EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND EVALUATION

2020, VOL. 26, NOS. 1–2, 53–74

https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2021.1902354

Linking personality to teachers’ literacy in classroom

assessment: a cross-cultural study
a b c,d
Christoph Schneider , Christopher DeLuca , Marcela Pozas and
Andrew Coombs b
a
Section for Teacher Education and Research, University of Trier, Trier, Germany; bFaculty of
Education, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada; cSpecial Education Department/Inclusion with
special focus on learning, University of Paderborn, Paderborn, Germany; dSchool of Psychology,
University of Monterrey, Nuevo León, México

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Educational assessment is a complex area of teacher Received 28 September 2020
professionalism involving negotiation of purposes and Accepted 5 March 2021
practices within sociocultural contexts. Developing
KEYWORDS
teachers’ assessment literacy has thus become a priority Personality; assessment
across education systems. Additionally, student teachers’ literacy; student teachers;
assessment approaches and confidence in their assessment assessment practice;
competence may be influenced by their personality and classroom assessment; cross-
the prevailing educational cultures. This cross-cultural study cultural
on student teachers in Canada and Germany examined the
relationship between personality traits and assessment
literacy. Regression analyses revealed that self-rated
assessment literacy was supported by sense of self-efficacy,
suggesting that experiences of success in teacher
education are important in developing assessment literacy.
While summative approaches to assessment were not
associated with personality, formative approaches were
particularly influenced by personal values such as empathy
and composure. Overall, the findings were fairly stable
across the two educational contexts. Implications for
teacher education in the field of assessment include an
emphasis on leveraging student teachers’ values.

Introduction
Throughout the past decades, researchers have expanded notions of what it
means for a teacher to be assessment literate. From initial conceptions of assess-
ment literacy (AL) as teachers’ knowledge and skills in assessment (Popham,
2004; Stiggins, 1991) to newer sociocultural conceptions that recognize
teacher assessment practice as always situate and negotiated within diverse
educational contexts (Pastore & Andrade, 2019; Willis et al. (2013), teacher AL
remains a complex professional capacity. We adhere to the conceptualization
of AL articulated by Willis et al. (2013), who defined assessment literacy as:

CONTACT Christoph Schneider schneiderc@uni-trier.de

© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
54 C. SCHNEIDER ET AL.

dynamic social practices which are context dependent and which involve teachers in
articulating and negotiating classroom and cultural knowledges with one another
and with learners, in the initiation, development and practice of assessment to
achieve the learning goals of students. (p. 241)

This conceptualization of assessment literacy has been taken up by a number of

scholars including Adie et al. (2020), Ataie-Tabar et al. (2019), Baker and Riches
(2018), Pastore and Andrade (2019), Poskitt (2014), and Xu and Brown (2016).
In addition to defining AL, researchers have also worked to investigate the
multiple factors that shape teachers’ assessment practices. Factors related to
how and where teachers develop AL have focused on contexts of deregulation
and professionalization (e.g., Cochran-Smith & Fries, 2001; Zeichner, 2014).
Deregulation factors include learning “on the job” and relate to the local and
immediate pressures of the practice. Professionalization factors articulate
highly classified knowledge (Bernstein, 1999), often through professional stan-
dards or certification requirements, that can be taught to teachers through
pre-service and in-service professional education programmes.
However, all learning about assessment, whether it is deregulated or highly
professionalized, is shaped by broader socio-personal and cultural contexts
(DeLuca, Coombs, MacGregor, & Rasooli, 2019). For example, assessment learn-
ing is typically referenced in some way to systemic priorities – state and school –
and to other educators’ learning (e.g., via dominant collaborative professional
learning and inquiry approaches). Hence, current understandings related to
teacher assessment learning, and their resulting capacity to negotiate and lever-
age assessment processes in their classrooms, recognized that assessment is
mediated by broader social and cultural conditions (Birenbaum et al., 2011;
Tierney, 2006). However, yet to be fully explored is the role and influence of indi-
vidual teachers’ personality, on how teachers learn about and negotiate assess-
ment knowledge into their teaching practice. As observed in teacher learning
across other professional domains, teachers are not “blank slates”; rather,
their biographical experiences made in the role as a student (Lortie, 1975),
prior knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and personality shape their learning and
practice within a domain.
Individuals’ personality characteristics (i.e., their individual expression of par-
ticular traits) have repeatedly been found to influence their professional learn-
ing and education (see de Raad & Schouwenburg, 1996). In an attempt to
complement the professionalization approach in teacher education (TE; see
above), the paradigm of “teacher personality” (i.e., the analysis of whether
specific expressions of particular traits influence professional development –
e.g., whether a highly conscientious individual is likely to experience more
success in the teaching profession) is prominent specifically in the German
discourse (see Mayr, 2014). Backing this claim, meta-analytic research on the
predictive value of distinct personality traits suggests that both measures of
intellectual ability (intelligence, creativity, or problem-solving skills) and
 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND EVALUATION 55

non-intellectual personality features (e.g., temperament traits, attitudes, and

values or motivational variables) significantly influence academic and vocational
success, both in teaching and other professions (Klassen & Tze, 2014; McAbee &
Oswald, 2013; O’Connor & Paunonen, 2007; Poropat, 2009, 2014; Richardson
et al., 2012). With respect to TE, researchers have stressed the importance of
underlying psychological characteristics (e.g., specific personality traits, atti-
tudes, beliefs) to help explain teachers’ classroom decisions, particularly for
those early in their career (Jamil et al., 2012).
Given the influential nature of personality in learning to teach and develop-
ing other professional competencies (Henson & Chambers, 2003; Jamil et al.,
2012), it is reasonable to assume that the development of (student) teachers’
AL is also shaped by their personality traits. Both Looney et al. (2018) and Xu
and Brown (2016) provide the basis for this assertion in assessment. The
authors recognize that teachers’ AL is dynamic and interactive, comprised of
multiple dimensions including teachers’ beliefs and feelings, ultimately
arguing for the role and importance of teachers’ assessment identities. Xu
and Brown, in developing a model for professional learning in assessment,
assert that there is a need to understand that teachers’ individual characteristics
may interact with their experiences during assessment training in shaping their
practices. However, to date, studies have yet to fully empirically explore the link
between (student) teachers’ personality traits and their AL (see Biermann et al.,
2015, for an exception). As we look at individuals nested in different sociocul-
tural settings, we further acknowledge that personality traits may play out
differentially across cultural contexts. Hence, the purpose of this paper is to
examine the role and influence of personality on pre-service student teachers’
approaches to classroom assessment across two country samples. Guiding
this study are the following specific research questions:

(1) Which aspects of personality impact future teachers’ AL in a way that is prac-
tically relevant for TE?
(2) Is the pattern of personality influences on AL identical across the two school
cultures (Canadian and German) featured in this cross-cultural study?

