. pdf
  169. 39. Piosang TL. Across-sectionalanalysisofclassroomassessmentliteracyof Englishteachersinsecondaryandtertiarylevels. Educational Measurementand Evaluation Review.2017;8(1\:1-15.40.(ON\: Queen's University Centrefor Teachingandhttps://www. queensu. ca/teachingandlearning/modules/assessments/index. html
  170. 41. Randel B, Apthorp H, Beesley AD, Clark TF, Wang X. Impactsofprofessionaldevelopmentinclassroomassessmentonteacherandstudentoutcomes. The Journalof Educational Research.2016;109(5\:491-502.
  171. 42. Remesal A. Primaryandsecondaryteachers'conceptionsofassessment: aqualitativestudy. Teachingand Teacher Education.2011;27(2\:472-482.
  172. 43. Rural J. Teachers'conceptionsofassessmentusing Brown'sfour-factormodeland Dep Edassessmentpolicy: implicationsforpolicyreview. Turkish Journalof Computerand Mathematics Education.2019;10(3\:765-
  173. 785. Availablefrom: https://turcomat. org/index. php/turkbilmat/article/download/2170/1890/
  174. 408744. Siarova H, Sternadel D, Masidlauskaite R. Assessment International Journalof Multidisciplinary Researchand Growth Evaluationwww. allmultidisciplinaryjournal. com911|Pagepracticesfor21stcenturylearning: reviewofevidence. NESETIIreport. Luxembourg: Publications Officeofthe European Union;
  175. 2017. DOI:10.2766/71491.
  176. 45. Schleicher A. PISA2018 Insightsand Interpretations. Paris: OECDPublishing;
  177. 2019. Availablefrom: https://www. oecd. org/pisa/publications/pisa-2018-results. htm46. https://www. academia. edu/23813478/Assessment_Practices_in_Education
  178. 47. Smith L, Hill M, Cowie B, Gilmore A. Preparingteacherstousetheenablingpowerofassessment. In: Wyatt-Smith C, Klenowski V, Colbert P, editors. Designing Assessmentfor Quality Learning. Dordrecht: Springer;2014. p.303-
  179. 323. DOI:10.1007/978-94-007-5902-2_19.
  180. 48. Sulaymonova NJ. Learningandassessment. Journal NX-AMultidisciplinary Peer Reviewed Journal.2021;7(7\:
  181. 412414. Availablefrom: https://repo. journalnx. com/index. php/nx/article/view/
  182. 295049. Tesorio PJC, Canizares MJF. Philippine K-12secondaryscienceteachersassessmentconceptionsinpromotingstudentlearning. The Normal Lights.2018;12(2\:1-
  183. 32. Availablefrom: https://po. pnuresearchportal. org/ejournal/index. php/normallights/article/view/
  184. 100250. Top Hat. Authentic Asseshttps://tophat. com/glossary/a/authentic-assessment/
  185. 51. Unal A, Unal Z. Anexaminationof K-12teachers'assessmentbeliefsandpracticesinrelationtoyearsofteachingexperience. Georgia Educational Researcher.2019;16(1\:1-25.52.
  186. 53. Vraketta G. Classroomassessmentpracticesandthecitedlefrom: https://www. academia. edu/4496178/Classroom_Assessment_Practices_and_the_Enhancement_of_Student_Learning
  187. 54. Yamtim V, Wongwanich S. Astudyonclassroomassessmentliteracyofprimaryschoolteachers. Procedia-Socialand Behavioral Sciences.2014;116:2998-3004.
  188. 55. Yazon A. Statistics: AGuidefor Researchersand Thesis Writers. Quezon City: Wiseman's Books Trading, Inc.;2020.

Publication Information

Journal: International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Growth Evaluation (IJMRGE)

Publisher: Anfo Publication House

ISSN: 2582-7138 (Online)

Frequency: Bimonthly

Language: English

Open Access: Yes - This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Share This Article: