Abstract
Transformative assessment is a strategic approach to assessment that helps teachers use assessment not only for accountability, but also to promote meaningful learning. It enhances instruction and shifts the assessment orientation from summative to formative and summative. This study examined the impact of the Lesson Study for Transformative Assessment (LSforTA) professional development program on teachers’ classroom assessment practices. The researchers used pre- and post-surveys along with interviews to assess how LSforTA changed the practices of 11 mathematics teachers at two secondary schools. Pre-intervention levels were examined and then compared with post-intervention scores using the Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test. Interview data were analyzed thematically and assisted by concept-evidence tables to organize and sort data. It was found that LSforTA had a positive impact on teachers’ assessment practices, leading to increased student engagement and improved teachers’ uses and skills in using transformative assessment methods. This positive impact included changes in the way they designed and implemented classroom assessment and a move away from traditional assessment practices. Other changes were related to the so-called equity in classroom assessment practices, a crucial element of the LSforTA program. Teachers also perceived that students’ attitude toward mathematics learning and their academic honesty had changed positively. The results suggest that the LSforTA program was effective in helping teachers change their classroom assessment practices, which in turn had a positive impact on student learning. Additionally, the program was successful in creating a more equitable learning environment for all students.
Keywords
Introduction
The Ethiopian government has taken significant steps by introducing new policies and strategies to enhance mathematics education. The strategies Federal Ministry of Education (MOE) set to strengthen mathematics and science education in Ethiopia (Ministry of Education in Ethiopia [MoE], 2014) and a national strategy for STEM education (Belay et al., 2016) can be cited for illustration. However, it seems that there is a disconnect between these initiatives and the actual performance of teachers and students. Traditional teaching and assessment practices continue to dominate (Ayele et al., 2019; MoE, 2021; Teferra et al., 2017) and student engagement has either continued to fall or remained static, especially in mathematics (Tibebu et al., 2021).
The problem seems to be highly pronounced in secondary education than primary education (Ayele et al., 2019). In their survey study of teachers’ classroom practices, Ayele et al. (2019) found problems with teachers applying a variety of assessment techniques, questioning skills, providing feedback to students, and establishing a positive classroom climate. They recommended that these problems be alleviated through interventions. Dejene (2021) also emphasized that ethics and principles of assessment need to be improved in secondary schools to minimize highly prevalent academic cheating behaviors among students. The study conducted by (Abate et al., 2023b) also indicated that teachers mainly rely on traditional methods of assessment, do not record students’ assessment outcomes continuously to make consistent judgments, and treat assessment and its practice as separate processes from teaching and learning.
Moreover, if the teaching-learning process in the classroom is not practice-oriented, it becomes boring and uninteresting as reflected in secondary schools in Ethiopia (Teferra et al., 2017). This is because teachers may give minimal attention to the quality of instructional activities and to the practice of classroom assessments. In particular, evidence from large scale studies (e.g., National Educational Assessment and Examinations Agency [NEAEA], 2017; World Bank, 2020) also revealed that students’ performance in mathematics learning and achievement is declining in Ethiopia. The results of national learning assessments in mathematics for Grade 10 and 12 students showed that only 11.9% of Grade 10 students and 27.2% of Grade 12 students scored 50% or above (NEAEA, 2017). These percentages were very low and fell below the targets set by the education sector development program. A similar study found that a high (55% of Grade 12 students) percentage of Grade 10 and 12 students didn’t obtain basic competency, which was also a significant problem (World Bank, 2020). These figures are alarming and indicate that many students are not equipped with the knowledge and skills they need to be successful in the future. Furthermore, this finding highlights the need for improved instructional methods, in particular improved classroom assessment practices that transform mathematics education. Research has also consistently shown that classroom assessment plays an important role in improving teachers’ instructional practices (e.g., Chappuis, 2014; Hattie, 2012). This improvement in instructional practices, in turn, leads to better performance and achievement among students (Hattie, 2012).
Supporting teachers in enhancing their skills to design and implement effective assessment tasks is crucial for students to thrive on their learning journey. Professional development programs play a significant role in empowering teachers to create engaging and meaningful assessments that ultimately benefit students’ growth and success (Siarova et al., 2017). Effective professional development programs provide teachers with a platform to collaborate, exchange ideas, and discuss issues related to the classroom. This is because teachers learn best by doing and building their understanding rather than being told (Royce, 2010). Effective professional development programs also help teachers think deeply about their practice, experiment with novel approaches, share their learning with their colleagues, and reflect on their practice. These are common features of lesson study professional development activities (Christie, 2019; Doig & Groves, 2011).
