The Assessment–Feedback Literacy Nexus
A Longitudinal Mixed-Methods Study of Responsible Assessment Practice in Preservice Teacher Education
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7160/eriesj.2026.190303Keywords:
Assessment Literacy, Feedback Literacy, Mixed-Methods Research, Professional Competence, Reflective Practice, Teacher EducationAbstract
Assessment literacy and feedback literacy are often treated as separate competencies in teacher education, although both underpin responsible assessment practice. This two-wave, multi-cohort mixed-methods secondary analysis examined their parallel development among 250 preservice teachers at a private university in the southern Philippines. Five successive cohorts from 2020–2024 were matched from Assessment of Learning 1 (A1) to Assessment of Learning 2 (A2), typically completed in consecutive semesters. Quantitative analyses included paired course-phase comparisons, within-domain regression-based prediction, and programme comparisons. Qualitative interviews and written reflections from the ALiPP corpus were reanalysed thematically and integrated through joint displays. Standardized A2 assessment-literacy performance and feedback-literacy scores exceeded A1 scores, while A1 performance strongly predicted A2 outcomes within each domain. Programme-level patterns indicated needs for targeted support in smaller and specialized programmes. Qualitative findings showed shifts from procedural, compliance-oriented experiences toward rubric use, feedback dialogue, fairness, and professional responsibility. Because A1 and A2 assessment-literacy examinations covered sequential but partly different content and were not psychometrically equated, differences indicate standardized course-based performance rather than growth on an invariant scale. The Assessment-Feedback Literacy Nexus integrates structural and dialogic dimensions of responsible assessment practice as an explanatory framework.
References
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association and National Council on Measurement in Education (2014) Standards for educational and psychological testing, Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Boud, D. and Dawson, P. (2023) ‘What feedback literate teachers do: An empirically-derived competency framework’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 158–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1910928
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’, Qualitative Research in Psychology, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676x.2019.1704846
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2021) ‘To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales’, Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676x.2019.1704846
Brookhart, S. M. (2011) ‘Educational assessment knowledge and skills for teachers’, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2010.00195.x
Carless, D. and Boud, D. (2018) ‘The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 43, No. 8, pp. 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
Commission on Higher Education (2012) CHED Memorandum Order No. 46, s. 2012: Policy-standard to enhance quality assurance (QA) in Philippine higher education through an outcomes-based and typology-based QA, Quezon City: Commission on Higher Education.
Commission on Higher Education (2017a) CHED Memorandum Order No. 74, s. 2017: Policies, standards and guidelines for Bachelor of Elementary Education, Quezon City: Commission on Higher Education.
Commission on Higher Education (2017b) CHED Memorandum Order No. 75, s. 2017: Policies, standards and guidelines for Bachelor of Secondary Education, Quezon City: Commission on Higher Education.
Commission on Higher Education (2017c) CHED Memorandum Order No. 76, s. 2017: Policies, standards and guidelines for Bachelor of Early Childhood Education, Quezon City: Commission on Higher Education.
Commission on Higher Education (2017d) CHED Memorandum Order No. 77, s. 2017: Policies, standards and guidelines for Bachelor of Special Needs Education, Quezon City: Commission on Higher Education.
Creswell, J. W. and Creswell, J. D. (2018) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 5th edition, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Dawson, P., Yan, Z., Lipnevich, A., Tai, J., Boud, D. and Mahoney, P. (2023) ‘Measuring what learners do in feedback: The feedback literacy behaviour scale’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 49, No. 3, pp. 348–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2023.2240983
Deneen, C. C. and Hoo, H.-T. (2021) ‘Connecting teacher and student assessment literacy with self-evaluation and peer feedback’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 214–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1967284
DePascale, C., Sharp, A., Ryan, K. and Betebenner, D. (2018) Building a conceptual framework for assessment literacy, Dover, NH: National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment.
