BRO06198 1

QUEENSLAND TEACHERS' CONCEPTIONS OF TEACHING, LEARNING,

CURRICULUM AND ASSESSMENT: COMPARISONS WITH NEW ZEALAND TEACHERS.

Gavin T L Brown

Univ. of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand Robert Lake

Lake Corp. Consulting, Brisbane, Queensland Paper for Engaging Pedagogies, the Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE), Adelaide, 2006 *Corresponding Author: Dr Gavin T L Brown, School of Teaching, Learning & Development, Faculty of Education, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand. Tel: +64-9-3737-599 ext. 83042 Email: gt.brown@auckland.ac.nz Fax: +64-9-623-8827 Acknowledgements: Funding for this research came from the Department of Education, Assessment and New Basics Branch, Queensland and from The University of Auckland Research Office. The opinions expressed here are those of the authors only.

BRO06198 2

QUEENSLAND TEACHERS' CONCEPTIONS OF TEACHING, LEARNING, CURRICULUM AND ASSESSMENT: COMPARISONS WITH NEW ZEALAND

TEACHERS. Teachers’ behaviour is influenced by their attitudes towards the behaviour, the subjective norms that influence them, and their intentions in carrying out the behaviour (Ajzen & Madden, 1986; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). The core behaviours in schooling relate to teaching, curriculum, learning, and assessment. It is generally agreed that teachers’ beliefs or conceptions about these processes influence strongly how teachers teach and what students learn or achieve (Calderhead, 1996; Clark & Peterson, 1986; Pajares, 1992; Thompson, 1992). What teachers believe about one area of schooling (e.g., teaching or curriculum) impacts on practices and beliefs in other important domains (e.g., assessment or learning) (Cizek, Fitzgerald, Shawn, & Rachor, 1995; Dahlin, Watkins, & Ekholm, 2001; Delandshere & Jones, 1999; Kahn, 2000; Rex & Nelson, 2004)

A conception is a mental construct or representation of reality (Kelly, 1991), communicated in language or metaphors (Fodor, 1998; Lakoff & Johnson, 2003), containing beliefs, meanings, preferences, and attitudes (Thompson, 1992) that explains complex and difficult categories of experience (White, 1994) such as assessment. Conceptions have purposes (Fodor, 1998); for example, the concept that time is money embeds a certain cultural purpose and perspective on how time is understood and experienced. The nature of these mental representations is contested (Laurence & Margolis, 1999), however, it would appear that our mental representations are ‘in-pieces’ (diSessa, 1988) or ‘informationally atomistic’ (Fodor, 1998) or in clusters (Green, 1971). What this means is that people may simultaneously hold multiple, and possibly even contradictory, conceptions of a phenomenon without being disturbed by such contradiction —a result reported by Cheung and Wong’s (2002) investigation of teachers’ conceptions of curriculum. Further, it implies that a single conception may actually serve multiple purposes without threatening the integrity of the conception itself.

This paper reports research conducted in Queensland in 2003 into the conceptions primary and secondary teachers in that state had concerning the nature and purpose of assessment, teaching, curriculum, and learning and compares the results to data reported previously about New Zealand primary school teachers’ conceptions (Brown, 2004, 2006a, 2006b).

Participants New Zealand. A representative sample of 235 New Zealand primary school teachers working with students in Years 5 to 7 (i.e., ages 10 to 13) was used (Brown, 2006). The participating teachers reasonably reflected the demographic characteristics of the New Zealand teaching population; 83% were New Zealand European, 77% were women, and 6% had more than 10 years teaching experience. About one-third were employed in low socio-economic status (SES) schools, while over a quarter worked in high SES schools. Just over half of the teachers worked in large urban area schools and just over 40% worked in medium-sized schools. Three-quarters of the teachers worked in schools whose students were predominantly of New Zealand European or Pakeha ethnicity (i.e., more than 75% of the roll—using procedure described in Hattie, 2002). Thus, data in this study were from a relatively homogenous population of full and contributing primary school teachers, largely representative of the New Zealand population, except for an over-representation of teachers in small schools. Queensland. The study was conducted in state primary (Years 1 to 7) and secondary schools (Years 8 and 12) in November 2003. Invitations for each teacher (3,223) were

BRO06198 3

sent to 91 schools and only nine schools refused to participate. Consequently, nearly 3,000 valid questionnaires (N= 2,891) were dispatched to 82 schools, with 1,525 being returned; giving a teacher response rate of 52.8%. After removal of participants with too many missing responses, two large groups of teachers provided valid data (primary = 784; secondary = 614). In this paper, we shall use the term ‘sector’ to refer to the age level of students (i.e., primary and secondary), rather than refer to the type of school governance (i.e., state, Catholic, or independent).