Lesson study (LS) is one of the most rapidly growing professional development approaches in the world (Dudley, 2015; Fischman & Wasserman, 2017) and embodies many high-quality features of TPD (Schipper et al., 2020). It often involves a group of teachers working together to observe, discuss, and refine their teaching practices (Huang & Shimizu, 2016; Lewis et al., 2006). Participants engage in collaborative inquiry, reflect on their practice, and make improvements to their lessons. Through this process, teachers can gain a deeper understanding of their teaching methods. Teachers understanding of teaching methods leads them to developing their capacity for lesson delivery and classroom assessment practices (Fischman & Wasserman, 2017; Willems & Van Den Bossche, 2019) that transform mathematics education.
Benson and Dresdow (2014) describe transformative assessment as a strategic approach to assessment with several essential elements, including appropriateness, sustainability, flexibility, and continuity. This kind of assessment practices helps teachers to use assessment not only for accountability purposes, but also to measure learning outcomes meaningfully, thereby leading to better instruction. Moreover, it helps teachers change their assessment orientation from summative to a combination of formative and summative.
As a result, we argue that a school-based LS professional development model should be used in our secondary schools and its impact on teachers’ transformative assessment practices should be investigated. It is because professional development activities in Ethiopian schools are known for their less relevant content and bureaucratic characteristics (hierarchical and centralized power; Taddese & Rao, 2021; Taye, 2015; Tuli & Tynjälä, 2015). LS is a teacher-led participatory activity and can, therefore, allow teachers to collaborate with each other in sharing best practices to solve problems and improve their transformative assessment practices (Fischman & Wasserman, 2017; Norwich et al., 2014; Smith, 2008).
Considering the ongoing reform in our country ‘s education system and the need for improving the practices of mathematics teachers in the assessment area, the authors also believe that bringing about meaningful changes in mathematics education requires building a strong foundation of teachers. Therefore, this study was intended to improve mathematics teachers’ classroom assessment practices at secondary schools through a LS as a professional development intervention program. The overall impact of the Lesson Study for Transformative Assessment (LSforTA) program and teachers’ perceptions of changes in their students’ learning were examined. The following research questions were examined more specifically:
1. What changes in teachers’ assessment practice occurred as a result of LSforTA professional development?
2. What changes in students’ learning were perceived by teachers as a result of LSforTA professional development?
Literature Review
Teachers’ Professional Development
It is essential for teachers to acquire different knowledge and skills so that they can respond effectively to challenges in educational practices and lead students toward more efficient learning methods. It is also important for teachers to develop their skills in understanding students’ individual learning styles in order to provide them with support. Knowing different types of students in a class based on their gender, performance, and/or other background characteristics helps teachers make appropriate accommodations for each student (Blazar & Kraft, 2017). Accommodations for students can include adjusting the pace of instruction, providing alternative assessment activities, or using different teaching methods. Such accommodations allow each student to reach his/her full potential. Teachers should, therefore, be encouraged and supported to develop professionally and renew their abilities to design and implement effective instructional strategies.
Teachers’ professional development (TPD) involves identifying goals and learning the skills that support their daily practices and help them succeed (Nishimura, 2014). If TPD is directly tied to teachers’ daily experiences, they are more likely to change their instructional practices (Pitsoe & Letseka, 2014). In order to improve student achievement, continuing professional development is also an essential tool for improving teachers’ practices, content knowledge, and pedagogical skills (Zeini, 2019). It is true that teachers learn every time they teach, conduct assessments, review curricula, or read educational articles. These examples illustrate the dynamic nature of professional development as ongoing, continuous, and embedded in teachers’ daily lives (Earl & Katz, 2006).
Traditional professional development such as workshops and conferences has many disadvantages. These experiences typically require less time commitment and require little or no accountability, so they have less impact on classroom practice (Payne, 2018). Besides, professional development in the form of one-off events may not be sustained in the system. In the traditional sit-and-get approach to professional development, teachers modify their practices on an individual basis, often resulting in a diverse approach that does not affect the structure of the school itself (Nishimura, 2014).
In order to develop deep learning and make it practical, however, more than just attending workshops and courses is required (Earl & Katz, 2006). Effective TPD is not just about consistently providing information to teachers. It is about considering teachers’ different background contexts and situations. Hence, it is essential that TPD takes place on the job in a collaborative environment where teachers are encouraged to reflect on their experiences to further shape their instructional process (Payne, 2018). As a result, an effective TPD program, such as LS, equips teachers with the skills they need to initiate and conduct research in their classrooms and schools.