Department of Education (2017) National adoption and implementation of the Philippine Professional Standards for Teachers, Department Order No. 42, s. 2017, Pasig City: Department of Education.
Gan, L. and Lam, R. (2024) ‘Unveiling classroom assessment literacy: Does teachers’ self-directed development play out?’, Education Sciences, Vol. 14, No. 9, p. 961. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14090961
Girgla, A., Good, L., Krstic, S., McGinley, B., Richardson, S., Sneidze-Gregory, S. and Star, J. (2021) Developing a teachers’ assessment literacy and design competence framework, Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Khalid, N. H. M., Latif, A. A. and Yusof, I. J. (2021) ‘Research focusing on assessment literacy: A systematic literature review’, Estudios de Economía Aplicada, Vol. 39, No. 10, pp. 1–25. https://doi.org/10.25115/eea.v39i10.5816
McArthur, J. (2016) ‘Assessment for social justice: The role of assessment in achieving social justice’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 41, No. 7, pp. 967–981. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1053429
Messick, S. (1995) ‘Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning’, American Psychologist, Vol. 50, No. 9, pp. 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.50.9.741
Nieminen, J. H. and Carless, D. (2022) ‘Feedback literacy: A critical review of an emerging concept’, Higher Education, Vol. 85, No. 6, pp. 1381–1400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00895-9
Panadero, E. and Lipnevich, A. A. (2022) ‘A review of feedback models and typologies: Towards an integrative model of feedback elements’, Educational Research Review, Vol. 35, p. 100416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100416
Popham, W. J. (2009) ‘Assessment literacy for teachers: Faddish or fundamental?’, Theory Into Practice, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802577536
Quileste, R. M. (2026) ‘Assessment literacy in teacher education: Integrating performance and perceptions via the ALiPP framework’, International Journal of Research in Education and Science, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 158–176. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.5244
Quileste, R., Estacio, M. L. P. and Pagara, C. R. (2025) ‘Exploring the ASPIRE framework: Enhancing assessment literacy through inquiry-based teacher education’, International Journal of Education and Teaching Zone, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 243–258. https://doi.org/10.57092/ijetz.v4i3.447
Shepard, L. A. (2000) ‘The role of assessment in a learning culture’, Educational Researcher, Vol. 29, No. 7, pp. 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x029007004
Soicher, R. N., Baker, A. R. and Thomas, R. C. (2024) ‘A Mixed-Methods Research Design to Advance inclusive and equitable teaching’, Innovative Higher Education, Vol. 49, No. 6, pp. 1105–1125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-024-09741-5
Winstone, N. E., Mathlin, G. and Nash, R. A. (2019) ‘Building feedback literacy: Students’ perceptions of the Developing Engagement with Feedback Toolkit (DEFT)’, Frontiers in Education, Vol. 4, p. 39. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00039
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Mr. Ronald M. Quileste
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors declare with this manuscript intended for publication to ERIES Journal that:
- all co-authors agree with the publication of the manuscript even after amendments arising from peer review;
- all co-authors agree with the posting of the full text of this work on the web page of ERIES Journal and to the inclusion of references in databases accessible on the internet;
- no results of other researchers were used in the submitted manuscript without their consent, proper citation, or acknowledgement of their cooperation or material provided;
- the results (or any part of them) used in the manuscript have not been sent for publication to any other journal nor have they already been published (or if so, that the relevant works are cited in this manuscript);
- submission of the manuscript for publication was completed in accordance with the publishing regulations pertaining to place of work;
- experiments performed comply with current laws and written consent of the Scientific Ethics Committee / National Animal Care Authority (as is mentioned in the manuscript submitted);
- grant holders confirm that they have been informed of the submitted manuscript and they agree to its publication.
Authors retain copyright and grant ERIES Journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the published work with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in ERIES Journal. Moreover, authors are able to post the published work in an institutional repository with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in ERIES Journal. In addition, authors are permitted and encouraged to post the published work online (e.g. institutional repositories or on their website) as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