Literature
What is personality?
Contemporary personality psychology, following Guilford’s (1959) view, concep-
tualizes an individual’s personality as the unique structure of their traits. A trait,
in this line of thought, is “any distinguishable, relatively enduring way in which
one individual differs from others” (Guilford 1959, p. 6). There is wide agreement
that a substantial proportion of the variance in personality traits is genetically
determined (e.g., Jang et al., 1996; Vukasović & Bratko, 2015). The relative
56 C. SCHNEIDER ET AL.

stability of such traits over time and across situations inevitably raises the ques-
tion whether, and if so to what extent, individual manifestations of traits serve
as predictors of behaviour (cf. Wiggins, 1997).
Attempts have been made to identify sets of traits that would best describe
an individual’s personality. Based on the lexical approach of personality psychol-
ogy, the Big Five model, involving five stable personality traits, has emerged as
the “state-of-the-art” model in the past decades, and a large body of evidence
proves its validity across cultural or language context borders (McCrae, 2002;
Rolland, 2002). It covers five central personality features, commonly also
referred to as “temperament traits”: neuroticism (or, reversely, emotional stab-
ility), extraversion, conscientiousness, openness to experience, and agreeable-
ness (e.g., McCrae & John, 1992).
While the Big Five model draws on all relevant aspects of temperament in a
narrow sense, it does not cover motivational features, interests, attitudes,
beliefs, and self-related cognitions which, in a wider understanding of person-
ality, are features relevant in the context of learning (e.g., Boekaerts, 1995), or
moral values or standards. In working on the question of which personality fea-
tures predict individuals’ acquisition of professional competence, limiting the
scope of potential predictors to just the Big Five traits would thus be likely to
yield an incomplete picture. For the purpose of this paper, a wider understand-
ing of personality including self-efficacy beliefs, action orientation, and personal
competence was used.
Based on Bandura’s work (Bandura, 1977; Bandura & Schunk, 1981), self-
efficacy is popular in educational research. The core of this construct is “the
strength of an individual’s belief in his or her ability to respond to novel and
to difficult situations and to deal with any associated obstacles or setbacks”
(Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995, p. 35). While the construct decidedly represents
a subjective belief or an expectation of success, it was found to predict learning
success (Neuber & Lipowsky, 2014) and to protect against burnout (Schmitz &
Schwarzer, 2002).
Action control theory (Kuhl, 1994) has pointed to the importance of the state
(versus action) orientation personality trait. State orientation describes an indi-
vidual’s “inability to escape a mode of control, in which the initiation of
intended behaviour is difficult” (p. 51). After experiencing failure, state-oriented
individuals tend to ruminate, while the action-oriented will rapidly focus on new
challenges.
Finally, the construct of personal competence covers moral values and directs
individuals to behave in particular ways. They are, according to Frey et al. (2014),
reflected in virtues … which can also be viewed as fundamental moral attitudes … .
Personal competence is also about action based upon self-knowledge: For there
comes a moment of solitude when an idea, a belief, or a conviction compels an indi-
vidual to take a decision by her-/himself – a decision that no one else can take in
his/her place. (p. 124)
 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND EVALUATION 57

Personal competence encompasses facets of helpfulness and empathy, compo-

sure and patience, love of freedom, curiosity, sense of duty, and success orien-
tation (Frey, 2008).
Of note, the depicted personality aspects beyond the Big Five traits may not,
by nature, claim to be representative of the entirety of all psychological con-
structs potentially to be referred to as personality traits. Rather, the selection
of the traits outlined above for the inclusion in this study was driven by evi-
dence, as specifically these constructs had been found to be predictive of
student teachers’ competences in earlier studies (e.g., Schneider & Bodensohn,
2017b; Schneider et al., 2014).

What does personality tell about teachers’ professional success?

Meta-analyses have shown that teacher personality is associated with measures
of teaching effectiveness (Kim et al., 2019; Klassen & Tze, 2014). Of all Big Five
domains, results from two studies have found conscientiousness to be the
strongest predictor of teachers’ professional success (Bastian et al., 2017; Kim
et al., 2018). However, Kim et al. (2019) report that extraversion is more strongly
related to teacher effectiveness than conscientiousness. Additionally, openness
and extraversion are also significant predictors of positive teacher evaluations
(Kim et al., 2019). van Daal et al. (2014) further reported that conscientiousness,
extraversion, and openness have positive effects on teachers’ participation in
learning activities in the workplace, concluding that more strong-willed and
open teachers tend to experiment and engage in more discussions with their
colleagues. Agreeableness, in contrast to all other Big Five domains, has
shown to have no association with measures of teacher effectiveness (Kim
et al., 2019).
Within educational research, teachers’ perceived self-efficacy (PSE) has been
acknowledged for its influence on numerous variables (Klassen et al., 2011;
Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2007). For example, teachers’ PSE enhances
persistence in working with challenging students (Henson, 2001; Skaalvik &
Skaalvik, 2007), their professional commitment (Coladarci, 1992), and classroom
management strategies (Giallo & Little, 2003; Woolfolk et al., 1990). It has also
been found to be strongly related to burnout (Browers & Tomic, 2000; Skaalvik
& Skaalvik, 2007), as it functions as a protective factor, in the sense that individ-
uals with higher levels of PSE have been found to be less susceptible to pro-
fessional burnout (Neuber & Lipowsky, 2014; Schmitz & Schwarzer, 2002).
When comparing the effects of the Big Five traits and PSE, meta-analyses and
single studies suggest a stronger association between PSE and teacher
effectiveness (Bastian et al., 2017; Klassen & Tze, 2014).
A longitudinal study on student teachers’ competence that applied latent
change modelling1 found PSE to be the dominant predictor in a shift in
student teachers’ self-rated competence in the domains of teaching, education,
58 C. SCHNEIDER ET AL.

and innovation (Schneider et al., 2014). Thus, it is likely that PSE also plays a
major role in predicting competence in educational assessment (EA). In addition
to PSE, aspects of personal competence also contributed to the prediction of a
latent shift in competence. Specifically, helpfulness and empathy predicted
competence in the teaching domain, while curiosity fostered competence in
the education domain. The latter finding aligns with results of older studies
focusing on the prediction of a variety of measures of teacher competence
where, alongside intrinsic motivation, particularly helpfulness and empathy,
curiosity, and composure and patience were the dominant predictors
(Bodensohn & Schneider, 2008).

What is assessment literacy?

Conceptions of AL have shifted over time and in relation to theoretical and
practical developments in the field of EA. Contemporary scholars view AL
as “a dynamic context-dependent social practice that involves teachers articu-
lating and negotiating classroom and cultural knowledges with one another
and with learners, in the initiation, development and practice of assessment
to achieve the learning goals of students” (Willis et al., 2013, p. 242). Building
upon the sociocultural conception, educational researchers have recently pro-
posed AL as a component of teacher identity (Adie, 2012; Cowie et al., 2014;
Looney et al., 2018; Scarino, 2013; Xu & Brown, 2016). Under this conceptual-
ization, AL is closely intertwined with teacher identity, representing a dynamic
construct that includes not only assessment knowledge but also an affective
dimension. This reconceptualization suggests that teacher AL is closely
coupled with personal, social, and contextual aspects of their teaching iden-
tity and more than an accumulation of assessment knowledge and skills
(DeLuca et al., 2016; Looney et al., 2018; Pastore & Andrade, 2019; Xu &
Brown, 2016).
Several models have been proposed that align with AL as a component of
teacher identity. Xu and Brown (2016) proposed a model that integrates
assessment knowledge along with teachers’ beliefs and attitudes towards
assessment. Extending this, Pastore and Andrade (2019) view AL as a
dynamic aspect of teachers’ identity and proposed a model comprised of
similar dimensions, adding the socioemotional aspect of assessment as a
feature. Likewise, Looney et al. (2018) put forward a model of teachers’ AL
that incorporated the teachers’ emotional connection to assessment, as well
as assessment beliefs, confidence, and knowledge. Furthermore, DeLuca
et al. (2016) proposed a model depicting AL as a multidimensional construct
shaped by teachers’ learning experiences, context, and personal dispositions
that underpin theoretical orientations and philosophies of classroom assess-
ment. A shared characteristic among these models of AL is the importance
placed on teachers’ personal characteristics.
 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND EVALUATION 59

What is the link between personality and teachers’ classroom assessment

practices?