Instruments Conceptions of Assessment Inventory

The instrument used in this research was the abridged, 27-item Conceptions of Assessment Inventory (CoA-IIIA) designed to elicit teacher self-ratings for four main purposes of assessment (i.e., assessment makes schools accountable, assessment makes students accountable, assessment improves education, and assessment is irrelevant). This abridged version containing 27 statements (Brown, 2006b) fitted the same fundamental model as the full version (Brown, 2004b). Teachers indicated their level of agreement using a positively-packed agreement rating scale, that is, there were two negative (i.e., mostly and strongly disagree) options and four degrees of positive agreement (i.e., slightly, moderately, mostly, and strongly agree) (Brown, 2004a). Teaching Perspective Inventory

Research by Pratt and associates (Hian, 1994; Pratt, 1992a; Pratt, 1992b; Pratt, 1997; Pratt & Associates, 1998; Pratt & Collins, 1998; Pratt & Collins, 2001) into teachers’ conceptions about the nature of teaching has developed five perspectives of teaching that take into account the nature of teachers’ intentions, actions, and beliefs. The most teacher-oriented conception, transmission, describes teachers who effectively communicate a well-defined and stable body of knowledge and skills to learners who must master that content; in Fenstermacher and Soltis (1998) this is called executive. Three other perspectives are more student-oriented views of teaching. Apprenticeship assumes that the best learning happens when students work on authentic tasks in real settings of practice with learners gradually doing more of the work. The developmental perspective begins with the learners’ prior knowledge and works towards restructuring how students think about that content through effective questioning and ‘bridging’ knowledge. The nurturing perspective respects students’ self-concepts and self-efficacy in an effort to support student achievement by caring for the whole person not just the intellect; this may be closest to Fenstermacher and Soltis (1998) therapist approach. In the fifth perspective, social reform, teachers view social and structural change as more important than individual learning and so they advocate change in society as the purpose of teaching. This perspective incorporates aspects of the social reconstructionist orientation towards curriculum identified by Cheung (2000) and consistent with the liberationist approach (Fenstermacher & Soltis, 1998). This last perspective on teaching may be a different dimension to the teacher to student-centred continuum. Curriculum Orientations Inventory

Cheung’s (2000) Curriculum Orientation Inventory consists of 20 items which are grouped into four major conceptions (i.e., academic, humanistic, technological, and social reconstruction). The whole inventory had marginally acceptable fit to the model in Cheung’s (2000) research with 675 Hong Kong teachers (CFI = .90; RMSEA = .086). The inventory was adapted to New Zealand circumstances by making small wording changes. For example, the item about consummatory

BRO06198 4

experience, a term introduced by Eisner and Vallance (1974), was rewritten as “Curriculum should try to provide satisfactory consumer experience for each student”. Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST)

Six items from the Tait, Entwistle, and McCune (1998) Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST) were used to measure teacher conceptions about learning. This instrument has six statements that elicit responses along the Marton and Saljö (1976) taxonomy of learning conceptions. Three statements were designed to probe surface conceptions of learning (i.e., Learning is making sure I remember things well, Learning is building up knowledge by getting facts and information, and Learning is being able to use the information I’ve got); while three statements probe deep conceptions of learning (i.e., Learning is developing as a person, Learning is seeing things in a different and more meaningful way, and Learning is understanding new material for myself).

Brown (2002b) trialled these items in a survey of 81 secondary school teachers using the positively packed response scale. An exploratory maximum likelihood factor extraction with oblimin rotation found two correlated (r = .37) factors. These results were consistent with the conceptions of learning identified by Marton and Saljö (1976). The ‘being able to use information I’ve got’ statement loaded equally on both surface (.18) and deep (.16) factors; this fit with both the surface and deep factors was unexpected and suggested that teachers may view use of information as both a deep and a surface conception. Response Format

