Towards developing classroom assessment literacy: Exploring teachers’ approaches to assessment across cultures

Abstract Classroom assessment is a cornerstone for effective teaching and learning. However, there are variabilities in teachers’ approaches to assessment due to recent educational policies, and classroom teaching and learning conditions. This study adopted a mixed method design through a sequential explanatory approach to examine teachers’ approaches to classroom assessment in two educational contexts. Multistage sampling procedures were used to select a total of 431 teachers, consisting of 123 Bruneian and 308 Ghanaian teachers to complete online surveys on classroom assessment approaches. In addition to the survey, semi-structured and in-depth interviews were conducted with six Bruneian and eight Ghanaian teachers to understand how they approached classroom assessment. The findings of a latent profile and thematic analysis revealed that teachers’ approaches to classroom assessment differed significantly within and between the two educational contexts, with a limited preference for assessment of learning, test design, scoring, use, and balance assessment (i.e. reliability and validity). This study provides a new framework for understanding how different categories of teachers in different cultures approach classroom assessment. The findings have implications for assessment theory, pedagogy, and teacher professional development in terms of classroom assessment practices.


PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT
Assessment literacy was considered and limited to a cognitive and stable skill teachers should possess to implement quality assessment.Contemporary assessment literacy is considered a situated and differential practice, as contextual factors such as classroom teaching and learning conditions can influence teachers' assessment beliefs.Teachers must negotiate their assessment knowledge with these contextual factors to ensure effective assessment practices.In this study, five technical and daily assessment scenarios were given to secondary school teachers in two educational contexts to examine their assessment approaches.We expected teachers in each context to have similar assessment approaches, as they potentially experienced similar teaching and learning conditions.However, we found different categories of teachers with different assessment approaches within and between their contexts.This implies that assessment approaches and assessment literacy in general may not be the same for all teachers, even though they may be in the same teaching and learning environment.

Introduction
Assessing students' learning is integral in instruction.It takes up more than 30% to 50% of total instructional time compared to other professional teacher practices such as classroom management, instructional planning, and delivery (Stiggins, 2005).After identifying learning content, classroom assessment as an ongoing activity, facilitates the collection of information on students.This information helps to monitor students' progress and design instruction to meet their needs (Amakiri & Inko-Tariah, 2021;Herppich et al., 2018a).Research has documented that adopting appropriate assessment practices is an important predictor of students' academic achievement, which is of interest to all educational stakeholders (Adamson, 2020;Deneen & Brown, 2016).Teachers must adapt to effective assessment approaches to make valid and reliable decisions for the attention of educational stakeholders.Given this emphasis, experts in educational measurement and assessment have emphasised that teachers should be literate in classroom assessment.They have advocated strongly that classroom assessment literacy (CAL) should be integral in professional development irrespective of educational systems (DeLuca et al., 2016b;Stiggins, 2014Stiggins, , 2017)).
CAL encompasses a teacher's basic understanding and skills in assessment, and how these skills are applied in measuring students' learning (Mertler & Campbell, 2004;Popham, 2011;Stiggins, 1991).Teachers should be competent in developing appropriate strategies to improve teaching and learning, and judge students' learning.Given that teachers are one of the important agents who drive classroom assessment, their competency in ensuring valid and reliable assessment is part of their accountability, which puts pressure on them to obtain and use assessment information for decision making (Darling-Hammond, 2020;Leung, 2014).Therefore, it is crucial to constantly ascertain the weaknesses of teachers in their classroom assessment approaches to identify and address assessment areas of concern.
Towards teachers' CAL development, several standards that determine literacy have been developed.In 1990, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the National Education Association (NEA), and the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME) proposed seven standards that formed the basis for CAL (Plake et al., 1993).Contemporary conceptions of CAL argue that the standards suggested by AFT et al. (1990) confined literacy to a mere set of technical skills and knowledge teachers should possess, as well as teachers' practices of summative assessment.For example, Brookhart (2011) argued that the previous standards failed to focus on formative assessment and did not consider technical, day-to-day classroom issues and theoretical orientations teachers encounter in their classroom assessment practices.Other scholars (e.g., Cowie, 2015;Inbar-Lourie, 2013;Klenowski & Adie, 2009) have called for the need to situate CAL in the context of what teachers and students experience in their teaching and learning contexts.To contribute to addressing the lapses in the old CAL standards, new standards (see Table 1) were developed and validated based on 15 assessment literacy standards that were developed in the 1990s (DeLuca et al., 2016b(DeLuca et al., , 2019)).Despite the efforts of previous studies to conceptualise CAL as cognitive and psychological characteristics that teachers must possess, contemporary assessment literacy has taken a sociocultural lens, which is viewed as a situated and differential practice.The reason is that the classroom diversity of teachers and other contextual factors can potentially shape teachers' CAL (DeLuca et al., 2019;Looney et al., 2017;Xu & Brown, 2016).Building on the literature, the present study advances the sociocultural conception of assessment literacy by examining how secondary school teachers approach classroom assessment differently or similarly based on their classroom teaching and learning contexts.It draws on contemporary CAL standards (see Table 1) and uses technical and daily classroom assessment scenarios to examine teachers' approaches to classroom assessment in two educational contexts.The current study is necessary to explore how teachers are prepared to implement assessments based on contemporary assessment standards and to provide further support to the situated and differential view of CAL across different cultures.The variation in classroom assessment approaches can inform education stakeholders of the strategies that can be used to address the potential assessment discrimination, marginalisation, and the lack of assessment equity students may potentially undergo, although they may be taught and assessed by teachers who teach under the same teaching and learning conditions.

Conceptualising teachers' classroom approaches to assessment
In this study, assessment approaches refer to a teacher's practical knowledge and conceptual understanding in assessment within the context of their classroom teaching and learning (DeLuca et al. 2016a).It involves the ways teachers deal with or handle classroom assessment issues as and when they occur.Teachers' approaches to assessment should cut across formative and summative assessment, integrating them into instructional strategies.The approaches include the steps teachers undertake to share learning intentions and success criteria with students, question, provide feedback, implement students' self and peer assessment, use summative assessment for formative purposes, and integrate formative assessment data into instruction (Baidoo-Anu et al., 2023;Black & Wiliam, 2018;Lam, 2016;Panadero & Brown, 2017;Stenberg et al., 2022;Topping, 2021).
Approaches to assessment involve the processes teachers undergo when implementing classroom assessment.This includes how they design and develop reliable and valid assessment content that aligns with the learning targets.Teachers must be aware of the purpose of assessment, what to assess, and the nature of the assessment tool to use to achieve the intended objectives (Cano, 2020;DeLuca et al., 2019;Latif & Wasim, 2022;Tóth & Csapó, 2022).They should demonstrate awareness of the expected knowledge, understanding, capabilities, change in attitudes and disposition, and skills that students need to acquire.They should be mindful of the stage of learning they have to assess whether at the beginning, middle, or end of instruction to determine how much knowledge students have acquired.
How teachers directly use assessment results for formative, diagnostic, or summative purposes is important in their assessment approaches.For formative purposes, the information obtained should be used to monitor students' learning, identify learning gaps, as feedback to address learning gaps, and modify teaching approaches.For diagnostic purposes, assessment feedback should be used to identify the strengths and weaknesses of students, while for summative purposes, decisions should be taken by teachers to assign grades and judge students' mastery of skills (Asamoah et al., 2022;Black & Wiliam, 2018;Coombs et al., 2018).
Another assessment approach involves scoring assessment tasks using a rubric prepared by the teachers.The rubric refers to a tool that lists the criteria on which students' work is evaluated.It normally emphasises three essential factors: a) factors that determine the quality of students' work (evaluative criteria), b) the level of students' knowledge and mastery that distinguishes between acceptable and unacceptable responses (quality definitions), and c) the rating scale that determines the assignment of grades (Gray et al., 2019;Young & Chen, 2021).In addition, teachers should develop and use an instructional rubric, which is used to clarify and communicate learning goals, as well as provide feedback on students' progress and judge how well students have achieved learning targets.Teacher-centred rubric (summative rubric) helps assign accurate grades, while a student-centred rubric encourages students' learning and achievement (Román-González et al., 2019;Sanavi & Mohammadi, 2020).Thus, teachers should possess the competence to develop the appropriate rubric usable for formative or summative purposes.

Assessment purpose
Assessment for learning (AfL) • Assessment serves as evidence to provide feedback on learning progress.It encourages teacher and student-centred formative assessment.
Assessment as learning (AaL) • Provides feedback or experiences that enhance student learning and metacognitive skills.
Involves self and peer assessment.May involve teachers but it is student-centred.
Assessment of Learning (AoL) • Provides judgmental evidence on student learning by awarding grades concerning the achievement of learning targets.

Design
• Developing reliable assessment tasks/items to measure student learning based on learning targets. Scoring/use • Adjust and use scoring protocols and grading schemes to respond to assessment tasks.

Communication
• Interpret assessment results and give feedback to the audience.

Standard
• Maintain or use equal assessment protocols for all students.

Equitable
• Differentiate assessment protocols for some identified students (e.g., those with special educational needs [SEN]).

Differentiated
• Individualise learning opportunities and assessments that address the unique needs of students.

Consistent
• Ensure reliability or consistency in assessment results across time and between teachers.Teachers must communicate and interpret assessment results to students and other stakeholders.Prior to the assessment task, they need to communicate to students the time, content, nature of assessment, directions, and all other assessment information, including the procedures through which students will be assessed (Brown, 2012;Cano, 2020).Subsequently, in the second stage, which is after the administration and scoring of the assessment tasks, teachers need to communicate students' assessment scores to them so that students can know their progress and achievement.This feedback helps control students' anxieties, identify their strengths and weaknesses, and develop strategies to improve teaching and learning.The last stage involves sharing assessment information with stakeholders such as parents, educational administrators, and other users of assessment information.For example, teacherprepared report cards and portfolios are sent to parents through the students themselves or online.
In teachers' approaches to assessment, fairness is a crucial element that strongly correlates with students' academic performance, engagement, and motivation, while unfair assessment is associated with truancy, examination malpractices, aggression, and hostility (Holmgren & Bolkan, 2014;Ishak & Fin, 2013).Fairness means that assessment decisions should not change from one student or group of students to another.It can take the form of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice.To ensure distributed fairness, there should be equity and equality in assessment, and assessment practices should focus on the needs of students.In procedural fairness, the assessment process should be transparent, consistent, and flexible, while acknowledging students' voices.Interactional justice comprises interpersonal and informational justice.The essence of fairness in assessment entails treating students with courtesy and respect while ensuring that they receive adequate, truthful, equitable, and honest assessment results (DeLuca et al., 2019;Rasooli et al., 2019;Tierney, 2013).Therefore, in their assessment approaches, teachers should adopt several strategies to meet the needs of students.They should be competent in employing the different dimensions of fairness to avoid discrimination in assessment and ensure practicality and efficiency.Practicality in assessment means that teachers should be knowledgeable in designing, administering, and scoring assessment tasks while efficiency in assessment means they should be familiar with assessment material, the cost of material, and how to interpret and use assessment information (McMillan, 2014).
Ensuring validity and reliability is also an essential part of teachers' assessment approaches.Validity refers to the degree to which an assessment instrument measures what it claims to measure.This helps gather evidence to support the use and interpretation of assessment results.Reliability refers to how regularly the assessment produces consistent results and the sufficiency of the assessment information, which improves the stability and consistency of assessment information about the gap between students' work and learning objectives (Brown, 2019;Khan et al., 2022;Smidt & Embacher, 2023).Teachers should ensure that assessment results are consistent irrespective of time, and rates.They should ensure that the designed assessment task, or its content measures the learning objectives.There should be sameness of the construct being measured, as well as enough reasons to believe that assessment scores are stable and trustworthy over time by designing and using the table of test specification (DeLuca et al., 2016b(DeLuca et al., , 2019;;Fives & Barnes, 2018).Teachers who prioritise assessment reliability and validity are more likely to understand students' work and how these works are comparable to the "ideal" work as defined in the learning targets.They also understand how well the information gathered from the assessment results can be used to improve students' learning.

Related work on teachers' approaches to assessment
Limited research has highlighted different ways teachers prefer to approach assessment.This includes but is not limited to assessment strategies such as feedback and communication, test construction, validity, and reliability, and how they approach assessment based on technical and daily assessment scenarios.
In a bid to explore teachers' assessment strategies, Özdemir-Yılmazer and Özkan (2017) reported that Turkish instructors preferred to use existing items from textbooks in their test item development, which violated test construction principles.The research by DeLuca et al. (2019) that examined teachers' assessment approaches found that Canadian teachers (n = 396) prioritised assessment design.Equally important studies on assessment approaches are those by Frimpong and Osei (2021) and Adiyaa et al. (2022).Frimpong and Osei argued that Ghanaian teachers (n = 242) mainly preferred to use class exercises and portfolios compared to other assessment methods, which questioned how holistic assessment decisions could be made on students' learning outcomes.Adiyaa and colleagues concluded that the test used by some selected Ghanaian teachers had low content validity and assessed the lower cognitive abilities of students.This was due to teachers' low literacy in using a table of test specification.The study by Grob et al. (2021) also highlights how teachers used feedback.They argued that primary school teachers used varied assessment methods, including observational data, and feedback to revise students' work.On the other hand, secondary school teachers preferred to use written tests that limited transversal feedback.In terms of assessment communication, limited studies (e.g., Figa et al., 2020) found that most teachers (n = 176) lacked assessment communication skills, which hindered them in making learning targets explicit to students, integrating formative assessment strategies, and providing formative feedback.This was due to low literacy in assessment communication.
Research has also highlighted teachers' test construction, valid, and reliable assessment approaches (Koloi-Keaikitse, 2017;Mirizon, 2021;Schafer & Yezierski, 2021).For example, the qualitative research by Mirizon (2021) revealed that Turkish English teachers (n = 6) could not write effective assessment items because they lacked the necessary training in test construction.Schafer and Yezierski (2021) identified how teachers' assessment approaches affected validity.They argued that assessment tasks developed by chemistry teachers (n = 5) did not represent the domain of interest, which questioned assessment validity.On the contrary, Koloi-Keaikitse (2017) found that Botswana teachers (n = 691) preferred test construction compared to using assessment information to modify instruction.These results illustrate a contradiction in teachers' approaches to valid and reliable assessment.
How teachers approach assessment differently based on common and daily assessment scenarios has been confirmed by DeLuca et al. (2019), Coombs et al. (2020), andDeLuca et al. (2021).DeLuca et al. (2021) in their study in the US, Canada, and China identified five categories of assessors: teacher-centric, hesitant, moderately student-centred, highly student-centric, and eager assessors.Teacher-centric assessors preferred to design and implement reliable assessment.Hesitant teachers were less likely to support standard and equitable assessment.For moderately student-centric assessors, they preferred communication and design, and a balanced approach to assessment.Highly student-centric assessors preferred assessment design and communication, differentiated and equitable fairness, and assessment consistency based on contexts.Their results also showed that teachers' assessment approaches in the US were skewed to eager, highly student-centric, and teacher-centric assessors.Chinese teachers were less likely to be teacher-centric assessors compared to the US but not Canada.Chinese teachers were proportionally found in all the classes of teachers.Canadian teachers were more likely to be moderately student-centric assessors than their counterparts in the US and China.Canadian teachers were also found to be more hesitant assessors than their counterparts in the US but not China.Coombs et al. (2020) found that Canadian teachers (n = 457) valued the use, scoring, consistency, and standard assessment.Teachers were also found to prefer training in assessment through a course at a university.They identified three categories of teachers: eager, contemporary, and hesitant.Eager assessors believed they were competent in their assessment approaches due to the training received in assessment from a university.Contemporary assessors endorsed assessment design, communication, differentiated, and equitable assessment.These teachers had received assessment training at a university but were younger (22 years).Lastly, hesitant assessors were less likely to integrate assessment into teaching but believed to be competent in assessment.They concluded that eager and contemporary assessors saw assessment as relevant compared to hesitant assessors.Like the above researchers, DeLuca et al. (2019) also found from 388 beginning teachers in Germany and Canada that teachers differed in assessment fairness.Canadian teachers preferred equitable and differentiated practices.
Teachers' preferences for assessment fairness have been documented.For example, Murillo and Hidalgo's (2020) phenomenographic research among Spanish teachers (n = 30) concluded that teachers had varied conceptions about assessment fairness; however, most of them prioritised equitable fairness.A particularly interesting study is that of Azizi's (2022).Their qualitative analysis among 22 teachers revealed three categories of fairness: distributed, procedural, and interactional justice.The teachers believed that fair assessment should include distributed, procedural, and interactional justice.They expressed that assessment practices should focus on the needs of students.Fair assessment should be transparent, consistent, flexible, adequate, and truthful.Research led by Wallace and Qin (2021) among 192 language students in Macau revealed that the students saw test administration as interactionally and procedurally fair but were unsure about distributive justice.According to the students, their scores represented their achievement.
The literature highlights that assessment approaches involve a diverse array of components, including factors such as teachers' preference for assessment methods, consideration of fairness, and the impact of assessment communication, all of which are interwoven into their classroom practices.While some prioritise assessment design, others prefer equity, equality, and fairness in assessment compared to ensuring valid and reliable assessment.This provides further support for conceptualising assessment approaches as situated and differential practice.In addition, teachers' approaches to assessment in other domains such as scoring, use, and assessment communication are not widespread.In this study, teachers were presented with technical and daily classroom assessment scenarios to explore their approaches to classroom assessment in their teaching and learning contexts.

Current study
Education systems in various countries are gradually moving from examination-oriented pedagogy and assessment culture to more student-centred pedagogy, where assessment is used to improve teaching and learning (Bennett, 2011;Black & Wiliam, 2018).In developing countries in Asia and Africa, western educators have widely commented that students learn by rote (Biggs, 1998;Leung, 2002;Tran, 2013).To a certain degree, nations such as China, Taiwan, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), Singapore, South Korea, and Vietnam are culturally shaped by the Sinic civilisation or the Confucian Heritage Culture (CHC), which often places a strong emphasis on paper and pencil tests as the primary means of assessing students' factual knowledge (Lee et al., 2010).As a result, most students from these parts of the world normally adopt surface learning approaches when preparing for assessment, which contrasts with recent shifts in classroom accountability that encourage the use of innovative assessment for criterion-referenced purposes (Greaney & Kellaghan, 1995;Tao, 2014).
The current shift in assessment has forced most developing countries in Southeast Asia and West Africa, including Brunei and Ghana to reform their teaching, learning, and assessment so that students can be trained to acquire 21st-century skills (i.e., creativity, problem-solving, communication, critical thinking, decision making, initiative, and responsibility).For example, the Bruneian and Ghanaian educational contexts have introduced teaching, learning, and assessment systems that emphasise that assessment should improve teaching and learning compared to using it for grading purposes (Curriculum Research Development Division [CRDD], 2010; Ministry of Education [MoE], 2013[MoE], , 2018)).Following these developments, both contexts have implemented the school-based assessment and other assessment approaches in which assessment for learning is prioritised compared to summative testing.This shift in classroom accountability demands that teachers change and upgrade their pedagogy and assessment approaches to conform to current educational and assessment reforms.
To respond to these new changes, teachers are more likely to face some challenges due to the already prevailing examination-oriented teaching and assessment cultures.Brown (2004) argued that an examination-oriented environment shapes teachers' conceptions and approaches to assessment.As a result, the introduction of low-stake assessment reforms (i.e., using assessment to improve teaching and learning compared to school and students' accountability) and pedagogy in general may fail.This may be due to low assessment literacy, lack of cooperation, and negative conceptions of teachers about assessment, teaching, and learning (Brown et al., 2011).To meet the expectations of current classroom accountability due to the changing nature of teaching and learning that arise due to educational reforms in developing countries such as Brunei and Ghana, teachers must be literate to implement classroom assessment that can prepare students for lifelong learning and the acquisition of high-order thinking skills.
Despite the efforts of the Bruneian and Ghanaian governments, as well as international organisations, to improve the quality of teaching and learning, recent studies on classroom assessment undertaken within Brunei (e.g., Roslan et al., 2018Roslan et al., , 2022) ) and Ghana (e.g., Adom et al., 2020;Bosson-Amedenu et al., 2020;Frimpong & Osei, 2021) have not examined how teachers approach classroom assessment based on contemporary CAL standards.Also, little is known about how teachers approach assessment using daily and technical classroom assessment scenarios in developing teachers' CAL in developing countries.Given that we are familiar with the education and assessment systems in the two educational contexts compared to other countries, it was necessary to explore how teachers in both contexts approached classroom assessment differently or similarly when faced with technical and daily classroom assessment scenarios.This can potentially help to judge their preparedness and meet the expectations of using assessment to improve teaching and learning and train students to acquire 21st-century skills, as their current education and assessment reforms suggest.The present study explored the distinct patterns in teachers' approaches to classroom assessment in the domains of assessment purpose, process, fairness, and theory (i.e., validity and reliability).It answered the question: Are there any distinct patterns in Bruneian and Ghanaian teachers' approaches to classroom assessment?