Research is beginning to link teacher personality traits with their assessment

practices. Consistent with research on academic and vocational performance,
Biermann et al. (2015) showed a positive correlation between conscientiousness
and student teachers’ AL, and a negative correlation between neuroticism and
AL. Ohle et al. (2015) reported that PSE was positively related to teachers’ AL.
Teachers high in PSE also spent more time on assessment activities. In contrast,
Klug et al. (2016) found that PSE was not relevant to EA.
While teacher professional behaviour in EA certainly relies on reflection and
sound planning of adequate assessment strategies, decisions to be taken by the
teacher are often subject to time restrictions, particularly inside the classroom. It
may be advantageous for a teacher to be able to pragmatically decide on viable
strategies of actions to be taken; in other words, it may be presumed that low
state orientation (or high action orientation) is a predictor of teacher compe-
tence. In studies within the KOSTA project (German acronym for “COmpetence
and STAndard orientation in teacher education”; Schneider & Bodensohn,
2017b), hesitation was found to be a predictor for both student teachers’
initial AL and a longitudinal shift in this domain (i.e., the less hesitating
student teachers report a higher level and a more positive development of
their AL). In addition, curiosity as an aspect of personal competence contributed
to the prediction of the initial self-rating of AL in the same analysis, suggesting
that holding values concerned with students’ interests and needs may facilitate
EA on the whole. Specifically, in predicting self-rated competence in summative
assessment, however, success orientation outperformed other aspects of per-
sonal competence (Bodensohn & Schneider, 2008). While this previous research
is promising in showing links between personality and classroom assessment
practices, the present study further explores multiple personality indicators
on approaches to and literacy in assessment as considered within diverse
cultural contexts.

Context

This research is situated in two countries – Canada and Germany – which have
distinct assessment cultures. The contemporary understanding of classroom
assessment in Canada is centred on teachers’ capacity to utilize classroom
assessment practices to support student learning of content and learning
skills. This student-centred focus is expressed in professional standards (e.g.,
British Columbia Ministry of Education, 2012; Ontario College of Teachers,
2021) and provincial policies (e.g., Manitoba Education, Citizenship & Youth,
2006; Ontario Ministry of Education, 2010) and prioritizes the widespread
inclusion of student voice in formative and summative assessment practices,
60 C. SCHNEIDER ET AL.

the inclusion of students within the assessment process, and transparent and
fair assessment practices. Classroom teachers are generally given a high
degree of autonomy and are allowed to exercise their professional judgement
in their classroom assessment practices.
In Germany, assessment in the school context is referred to as Pädagogische
Diagnostik (Pedagogical Diagnostics), and its central purpose is “taking the right
decisions in the interest of the learner” (Ingenkamp & Lissmann, 2008, p. 14,
translation by authors). While the internationally established explicit terms of
Assessment of Learning versus Assessment for Learning have only just recently
been taken up by discourse inside the German community (see Herppich et al.,
2018), the framing of Pädagogische Diagnostik has ever since included both
summative and formative functions of EA. Both functions are covered by
binding national standards on the contents and outcomes of TE programmes
(Ständige Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutsch-
land [Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of
the Länder in the Federal Republic of Germany, KMK], 2014). German school
policy leaves individual teachers relatively little room for varying summative
assessment practices (e.g., there are mandatory figures of written exams to be
conducted in particular domains per year), but formative support of student
learning is a common practice. Another feature specific to the German
context is that with all school inspections and comparative large-scale tests
being essentially low stakes in nature, accountability issues are presently a
less urgent concern than in many other countries including Canada.

Methods
Research design and samples
Data were collected from two TE programmes at two mid-sized universities in
Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany, and Ontario, Canada, through a cross-sectional
survey research design. TE structures vary considerably across the two cultural
contexts (see DeLuca et al., 2020). Data collection occurred at a similar stage of
study progress (typically in the 4th semester of the TE programme in Canada,
typically in the 5th semester in Germany), near the completion of students’ TE
programmes.
The Canadian sample consisted of NCDN = 206 student teachers (189 for the
KOSTA instrument), of which 85% were female with age ranging from 18 to 44
years (89% were 25 or younger.) The sample was evenly split between primary/
junior (52.2%) and intermediate/senior (47.8%) teachers. For intermediate/
senior teachers, the most common teaching subjects were Science (34.4%),
English (25.2%), and Mathematics (24.4%). The German sample included
NGER = 182 student teachers pursuing secondary education certification
(Grades 5 to 13). Of the sample, 67% were female with an age range of 17 to
 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND EVALUATION 61

36 years (95% being 25 years or younger). The most frequently studied subjects
were German (37.9%), English (26.9%), and History (23.1%). Participation in the
survey was voluntary, yet the response rate was very high (100% and 84% com-
pletion rates for Germany and Canada, respectively). Given the relatively large
sample sizes, both gender and age differed significantly between the two
country samples, but observed differences were moderate in terms of effect
size (Gender: Χ²(1) = 19.87, p < .001, Cohen’s w = .23; Age: t(383) = 7.17, p <
.001, Cohen’s d = .35).

Measures

Alongside a number of personality scales, two instruments were administered

to measure students’ approaches to assessment (i.e., the Approaches to Class-
room Assessment Inventory – ACAI) and students’ perceived competence in
assessment (KOSTA). On the basis of the ACAI and the KOSTA scales, higher
order factors were identified.