Around the world, several studies have explored LS as an effective professional development model that impacts teachers’ classroom practices and students’ performance positively (Fischman & Wasserman, 2017; Rock & Wilson, 2005; Willems & Van Den Bossche, 2019). LS is a model of teacher-led research in which a group of teachers works together to target an identified area for development in their students’ learning (Christie, 2019). LS activities can enable students to participate more actively in lessons and can change teacher attitudes from traditional orientation to a more student-centered classroom (Fernandez & Yoshida, 2004; Zeini, 2019).
LS can, therefore, be a valuable tool for improving classroom assessment practices in mathematics. By engaging in collaborative planning and observation, teachers can gain insights into how to effectively assess student learning and make adjustments to their assessment strategies. During the planning phase of LS, teachers can discuss and align their assessment purposes with the learning objectives of the lesson. They can brainstorm different assessment methods that align with the mathematical concepts being taught. This collaborative process allows teachers to share their expertise and consider a variety of assessment approaches (Fischman & Wasserman, 2017). During the observation phase, teachers can focus not only on the instructional strategies but also on how students respond to different assessment tasks. They can observe how students engage with the material, identify misconceptions, and assess their understanding (Burghes & Robinson, 2010; Fischman & Wasserman, 2017). This information can then be used to refine and improve the assessment methods for future lessons.
After the lesson, teachers can come together to reflect on the assessment strategies used and discuss their effectiveness. They can analyze student work samples, discuss patterns of understanding, and identify areas for improvement. This collaborative reflection helps teachers gain a deeper understanding of student learning and make informed decisions about assessment practices (Norwich et al., 2014). By integrating LS into their professional development, teachers can enhance their classroom assessment practices in mathematics. It allows them to continuously improve their assessment methods, promote student learning, and ensure that assessments accurately measure student understanding.
More importantly, LS fosters teachers’ capacity for formative assessment by placing student thinking front and center throughout (Christie, 2019; Fischman & Wasserman, 2017; Norwich et al., 2014). The LS process encourages careful observation and analysis of student thinking, with the goal of designing and implementing effective teacher responses to student actions. Therefore, LS plays a great role in improving classroom assessment practices in mathematics education.
The adoption of Japanese LS in other areas is rapidly recognizing its benefits, helping improve teachers’ assessment practices, improving teaching and learning in schools, and fostering professional growth (Fischman & Wasserman, 2017; Hattori & Saba, 2008). Therefore, based on the experience of the Japanese education system, it is prudent to introduce the concept of LS into schools. In spite of the fact that LS empower teachers to make decisions and experiment with new ideas (Zeini, 2019), it was pointed out, however, that the quality of LS varies greatly depending on the quality of school leadership, the quality of the teachers, and teacher’s intrinsic interest in in-service education within the school (Fernandez & Yoshida, 2004).
Transformative Assessment
Educational assessment is a broader term that encompasses various methods and approaches used to measure and evaluate student learning outcomes. It includes classroom assessment and other forms of assessment conducted at different education institution levels (Kellaghan & Greaney, 2004). If teachers use assessment in the classroom to support students’ learning and advance (upgrade) students’ level, it is called “classroom assessment” (Cizek, 2010; Ferrara et al., 2020). Brookhart and McMillan (2020) also describe classroom assessment as a process in which students and teachers collect, evaluate, and use evidence of student learning for various purposes. These purposes include diagnosing student strengths and weaknesses, monitoring progress toward desired proficiency levels, providing feedback to students and parents, and enhancing students’ learning and motivation. Therefore, besides advancing students’ educational level, the primary purpose of classroom assessment is to transform instruction and provide feedback to both teachers and students.
Classroom assessment that transforms instruction is a component of the teaching-learning process that includes all assessment activities conducted in the classroom and assists teachers in making informed decisions about students’ progress (Benson & Dresdow, 2014; Brown, 2018). It is an important tool for teachers to help them identify strengths and weaknesses in their students and adjust instruction accordingly. Transformative assessment, therefore, focuses on changing both the way teachers teach and students learn a lesson (Benson & Dresdow, 2014; MoE, 2012; Popham, 2011). This approach includes, but is not limited to, equitably assessing students’ learning by integrating it with instruction, utilizing various assessment methods and tasks, providing constructive and timely feedback, interpreting assessment data according to guidelines and ethics, and making consistent judgments based on evidence.