Design and approach
This study employed a mixed-method design through a sequential explanatory approach.It collected and integrated quantitative and qualitative data to understand the patterns in teachers' approaches to classroom assessment (Creswell, 2014;Tashakkori et al., 2013).The design was chosen because either quantitative or qualitative approach was not sufficient to understand the nuanced nature of classroom assessment approaches.The design helped offset the limitations of either approach by complementing their strengths and weaknesses (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009).The first phase adopted and administered cross-sectional online surveys to preuniversity teachers to understand how they approached classroom assessment.Phase two involved semi-structured interviews with participants selected from the quantitative phase to complement the survey's results.

Study participants and sampling
The participants consisted of 123 Bruneian and 308 Ghanaian secondary school teachers.Since data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic and amid several mobility restrictions, the teachers were conveniently and accidentally selected to participate in online surveys that asked them about their classroom assessment approaches.Therefore, teachers in both contexts who accidentally came across the online surveys after dissemination served as participants and responded to the surveys.Of the 123 Bruneian teachers, 74% were female teachers.A higher percentage (28.8%)had 16 to 20 years of teaching experience, more than 60% had their master's degrees, and most (32.5%) were English teachers.Of the 308 Ghanaian teachers, 55.8% were male teachers.Most (33.4%) had less than 5 years of teaching experience.More than half had a bachelor's degree in education.A greater percentage (39.9%)were Mathematics teachers.A summary of participants' demographic characteristics is presented in Table 2.
In addition to the survey, six out of the 123 Bruneian teachers and eight out of the 308 Ghanaian teachers who participated in the first phase participated in the interview.A total of eight Bruneian and twelve Ghanaian secondary school teachers volunteered to be interviewed.Stratified and random sampling procedures were used to select six and eight teachers, respectively.The stratification criteria were based on gender, teaching subject, and years of teaching experience.For example, in the first stratification criteria (gender), the proportion of male and female teachers based on their numbers was determined.In the Bruneian context, there were five female and three male teachers.Five was divided by eight (interview population) and the result was multiplied by six (which is the sample needed).This resulted in approximately three female and three male teachers.A similar approach was used to determine the proportion of teachers based on teaching experience and subject areas.Random sampling was then used to select participants from each stratum.All the names of the participants who met the criteria were put into boxes and randomly selected with replacements.Similar approaches were used to select the participants in the Ghanaian context.Six and eight teachers in the two contexts were finally used because a preliminary assessment of the interview transcripts revealed a data redundancy from the sixth participant in the Bruneian context, and from the eighth participant in the Ghanaian context.This signified that in-depth information was reached (Bryman, 2012).Also, Galvin (2015) argued that the chances of identifying a theme among six participants is more than 99% if that theme is shared among 55% of the population.A summary of the demographic characteristics of the interview participants is presented in Table 3.

Instruments
The approaches to Classroom Assessment Inventory (ACAI), Part B, which was developed by DeLuca et al. ( 2016a) was adopted to collect data.It involved five scenario-based items followed by twelve actions that focused on assessment purpose, process, fairness, and theory.The scenarios involved how teachers handled or solved situations such as a) more than half of students failing a test, b) students coping or plagiarising a work, c) assessing students with different learning needs, d) planning a unit or lesson, and e) discussing with parents about an upcoming standardised test.Teachers were asked to rate themselves on a scale from 1-extremely unlikely to 6-extremely likely.ACAI is the available instrument that measures teachers' approaches to assessment based on daily and common assessment scenarios and in line with contemporary assessment standards such as assessment purpose, process, fairness, and theory.Since this study aimed to understand teachers' approaches to assessment based on technical and daily assessment scenarios, the adopted instrument was considered most appropriate.Additionally, a semistructured interview guide was developed based on the results of the quantitative phase.It asked participants to describe their assessment approaches based on the survey results.

Validity and reliability of data collection instruments
The psychometric properties of the ACAI were established based on reviews of 10 experts in assessment, evaluation, and measurement in North America.Experts who were members of the Canadian Education Researchers' Association and the National Council on Measurement in Education, among others, provided the expert review (DeLuca et al., 2016b).Ten certified Canadian elementary and secondary school teachers aged 32 to 54 years with 8 to 31 years of teaching experience were also invited as expert reviewers.All experts agreed on the content validity of the scenarios and their associated actions and items were revised based on the feedback to align the actions to the intended assessment theme (DeLuca et al., 2016b).Due to the categorical nature of ACAI and the presence of different scenarios that represented different constructs, Cronbach alpha reliability (α) for each scenario was computed.Satisfactory reliability values ranged from .78 to .91 and .72 to .88 among the Bruneian and Ghanaian samples.
For the semi-structured interview guide, open-ended questions were written and validated through expert judgement.The interview questions were revised based on the comments and suggestions from the experts.Most of the feedback was meant to clarify wording.Pilot interviews were also conducted by the first author with a teacher in each study context to refine the interview questions.This helped assess the clarity of questions and address any unforeseen issues in the main interview (Creswell, 2014).Participants in the pilot interviews were asked to provide feedback after the interview.The main feedback concerned the pace of questioning and word choice of questions, which was used to revise the interview questions before the main interview.The trustworthiness of the qualitative data was also ensured through dependability, confirmability, transferability, and credibility (Guba & Lincoln, 2005).For example, all the activities, processes, and procedures used to collect, analyse, interpret, and write the final report of this study have been recorded and described to ensure dependability and confirmability.To ensure transferability, a justification of this study in the study contexts has been provided.These descriptions have been informed by theory and the relevant excerpts that emerged from the data.This allows readers and users to gain a comprehensive understanding of the study's results and make inferences in other contexts.To ensure credibility, data were obtained from two sources: interviews and surveys, where the former were used to explain and justify the latter.

Ethical issues and data collection procedures
Ethical clearances through formal approval letters were obtained from appropriate educational authorities in both contexts.Teachers were informed of their responsibilities through invitation letters, information sheets, and consent forms.They were free to withdraw their participation at any time and had the opportunity to ask any questions about this research and participation.No third party had access to the information they provided, and their identities were treated anonymously.Quantitative data were collected through online surveys from August to December 2022.
The questionnaire was set up in Qualtrics.Two separate Qualtrics survey links were generated and distributed among the target participants through WhatsApp group chats and emails.The survey lasted 40 minutes.In both contexts, 18 trained field assistants facilitated the data collection.After the quantitative data analysis, all participants who volunteered to be interviewed were contacted through the contact details they provided during the survey.Appropriate dates and times based on their availability and convenience were scheduled.Face-to-face interviews were conducted in Brunei, while online interviews through WhatsApp voice calls were conducted in Ghana.The interview lasted three months from December 2022 to February 2023.An informal conversation was used, which allowed the interactions with the interviewees in a conducive and relaxed atmosphere (Galletta, 2013).Timely and probing questions were asked to follow up with their responses, which helped ascertain an in-depth understanding of their classroom assessment approaches.Brief field notes in the form of short phrases on some key responses of interviewees were taken.All interviews, conducted in English, were recorded on a voice recorder for transcription.On average, the interviews lasted an hour and twenty minutes.