ACAI
The ACAI was designed to help teachers determine and develop their approach to
classroom assessment and was developed based on previous research in which 15
contemporary assessment standards were analysed (i.e., 1990–present) from five
geographic regions (US, Canada, UK, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand; DeLuca
et al., 2016, for complete analysis of standards). Based on this analysis, a set of 12
themes were deduced that demarcated the AL construct, and which aligned with
the most recently published Classroom Assessment Standards for PreK-12 Teachers
(Klinger et al., 2015). Scenario-based items were created for the ACAI addressing
the 12 AL dimensions using an expert panel alignment methodology (DeLuca
et al., 2013). An expert panel consisting of 10 EA experts drawn from across
North America examined each of the five scenarios and 60 actions (12 per scen-
ario) to ensure its alignment with the underlying AL dimension. Furthermore,
10 classroom teachers (five elementary and five secondary) served as practitioner
experts and reviewed the ACAI using the same protocol.
Student teachers are presented with five scenarios that represent contem-
porary assessment situations in which multiple defensible actions could be
taken. Each scenario contains 12 items, with each item aligning with one of
the 12 AL dimensions identified previously. Participants record how likely
they were to complete each action on a 6-point scale ranging from not at all
likely (1) to highly likely (6). For example, Scenario 4 presents participants with
the following situation: You are planning a unit for your class. Participants
would then be asked to report their level of endorsement for 12 actions they
may take including: start by designing a summative assessment based upon
curriculum standards then use backward planning to create your lesson plans
(assessment of learning); co-construct learning goals and discuss assignments
62 C. SCHNEIDER ET AL.

and grading criteria for the unit with your students (communication of assess-
ment processes); and plan class lessons and assessment that are the same for all
students (a standard approach to fairness). The ACAI has been utilized in studies
of how student teachers’ approaches to assessment are impacted by their
beliefs about teaching and learning, assessment education opportunities, and
career stage (Coombs et al., 2018; DeLuca, Coombs, & LaPointe-McEwan,
2019; DeLuca, Coombs, MacGregor, & Rasooli, 2019; DeLuca et al., 2018).2

KOSTA
Based on the binding German national standards for the outcomes of TE, the EA-
related fractions of the KOSTA instrument (see Schneider & Bodensohn, 2017a)
encompass self-rating scales on Assessment Techniques (4 items, Cronbach’s α
= 0.713, item example: My evaluations refer to learning outcomes defined
beforehand), Recognition of Heterogeneity (3 items, α = 0.64, example: I recog-
nise individual learning prerequisites and learning progresses), Awareness of
Observational Bias (2 items, α = 0.48, example: I am aware that teachers’ evalu-
ations may be subjective), and Use of Data from Research and Assessment (4
items, α = 0.81, example: I use evidence from educational research in my own
work). Though reliabilities in terms of internal consistency fail to be satisfactory
in two of the four scales, results of prior factor analyses (Schneider & Bodensohn,
2017a) depict them as comparably homogeneous constructs. Answering format
of the 13 items constituting these scales was a 6-point rating (How competent
am I in this teaching task?), ranging from not competent at all (1) to highly com-
petent (6). For administration in the Canadian sample in this study, the translation
of the KOSTA items for illustrative purposes reported by Schneider and Boden-
sohn (2017a) was used as a basis, with some adjustments in wording.
To examine the structures of perception “behind” the differing approaches to
EA and the self-rated AL (i.e., to identify broader categories in which individuals
view EA), the 12 ACAI aspects and the four KOSTA scales were jointly submitted
to exploratory factor analysis. A clear three-factor pattern emerged with the
three factors to be unambiguously labelled as Contemporary Approaches to EA
(e.g., formative assessment, differentiated or equitable approaches to fairness in
EA, communication issues), Traditional Approaches to EA (summative assessment,
focus on reliability of assignments, standard approaches to fairness), and Self-
Rated AL (uniting the four KOSTA scales) as the self-evaluative aspect. Of note,
this three-factor pattern appeared nearly identically in the separate analysis of
Canadian and German data (see DeLuca et al., 2020, for detail on procedure and
results). In the analyses within the scope of this paper, these three factors were
drawn on as the criterion measures of AL to be predicted by personality features.

Big Five personality traits

To assess the temperament traits of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientious-
ness, neuroticism, and openness, the 10-item Big Five Inventory (Rammstedt &
 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND EVALUATION 63

John, 2007), available in both English and German, was administered. The item
stem reads: “I see myself as someone who … ”, followed by single-item contents
as, for example: “ … tends to be lazy”. Answering format is a 5-point scale from
disagree strongly (1) to agree strongly (5). While the authors do not provide
reliability information in the form of Cronbach’s α for each of the five
two-item scales, its scales display a high test-retest stability across a 6–8
weeks interval (between 0.68 and 0.83). Their high convergent correlations
with more comprehensive nine-item Big Five scales (0.74 to 0.89) and other
Big Five instruments underline their validity.

Perceived self-efficacy
In order to assess PSE at a global (in contrast to a task- or domain-specific) level,
the General Self-Efficacy Scale by Schwarzer and Jerusalem (1995) was adminis-
tered. For this 10-item scale (item example: It is easy for me to stick to my aims
and accomplish my goals; employing 4-point ratings from 1 = not at all true to
4 = exactly true), reliabilities (Cronbach’s α) reported by its authors range
between 0.82 and 0.93. Both English and German versions of this scale are
provided.

State versus action orientation

The Action Control Scale (ACS-90; Kuhl, 1994), available in English and German,
encompasses the three dimensions of Preoccupation, Hesitation, and Volatility.
Each scale is based on 12 forced-choice items with two response alternatives,
one of which is indicative of state orientation and the other of action orien-
tation. An item example reads “When I have to make up my mind about what
I am going to do when I get some unexpected free time”, where opting on
“It takes me a while to decide what I should do” reflects state orientation,
while “I can usually decide on something to do without having to think it
over” very much reflects action orientation. According to Kuhl, this item
format was preferred over rating scales as breaking the construct down into
typical alternatives of action requires less inference and triggers less theoretical
reflection on the underlying trait. Given the specific structure of our research,
we only included the Hesitation subscale of the ACS-90, as this has the
highest reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.78) and its items are prospective in charac-
ter. To enhance readability, we recoded the scale and labelled it Pragmatism for
the purpose of this paper.

Personal competences
To assess personal competence, for example, moral values, measures intro-
duced by Frey (2008) were administered. For all items, the header reads “To
me, it is [importance rating]”, followed by the specific item content, for
example, “ … to be successful”, “to be honest”, with 6-point importance
ratings ranging from very unimportant (1) to very important (6). Scales assessed
64 C. SCHNEIDER ET AL.

were Helpfulness and Empathy, Composure and Patience, Sense of Duty, Curi-
osity, Love of Freedom, and Success Orientation. For the former five of these
scales4, Frey and Ruppert (2017) reported satisfactory reliabilities (Cronbach’s
α 0.73–0.78). As these scales were not available in English, they were translated
from German following a standard procedure (analogical to Note 2 referenced
above) for the purpose of this study.

Data analysis strategy

To investigate the predictive power of different aspects of personality on the
three criterion variables of Contemporary versus Traditional Approaches to
EA, alongside with Self-Rated AL, multiple regression analyses were calculated
for each criterion, subsequently introducing sets of potential predictors: In a
first step (Model 1), an empty model was calculated with just age [in years]
and gender as predictors. In the second step (Model 2), the Big Five personality
traits were introduced. Subsequently, personality constructs beyond the scope
of the Big Five were included, namely, PSE and Pragmatism (Model 3). Finally,
the Personal Competence subscales were included into the regression equation
(Model 4). This modelling strategy allows for the detailed analysis of the incre-
mental value of additional predictors when the predictors already in the model
are controlled for. As we acknowledge that assessment cultures (and, in conse-
quence, the impact of teachers’ personal prerequisites in fulfilling the complex
tasks pertaining to EA) may vary across countries and their school cultures
(DeLuca et al., 2020), we followed this modelling strategy separately in analysing
the Canadian and the German data. Results of the regression analyses referring
to the two countries are then compared descriptively.