It is likely that balanced response anchors would not provide sufficient variance when participants are inclined to respond positively to items because they are deemed equally true or valuable. In other words, if the statement being responded to is something so socially accepted that all participants are likely to agree with it, it is difficult to elicit variance in responses with a balanced rating scale; most respondents, having a generally positive affect towards the psychological object, tend to pick the two positive points in a 5-point Likert scale. In the case of teachers’ conceptions of teaching, it is likely that they will view all teaching conceptions positively to some degree. For example, it is highly likely that teachers would simultaneously agree that teaching is apprenticeship, cognitive development, and nurturing. Thus, a positively packed response scale (Lam and Klockars, 1982) was adopted containing four positive response points and two negative response points. The response format required teachers to identify the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with each statement using a 6-point positively-packed agreement-rating scale (Brown, 2004). The scale responses were ‘strongly disagree’, ‘disagree’, ‘slightly agree’, ‘moderately agree’, ‘mostly agree’, and ‘strongly agree’; each point was scored 1 to 6 respectively. This type of response format is expected to be especially effective when participants are inclined to agree with all statements; as may be the case if teachers hold a plurality of contradictory convictions.

Analysis

Participants who failed to supply at least 90% of answers to each conceptions instrument were dropped from the analysis and any missing data were imputed with the EM procedure (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998). As a consequence, two large groups of teachers provided valid data (primary = 784; secondary = 614). CFA was conducted within structural equation modeling (SEM) (Byrne, 2001; Klem, 2000).

BRO06198 5

In both studies, analysis of the responses was conducted with exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using maximum likelihood estimation with oblique rotation (Osborne & Costello, 2005). Items selected for a factor should load more than .30 on the factor, not have cross-loadings greater than .30, and ideally should be in a set of three or more to overcome chance effects due to items (Osborne & Costello, 2005). The number of factors, although traditionally identified through Kaiser-Guttman rules or inspection of scree plots, should be evaluated with maximum likelihood estimation of common factors or unrestricted confirmatory factor models (Hoyle & Duvall, 2004).

Unlike exploratory factor analyses, CFA allows tighter specification of multiple hierarchies or paths between factors by utilising the factor patterns, correlation patterns, covariance patterns, and residual or error values within a data matrix (Hoyle, 1995). Simultaneously, CFA determines the estimates of all parameters that most nearly reproduce the matrix of observed relationships in a data matrix (Klem, 2000). Specification of a model includes identifying observed variables that load onto latent first-order factors, and the relationship of the first-order factors to second or higher-order latent factors or other first-order factors. In CFA, relationships between variables and latent factors not predicted by theory are set to zero, while the expected relationships are free to load onto their appropriate factors (Byrne, 2001). It is desirable for the factor loadings to be much greater than zero (at least twice their standard errors) and for no modification index to point to a factor loading as being inappropriately fixed at zero.

A general advantage of CFA within the framework of SEM is that unlike regression or general linear model approaches, it does not ignore the error variance parameters and thus leads to more accurate estimations of relationships (Byrne, 2001; Thompson, 2000). The quality of fit for the specified model to the underlying data matrix is statistically tested with a number of effective measures (i.e., those least affected by sample size). Ideally, the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) should be greater than .90, with the absolute fit of the model, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), simultaneously being less than .08 (Hoyle, 1995). In the studies reported below, acceptable fit is imputed when RMSEA is less than .08, even if TLI or CFI are <.90. Sample size is also critical as the number of parameters increases (Browne & Cudeck, 1989; 1993), with numbers greater than 500 recommended for most cases (Chou & Bentler, 1995), though maximum likelihood estimation provides best population estimates when samples are small (Hoyle & Duvall, 2004).

CFA also permits determination of whether a model is invariant across sub-groups to which it is applied. The invariance of a model across different subgroups can be tested using a multi-group approach with nested model comparisons (Byrne, Shavelson, & Muthen, 1989). The most robust test of invariance is when the difference in Ȥ2 for different unrestricted models is not statistically significant. In other words, if the difference in Ȥ2 is not statistically significant when permitting all values to be estimated freely for each group, then the model fits both groups equally well (Hoyle & Smith, 1994). Under that condition, any differences in values are considered to be within chance variations. We accepted measurement invariance if p � .01.

Once the structure of a scale was determined, scale scores were calculated for each factor. Since each factor did not have the same number of items, the average was found, so that the minimum was 1.0 and the maximum was 6.0. It was decided to interpret the scale means using the item response anchors so that a high score indicated strong agreement and a low score strong disagreement. Scores in the range

BRO06198 6

of three to four indicated slight to moderate agreement. To ease interpretation of scale means, values are reported to two decimal places and rounded to the nearest whole score anchor.

