Factors influencing formative assessment practices among public college lecturers in vietnam

FACTORS INFLUENCING FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT PRACTICES AMONG PUBLIC COLLEGE LECTURERS IN VIETNAM NGUYEN THI DO QUYEN UNIVERSITI SAINS MALAYSIA 2018 FACTORS INFLUENCING FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT PRACTICES AMONG PUBLIC COLLEGE LECTURERS IN VIETNAM by NGUYEN THI DO QUYEN Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy September 2018 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT “If you want to grow, you need to get over any fear you may have of making mistakes” – John C Maxwell For more than three years pursuing my PhD journey in Malaysia, I have not only learned to become a researcher but also found my authentic self From a person who used to have a great fear of failure, I have learned to be open and kind to my own mistakes as well as others’ Doing research on Formative Assessment has taught me an invaluable lesson on how to accept others’ critical feedback, my imperfection, importantly to feel safe to fail and stand up again First and foremost, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my dear supervisors Dr Ahmad Zamri Khairani, Professor Hairul Nizam Ismail for their detailed guidance, substantial support and continued encouragement at all stages of my research journey I truly appreciate my main supervisor Dr.Zamri for his patience, motivation and endless support His positive attitude and a good sense of humour always lighten up my day whenever I meet him for advice throughout my PhD study My deepest thanks go to my loving family, I would like to thank my parents, my brother, my cousins, my uncles and aunts for their love, care and support Many thanks go to my Vietnamese colleagues and friends Xuan Huong, Nguyen Tam, Thanh Thao, Tran Hang, Kim Oanh for their support and encouragement through many ups and downs during my doctoral study I also wish to express my sincere gratitude to my special friend VMP who always appears on time to help me through the hardship of my research With his endless moral and emotional support, the final stage of my study is full of warmth and excitement ii I sincerly thank to PhD candidate friends Lai Yong, Phaik Kin, Patcharin and Hamidah for their support and sharing of the joys and frustrations during my research journey Finally, this research might not be conducted without the financial support of Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) and Vietnamese Government through providing USM-VIED Fellowship I warmly appreciate Institute of Postgraduate Studies (IPS), School of Educational Studies and USM academic staff for organising a number of beneficial workshops to improve my research knowledge and skills My sincere thanks also go to lecturers in seven public colleges in Da Nang City for their collaboration in data collection iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ii TABLE OF CONTENTS iv LIST OF TABLES xi LIST OF FIGURES xiii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xv ABSTRAK xvii ABSTRACT xix CHAPTER – INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Background of the Study 1.3 Scope of the Study 1.3.1 Development of Higher Education System in Vietnam 1.3.2 Vietnamese Higher Education System 1.3.3 Teaching and Learning in the Present Higher Education System in Vietnam 1.4 1.5 Problem Statement 12 1.4.1 Assessment in Higher Education System in Vietnam: Inconsistency between Policies and Practices 13 1.4.2 Relationships of Factors Influencing Formative Assessment Practices among Lecturers 17 1.4.3 Research applying Theory of Planned Behavior in the Vietnamese Educational Context 20 Objectives of the Study 22 1.6 Research Questions 23 1.7 Rationale of the Study 25 iv 1.8 Significance of the Study 26 1.9 Conceptual and Operational Definition of the Main Constructs 27 1.9.1 Formative Assessment Practices 27 1.9.2 Attitude towards Formative Assessment 28 1.9.3 Subjective Norm regarding Formative Assessment 29 1.9.4 Perceived Behavior Control regarding Formative Assessment 29 1.9.5 Intention towards Formative Assessment 29 1.9.6 Contextual Factors 30 1.9.7 College Lecturers in Vietnam 30 1.10 Thesis Organization 31 CHAPTER - LITERATURE REVIEW 33 2.1 Introduction 33 2.2 Formative Assessment 33 2.2.1 Development of Formative Assessment 33 2.2.2 Definitions and Characteristics of Formative Assessment 36 2.2.2(a) Characteristics of Formative Assessment 37 2.2.2(b) Three Approaches of Formative Assessment 41 2.2.3 2.3 Implementation Characteristics and Practical Framework of Formative Assessment 47 2.2.3(a) Implementation characteristics of Formative Assessment 47 2.2.3(b) Practical Framework of Formative Assessment 50 Factors Influencing Formative Assessment Practices 2.3.1 59 Overview of Kozma’s Framework of Contextual Factors 60 2.3.1(a) Micro level 60 2.3.1(b) Meso level 61 v 2.3.1(c) 2.3.2 2.3.3 Macro level 61 Factors at Micro-level 64 2.3.2(a) Educators’ Beliefs towards Teaching, Learning, and Assessment 64 2.3.2(b) Students’ Learning Attitudes 65 2.3.2(c) Class size 66 2.3.2(d) Technology and Tools in classroom 67 Factors at Meso-Level and Macro-Level 69 2.3.3(a) Leadership 69 2.3.3(b) Policies 71 2.3.3(c) Cultures 73 2.3.3(d) Support and Professional Development 76 2.4 Overview on Lecturers’ Formative Assessment Practices in Vietnam 77 2.5 Chapter Summary 85 CHAPTER - THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES 86 3.1 Introduction 86 3.2 Overview of Theory of Planned Behavior 86 3.3 TPB Components 88 3.3.1 Behavior 89 3.3.2 Intention 91 3.3.3 Attitude toward Behavior 92 3.3.4 Subjective Norm 94 3.3.5 Perceived Behavior Control 96 3.3.6 Recapitulation on Conceptualization of TPB 99 3.4 Rationale for Applying TPB 103 vi 3.5 3.6 3.7 Previous Educational Studies on Theory of Planned Behavior 105 3.5.1 TPB studies on Health Behaviors and Physical Activities 105 3.5.2 TPB studies on Education 106 Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses 109 3.6.1 Theoretical Framework 110 3.6.2 Hypotheses 112 3.6.2(a) Factors influencing Intention 112 3.6.2(b) Factors influencing Behavior 115 3.6.2(c) Moderating Effects of Contextual Factors 116 Chapter Summary 119 CHAPTER - RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 120 4.1 Introduction 120 4.2 Research Design 120 4.3 Population and Sample of the Study 121 4.3.1 Population of the Study 123 4.3.2 Sample of the Study 124 4.4 Instrumentation 126 4.4.1 Instrument Adaptation Process 127 4.4.2 Questionnaire 130 4.4.2(a) Brief Introduction to Formative Assessment 131 4.4.2(b) Part - Conceptions and Practices of Formative Assessment 131 4.4.2(c) Part - Contextual Factors 132 4.4.2(d) Part - Demographic Information 133 4.4.3 4.5 Pilot Study 133 Data Collection 134 vii 4.6 Data Analysis 135 4.6.1 Preliminary Data Analysis 136 4.6.1(a) Missing values 136 4.6.1(b) Outliers 136 4.6.1(c) Normality Assessment 137 4.6.1(d) Common Method Bias 138 4.6.2 Structural Equation Modelling 139 4.6.3 Justifications for using PLS-SEM in this study 141 4.7 Ethical Consideration 142 4.8 Chapter Summary 143 CHAPTER – RESULTS 144 5.1 Introduction 144 5.2 Characteristics of Sample 144 5.3 Partial Least Squares (PLS) Path Modelling 146 5.3.1 Measurement Model Assessment 147 5.3.2 Structural Model Assessment 152 5.3.2(a) Factors that influence intention towards formative assessment 155 5.3.2(b) Factors that influence formative assessment practices 156 5.4 5.5 Moderating Effects of Contextual Factors 160 5.4.1 Examining the Moderating Effects of Contextual Factors 161 5.4.2 Evaluating the Moderating Effects towards the Predictive Capacities of Formative Assessment Practices 164 Identification of Subgroups with Finite Mixture Partial Least Squares (FIMIX-PLS) 166 5.5.1 166 Justification in Applying FIMIX-PLS viii 5.5.2 5.6 5.7 Analysis and Results of FIMIX-PLS 167 5.5.2(a) Analysis of FIMIX-PLS 167 5.5.2(b) Results of FIMIX-PLS 169 Multi-Group Analysis 176 5.6.1 Measurement Invariance of Composite Models 176 5.6.2 Assessment of Structural Model for Subgroups and Multigroup Analysis 180 Chapter Summary 184 CHAPTER - DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 185 6.1 Introduction 185 6.2 An overview of the study 185 6.3 Factors Influencing Intention towards Formative Assessment and Formative Assessment Practices (Behavior) 188 6.3.1 Factors Influencing Intention towards Formative Assessment 189 6.3.1(a) Attitude 189 6.3.1(b) Perceived Behavioral Control 191 6.3.1(c) Subjective Norm 195 6.3.2 Factors Influencing Formative Assessment Practices 196 6.4 Consideration of Classroom Conditions in Formative Assessment Practices: A result of contextual factors’ moderating effects 198 6.5 Managerial Responsibility as Unobserved Moderator: Results of FIMIX-PLS and Multigroup Analysis 201 6.6 Significant Implications and Contribution to the study 203 6.6.1 Theoretical Implications 204 6.6.2 Practical Implications—Professional Development Program 206 6.6.3 Managerial Implications 209 6.7 Limitations and Recommendations for Future Studies ix 212 PHẦN YẾU TỐ HOÀN CẢNH Ở phần bảng hỏi, người nghiên cứu muốn tìm hiểu nhận định thầy (cơ) tác động yếu tố hồn cảnh việc áp dụng Phương Pháp Đánh Giá Quá Trình Mã số CF1 CF2 CF3 CF4 CF5 CF6 CF7 CF8 Ý kiến RKĐY KĐY TĐKĐY TĐĐY ĐY RĐY Tơi nghĩ giảng viên nên có trách nhiệm việc học tập sinh viên Tôi nghĩ phương pháp giảng dạy lấy sinh viên làm trung tâm Tơi áp dụng Phương Pháp Đánh Giá Q Trình lớp học đơng sinh viên (trên 40 sinh viên) Tơi linh hoạt sử dụng Phương Pháp Đánh Giá Q Trình phù hợp với lớp học đơng sinh viên Tơi áp dụng Phương Pháp Đánh Giá Quá Trình điều kiện sở vật chất trường tơi Tơi thiết kế hoạt động đánh giá cho Phương Pháp Đánh Giá Quá Trình phù hợp với điều kiện sở vật chất nơi giảng dạy Sinh viên tơi tích cực tham gia vào hoạt động đánh giá Phương Pháp Đánh Giá Quá Trình Sinh viên tơi sẵn lịng tham gia vào hoạt động đánh giá Phương Pháp Đánh Giá Quá Trình PHẦN THƠNG TIN CÁ NHÂN Thầy (cơ) giảng dạy trường: _ Giới tính ① Nam ② Nữ Tuổi: Trình độ học vấn cao ① Cao đằng ② Đại học ③ Thạc sĩ ④ Tiến sĩ Thâm niên giảng dạy (Vui lòng ghi cụ thể số năm, năm thầy (cơ) ghi cụ thể số tháng): _năm _tháng Thầy (cô) giảng dạy môn học thời điểm vịng tháng trở lại đây? (Thầy (cơ) vui lịng ghi cụ thể tên mơn học) Thầy (cơ) có giữ vị trí quản lý (Giảng viên kiêm chức) trường? ① Có ② Khơng Hoan nghênh ý kiến đóng góp thầy (cô) phần bảng câu hỏi Vui lòng ghi rõ bên CÁM ƠN SỰ HỢP TÁC CỦA QUÝ THẦY (CÔ)! APPENDIX C: Instrument Validation Form EXPERT VALIDATION FORM RESEARCH TITLE: Factors influencing Formative Assessment Practices among Public College Lecturers in Vietnam RESEARCHER: Nguyen Thi Do Quyen (P-PD0062/14 (R)) SUPERVISOR: Dr Ahamd Zamri Khairani VALIDATOR: VALIDATOR’S POSITION: OVERALL REMARKS / RECOMMENDATIONS VALIDATOR’S NAME: VALIDATOR’SSIGNATURE: QUESTIONNAIRE INFORMATION The questionnaire contains 45 items that are divided into two sections related to factors influencing Lecturers’ Formative Assessment Practices, which are: Section 1: Lecturers’ conceptions and practices towards Formative Assessment based on five constructs of Theory of Planned Behavior These are Attitudes, Subjective Norm, Percieved Behavior Control, Intention, and Behavior Section 2: Lecturers’s beliefs on contextual factor’s effect at microlevel (Self-level as locus of control) towards their Formative Assesment Practices Please circle a number that best matches your evaluation’s degree whether an item is useful for operating a construct in a set of items or not, which are: = Not useful = Useful but not important = Useful I am appreciated to welcome your comments and suggestions for each of item as well as the overall questionnaire SECTION CONCEPTIONS ASSESSMENT AND PRACTICES OF FORMATIVE A Attitudes Item Statement Affective Attitude Scale I like Formative Assessment Formative Assessment is an enjoyable process Formative Assessment is interesting Formative Assessment makes my teaching easier Formative Assessment encourages students to help each other Formative Assessment facilitates a better learning atmosphere Formative Assessment is worthy of my effort Instrumental Attitude Scale Formative Assessment can raise students’ interest in learning Useful Useful but not important Not useful 3 2 1 3 3 3 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Formative Assessment can offer an accurate appraisal of students’ performance Formative Assessment can integrate learning and teaching with assessment Formative Assessment encourages students to work harder Formative Assessment can offer a fair appraisal of students’ performance Formative Assessment helps students to understand their strengths and weaknesses through feedback from teachers Formative Assessment can encourage autonomous learning of students Formative Assessment can improve student’s confidence in learning Formative Assessment can improve the quality of teaching and learning Formative Assessment can improve teaching efficiency 3 3 3 3 B Subjective Norm Item Statement Useful As far as I know, the following stakeholders believe that Formative Assessment should be implemented 18 Ministry of Education and Training 19 The Rector of my college 20 The Head of my department 21 My students 22 My colleagues Useful but not important Not useful 2 2 1 1 C Percieved Behavior Control Item Statement Controllability Scale 23 I can decide the frequency of implementing Formative Assessment 24 I can decide the timing of implementing Formative Assessment 25 I can decide whether or not to implement Formative Assessment 26 I can decide the method of the implementation of Formative Assessment Self-Efficacy Scale 27 I can integrate Formative Assessment into the teaching and learning process 28 I have received sufficient training to implement Formative Assessment 29 I can design appropriate assessment tasks for Formative Assessment 30 I have enough time to implement Formative Assessment 31 I have sufficient supporting materials (e.g., handbook, DVD) to implement Formative Assessment 32 I have sufficient skills to implement Formative Assessment Useful Useful but not important Not useful 3 3 3 3 3 D Intention Item 33 Statement I am willing to try to implement Formative Assessment Useful Useful but not important Not useful 34 I am willing to integrate Formative Assessment into my teaching I am willing to design appropriate assessment tasks for Formative Assessment I am willing to adjust the assessment methods to meet the requirements of Formative Assessment I am willing to make effort to implement Formative Assessment I am willing to encourage students to participate in Formative Assessment 35 36 37 38 3 3 E Behavior 39 In the past six months, how often have you implemented Formative Assessment Strategies below? Item Statement Useful 39.1 Sharing and explaining learning intentions and success criteria to students Asking questions and observing students’ learning to collect evidence of learning Providing (oral or written) feedback to help students improve their learning Organizing activities to encourage students to peer-assessment Organizing activities to encourage students to self-assessment Using summative tests to provide formative feedback to students Useful but not important 3 3 39.2 39.3 39.4 39.5 39.6 Not useful SECTION CONTEXTUAL FACTOR Item Statement Beliefs about teaching and learning 40 I believe that teachers should have responsibility for students’ learning 41 I believe that my teaching approach is student-centered The number of students in classroom 42 I can implement Formative Assessment in big classes (more than 40 students) Technology and tools in classroom 43 I can implement Formative Assessment with current classroom’s facilities in my college Students’ learning attitude 44 My students actively involve in Formative Assessment activities 45 My students are willing to participate in Formative Assessment activities Useful Useful but not important Not useful 3 3 3 THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND COOPERATION! APPENDIX D: Consent Letter APPENDIX E: Box-plots of outliers regarding eight constructs in this study 1.Contextual Factors Instrumental Attitude Affective Attitude Sujective Norm 5.Controllability Intention Self-Efficacy Behavior APPENDIX F: Observations farthest from the centroid (Mahalanobis distance) No 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Observation number Mahalanobis d-squared 166 46 182 92 221 126 234 39 40 235 239 72 243 135 102 57 156 199 152 153 154 230 73 85 219 222 105 208 65 93 75 168 163 202 172 141 48 41.137 40.971 40.287 35.149 34.934 