Results
For each of the three criteria, results for the Canadian and the German sample
are jointly presented. The results of the modelling history for the criterion of
Contemporary Approaches to EA are displayed in Table 1. Neither demographic
variables (Model 1), nor any of the Big Five traits (Model 2), nor the personality
constructs of PSE and Pragmatism (Model 3) were significant predictors. Model
4, however, yielded significant predictors in the area of Personal Competence.
With a substantial proportion of explained variance (R² = 0.174 in the Canadian
sample, R² = 0.145 in the German sample), student teachers’ degree of prioritiz-
ing Contemporary Approaches to Assessment (i.e., mainly formative aspects)
appeared to depend on values individual student teachers may or may not
hold. In particular, Composure and Patience was a strong predictor across
both country samples, indicating that regardless of the school cultural
context, serene individuals were more inclined towards practices having
emerged in a re-framing in EA in recent decades, such as formative assessment,
 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND EVALUATION 65

Table 1. Country-separate multiple regression analyses for the prediction of Contemporary

Approaches to Educational Assessment.
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
CDN GER CDN GER CDN GER CDN GER
Age −.056 −.070 −.07 −.094 −.071 −.097 −.078 −.128
Gender −.053 −.113 −.052 −.075 −.062 −.082 .048 −.034
Big Five Personality Traits
Neuroticism −.02 .062 .033 .056 .015 .087
Extraversion .069 .083 .059 .069 −.01 .027
Openness .067 −.114 .067 −.115 .096 −.116
Agreeableness .098 .097 .104 .091 .035 .022
Conscientiousness .004 .073 −.025 .102 −.084 .166
Other
Personality Traits
Perceived .09 .054 .018 .004
Self-Efficacy
Pragmatism .03 −.098 .054 −.081
Personal Competences
Helpfulness & Empathy −.037 .228
Composure & Patience .209* .248*
Sense of Duty .077 −.162
Love of Freedom .271** −.084
Success Orientation .043 −.085
Curiosity −.115 −.057
Model R² .007 .02 .03 .054 .036 .062 .174 .145
Change in R² .023 .034 .007 .007 .137*** .083*
Notes. CDN = Canadian subsample; GER = German subsample. All regression coefficients are standardized (beta).
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

or non-standard approaches to addressing fairness issues. While for Canadians

Love of Freedom was an additional predictor, Helpfulness and Empathy contrib-
uted to the prediction in the German sample, again underlining the importance
of teachers’ personal characteristics and values.
Overall, very few significant predictors were found in the analyses of Tra-
ditional Approaches to EA (centred around summative assessment) as the
dependent variable (see Table 2). Only in the Canadian sample, Conscientious-
ness had an (negative) impact, suggesting that the more conscientious were
less inclined towards these traditional pathways in assessment. No predictor
except age (negative) had an effect in the German sample. Bearing in mind
that the sample was relatively homogeneous in age, this finding insinuates
that in Germany, student teachers hold a more sceptical attitude to traditional
approaches in EA when they go through a TE programme at a higher age. In
both samples, though, the proportion of explained variance was low (R² =
0.057 in the Canadian sample, R² = 0.109 in the German sample).
In analysing personality prerequisites to student teachers’ Self-Rated Compe-
tence in EA, PSE was found to be the strongest predictor across both country
samples (see Table 3). In the Canadian sample, the Big Five trait agreeableness
reached statistical significance. After controlling for PSE and Pragmatism (Model
3), the personal competence scales of Curiosity and Helpfulness and Empathy
(the latter negatively) also reached statistical significance (Model 4), which
suggests that self-ratings of competence tended to be more touched by
66 C. SCHNEIDER ET AL.

Table 2. Country-separate multiple regression analyses for the prediction of Traditional

Approaches to Educational Assessment.
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
CDN GER CDN GER CDN GER CDN GER
Age −.061 −.191* −.039 −.205* −.033 −.213* −.021 −.175*
Gender .007 .076 −.038 .1 −.042 .094 −.033 .093
Big Five Personality Traits
Neuroticism −.07 .049 −.072 .067 −.094 .088
Extraversion −.019 .027 −.013 .019 −.006 −.001
Openness −.092 −.12 −.09 −.122 −.068 −.097
Agreeableness −.061 .066 −.068 .066 −.082 .066
Conscientiousness −.131 .072 −.150 .067 −.183* −.006
Other
Personality Traits
Perceived −.03 .075 −.051 .087
Self-Efficacy
Pragmatism .05 −.032 .053 −.033
Personal Competences
Helpfulness & Empathy .096 −.046
Composure & Patience −.003 .158
Sense of Duty .095 .197
Love of Freedom −.044 .034
Success Orientation .033 −.121
Curiosity −.055 −.056
Model R² .004 .038 .038 .062 .04 .066 .057 .109
Change in R² .035 .024 .002 .004 .017 .043
Notes: CDN = Canadian subsample; GER = German subsample. All regression coefficients are standardized (beta).
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 3. Country-separate multiple regression analyses for the prediction of Self-Rated

Assessment Literacy.
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
CDN GER CDN GER CDN GER CDN GER
Age .139 −.153* .106 −.169* .101 −.194* .104 −.190*
Gender −.021 .046 −.024 .126 −.058 .112 −.014 .114
Big Five Personality Traits
Neuroticism −.124 −.135 .057 −.052 .074 −.03
Extraversion .064 .076 .028 .063 .014 .019
Openness .066 .072 .066 .067 .048 .024
Agreeableness .160* .008 .181* .018 .223** .029
Conscientiousness .053 .187* −.046 .119 −.059 .051
Other
Personality Traits
Perceived .311*** .220* .253** .223*
Self-Efficacy
Pragmatism .095 .022 .081 .021
Personal Competences
Helpfulness & Empathy −.229* .075
Composure & Patience .13 .023
Sense of Duty −.007 .086
Love of Freedom .104 −.039
Success Orientation .053 −.082
Curiosity .216* .156
Model R² .019 .023 .085 .099 .163 .138 .234 .173
Change in R² .065* .076* .078*** .039* .071* .035
Notes: CDN = Canadian subsample; GER = German subsample. All regression coefficients are standardized (beta).
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND EVALUATION 67

personal values in Canada than in Germany. The only other significant predictor
in the German sample was age (negatively), implying that older students were
more sceptical concerning their AL. The quite substantial proportions of
explained variance (R² = 0.243 in the Canadian sample, R² = 0.173 in the
German sample) revealed that selected aspects of personality strongly impact
self-perceived AL.
Overall, comparing the results of the influence in personality on EA across the
two cultural contexts, there is partial overlap, as well as differences in detail. In
predicting Contemporary Approaches to EA, personal competence or value orien-
tations took a prominent position in both countries, with Composure and
Patience as the common basis. Another finding stable across cultures was the
overall low proportion of variance in Traditional Approaches to EA to be
explained by personality. In predicting self-assigned AL, PSE was found to be a
powerful and dominant predictor in both cultures. For all approaches to EA,
and across countries, however, temperament traits such as the Big Five hardly
contributed to the prediction in any way, with the minor exceptions that in
Canada more conscientious student teachers tended to be less enthusiastic
about traditional approaches in EA and that the more agreeable (i.e., higher
self-reported scores on the agreeableness subscale) rated their own AL higher.