Results

Assessment The conceptions of assessment of Queensland and New Zealand primary

school teachers (Brown, 2006) consisted of nine first-order conceptions (i.e., assessment makes schools accountable, assessment makes students accountable, assessment improves teaching, assessment improves learning, assessment is valid, assessment describes abilities, assessment is bad, assessment is ignored, and assessment is inaccurate). Two second-order factors were found (i.e., assessment improves education and assessment is irrelevant) onto which the last seven of the first-order factors loaded. The two second-order factors and the two accountability first-order factors were inter-correlated. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted with AMOS (Arbuckle, 2005) and the model had acceptable fit characteristics (Figure 1: F2 = 841.02; df = 311; RMSEA = .057; TLI = .87).

Figure 1. New Zealand Primary Teachers’ Conceptions of Assessment

Although this model had acceptable fit to Queensland primary teachers (F2 = 1492.61; df = 311; p=.000; RMSEA = .074; TLI = .80), the fit to Queensland secondary teachers was inadmissible—thus, in order to establish one model to fit both secondary and primary teachers in Queensland, the minimal variation to the model was sought. This approach led to two modification in which paths from ‘improved

BRO06198 7

student learning’ to ‘inaccuracy’ and from ‘student accountability’ to ‘improve describe’ were added. The revised model with two groups—primary and secondary teachers—had acceptable fit characteristics (df = 618; Ȥ2 = 2741.56; p = .000; TLI = .83; CFI = .85; RMSEA = .050) (Figures 1 and 2). The difference in Ȥ2 for the unconstrained model was statistically significant for primary and secondary teachers (df = 18, Ȥ2 = 37.71; p = .004), indicating that the parameters differed by more than chance. Nevertheless, similar patterns in terms of direction and relative strength of relationships were seen among the conceptions. It is possible that the model differences represented real differences in teachers’ conceptions by sector rather than inadequacies in the model.

Figure 2. Queensland Primary Teachers’ Conceptions of Assessment

BRO06198 8

Figure 3. Queensland Secondary Teachers’ Conceptions of Assessment

Mean scores for the assessment purposes for Queensland teachers ranged from slight to moderate agreement (2.69 to 4.00). Differences in means by sector were consistently small, with only two being statistically significant; that is, ‘assessment improves teaching’ (d =.24) and ‘learning and assessment makes students accountable’ (d = -.39). Teachers in both sectors equally agreed, albeit slightly, that ‘assessment is irrelevant’ and ‘assessment makes schools accountable’. Primary teachers agreed more so than did their secondary counterparts that ‘assessment improves teaching and learning’ and less so than did their secondary counterparts that ‘assessment makes students accountable’. Greater agreement on the part of the secondary teachers with the conception that ‘assessment makes students accountable’ explained the lower correlation of that particular conception with ‘assessment is irrelevant’ (r = .33) for those teachers.

These results were very similar to those reported for the New Zealand primary teachers in terms of improvement and irrelevance (Figure 3). However, although the absolute differences are relatively small, there was a significant difference in the strength of agreement around student and school accountability. New Zealand teachers emphasised school accountability over student, while both groups of Queensland teachers agreed much more with student accountability over school accountability.

BRO06198 9

Purposes of Assessment

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Assessment ImprovesTeaching & Learning

Assessment is Irrelevant Assessment makes SchoolsAccountable

Assessment makes StudentsAccountable

Purpose

Agr

eem

ent

NZ PrimQ'Land Prim.Q'Land Sec.

Figure 3. Comparison Queensland and New Zealand Teachers’ Conceptions of Assessment It has been suggested that the school-managed governance of New Zealand schools explains why those teachers are more willing to use assessment as a means of demonstrating accountability rather than assign responsibility to students (Brown, 2004). Teaching

Because the hierarchical model proposed by Pratt and Collins was found to be inadmissible, various alternative models for the teaching perspectives were investigated. A correlated, four-factor using 11 statements produced acceptable fit among New Zealand teachers (F2 = 123.2; df = 38; TLI = .78; CFI = .87; RMSEA =.065) (Figure 4).

BRO06198 10

Figure 4. New Zealand Teachers’ Conceptions of Teaching

In Queensland, it was found with 784 primary (Figure 5) and 614 secondary (Figure 6) teachers that the same inter-correlated model had good fit (F2 = 541.1; df = 76; TLI = .88; CFI = .91; RMSEA =.066). The unconstrained model was statistically identical for the measurement weights of both primary and secondary teachers (df = 7, Ȥ2 = 6.2; p = .52). Thus, similar patterns in terms of direction and relative strength of relationships were seen in primary and secondary school teachers’ responses to this version of the Teaching Perspectives Inventory.