Data analysis
Quantitative data were analysed in Microsoft Excel, SPSS (version 25), and MPLUS (version 8.5).Data was cleaned in excel by deleting all incomplete responses, and transported to SPSS, where frequency counts were performed to address missing values.A Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) in MPLUS was performed to answer the research question.LPA is a person-centred probability technique that helps identify groups of individuals that show similar patterns in continuously measured variables (Magidson & Vermunt, 2004).Composite scores of the scenario actions that measured teachers' approaches to classroom assessment were computed in SPSS before transporting data to MPLUS for the LPA.One to six latent class-models were tested to determine suitable latent classes (Nylund et al., 2007).The Vuong-Lo-Mendell-Rubin Likelihood Ratio Test (VLMR-LRT), the Lo-Mendell-Rubin Adjusted Likelihood Ratio Test (LMR-LRT), Akaike Information Criteria (AIC), Bayesian Information Criteria and Sample-Size Adjusted BIC (SSA BIC), and Entropy were used to determine the best fitted class model before analysing the patterns that emerged (Nylund et al., 2007).
The interview transcripts were analysed thematically (Braun & Clarke, 2006;Yin, 2009).All interview transcripts and brief field notes were carefully read to understand and ensure the authenticity of data.Manual thematic coding through an inductive and deductive process was used (Braun & Clarke, 2006;Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006).Using the inductive technique, each interview transcript was read and studied to identify and label all recurring themes and patterns.This helped identify useful sentences, phrases, and ideas that frequently occurred.Deductive coding was used to identify and label themes.Reliability and validity of the interview data were improved by inviting two independent qualitative data experts to code and analyse the interview transcripts individually for themes using inductive and deductive techniques.They discussed any differences and reached a negotiated consensus, which resulted in a sufficient coding agreement of 88% (Miles & Huberman, 1994).Researchers' subjective opinions were also controlled throughout the interviews and analysis.This was done through reflexivity, a process in which the researchers critically examined their own perspectives and biases, and the inductive and deductive coding processes that were used (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006).Each of the interview transcripts was also returned to each interviewee to verify the resonance and accuracy of the responses.There was a triangulation, since inductive and deductive coding and analysis were used in addition to the brief field notes.Direct participant excerpts from the raw data were used throughout the analysis.BT and GT denote Brunei and Ghanian Teacher, respectively.

Patterns in Bruneian teachers' approaches to classroom assessment
To investigate the distinct patterns in teachers' approaches to classroom assessment, the LPA supported a four-class model, with Entropy = .944,low AIC, BIC and SSA BIC values of 48,000.252,2977.420 and 4778.218,respectively, with VLMR-LRT(p) and LMR-LRT(p) > .05.The class probabilities ranged from .899 to 1.0, suggesting the suitability of each member belonging to their respective classes.The first, second, third and fourth classes involved 9(7.0%), 48(38.7%), 4 (3.3%) and 62(51.4%)members, receptively.Figure 1 illustrates the patterns and classes of teachers' approaches to classroom assessment.

Class 1: Test design and equitable-focused assessors
From Figure 1, 7.0% of the teachers belonged to this class and were named test design and equitable-focused assessors.It involved teachers who prioritised designing assessment tasks and differentiating assessment protocols for some identified students such as students with SEN.

Class 2: Moderately fair and consistent assessors
This class, representing 38.7% of the total membership, was called moderately fair but accurate assessors (see Figure 1).It involved teachers who prioritised equity in assessment and developed assessment based on the unique needs of students.These teachers also ensured consistent assessment and aligned assessment with instructional content.

Class 3: Standard-focused assessors
The third class, standard-focused assessors, had the least class membership of 3.3% (see Figure 1).The class involved teachers who prioritised using equal assessment tasks and protocols for all students regardless of students' background.

Class 4: Highly fair and accurate assessors
From Figure 1, a majority, 51% of the teachers belonged to the fourth class, which was named highly fair and accurate assessors.These teachers preferred all dimensions of assessment fairness, including standard, equitable and differentiated assessment.Like the teachers in Class 1, the teachers in this class differentiated assessment protocols for some identified students (equitable fairness).Additionally, they used assessment protocols for all students (standard fairness), but individualised learning opportunities and assessment based on unique needs of students (differentiated fairness).Compared to the other groups, they also preferred a consistent, contextual, and balanced assessment.
Figure 1 shows that certain assessment approaches are common to all the various classes of teachers.Standard-focused, test design and equitable-focused, and moderately fair but consistent assessors preferred to interpret assessment results and provide feedback to students compared to highly fair and accurate assessors.All categories of teachers prioritised assessment design and assessment for learning.The least prioritised classroom assessment approaches of all categories were assessment of learning, use and scoring of assessment, and ensuring a balanced assessment (i.e., both reliable and valid assessment).

Patterns in Ghanaian teachers' approaches to classroom assessment
The LPA that explored the pattern of teachers' approaches to classroom assessment identified a fiveclass model with Entropy = .966,VLMR-LRT(p) and LMR-LRT(p) >.05 and low AIC = 11481.010,BIC = 11764.497,SSA BIC = 11533.457.The class probability ranged from .885 to 1.00.The first, second, third, fourth and fifth classes had membership of 5.3%, 14.5%, 14.1%, 52.9% and 13.3%, respectively.Figure 2 displays the pattern and classes of teachers' approaches to classroom assessment.

Class 1: Psychometrically focused assessors
Based on Figure 2, this class had the least membership of 5.3%.Teachers in this class were called psychometrically focused assessors since they slightly preferred consistent (reliable), contextual (valid) and a balanced (both reliable and valid) assessment.Despite their preference, they were the least among the five classes of teachers to prefer these dimensions of assessment.

Class 2: Floating assessors
Teachers in the second class were called floating assessors, who accounted for 14.5% of the total membership (see Figure 2).They fairly preferred almost all assessment domains such as formative, equitable, differentiated, reliable, and valid assessment.They fairly preferred test design, communication, and a balanced assessment.

Class 3: Instructional improvement and standard assessors
The third class accounted for 14.1% of the total class membership and was described as instructional improvement and standard assessors (see Figure 2).They mainly preferred assessment for learning and standard fairness and moderately preferred consistency, validity, equitable, and differentiated fairness.

Class 4: Need-based and moderately accurate assessors
From Figure 2, the fourth class had the highest membership of 52.9% and was named need-based and moderately accurate assessors.Compared to other classes of teachers, the teachers in this class were more likely to prefer differentiated, consistent, and contextual assessment.