Discussion
Three major findings were observed in this study. First, apart from some minor
exceptions, the Big Five personality traits did not have a significant impact on
student teachers’ approaches to EA. Despite previous research suggesting
these personality traits might be linked to EA, our finding may point to the
complex and highly specific nature of EA, as measured in our study through
multiple scales. While personality is linked to general teaching competence
(e.g., Klassen & Tze, 2014; Mayr, 2014), the effects may be less pronounced on
specific assessment skills and approaches.
Second, while PSE does not significantly impact approaches to EA, it power-
fully influences self-reported AL as measured through the KOSTA. As PSE is
defined as a very broad personality trait that has also frequently been referred
to as dispositional optimism, this finding holds important implications. Our
finding of general PSE impacting specifically competence in EA suggests that
when TE programmes, on the whole, succeed in providing candidates with
experiences of success (enhancing PSE), they may also foster specific compe-
tence in EA. Inversely, frequent experience of failure in TE (lowering PSE) may
be detrimental to perceived competence in EA, even if the failure was not
experienced in assessment-associated situations.
Last, the most prominent finding is that selected personal competences (particu-
larly values associated with human interaction, such as Composure and Patience or
Helpfulness and Empathy) appear to play a major role in predicting Contemporary
68 C. SCHNEIDER ET AL.

Approaches to EA. This finding aligns with earlier studies linking personality and
teacher competence (Bodensohn & Schneider, 2008; Schneider et al., 2014). In con-
trast, such value orientations are not associated with Traditional Approaches to EA.
Unpacking this finding, we recognize that traditional approaches are often those
deeply entrenched in systems of education or in policy. Accordingly, such
approaches are almost endorsed without thought. In contrast, more contemporary
approaches require student teachers to reflect on and reconcile their beliefs about
teaching and learning with practices in assessment; often such reflection is guided
by core personal competences and values. This finding holds an important impli-
cation for TE programmes and assessment education. In order to promote contem-
porary EA in TE programmes, teacher educators should recognize the importance of
personal values in teaching about EA, establishing linkages between values and
assessment philosophies, theories, and practices.
While patterns of personality influences on EA were overall quite stable
across the two cultures in this study, some divergences with possible practical
relevance were identified. In looking at the significant predictors for Traditional
Approaches to EA and Self-Rated AL, there was a negative effect of age in the
German sample only, indicating that older students were more suspicious
about summative assessment and less confident about their own EA skills.
With some caution concerning the relatively low variance in age and the low
magnitude of the respective betas, this may point towards a shift in assessment
culture in German classrooms in recent years with older students having experi-
enced a more traditionally based EA culture than their younger counterparts,
driving them to become skeptical towards these approaches.
Most of the statistically significant findings were derived in relation to
Canadian teacher candidates. Specifically, these candidates showed a positive
association between Love of Freedom (valuing pursuit of happiness, indepen-
dence, love life, passionate, cheerful) and Contemporary Approaches to EA.
Teachers who value contemporary assessment practices see links between
assessment and fostering independent learning and autonomy. This finding
could suggest that this linkage extends to a more holistic view of lifelong
learning, which yields happiness, long-term independence, and freedom.
Accordingly, valuing contemporary assessment practices is congruent with a
view towards a love of freedom for these candidates. Another between-
country difference was that conscientiousness (from the Big Five) was a nega-
tive predictor for pursuing Traditional Approaches only among the Canadian
sample. Last, in predicting Self-Rated AL, agreeableness (Big Five) appeared to
be a significant predictor for Canadian student teachers. This finding is some-
what unexpected, as prior research has shown that out of the Big Five traits,
agreeableness is overall the trait least associated with measures of success or
competence. However, this research may be highlighting a different pattern
in the link between personality and competence because the focal competence
(i.e., EA) is highly specific. As a result, arguably, personality traits may not apply
 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND EVALUATION 69

consistently across competence domains and may depend on the degree to

which knowledge is classified within a domain (Bernstein, 1999). Overall, the
results of this study point toward areas in which personality does have
influence, particularly in perceived EA competence, yet also suggest that
additional research is needed to better understand the multiple ways personal-
ity can impact teacher assessment practice.

Notes
1. Latent change modelling is a variant of linear structural equation modelling applied
in the analysis of longitudinal data in which a single construct is measured on two
or more measurement occasions. Therein, differences between the measurement
occasions are modelled as latent variables, free of measurement error (Geiser, 2013).
2. First, translation from English into German by a German language native speaker, then
re-translation into English by another person. German wordings of items where differ-
ences occurred between original wording and re-translation into English were then
adjusted by both translators.
3. Calculated on the basis of the German sample, N = 203.
4. Success orientation is from an older version of the instrument not covered by the Frey
and Ruppert (2017) paper. According to Frey (2008), its scale consistency is similar.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Christoph Schneider is professor of Educational Sciences at the University of Trier, where he is
responsible for assessment education in teacher education. His research includes the devel-
opment of student teachers’ assessment competence, differentiated instruction in secondary
education, and factors influencing the academic self-concept in diverse classrooms.
Christopher DeLuca is Associate Professor at Queen’s University. He leads the Classroom
Assessment Research Team and is a member of the Queen’s Assessment and
Evaluation Group. His research examines the complex intersection of curriculum, peda-
gogy, and assessment within the context of school accountability and standards-based
education. It centres on how teachers learn to engage the complexities of assessing
student learning.
Marcela Pozas is an Interim Professor at the University of Paderborn and a lecturer at the Uni-
versity of Monterrey. Her research is focused on differentiated instruction in secondary school
education, expanding to motivation and interest, metacognition and context-based problem
solving in STEM education, as well as digital learning.
Andrew Coombs is a doctoral candidate at Queen’s University. His research centres on how
early career experience shapes teachers’ practice of classroom assessment. He has published
in Teaching and Teacher Education, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, Assess-
ment Matters, and Canadian Journal of Education.
70 C. SCHNEIDER ET AL.

ORCID
Christoph Schneider http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8274-7439
Christopher DeLuca http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5962-0827
Marcela Pozas http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7802-7500
Andrew Coombs http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4750-0964