Figure 5. Queensland Primary Teachers’ Conceptions of Teaching

BRO06198 11

Figure 6. Queensland Secondary Teachers’ Conceptions of Teaching

The pattern of inter-factor correlations and item loadings were very similar between New Zealand and Queensland. Apprenticeship-Cognitive Developmental, Nurturing, and Social Reform perspectives had strong to moderate, positive correlations with each other; the Transmission perspective had a fundamentally zero correlation with Nurturing but weak to moderate correlations with Apprenticeship-Cognitive Developmental and Social Reform perspectives. Mean scores were similar for three of the conceptions, with differences only visible for the Transmission perspective (Figure 7). The Queensland secondary teachers agreed noticeably more with the Transmission perspective, while both groups of primary teachers were much more negative about this conception.

BRO06198 12

Teaching Perspectives

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

I. Apprenticeship--Developmental

II. Nurturing III. Social Reform IV. Transmission

Perspective

Agr

eem

ent

NZ PrimQ'Land PrimQ'Land Sec

Figure 7. New Zealand and Queensland Teachers’ Mean Scores for Teaching Conceptions Curriculum.

Although a later study has reported a robust fitting model of New Zealand teachers’ conceptions of curriculum (Brown, in press), this analysis was not available at the time of the Queensland research. An inter-correlated, three-factor model using eight items was found. The fit for New Zealand primary teachers’ conceptions was poor (F2 = 69.5; df = 17; TLI = .83; CFI=.90; RMSEA = .12) (Figure 8).

Figure 8. New Zealand Teachers’ Conceptions of Curriculum

A two-group CFA analysis had good fit among Queensland teachers (F2 = 212.34; df = 34; TLI = .88; CFI = .93; RMSEA = .066). The unconstrained model was statistically identical for the measurement weights of both primary (Figure 9) and secondary (Figure 10) teachers (df = 5, Ȥ2 = 10.2; p = .07) and for the structural covariances (df = 5, Ȥ2 = 21.5; p = .03). Thus, similar patterns in terms of direction

BRO06198 13

and relative strength of relationships were seen in primary and secondary school teachers’ responses to this version of the Curriculum Orientation Inventory.

Figure 9. Queensland Primary Teachers’ Conceptions of Curriculum

Figure 10. Queensland Secondary Teachers’ Conceptions of Curriculum

The pattern of item loadings and inter-factor correlations was largely similar between New Zealand and Queensland teachers. The Academic-Humanistic, Social Reconstruction, and Technological conceptions had strong to moderate, positive correlations with each other; whereas the Technological conception had a zero to weak correlation with the Social Reconstruction conception. Mean scores for the Academic-Humanist and Social Reconstruction orientations were nearly identical for Queensland teachers and reasonably similar to those of New Zealand teachers (Figure 11). The teachers tended to moderately agree with the academic-humanist conception and slightly agree with the social reconstruction orientation, with the Queensland teachers agreeing more with both of these orientations than the New Zealand teachers. However, the New Zealand teachers agreed more than the Queensland teachers with the technological orientation. It may be that the outcomes based curriculum and school-based management contexts of New Zealand encourages a greater positive agreement with technological orientations to curriculum.

BRO06198 14

Curriculum Orientations

3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5

I. Academic-Humanist II. Social Reconstruction III. Technological

Orientation

Agr

eem

ent

NZ PrimQ'Land PrimQ'Land Sec

Figure 11. New Zealand and Queensland Mean Scores for Conceptions of Curriculum Learning.

An inter-correlated, two-factor model with five statements (one of which loaded on both factors) had good fit for New Zealand teachers (F2 = 1.6; df = 3; TLI = 1.00; CFI = 1.00; RMSEA = .000) (Figure 12).

Figure 12. New Zealand Teachers’ Conceptions of Learning

A two-group CFA analysis found the same inter-correlated model with good fit (F2 = 15.6; df = 6; TLI = .98; CFI = .99; RMSEA = .034). The unconstrained model was statistically identical for the measurement weights of both primary (Figure 13) and secondary (Figure 14) teachers (df = 4, Ȥ2 = 6.62; p = .16). Thus, similar patterns in terms of direction and relative strength of relationships were seen in primary and secondary school teachers’ responses.