Class 5: Student-centred assessors
The last class represented 13.3% of the class membership and was named student-centred assessors (see Figure 2).These teachers exhibited a high preference for assessment as learning.They were more likely to involve students in the assessment process.Like the other teachers, they moderately prioritised equitable, differentiated, and standard assessment, as well as consistent and contextual assessment.
The findings showed distinct patterns in teachers' approaches to classroom assessment.Some Bruneian teachers were identified as test design and equitable-focused, moderately fair, and consistent, standard-focused, and highly fair and accurate assessors.Most teachers were highly fair and accurate assessors, who preferred assessment for and as learning, fair, consistent, and contextual assessment.Psychometrically focused, floating, instructional improvement and standard, need-based and accurate, and student-centred assessors were identified among Ghanaian teachers.Most teachers prioritised need-based and moderately accurate assessment, as they identified students with SEN and used differentiated assessment.Notwithstanding, teachers in both contexts were less likely to prioritise assessment of learning, test design, scoring and use, communication, and a balance assessment.

Interview findings on Bruneian and Ghanaian teachers' approaches to classroom assessment
Teachers were asked to describe the actions they would take when they (a) found students failing a test, (b) found students plagiarising assessment tasks, (c) had students with SEN, (d) wanted to teach a new lesson, and (e) met parents enquiring about an upcoming standardised test.In both contexts, teachers' descriptions of their assessment approaches involved seven key themes: preferences in formative assessment, using multiple assessment techniques, and differentiated and equitable assessment.The themes also covered teachers' mixed views on students' plagiarism, perceptions of awarding non-achievement scores, validity and reliability in assessment and educating parents on high-stakes examinations.
Among the Bruneian participants, BT1, a science teacher with 18 years of teaching experience identified the strengths and weaknesses of students, determined students' understanding, prioritised differentiation, and equity.He advised students of the consequences of plagiarism because he argued that it did not improve learning.BT2, an English teacher with 17 years of teaching experience preferred formative assessment.Contrary to BT1, she argued that plagiarism helps students to learn if they plagiarise the right materials from the right source.She identified students with SEN and capitalised on their unique needs to provide individualised intervention.She developed lessons based on students' interests, encouraged collaboration, and shared lesson plans with students.BT3 was a novice Mathematics teacher with 5 years of teaching experience.She normally addressed students' misconceptions and retaught her lessons in case of students' failure.She preferred using multiple and diagnostic assessments and would not penalise students to demotivate them when they plagiarised.She was empathetic and advised students about plagiarising.She liked to use questions of varying difficulties and paid attention to students with SEN.
Relatedly, BT4, who was a General Paper teacher with 11 years of teaching experience modified teaching, identified and addressed students' misconceptions in terms of failure.General Paper is a subject that builds students' ability to understand and write English through the study of a range of contemporary topics.Students normally analyse ideas and opinions and learn how to construct an argument.Considering this background, BT4 saw plagiarism as a learning tool but preferred to leave learning gaps in students' assignments for them to complete at home.He accommodated all students and gave them the same assessment tasks through teamwork and collaboration.He used diagnostic assessment-related teaching and learning to immediate environment-questioned, and shared samples classwork with parents.For example, BT4 shared: I will ask students if there are any areas I should clarify and modify in my teaching . . . .[I] tell them that instead of just copying, you learn from it . . .[I] break down essays and leave some lines missing [and] ask them to complete at home.I advise them to paraphrase since they will go to university.At least, they're learning how to replace from someone's point of view . . .[I] pair students . . . the higher ability teaches the mid and lower abilities . . .[I] treat all students equally . . .[but] I did have one student who was dyslexic, so I asked her, can you see the size of the wording?I will still give her the same work, but the font will be clearer.I don't put colours . . .[I] discuss with students whether they know something about a new topic.When I ask for their viewpoint, they become happy and engaged in [my] lesson . . .[I] hear from them, and they hear from me . . . .[I] show parents the progress of their children and how to improve.(BT4) BT5, who taught General Paper with the highest years of teaching experience (i.e., 26 years) explored students' misunderstanding through questioning and drawing their attention to plagiarism.He prioritised using plagiarism checkers to detect where they plagiarised, introduced them to the consequences of plagiarism, and encouraged them to cite sources.He accommodated and differentiated assessment tasks and used personalised assessment but would not award non-achieving grades.He also used peer assessment and discussions based on prompts to explore students' knowledge about learning content, as well as prioritised high parental involvement by allowing parents to walk through lessons to know how students were progressing.He also discussed the nature and purpose of the external examinations with parents.BT6, who was a Social Studies teacher with 14 years of teaching experience, explored why students failed, questioned her teaching methods, and rechecked her assessment tasks.She recorded the failed scores for the sake of school accountability and identified why students copied to explore their misunderstanding.She prioritised differentiated assessment, scaffolding, and creativity.She explained to parents how examinations prepare students for the future.BT5 explicitly stated: I will revisit my lessons [and] change [my] teaching approaches.I will explore the students' misunderstanding . . .[I] will put their work through a plagiarism checker so that they can see they copied.I will advise them to paraphrase and cite sources . . .students with special educational needs are [also] to pass final exams . . .so assistance should be individualised.You need to pay attention to those students.Individual learning plans, some sort of individual focus [and] differentiation.Relatedly, most Ghanaian teachers explored students' learning gaps, retaught lessons using different methodologies, and used multiple assessment.GT3, a science teacher with 20 years of teaching experience shared that teaching and learning should focus on students' understanding.GT6, an English teacher with 26 years of experience emphasised the use of collaboration and peer support in assessment, as well as oral and written feedback.She paired students so that low achievers could learn from high achievers and reminded students of learning expectations.She asserted: I normally group students into two . . .The weaker ones would be with the good ones so that they'll learn . . .I share the scheme of work with students.Most Ghanaian teachers (n = 6) prioritised exposing students to the consequences of plagiarism and advised them to paraphrase responses when dealing with non-supervised assessment tasks.They argued that plagiarising from a textbook compared to other students' work can be a way of learning when students are guided to explain what they plagiarised.The common views of teachers (i.e., GT2, GT3, GT4, GT5, GT6) on plagiarism were illustrated in GT1's comments.He was a Mathematics teacher with 16 years of teaching experience.He asserted that supervised class exercises, group work, and collaborative class activities should be used frequently to limit students from plagiarism.He would not scold students when they plagiarised textbooks since they could learn from that.He guided students to paraphrase and work on assessment tasks independently.GT2, a Social Studies teacher with 13 years of teaching experience drew students' attention to plagiarism and encouraged them to paraphrase and acknowledge sources.He directed students to construct the right knowledge from what has been plagiarised through class discussion and presentations.Contrarily, GT8 and GT7, two novice Mathematics and Science teachers with six and five years of teaching experience respectively, did not see plagiarism from textbooks or peers as a learning tool.They allowed students to face the consequences of plagiarism such as scolding, cancelation of the plagiarised assessment tasks, and giving students new assessment tasks.One of the teachers stated: I don't entertain plagiarism.I won't use those assessment tasks.I'll use a different one . . . .If the student plagiarises the textbook or a friend's work, I discourage them from stopping that and give them extra work.I tell them to read, understand, and write their own ideas.Taking answers directly from textbooks or a friend's work isn't learning.