Transformative assessment in mathematics classes involves assessing not only the final answer but also the process, reasoning, and strategies used by students to arrive at their solutions (Chigonga, 2020). When practicing transformative assessment, mathematics teachers need to involve all students in different forms, content, and modes of assessment approaches (Gipps, 1995; Nortvedt & Buchholtz, 2018) to ensure equity. To practice assessment equitably in mathematics classes, therefore, planning of assessment tasks in the lesson should also consider the three levels of mathematical competencies: Level 1: Reproduction-procedures, concepts, and definitions; Level 2: Connections and integration for problem-solving; Level 3: Mathematization-mathematical thinking and reasoning, generalization and insight (Dekker & Feijs, 2005; De-Lange, 1999).
At Level 1, teachers can give students a set of math problems and expect them to reproduce the correct answers and can assess students’ understanding of definitions and concepts by giving them multiple-choice quizzes or other objective-type assessment tools. For Level 2 assessment tasks, teachers can provide students with a complex problem that requires them to apply multiple mathematical concepts and skills. To design Level 3 assessment tasks, teachers can challenge students to prove mathematical theorems or come up with their own strategies for solving complex equations. This approach encourages mathematical thinking and reasoning for solving problems. It also helps students generalize and apply mathematical concepts to new and unfamiliar situations.
Method
Study Design
The LSforTA approach was refined using a design-based research (DBR) design (see Abate et al., 2023a) for the detail refinement and evaluation procedure of the LSforTA professional development program). DBR is a research approach that engaged in iterative design to develop knowledge that improve the existing classroom practices (Mckenney & Reeves, 2012). This research approach is characterized by a flexible methodology that focuses on improving educational practices through iterative analysis, design, development, and implementation to generate theoretical and practical principles based on context (Wang & Hannafin, 2005). Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected simultaneously and analyzed in a complementary manner. The two types of data were actually collected independently during intervention time. The effectiveness of LSforTA was determined statistically using quantitative data and the real changes that participants experienced through participation in the program were measured via qualitative data (J. W. Creswell & Clark, 2018). Furthermore, the final conclusions and inferences are based on the results of analyses of both types of data (Mertens, 2010).
Study Participants
A 6-month LSforTA professional development intervention program was conducted with mathematics teachers teaching in two public secondary schools in Jimma city, south-western Ethiopia. From seven public secondary schools in Jimma city, we selected two because they comprised large numbers of mathematics teachers. While implementing the LSforTA program, the authors wanted LS team members with different qualifications and teaching experience made a team, so they could share their best practices. From the 14 mathematics teachers in the two schools, 11 participated, as three were unable to do so due to personal problems. Informed consent was obtained from the school principals and the teachers. None of these teachers had received training on LS professional development program before this intervention. Five of the teachers have a Bachelor of Education degree and six have a Masters degree in mathematics. Furthermore, two had 11 to 15 years of experience, two had 16 to 20 years of experience, and the remaining seven had taught mathematics for over 20 years.
The researchers also served as experts for the teachers and facilitated the intervention. The task of the researchers went until making the LSforTA PD program an integral part of the system. To achieve this task the researchers organized, guided, and facilitated all the necessary activities (e.g., research lesson planning, meeting, observation, discussion, reflection, and evaluation of the implementation) to be performed by the participants during the intervention.
The Lesson Study for Transformative Assessment (LSforTA) Program
The LSforTA program aimed at supporting teachers by guiding them to develop and practice transformative assessment for improving students’ mathematics performance. The LSforTA process involved two LS teams from both secondary schools. The teams set goals and studied the curriculum, planned assessment tasks for lessons by considering three levels of mathematical competency. They implemented the planned assessments by integrating them into the lessons. Afterward, they reflected on the data and analyzed it. Finally, they made decisions to revise and improve the process iteratively (see Authors et al., 2023a).
In the first phase, for the secondary schools, two LS teams worked in different shifts (morning and afternoon) and undertook eight research lessons (two research lessons for each team) in 4 months. A final conference was held to review and analyze the practices of all four teams at the end of Phase 1 (see Abate et al., 2023a). Thus, the second phase of the LSforTA program design was revised, developed, and implemented for 2 months.
By changing teachers’ classroom assessment practices, LSforTA provided valuable methods to help teachers change students’ mathematics learning. We believe that it is crucial for teachers to establish a process to assess students’ mathematical understanding, determine priority areas, conceptualize instructional tasks, and monitor students’ progress so they can intensify instruction for all students. Participants were, therefore, required to develop transformative assessment uses, skills, and practices during the intervention period. Major topics covered during the LSforTA program implementation included theoretical and practical issues of transformative assessments and LS steps.