BRO06198 15

Figure 13. Queensland Primary Teachers’ Conceptions of Learning

Figure 14. Queensland Secondary Teachers’ Conceptions of Learning Mean scores for each factor were very similar between all groups (Figure 15). All three groups agreed moderately with surface and mostly with Deep and the relative order of groups to each other was unchanged.

Conceptions of Learning

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

I. Surface II. Deep

Purpose

Agr

eem

ent

NZQ'Land PrimQ'Land Sec

Figure 15. New Zealand and Queensland Mean Scale Scores for Conceptions of Learning

BRO06198 16

Discussion These two studies showed that teachers in New Zealand and Queensland were

much alike in the level of agreement they had for 13 different conceptions of assessment, teaching, curriculum, and learning. Noticeable differences only existed around the two accountability conceptions of assessment, the technological orientation to curriculum, and the transmission perspective of teaching. Fundamentally, teachers thought like each other.

Nonetheless, it may well be that accountability, technological, and transmission conceptions are the key variables in determining differences in the ways teachers conceive of education. It would appear that the more school-based management context of New Zealand does encourage a greater agreement with assessment for student accountability and the use of technological processes to exercise local responsibility. It may also be that the impact of external qualifications or certification on secondary teachers is seen in the greater commitment to transmission and student accountability.

Finally, it is clear that the teachers have are multiple, correlated conceptions even when experts would consider the conceptions to be contradictory and mutually exclusive. The plurality of teachers’ conceptions—they agree with most notions simultaneously—is consistent with the atomistic, in-pieces, or clustered description of concepts and beliefs. Furthermore, it is clear that complex models are needed to understand teachers’ thinking about the nature and purpose of assessment, teaching, curriculum, and assessment. Further research is needed to understand how these conceptions inter-relate with each other, if at all, and what the outcome effect of each conception is on student learning.

Note. Details of this research have been submitted for publication in the following manuscripts. Brown, G. T. L., Lake, R., Matters, G. (submitted). New Zealand and Queensland

teachers’ conceptions of learning. Learning and Instruction. Brown, G. T. L., Lake, R., Matters, G. (submitted). New Zealand and Queensland

teachers’ conceptions of curriculum: Using the Curriculum Orientation Inventory. The Curriculum Journal.

Brown, G. T. L., Lake, R., Matters, G. (in review). New Zealand and Queensland teachers’ conceptions of teaching: Using the Teaching Perspectives Inventory. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice.

Brown, G. T. L., Lake, R., Matters, G. (in review). Queensland Teachers’ Conceptions of Assessment. Educational Assessment.

BRO06198 17

References Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Predictions of goal-direct behavior: Attitudes,

intentions, and perceived behavioural control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 453-474.

Brown, G. T. L. (2002). Student Beliefs about Learning: New Zealand Students in Year 11. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 6(1), 110-114.

Brown, G. T. L. (2002). Teachers' Conceptions of Assessment. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Auckland, Auckland, NZ.

Brown, G. T. L. (2004). Measuring attitude with positively packed self-report ratings: Comparison of agreement and frequency scales. Psychological Reports, 94, 1015-1024.

Brown, G. T. L. (2004). Teachers' conceptions of assessment: Implications for policy and professional development. Assessment in Education: Policy, Principles and Practice, 11(3), 305-322.

Brown, G. T. L. (2005). An exploration of secondary school teachers’ conceptions of assessment. In B. Kozuh, T. Beran, A. Kozlowska & P. Bayliss (Eds.), Measurement and Assessment in Educational and Social Research (pp. 39-48). Krakow, Poland: Oficyna Wydawnicza AFM.

Brown, G. T. L. (2006). Teachers' conceptions of assessment: Validation of an abridged instrument. Psychological Reports, 99, 166-170.

Brown, G. T. L. (2006). Teachers' instructional conceptions: How learning, teaching, curriculum, assessment, and self-efficacy interconnect. In A. P. Presscott (Ed.), The Concept of Self in Education, Family and Sport (pp. 1-48). New York: Nova Science Publishers.

Browne, M. W., & Cudek, R. (1989). Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24, 445-455.

Browne, M. W., & Cudek, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthen, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures - the issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), 456-466.

Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 709-725). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Cheung, D. (2000). Measuring teachers' meta-orientations to curriculum: Application of hierarchical confirmatory analysis. Journal of Experimental Education, 68(2), 149-165.