References
Adie, L. (2012). Learning as identity and practice through involvement in online moderation.
Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 24(1), 43–56. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11092-011-9132-4
Adie, L., Stobart, G., & Cumming, J. (2020). The construction of the teacher as expert assessor.
Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 48(4), 436–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1359866X.2019.1633623
Ataie-Tabar, M., Zareian, G., Amirian, S. M. R., & Adel, S. M. R. (2019). A study of socio-cultural
conception of writing assessment literacy: Iranian EFL teachers’ and students’ perspectives.
English Teaching & Learning, 43(4), 389–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-019-00035-0
Baker, B. A., & Riches, C. (2018). The development of EFL examinations in Haiti: Collaboration
and language assessment literacy development. Language Testing, 35(4), 557–581. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0265532217716732
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest
through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(3), 586–
598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.41.3.586
Bastian, K. C., McCord, D. M., & Carpenter, D. (2017). A temperament for teaching?
Associations between personality traits and beginning teacher performance and retention.
AERA Open, 3(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858416684764
Bernstein, B. (1999). Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay. British Journal of Sociology of
Education, 20(2), 157–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425699995380
Biermann, A., Karbach, J., Spinath, F. M., & Brünken, R. (2015). Investigating effects of the
quality of field experiences and personality on perceived teaching skills in German pre-
service teachers for secondary schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 51, 77–87.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.06.005
Birenbaum, M., Kimron, H., & Shilton, H. (2011). Nested contexts that shape assessment for
learning: School-based professional learning community and classroom culture. Studies
in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.04.001
Bodensohn, R., & Schneider, C. (2008). Was nützen Praktika? Evaluation der Block-Praktika im
Lehramt – Erträge und offene Fragen nach sechs Jahren [What are school internships good
for? Evaluation of student teachers’ internships and open questions after 6 years].
Empirische Pädagogik, 22(3), 274–304.
Boekaerts, M. (1995). The interface between intelligence and personality as determinants of
classroom learning. In D. H. Saklofske & M. Zeidner (Eds.), International handbook of person-
ality and intelligence (pp. 161–183). Plenum Press.
British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2012). Standards for the education, competence & pro-
fessional conduct of educators in British Columbia (4th ed.).
Browers, A., & Tomic, W. (2000). A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived self-
efficacy in classroom management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(2), 239–253.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(99)00057-8
 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND EVALUATION 71

Cochran-Smith, M., & Fries, M. K. (2001). Sticks, stones, and ideology: The discourse of reform
in teacher education. Educational Researcher, 30(8), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.3102/
0013189X030008003
Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. The Journal of
Experimental Education, 60(4), 323–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1992.9943869
Coombs, A., DeLuca, C., LaPointe-McEwan, D., & Chalas, A. (2018). Changing approaches to
classroom assessment: An empirical study across teacher career stages. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 71, 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.12.010
Cowie, B., Cooper, B., & Ussher, B. (2014). Developing an identity as a teacher-assessor: Three
student teacher case studies. Assessment Matters, 7, 64–89. https://doi.org/10.18296/am.
0128
DeLuca, C., Chavez, T., Bellara, A., & Cao, C. (2013). Pedagogies for preservice assessment edu-
cation: Supporting teacher candidates’ assessment literacy development. The Teacher
Educator, 48(2), 128–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2012.760024
DeLuca, C., Coombs, A., & LaPointe-McEwan, D. (2019). Assessment mindset: Exploring the
relationship between teacher mindset and approaches to classroom assessment. Studies
in Educational Evaluation, 61, 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.03.012
DeLuca, C., Coombs, A., MacGregor, S., & Rasooli, A. (2019). Toward a differential and situated
view of assessment literacy: Studying teachers’ responses to classroom assessment scen-
arios. Frontiers in Education, 4, Article 94. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00094
DeLuca, C., LaPointe-McEwan, D., & Luhanga, U. (2016). Approaches to classroom assessment
inventory: A new instrument to support teacher assessment literacy. Educational
Assessment, 21(4), 248–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2016.1236677
DeLuca, C., Schneider, C., Coombs, A., Pozas, M., & Rasooli, A. (2020). A cross-cultural compari-
son of German and Canadian student teachers’ assessment competence. Assessment in
Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 27(1), 26–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.
2019.1703171
DeLuca, C., Valiquette, A., Coombs, A., LaPointe-McEwan, D., & Luhanga, U. (2018). Teachers’
approaches to classroom assessment: A large-scale survey. Assessment in Education:
Principles, Policy & Practice, 25(4), 355–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2016.1244514
de Raad, B., & Schouwenburg, H. C. (1996). Personality in learning and education: A review.
European Journal of Personality, 10(5), 303–336. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0984
(199612)10:5<303::AID-PER262>3.0.CO;2-2
Frey, A. (2008). Kompetenzstrukturen von Studierenden in der ersten und zweiten Phase der
Lehrerbildung [Competence structures of student teachers]. Verlag Empirische Pädagogik.
Frey, A., Balzer, L., & Ruppert, J.-J. (2014). Transferable competences of young people with a
high dropout risk in vocational training in Germany. International Journal for Educational
and Vocational Guidance, 14(1), 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10775-013-9257-8
Frey, A., & Ruppert, J. J. (2017). Diagnosis of transferable competences of young people in the
dual vocational education – A German perspective. Psychology, 8(10), 1546–1569. https://
doi.org/10.4236/psych.2017.810103
Geiser, C. (2013). Data analysis with MPlus. The Guilford Press.
Giallo, R., & Little, E. (2003). Classroom behaviour problems: The relationship between prepa-
redness, classroom experiences, and self-efficacy in graduate and student teachers.
Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 3, 21–34.
Guilford, J. P. (1959). Personality. McGraw-Hill.
Henson, R. K. (2001). The effects of participation in teacher research on teacher efficacy.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 819–836. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X
(01)00033-6
72 C. SCHNEIDER ET AL.

Henson, R. K., & Chambers, S. M. (2003). Personality type as a predictor of teaching efficacy
and classroom control in emergency certification teachers. Education, 124(2), 261–268.
Herppich, S., Praetorius, A.-K., Förster, N., Glogger-Frey, I., Karst, K., Leutner, D., Behrmann, L.,
Böhmer, M., Ufer, S., Klug, J., Hetmanek, A., Ohle, A., Böhmer, I., Karing, C., Kaiser, J., &
Südkamp, A. (2018). Teachers’ assessment competence: Integrating knowledge-,
process-, and product-oriented approaches into a competence-oriented conceptual
model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 76, 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.
12.001
Ingenkamp, K., & Lissmann, U. (2008). Lehrbuch der pädagogischen Diagnostik [Pedagogical
diagnostics textbook] (6th ed.). Beltz.
Jamil, F. M., Downer, J. T., & Pianta, R. C. (2012). Association of pre-service teachers’ perform-
ance, personality, and beliefs with teacher self-efficacy at program completion. Teacher
Education Quarterly, 39(4), 119–138.
Jang, K. L., & Livesley, W. J., & Vemon, P. A. (1996). Heritability of the big five personality
dimensions and their facets: A twin study. Journal of Personality, 64(3), 577–592. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00522.x
Kim, L. E., Dar-Nimrod, I., & MacCann, C. (2018). Teacher personality and teacher effectiveness
in secondary school: Personality predicts teacher support and student self-efficacy but not
academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(3), 309–323. https://doi.org/
10.1037/edu0000217
Kim, L. E., Jörg, V., & Klassen, R. M. (2019). A meta-analysis of the effects of teacher personality
on teacher effectiveness and burnout. Educational Psychology Review, 31(1), 163–195.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9458-2
Klassen, R. M., & Tze, V. M. C. (2014). Teachers’ self-efficacy, personality, and teaching effective-
ness: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 12, 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
edurev.2014.06.001
Klassen, R. M., Tze, V. M. C., Betts, S. M., & Gordon, K. A. (2011). Teacher efficacy research 1998–
2009: Signs of progress or unfulfilled promise? Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 21–43.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9141-8
Klinger, D. A., McDivitt P. R., Howard, B. B., Munoz, M. A., Rogers, W. T., & Wylie, E. C. (2015).
Classroom assessment standards for preK-12 teachers. Kindle Direct Press.
Klug, J., Bruder, S., & Schmitz, B. (2016). Which variables predict teachers’ diagnostic compe-
tence when diagnosing students’ learning behavior at different stages of a teacher’s
career? Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 22(4), 461–484. https://doi.org/10.
1080/13540602.2015.1082729
Kuhl, J. (1994). Action versus state orientation: Psychometric properties of the action control
scale (ACS-90). In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Volition and personality: Action versus state
orientation (pp. 47–59). Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
Looney, A., Cumming, J., van der Kleij, F., & Harris, K. (2018). Reconceptualising the role of tea-
chers as assessors: Teacher assessment identity. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy &
Practice, 25(5), 442–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2016.1268090
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. The University of Chicago Press.
Manitoba Education, Citizenship & Youth. (2006). Rethinking classroom assessment with
purpose in mind: Assessment for learning, assessment as learning, and assessment of learning.
https://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/assess/wncp/full_doc.pdf
Mayr, J. (2014). Der Persönlichkeitsansatz in der Forschung zum Lehrerberuf:
Konzepte, Befunde und Folgerungen [The personality approach in research on the teach-
ing profession: Concepts, findings, and implications]. In E. Terhart, H. Bennewitz, & M.
Rothland (Eds.), Handbuch der Forschung zum Lehrerberuf (2nd ed., pp. 189–215).
Waxmann.
 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND EVALUATION 73