Data Collection Instruments
Questionnaires and interviews were used to collect data for this study. Different sources of data collected using different methods resulted in rigorous, empirically grounded claims, and assertions (Cobb et al., 2003). A pre/post-survey questionnaire was administered to the participants to understand their prior uses of and changes in transformative assessment and skills in using it. The questionnaire was developed based on the framework explained in the Professional Standards for Ethiopian School Teachers (MoE, 2012). It is categorized into four main constructs: assessing students’ learning, providing constructive feedback, interpreting assessment data, and making consistent judgments. These constructs guide teachers in practicing transformative assessment. Each category includes indicators that further describe and conceptualize how that construct is realized in a teaching-learning process. Some of the items included planning assessment methods for different levels of mathematical competencies, implementing the planned assessment by integrating it with a lesson, giving feedback consistent with the assessment, etc. The assessment practice items were rated on a Likert scale from 1 to 5: 1 = not at all used, 2 = seldom used, 3 = used occasionally, 4 = used often, and 5 = used very often to indicate how frequently they used. Additionally, a separate Likert scale with the same range where 1 = not at all skilled, 2 = a little skilled, 3 = somewhat skilled, 4 = skilled, and 5 = very skilled was used to measure the teachers’ skill level in using the assessment practice items. After piloting the questionnaire and making revisions, it was distributed to the participants, all of whom completed the survey, and returned it to the researchers.
Along with the use of a questionnaire, a semi-structured interview of approximately 55 min duration was conducted with the teachers after the program intervention. The interview was designed to examine teachers’ changes in classroom assessment practices and their perception of students’ changes in mathematics learning and performance. The interview questions the teachers asked included: How has your assessment practice changed as a result of your participation in LSforTA? How your students’ mathematics learning and performance changed after the LSforTA program? Please, could you provide some examples, if any? The interviews were conducted in the two local languages, Afan Oromo and Amharic, audio-taped, transcribed, translated sentence by sentence, and given to language instructors for review.
Methods of Data Analysis
The pre/post-survey data was analyzed by calculating the mean values of the items to understand teachers’ changes in the uses of transformative assessment and skills in using it by SPSS version 24 software. Pre-intervention levels were also examined and then compared with post-intervention scores using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (Field, 2009; Norwich & Ylonen, 2015). The Wilcoxon-Signed Rank Test (WSRT) was used instead of a t-test because assumptions such as measurement scales were not met. A WSRT, which is a non-parametric test is commonly used for paired data with independent units of analysis that include measurements taken before and after interventions from the same participants of small sample size (Field, 2009). The results of these quantitative data supplemented the qualitative results collected by interviews and analyzed thematically (Braun & Clarke, 2006; J. Creswell, 2013). Analyses of interview data were assisted by concept-evidence tables which help organize and sort data (e.g., excerpts from interview transcripts; Cloutier & Ravasi, 2021; Ferede et al., 2022). This process helped us focus our attention on evidence directly relevant to the research questions and ensure trustworthiness of the analysis (Cloutier & Ravasi, 2021). To ensure anonymity, teachers were represented by codes. We used closed brackets to indicate the parts of the transcripts we omitted to focus on what is vital for illustrating the findings.
Results
Impact of LSforTA PD Program on Teachers’ Assessment Practices
The LSforTA PD program had a considerable impact on improving teachers’ uses and skills in using transformative assessment methods in mathematics classes. Teachers’ overall use of transformative assessment methods on the survey post-test (M = 14.04) was nearly 3 points higher than their use on the pre-test (M = 11.37). In addition, their overall skills in using transformative assessment methods on the survey post-test (M = 14.36) was also nearly 3 points higher than that on the pre-test (M = 10.91). The greatest improvements were made on interpreting students’ assessment data with the mean increasing from 2.73 to 3.56 for use scale and providing constructive feedback with the mean increasing from 2.36 to 3.58 for skill scale. A summary of the subscales and total scores for the pre-test and post-test is provided in Table 1.
Comparisons Between Pre- and Post-Survey Results for Each Subscale, Corresponding to each of the Four Constructs of Transformative Assessment Practices (N = 11).
Note. The overall score had a maximum possible value equal to 20 points.
The evidence of the impact of the LSforTA PD program was also provided using WSRT statistics for teachers’ pre- and post-surveys.
According to the WSRT statistics presented in Table 2, there was a significant increase in the use of transformative assessment methods (z = 2.934, n = 11, p = .003) and skills in using the methods (z = 2.936, n = 11, p = .003) among teachers. This result indicates that teachers’ transformative assessment practices and skills in practicing it changed significantly after the intervention. The following sections provide detailed information collected from teachers’ interviews on how the intervention program affected the teachers and students in a positive way.