26.027 25.019 24.78 24.78 23.771 21.074 20.858 20.298 19.958 19.749 18.479 18.46 18.141 17.827 17.656 17.656 17.429 17.378 17 16.247 15.813 15.637 15.289 15.238 14.97 14.878 14.85 14.781 14.575 14.266 14.085 13.853 p1 p2 0 0 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.01 0.011 0.018 0.018 0.02 0.023 0.024 0.024 0.026 0.026 0.03 0.039 0.045 0.048 0.054 0.055 0.06 0.062 0.062 0.064 0.068 0.075 0.08 0.086 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.001 APPENDIX G: Univariate Sknewness and Kurtosis Results N IA1 IA2 IA3 IA4 IA5 IA6 IA7 IA8 IA9 IA10 AA1 AA2 AA3 AA4 AA5 AA6 AA7 SN1 SN2 SN3 SN4 SN5 CON1 CON2 CON3 CON4 SEF1 SEF2 SEF3 SEF4 SEF5 SEF6 INT1 INT2 INT3 INT4 INT5 INT6 BEH1 BEH2 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 Mean 4.553 4.594 4.59 4.434 4.693 4.484 4.209 4.529 4.693 4.652 4.27 4.139 4.369 4.328 4.025 4.545 4.439 4.451 4.656 4.643 4.373 4.508 4.008 4.459 4.566 4.664 4.775 3.754 4.357 3.959 3.553 4.107 4.84 4.906 4.648 4.824 4.807 4.914 4.582 4.639 Standard Deviation 1.053 1.018 0.986 0.896 0.905 0.952 0.976 0.916 0.905 1.007 0.971 0.957 0.977 1.024 1.036 0.897 0.923 1.167 1.034 0.996 1.002 1.069 1.318 1.095 1.067 0.993 0.801 1.292 0.962 1.104 1.278 1.085 0.837 0.817 0.923 0.89 0.864 0.838 1.119 1.102 Excess Kurtosis 1.901 1.452 1.052 0.656 0.102 0.386 0.482 1.159 1.258 1.076 0.718 0.551 1.224 0.415 0.5 0.722 0.792 0.579 1.973 1.455 1.164 1.164 -0.473 0.651 1.14 1.141 0.439 -0.48 0.399 -0.025 -0.658 0.117 1.598 0.745 1.958 -0.043 1.313 1.602 0.842 1.158 Skewness -1.213 -0.926 -0.783 -0.455 -0.487 -0.585 -0.537 -0.954 -0.787 -0.784 -0.619 -0.509 -0.875 -0.669 -0.628 -0.444 -0.572 -0.923 -1.238 -1.09 -0.778 -0.902 -0.62 -0.856 -0.915 -0.929 -0.484 -0.417 -0.739 -0.525 -0.351 -0.504 -0.705 -0.596 -1.007 -0.522 -0.731 -0.804 -1.029 -1.116 N BEH3 BEH4 BEH5 BEH6 CF1 CF2 CF3 CF4 CF5 CF6 CF7 CF8 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 244 Mean 4.283 3.803 3.926 4.475 4.955 4.816 3.91 4.115 4.324 4.34 3.93 3.963 Standard Deviation 1.244 1.236 1.11 1.164 1.021 0.968 1.251 1.136 1.047 0.977 1.052 1.061 Excess Kurtosis 0.165 -0.401 -0.157 0.633 2.254 1.9 -0.297 0.353 0.473 0.898 0.393 0.321 Skewness -0.769 -0.106 -0.396 -0.951 -1.373 -1.068 -0.675 -0.734 -0.593 -0.833 -0.669 -0.548 LIST OF PUBLICATIONS Journal Papers [1] Nguyen Thi Do Quyen, Ahmad Zamri Khairani (2016), Formative Teaching Style Does Not Contribute to Student Academic Achievement - A Cameo Study, International Journal Social Sciences and Education, Vol.6 Issue 2, ISSN: 2223-4934 E and 2227393X Print [2] Nguyen Thi Do Quyen, Ahmad Zamri Khairani (2017), Reviewing the Challenges of Implementing Formative Assessment in Asia: The Need for a Professional Development Program, Journal of Social Science Studies, 2017 Vol.4 No.1, 160-177, ISSN 2329-9150, http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/jsss.v4i1.9728 Book Chapter [1] Nguyen Thi Do Quyen, Ahmad Zamri Khairani, Hairul Nizam Ismail (2018), Assessing Factors Influencing Implementation of Formative Assessment in Public Special Colleges in Vietnam In Melissa Ng Lee Yen Abdullah, Lim Hooi Lian, Hairul Nizam Ismail (Eds), New Horizons of Psychological Assessment in Education, Universiti Sains Malaysia Press Conference Paper [1] Nguyen Thi Do Quyen, Hairul Nizam Ismail (2015), Formative Assessment In Higher Education: Five Lessons From A Practitioner Research In Vietnam, Malaysia International Psychology Congress 2015 – Psychology for Human Well-being” at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), June 9-11/2015 ... PRACTICES AMONG PUBLIC COLLEGE LECTURERS IN VIETNAM ABSTRACT This study investigated the relationships of different factors influencing formative assessment practices among public college lecturers in. .. study 185 6.3 Factors Influencing Intention towards Formative Assessment and Formative Assessment Practices (Behavior) 188 6.3.1 Factors Influencing Intention towards Formative Assessment 189... unravel the factors influencing the assessment practices of lecturers in Vietnam in order to ensure the successfulness of related policies 1.4.2 Relationships of Factors Influencing Formative Assessment