(GT8) The assessment approaches of the Ghanaian teachers also reflected differentiated assessment.For most of them (n = 7), students' understanding of instruction was based on whether students with a low ability understood class work.This was an unreliable way to determine students' understanding and how fairness in assessment was promoted.They frequently used questions of different difficulty and gave extra attention to students with SEN during and after class hours to remediate their learning gaps.The views of the teachers (i.e., GT2, GT5, GT7, GT8) on differentiated assessment were reflected in what GT4 shared.He was a Social Studies teacher with 14 years of teaching experience who prioritised differentiated teaching, learning, and assessment.He gave extra attention and remediations to students with SEN and used varied questions of different difficulty levels.GT3 admitted that differentiated assessment is a difficult task for most teachers due to the lack of instructional time.She prioritised accommodations to improve equity and fairness in assessment.Contrarily, GT1 argued that treating students with SEN as special makes them inferior and discriminated against, which affects their sense of belonging.According to him, some of these students could be better in certain ways than their normal counterparts.He argued for inclusion and professional assistance in the absence of normal students.This suggested his interest in equitable and standard assessment.Two teachers explicitly asserted: Fair assessment is difficult to do due to limited time.[But] students must be supported based on their needs.Let's say a student is short-sighted, I'll position the person in a certain place for the person to see well.I pay more attention to such students . . .At times, I raise my voice so that they can hear me well. . .I use different tests [and] present the questions in a way that all students can make meaning of the question [and] . . .solve them.Students with SEN don't need special treatment . . .[they] are unique students with unique needs that should also be met.(GT3) I don't focus on higher achievers.When the lower achievers understand, all students understand too . . . .I don't give higher-level questions throughout . . . .I mix it . . . .I don't do segregation because students become uncomfortable [and] can affect their performance.They must fit in the class as well . . .[so] I motivate and encourage the students [and] try to have a personal interaction with them to explore their problems and help accordingly.(GT1) Furthermore, the Ghanaian teachers (n = 5) did not prioritise awarding non-achievement scores.Their common views (i.e., GT1, GT3, GT6, GT8) were shown in what GT2 said.He argued that nonachievement scores should not be encouraged in assessment practices, as they affect students' true performance.For him, such scores affect the validity and reliability of the assessment results since students are awarded scores for what they do not merit.As he explicitly stated: [Assessment] result should be trusted.If a teacher gives [for example] ten marks to students for them to pass, why do they have to learn?Scores should be a true reflection of student learning; therefore, awarding underserving scores to represent learning is misleading.Let the students know their true performance.(GT2) The eight Ghanaian teachers also aligned instruction with cognitive outcomes and used a variety of teaching approaches, which were necessary to improve valid and reliable assessments.GT7, who was a novice teacher, informed her students about a new topic and asked them to read about it.She allowed her students to present their findings from reading tasks and scored, which compelled students to attach a high level of seriousness to their reading and exploration.This encouraged students' participation and peer feedback, which controlled their fear, panic, and shyness in the classroom.GT2, an experienced teacher revisited his lesson objectives and checked their alignment with constructed assessment tasks.He conducted diagnostic assessments before introducing new lessons.He reported that effective teaching must reflect a change in behaviour demonstrated in classroom assessment, until this happens, a teacher has not worked.He shared: I look at the test items and align them with [my] lesson objectives . . . .[If] students' misconceptions and belief patterns didn't change, [then] you have not taught.Effective teaching must correspond to student learning [and] this must be shown in their assessment and performance in either behaviour or in written test.(GT2) The Ghanaian teachers also prioritised educating parents on high-stake standardised assessment.Most teachers (n = 6) shared that high-stakes examinations resemble school examinations.These examinations have similar content conducted in the same school environment but with different examination conditions.They argued that teachers and parents must provide encouragement, supervision, and support to improve students' performance.They shared that passing a national examination is not a guarantee for a better life.The collective views of the teachers (i.e., GT1, GT2, GT3, GT4, GT6) were illustrated in what GT5 shared.He was a novice English teacher with six years of teaching experience.He said that the progress of students is based on a satisfactory performance in summative evaluations; however, judging the competency of students based on a pass in a one-shot examination alone did not encourage holistic learning and fair decisions on students' learning, which limited the potential of students to succeed in other areas of life.As he explicitly asserted: I'll normally explain to parents the need for such assessment . . . .Of course, students should pass examinations to progress.[And] moving forward on the academic ladder, you can't do away with it.[But] since we focus on achieving student passes, we forget that the student should develop holistically . . . .[If] students fail one subject, like English or Mathematics, it doesn't mean they're dumb . . .There should be different assessment options to determine student success.(GT5) In sum, the findings confirmed the variations in teachers' approaches to classroom assessment within the two contexts.The six Bruneian teachers preferred a formative and fair assessment.They tend to identify students' learning gaps, provide remediation, and use assessment information to improve teaching and learning.They also prioritised equity, differentiated, and standard fairness.However, few of them preferred to discuss summative testing with parents.Most Ghanaian teachers preferred formative-oriented, valid, reliable, and fair assessment.They were passionate about teaching, learning, and assessment that prioritised the needs of students.Their assessment approaches reflected how assessment could reveal students' understanding and performance so that students can apply their knowledge in real life.However, the description of teachers' approaches to classroom assessment did not prioritise test design, scoring, use, assessment communication, and balance between valid and reliable assessment.