Wilcoxon-Signed Rank Test Statistics for Teachers’ Pre- and Post-Surveys.
After intervention < before intervention.
After intervention > before intervention.
After intervention = before intervention.
Based on negative ranks.
Changes in Teachers’ Assessment Practices
The results of our study indicated several changes in teachers’ classroom assessment practices. These include planning assessment activities and tasks and practicing equitably, identifying students’ learning errors, and providing feedback. Teachers are now interpreting assessment data while adhering to guidelines and ethics. Additionally, teachers improved their practices around marking and recording students’ assessment results. These changes collectively reflected a shift in teachers’ classroom assessment approaches. Table 3 presents selected quotations from the participants based on the interview data.
Teachers’ Changes in Practicing Classroom Assessment.
Planning Assessment and Practicing Equitably
Planning assessment tasks and activities that can be integrated into a classroom lesson is essential for teachers because a successful lesson requires strategies for checking students’ understanding. Teachers planned assessment tasks collaboratively with their team by considering their students’ levels to ensure equity. During planning, they studied the students’ textbooks and other references and shared many ideas with each other. Planning together also helped them exchange necessary information about the lesson content and their students that, in turn, helped them when implementing it. Teachers also highlighted that studying and planning assessment tasks helped them learn and use assessment methods in a different way. Furthermore, as Teacher I described, these before-class preparation activities helped teachers to stop focusing only on fast-learners and instead, incorporate all types of students into their classroom assessment practices. By doing these activities, teachers were able to create a learning environment that was more inclusive and equitable for all types of students.
Identifying Students’ Learning Errors
Identifying and correcting errors in the learning process helps students reflect on what they know and then explain the solution in a clearer and more complete manner (Rushton, 2018). Concept errors and procedure errors are common errors that students make when learning mathematics (Delastri & Lolang, 2023). Students make concept errors when they do not understand the mathematics concepts fully. The most difficult error to identify at first glance is the concept error, which involves the incorrect use of formulas, misinterpreting concepts, mistyping formulas, and not writing equations to answer questions. It is also the most difficult error to recognize but the most important error to catch and correct (Delastri & Lolang, 2023). Teachers identified these errors, therefore, using assessment and addressed them by giving corrective instruction without blaming the students. The teachers also acknowledged students’ errors and corrected them immediately so that they would understand their misconceptions.
Providing Constructive Feedback
Feedback is a mechanism of providing information to the learners on their current state of performance, achievement, and learning progress. After assessing students’ learning, teachers provided timely feedback on their progress. They gave feedback based on what the students missed in their assessment task. They also encouraged students to learn from their mistakes rather than praising them for getting the correct answers. However, teachers indicated that, due to challenges such as large class sizes, they could not reach all the students when they provided feedback individually. As a result of this, they gave general feedback to the entire class most of the time.
Adhering to the Principles and Ethics of Assessment
Teachers’ ethical responsibility in schools requires them to adhere to certain rules, beliefs, and values. Ethics deals not only with the result but also the process used and indicates what should and should not be done, for example, during classroom assessment practices. After the LSforTA intervention program, teachers adhered strictly to guidelines when valuing and interpreting students’ results. The interpretations teachers made were based on the assessment tasks the students completed. The teachers indicated that the guidelines and ethics of assessment learned in the program helped them not to pollute students’ marks with non-achievement factors such as students’ conduct, effort, attendance, and class participation. They also reported that many students demonstrated an acceptable level of proficiency regarding the required learning objectives and met established benchmarks.
Marking Students’ Assessments and Recording Results
Recording is the process of documenting students’ performance on an assessment task using different tools including, for example, rubrics and mark-list sheets. It involves tracking student scores and noting areas of improvement. Teachers’ recordings were also based on the learning objectives stated in their lesson plans. Teachers reported that they used this data to review and reflect on student performance and guide future lessons. In addition to this, teachers identified which students needed additional help by recording their progress even though they were challenged by large class sizes.
In conclusion, teachers in the two schools highlighted the decisive role of the LSforTA program changing their classroom assessment practices. They also reported enhanced collaboration and communication with their peers involved in the program. Despite this, however, they complained that large class sizes, workloads, and insufficient resources prevented them from conducting transformative assessments in a more effective way.
Teachers’ Perception of Their Students’ Change
Interviews with the teachers also investigated their perceptions of changes in their students’ mathematics learning and performance. It was found that teachers perceived students’ attitude toward learning mathematics and their academic honesty had changed positively as presented in Table 4.
Teachers’ Perception about their Students’ Change.