Cheung, D., & Wong, H.-W. (2002). Measuring teacher beliefs about alternative curriculum designs. The Curriculum Journal, 13(2), 225-248.

Chou, C.-P., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Estimates and tests in structural equation modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 37-55). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cizek, G. J., Fitzgerald, S., Shawn, M., & Rachor, R. E. (1995). Teachers' assessment practices: Preparation, isolation and the kitchen sink. Educational Assessment, 3, 159-179.

BRO06198 18

Clark, C., & Peterson, P. (1986). Teachers' thought processes. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. (3rd ed., pp. 255-296). New York: MacMillan.

Dahlin, B., Watkins, D. A., & Ekholm, M. (2001). The role of assessment in student learning: The views of Hong Kong and Swedish lecturers. In D. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), Teaching the Chinese learner: Psychological and pedagogical perspectives. (pp. 47-74). Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong, Comparative Education Research Centre.

Delandshere, G., & Jones, J. H. (1999). Elementary teachers' beliefs about assessment in mathematics: A case of assessment paralysis. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 14(3), 216-240.

diSessa, A. A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P. B. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the Computer Age (pp. 49-101). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.

Eisner, E. W., & Vallance, E. (1974). Conflicting conceptions of curriculum. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Fenstermacher, G. D., & Soltis, J. F. (1998). Approaches to Teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Fodor, J. A. (1998). Concepts: Where cognitive science went wrong. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Green, T. F. (1971). The Activities of Teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate

data analysis. (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hian, C. H. (1994). Operationalization and Prediction of Conceptions of Teaching in

Adult Education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia,, Vancouver, BC.

Hoyle, R. H. (1995). The structural equation modeling approach: Basic concepts and fundamental issues. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 1-15). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hoyle, R. H., & Duvall, J. L. (2004). Determining the number of factors in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In D. Kaplan (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Quantitative Methodology for Social Sciences (pp. 301-315). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hoyle, R. H., & Smith, G. T. (1994). Formulating clinical research hypotheses as structural equation models - a conceptual overview. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(3), 429-440.

Kahn, E. A. (2000). A case study of assessment in a grade 10 English course. The Journal of Educational Research, 93, 276-286.

Kelly, G. A. (1991). The psychology of personal constructs: A theory of personality (Vol. 1). London: Routledge.

Klem, L. (2000). Structural equation modeling. In L. G. Grimm & P. R. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics (pp. 227-260). Washington, DC: APA.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

Lam, T. C. M., & Klockars, A. J. (1982). Anchor point effects on the equivalence of questionnaire items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 19(4), 317-322.

BRO06198 19

Laurence, S., & Margolis, E. (1999). Concepts and cognitive science. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), Concepts: Core readings (pp. 3-81). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning. I - outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 42, 4-11.

Osborne, J. W., & Costello, A. B. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 10(7).

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-332.

Pratt, D. D. (1992). Chinese conceptions of learning and teaching: A westerner's attempt at understanding. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 11(4), 301-319.

Pratt, D. D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching. Adult Education Quarterly, 42(4), 203-220.

Pratt, D. D. (1997). Reconceptualizing the evaluation of teaching in higher education. Higher Education, 34, 23-44.

Pratt, D. D., & Associates. (1998). Five perspectives on teaching in adult and higher education. Malabar, FL: Krieger, Publishers.

Pratt, D. D., & Collins, J. B. (1998). Teaching perspectives inventory. Retrieved June 5, 2000, from http://www.edst.educ.ubc.ca/DPtpi.html

Pratt, D. D., & Collins, J. B. (2001, June). The Teaching Perspectives Inventory (TPI). Paper presented at the Adult Education Research Conference, Vancouver, BC.

Rex, L. A., & Nelson, M. C. (2004). How teachers’ professional identities position high-stakes test preparation in their classrooms. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1288-1331.

Tait, H., Entwistle, N. J., & McCune, V. (1998). ASSIST: A reconceptualisation of the Approaches to Studying Inventory. . In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving Student Learning: Improving Students as Learners (pp. 262-271). Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.

Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 127-146). New York: MacMillan.

Thompson, B. (2000). Ten commandments of structural equation modeling. In L. G. Grimm & P. R. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics (pp. 261-283). Washington, DC: APA.

White, R. T. (1994). Commentary: Conceptual and conceptional change. Learning and Instruction, 4, 117-121.