McAbee, S. T., & Oswald, F. L. (2013). The criterion-related validity of personality measures for
predicting GPA: A meta-analytic validity competition. Psychological Assessment, 25(2), 532–
544. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031748
McCrae, R. R. (2002). NEO-PI-R data from 36 cultures. In R. R. McCrae & J. Allik (Eds.), The five-
factor model of personality across cultures (pp. 105–125). Springer.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its appli-
cations. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.
tb00970.x
Neuber, V., & Lipowsky, F. (2014). Was folgt auf den Sprung ins kalte Wasser? Zur Entwicklung
beruflicher Belastungen von Lehramtsabsolventen in der Phase zwischen Berufseinstieg
und beruflicher Konsolidierung [What follows the dive into cold water? On the develop-
ment of beginning in-service teachers’ professional strains]. In G. Höhle (Ed.), Theorie
und Praxis der Schulpädagogik: Vol. 20. Was sind gute Lehrerinnen und Lehrer?: Zu den pro-
fessionsbezogenen Gelingensbedingungen von Unterricht (pp. 122–137). Prolog-Verlag.
O’Connor, M. C., & Paunonen, S. V. (2007). Big Five personality predictors of post-secondary
academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(5), 971–990. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.03.017
Ohle, A., McElvany, N., Horz, H., & Ullrich, M. (2015). Text-picture integration – Teachers’ atti-
tudes, motivation and self-related cognitions in diagnostics. Journal for Educational
Research Online, 7(2), 11–33.
Ontario College of Teachers. (2021). The ethical standards for the teaching profession. https://
www.oct.ca/en/public/professional-standards/ethical-standards
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2010). Growing success: Assessment, evaluation, and reporting –
Improving student learning. Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
Pastore, S., & Andrade, H. L. (2019). Teacher assessment literacy: A three-dimensional model.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 84, 128–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.05.003
Popham, W. J. (2004). All about accountability / Why assessment illiteracy is professional
suicide. Educational Leadership: Teaching for Meaning, 62(1), 82–83.
Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic
performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 322–338. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014996
Poropat, A. E. (2014). Other-rated personality and academic performance: Evidence and impli-
cations. Learning and Individual Differences, 34, 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.
05.013
Poskitt, J. (2014). Transforming professional learning and practice in assessment for learning.
Curriculum Journal, 25(4), 542–566. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2014.981557
Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item
short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in
Personality, 41(1), 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001
Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’
academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138
(2), 353–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026838
Rolland, J.-P. (2002). The cross-cultural generalizability of the five-factor model of personality.
In R. R. McCrae & J. Allik (Eds.), The five-factor model of personality across cultures (pp. 7–28).
Springer.
Scarino, A. (2013). Language assessment literacy as self-awareness: Understanding the role of
interpretation in assessment and in teacher learning. Language Testing, 30(3), 309–327.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532213480128
Schmitz, G., & Schwarzer, R. (2002). Individuelle und kollektive Selbstwirksamkeitserwartung
von Lehrern [Individual and collective teachers’ self-efficacy]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 44,
192–214.
74 C. SCHNEIDER ET AL.

Schneider, C., & Bodensohn, R. (2017a). Student teachers’ appraisal of the importance of
assessment in teacher education and self-reports on the development of assessment com-
petence. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 24(2), 127–146. https://doi.
org/10.1080/0969594X.2017.1293002
Schneider, C., & Bodensohn, R. (2017b, August 21–25). What contributes to being a good
“assessor”? Predicting student teachers’ competence in educational assessment by personality,
socio-demographic and biographic variables [Paper presentation]. European Conference on
Educational Research, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Schneider, C., Bodensohn, R., & Foerster, F. (2014, September 1–5). Does personality predict
student teachers’ longitudinal competence development? Predicting latent change within
the KOSTA project [Paper presentation]. European Conference on Educational Research,
Porto, Portugal.
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized self-efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright,
& M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control
beliefs (pp. 35–37). NFER-NELSON.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with
strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99(3), 611–625. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.611
Ständige Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. (2014).
Standards für die Lehrerbildung: Bildungswissenschaften: Beschluss der
Kultusministerkonferenz vom 16.12.2004 i. d. F. vom 12.06.2014 [Binding standards for
teacher education] https://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/veroeffentlichungen_beschluesse/
2004/2004_12_16-Standards-Lehrerbildung.pdf
Stiggins, R. J. (1991). Assessment literacy. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(7), 534–539.
Tierney, R. D. (2006). Changing practices: Influences on classroom assessment. Assessment in
Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 13(3), 239–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594
0601035387
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy
beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6), 944–
956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.05.003
van Daal, T., Donche, V., & De Maeyer, S. (2014). The impact of personality, goal orientation
and self-efficacy on participation of high school teachers in learning activities in the work-
place. Vocations and Learning, 7(1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-013-9105-5
Vukasović, T., & Bratko, D. (2015). Heritability of personality: A meta-analysis of behavior
genetic studies. Psychological Bulletin, 141(4), 769–785. https://doi.org/10.1037/
bul0000017
Wiggins, J. S. (1997). In defense of traits. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of
personality psychology (pp. 95–115). Academic Press.
Willis, J., Adie, L., & Klenowski, V. (2013). Conceptualising teachers’ assessment literacies in an
era of curriculum and assessment reform. The Australian Educational Researcher, 40(2), 241–
256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-013-0089-9
Woolfolk, A. E., Rosoff, B., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and their beliefs
about managing students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6(2), 137–148. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0742-051X(90)90031-Y
Xu, Y., & Brown, G. T. L. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy in practice: A reconceptualization.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 58, 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.010
Zeichner, K. (2014). The struggle for the soul of teaching and teacher education in the USA.
Journal of Education for Teaching, 40(5), 551–568. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2014.
956544