Attitude Towards Learning Mathematics
Attitude refers to the way in which students view learning mathematics (liking or disliking of) and take part in classroom activities. Teachers perceived that students’ attitude toward mathematics changed positively because their students liked the subject and engaged in different mathematical activities during the teaching-learning process. The teachers believed that these activities were meaningful and students had the opportunity to understand mathematics and perform better in their assessments.
Teachers also noticed an improvement in students’ motivation to do exercises and their interest in the subject. As the teachers explained, these changes in attitude led to their students’ better performance and better scores on mathematics quizzes and tests. The positive attitude also fostered a collaborative learning environment in which many students worked together and learned from each other rather than copying one another in tests and exams.
Academic Honesty
Academic honesty means doing your work, without cheating, or presenting others’ work as your own. After the LSforTA PD program, teachers noticed that the majority of their students were doing their own work and their academic honesty improved mainly because teachers had increased oversight and better monitored students’ work. This strategy also enabled the teachers to identify and address potential issues of cheating and plagiarism in a timely manner. Furthermore, the program helped teachers provide timely feedback and support for their students which allowed the students to understand their mistakes and improve their performance. These new assessment practices increased the accuracy of student assessments which resulted in a more transparent grading process and fostered trust between the student and the teacher. Teachers attributed the changes to the transformative assessment strategies they had learned during the intervention.
LSforTA PD activities can generally provide teachers with new strategies, techniques, and resources to support instruction. These improvements can lead to increased student engagement and enhanced student performance. It can also foster a deeper teacher-student relationship and create an environment of respect.
Discussion
In this study, we examined how the LSforTA PD program affected secondary school mathematics teachers’ classroom assessment practices and students’ learning. The results indicated that teachers’ transformative assessment practices and skills in practicing it changed significantly after the LSforTA PD program. Teachers planned assessment activities and tasks in line with different levels of mathematical competency. They focused on integrating these assessments with their instruction. Another significant change involved providing feedback to students based on the assessments. Additionally, teachers improved their ability to interpret assessment data while following relevant guidelines and ethical standards. They also enhanced their practices for marking and recording students’ assessment results. These changes collectively reflected a shift in teachers’ classroom assessment approaches.
These findings are in line with previous studies (Fischman & Wasserman, 2017; Mertler, 2009; Norwich & Ylonen, 2015). As Dekker and Feijs (2005) described, changes in attitude toward assessment and classroom practices were also found for teachers who participated in this study. The study also confirmed that the LS model can serve as a means of teachers’ PD with a positive impact on their instructional practices (Rock & Wilson, 2005; Willems & Van Den Bossche, 2019).
A study by Alamri (2020) also indicated that participating in the lesson study strategy contributes to the professional development of mathematics teachers as it enhances their mathematical and pedagogical knowledge, enables them to better understand students’ learning processes, and influences their views regarding lesson study methodologies. Furthermore, the study by Cajkler et al. (2014) found that teachers who engaged in LS reported improved understanding of their students, improved collaboration, developed a less-teacher-centered approach, and created a stronger sense of teacher community despite time constraints.
Our study specifically revealed an increase in teachers’ use of transformative assessment approaches by planning assessment activities/tasks and practicing it with instruction. Formal classroom assessments need to be designed and planned to obtain specific information about a student’s performance at a specific point in time (Ketabi & Ketabi, 2014). Teachers have much to gain from using formatively the information gathered from their ongoing informal assessment situations (i.e., those that arise naturally in the classroom environment) as part of their teaching-learning process. However, letting things “just happen” would seriously endanger the quality of classroom assessment (Buhagiar, 2006). As classroom assessment now primarily supports learning, teachers need to gather as much revealing information as possible, through conscious planning, for example, by having the necessary information based on the particular course’s learning objectives.
Another planning consideration linked to the classroom assessment paradigm is teachers’ collaboration. In order to provide teachers with common and consistent assessment opportunities, the traditional planning process must be replaced with a more open, collaborative process of planning activities together from the start (Buhagiar & Murphy, 2008), as was practiced by teachers in this study. Stewart (2014) also concluded that passive and individual practices do not prepare teachers to integrate the academic skills their students need.
Planning and integrating assessments into the teaching and learning process is basic, appropriate, and effective practice (Black & Wiliam, 2018). This approach can increase interactions between students and teachers, inspire learning, and make learning interesting. It also promotes equity by allowing all students to participate in classroom activities and demonstrate their achievements. Equitable assessment practices help to eliminate any potential bias or discrimination on the basis of gender, class, or ability (Herman & Cook, 2020). Furthermore, it fosters a more inclusive learning environment where students feel valued and respected and encourages them to strive for their goals and work hard to succeed.
This study emphasized that classroom assessment should take into account the issue of assessment guidelines and ethics. Ethics ensures the quality and fairness of assessments in the classroom (Liu et al., 2016). An ethical, fair, useful, feasible, and accurate student evaluation is essential (Green et al., 2007). When teachers modify grades or scores because of student effort, late work, or behavior problems, for example, the scores do not accurately communicate the level of mastery and do not represent actual student achievement in content. It is, therefore, necessary to maintain a grading system that is consistent and accurately reflects student achievement. Grades should be used to measure and report student achievement, not for student motivation (Chamberlin et al., 2018). Grades should also be based on content, not effort or behavior. This will ensure that students get an accurate assessment of their knowledge.
Marking and recording assessment results are also an integral part of classroom assessment (Sethusha, 2014) and were the major activities practiced by the teachers who participated in this study. Due to large class sizes, however, teachers did not keep detailed notes in their recordings to provide each student with individualized and specific feedback for improving her/his learning. The records should include detailed and descriptive information about the nature of the expected learning as well as evidence of students’ actual learning, and should be collected from a range of assessments (Earl & Katz, 2006). The right record-keeping shows whether the student’s work is on track and, when not, raises questions about the instruction and suggests ways it could be adjusted.
Teachers must also understand the impact of their improvements on their students. In this study, teachers’ perception of changes in their students’ learning as a result of LSforTA PD program was also investigated. The result indicated that LSforTA PD also indirectly impacted students’ mathematics learning. Teachers perceived that students’ attitude toward learning mathematics and their academic honesty changed in a positive way. They also reported that their students’ assessment results improved after the program. This improvement could be due to the teachers’ changes in classroom assessment practices after they had participated in the LSforTA PD program. PD activities can provide teachers with new skills and strategies to use in the classroom which can improve students’ achievements (Zeini, 2019).
The improvement of the teaching-learning process is mainly a mutual responsibility among students, teachers, and school leaders. Therefore, the authors recommend school leaders, teachers, and students should play their respective roles to sustain using this model to improve the teaching-learning process in their schools. Various studies have indicated that, even with local limitations, LS is a worthwhile practice and can lead to improved conditions (Clivaz & Takahashi, 2018; Fernandez & Yoshida, 2004). Therefore, a deeper understanding of local situations can also help teachers sustain the LSforTA PD program. The greater its support, the greater its impact will be, hence, institutional support is the key to the success of lesson study projects.
Conclusions and Implications
The LSforTA program provided teachers with methods to assess and evaluate students’ mathematics learning and performance in ways that are meaningful for all the students in a class. It also encouraged teachers to reflect on their own assessment practices and strive for continuous improvement. Teachers reported that positive changes had occurred in their classrooms as students became more engaged and motivated to learn. In addition, the teachers developed a better understanding of how to design and implement meaningful and engaging assessment tasks. The process encouraged teachers to observe carefully and analyze student thinking with the aim of designing and implementing effective responses to student actions. Teachers were increasingly aware of the importance of transformative assessment and were more able to use it skilfully. In general, the LSforTA professional development program helped teachers develop transformative assessment practices.
Teachers also noticed that students’ mathematics performance had improved. However, this finding needs to be interpreted carefully. A recent change in the approach to national examination administration due to increasing examination cheating may have also contributed to the change in student academic honesty and paying attention to mathematics. The Ministry of Education has introduced a new approach that involves radical shifts in examination administration to manage the Ethiopian Secondary School Leaving Certificate Examinations (ESSLCE) in which public universities are used as examination centers.
Teachers recognized that the LSforTA PD program helped to change their students’ attitude toward learning mathematics and academic honesty, which are the main challenges in our current practices of teaching-learning processes. This highlights the need for teachers to be properly supported and equipped to help students reach their full potential and change their practices positively.
Finally, as voiced by the teachers who participated in this study, perhaps the most beneficial aspect of the LSforTA program was its collaborative nature that brought meaningful changes to classroom assessment practices. What remains to be seen, however, is the extent to which LS improves teachers’ general pedagogical competency. The involvement of students can also be beneficial regarding understanding the full potential of the program in changing instructional processes and students’ achievement. Future studies should, therefore, focus on these issues by using other research methods such as experimental designs.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors want to thank all the teachers and school leaders who participated in this study. We would also like to thank Jennifer Tuman (Peace Corps volunteer) for proofreading and editing language rules that greatly improved this manuscript.
Author’s Note
This research was conducted while Adula Bekele Hunde was at Kotebe University of Education.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data Availability
Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.