Discussion
This study explored secondary school teachers' approaches to classroom assessment in two educational contexts.The investigation was timely because in developing teachers' CAL, several research studies have focused on how teachers understand assessment purposes and practice specific assessment (e.g., Baidoo-Anu et al., 2023;Barnes et al., 2017;Brown, 2004;Cauley & McMillan, 2010;Coombs et al., 2018;DeLuca et al., 2016b;Herppich et al., 2018a).However, very little was found in the literature on the question of how teachers respond to technical and daily classroom assessment scenarios in building their CAL and validating the situated and differential view of assessment literacy across cultures (DeLuca et al., 2019;Looney et al., 2017;Willis et al., 2013).Given that how teachers enact assessment remains important to improving teaching and learning (Black & Wiliam, 2018;Brooks et al., 2021), it was important to understand the different or similar ways teachers approach classroom assessment depending on their teaching and learning conditions.
After exposing teachers to five technical and daily scenarios in classroom assessment, both qualitative and quantitative findings showed that they approached assessment differently within and between countries.For example, in the Bruneian context, this study found four different categories of teachers with respect to their classroom assessment approaches despite being given the same classroom assessment scenarios.These were test design and equitable-focused assessors, who preferred to develop assessment tasks and use assessment protocols for identified students.The other group of teachers were moderately fair and consistent assessors, who preferred to develop assessment based on the needs of students and align assessment with instructional content.Other groups of teachers were identified as standard-focused assessors, who preferred to use the same assessment tasks and protocols for all students despite students' differences.The last group of teachers, which was the majority, were highly fair and accurate assessors.These assessors prioritised a high level of validity, reliability, and assessment accommodations that could meet the unique needs of students.These findings align with extant literature that has emphasised that teachers should implement a valid and consistent assessment to improve teaching and learning (Brown, 2019;Fives & Barnes, 2018;Khan et al., 2022;Smidt & Embacher, 2023).As teachers approach assessment, it is expected that they prioritise fair, valid, and consistent assessment approaches that can provide holistic information about students and address their learning gaps.This has been echoed by the findings of some other studies (DeLuca et al., 2019;McMillan, 2014;Rasooli et al., 2019;Tierney, 2013).
Similarly, distinct patterns in teachers' assessment approaches were found in the Ghanaian context.The findings revealed five groups of assessors, namely psychometrically balanced, floating, instructional improvement and standard, need-based, reliable and validity-concerned, and student-centred assessors.Psychometrically balanced assessors slightly preferred consistent, contextual, and balanced assessment (both reliability and validity).Floating assessors preferred all the domains of assessment ranging from fairness, accuracy, assessment design, and communication.Instructional improvement and standard assessors preferred assessment for learning and using the same assessment protocols for all students.Most teachers preferred need-based and accurate assessment to identify students with SEN and differentiate their assessment approaches to accommodate students' needs.Student-centred assessors preferred assessment as learning approaches.In this study, the participants believed that assessment should address the needs of students and achieve the intended learning outcomes.It has long been established in the literature that effective assessment approaches should consider how students receive adequate, truthful, and honest assessment results that address their learning needs (Azizi, 2022;Cano, 2020;DeLuca et al., 2019;Rasooli et al., 2019;Wallace & Qin, 2021).For example, Azizi (2022) reported that fair assessment should address students' needs, and this could be done potentially by ensuring transparency, consistency, flexibility, adequacy, and truthfulness in assessment practices.These assessment beliefs were found in most participating teachers, which are important to improve their assessment approaches, and teaching and learning in general.
The most interesting finding from the quantitative analysis in the two study contexts is that most teachers prevalently endorsed fair, consistent, and formative-driven assessment approaches.However, there are significant variations in their assessment actions.The findings of some notable previous studies in different contexts (e.g., Coombs et al., 2020Coombs et al., , 2018;;DeLuca et al., 2019DeLuca et al., , 2021) ) support our current findings that emphasise that teachers' classroom assessment is a personcentred and situated practice with respect to specific groups of teachers in their context, and not necessarily a common approach that is applicable to all teachers.For example, Coombs et al. (2020) postulated that in the same teaching and learning context, there can be different categories of assessors such as eager, contemporary, and hesitant assessors.They argued that eager assessors were competent due to the assessment training they received, while competent assessors endorsed assessment design, communication, differentiated, and equitable assessment.However, hesitant assessors were more likely to integrate assessment into teaching.The findings of DeLuca et al. ( 2021) also identified five distinct categories of teachers in the US, Canada, and China.The various categories include teacher-centric, hesitant, moderately student-centred, highly student-centric, and eager assessors.Teacher-centric assessors preferred assessment design and reliability, while hesitant assessors were less likely to support standard and equitable assessment.Moderately student-centric assessors preferred assessment communication, design, and a balance between validity and reliability.Highly student-centred assessors preferred assessment design, communication, fair, and consistent assessment.Relating these variations to the findings of the current study, it is possible, therefore, that teachers' classroom assessment approaches cannot be conceptualised as stable characteristics or practice; but can possibly be conceptualised as a construct that can be shaped by what teachers experience daily in their classroom teaching and learning experiences.It can also be assumed that students in the two study contexts undergo potentially different assessment experiences across teachers although there can be consistent policies in their context or similar professional learning backgrounds that guide how assessment should be conducted.For example, Brunei and Ghana have adopted a performance-based curriculum that requires teachers to implement more formative assessment.Teachers are expected to enact similar or common assessment approaches; however, this may not be the reality, as there are different categories of teachers with different assessment beliefs.
Another important finding that stands out from what is observed in the literature is that other assessment domains such as communication, scoring, test design, items analysis, and reporting of assessment tasks were not prioritised by the participants in their assessment approaches.This finding has been stressed in other studies that reported that most teachers do not prioritise these assessment domains in their classroom assessment approaches due to low assessment literacy (Figa et al., 2020;Grob et al., 2021;Mirizon, 2021).According to Mirizon (2021), English teachers could not write effective assessment items because they lacked the necessary training in test construction.It may be the case that the participating teachers had low literacy in these assessment domains, as the qualitative findings highlighted.This also accords with our earlier observations, which showed that low assessment communication literacy limited how teachers could communicate assessment to students on their learning progress and provision of feedback, as well as teachers' low literacy in content validity that affected their test construction practices (e.g., Özdemir-Yılmazer & Özkan, 2017;Figa et al., 2020;Schafer & Yezierski, 2021;Adiyaa et al., 2022;Daal et al., 2022).Somewhat in contrast to these findings (e.g., DeLuca et al., 2019;Koloi-Keaikitse, 2017), the outcome of this current investigation revealed that most participants did not prioritise assessment design due to low test construction skills.An alternative explanation for this finding might be that, despite teachers' background in education, they may lack a strong preference for test construction due to inadequate knowledge of how to develop valid and reliable tests based on their teaching and learning domains.
Research has shown that teachers could perceive themselves as competent in constructing assessment tasks such as multiple-choice items; but may still have serious problems in applying test construction principles due to inadequate knowledge (Kissi et al., 2023).This knowledge gap could be a major factor, if not the only one that caused most of the participants not to prioritise test design in their classroom assessment approaches.The consequences of low priority in this assessment domain may reduce the quality of assessment results, which may have severe consequences on students' learning and pedagogy.Tarrant and Ware (2008) argued that the academic performance of higher and lower-achieving students was greatly affected due to poor item construction by teachers.Distinct assessments approaches by different teachers may also require that they prioritise developing high-quality assessment tasks, score and analyse assessment tasks and communicate assessment results to key stakeholders for decision-making on teaching and learning, which are arguably the ultimate reasons for conducting classroom assessment.

Conclusion
This study explored secondary school teachers' approaches to classroom assessment in two educational contexts.The findings of the quantitative phase of the study identified different categories of assessors within and between the two educational contexts.The Bruneian teachers who participated in this study approached assessment differently and belonged to categories such as test design and equitable-focused, moderately fair and consistent, standard-focused, and highly fair and accurate assessors.Among Ghanaian teachers, they were identified as psychometrically-focused, floating, instructional improvement and standard, need-based and moderately accurate, and student-centred assessors.The categories of assessors identified in this study provide a new framework that improves our understanding of the distinct group of teachers who may approach assessment differently and have different assessment beliefs within and between educational contexts.The interview data also supported the distinct patterns in teachers' assessment approaches based on key themes that concerned formative assessment, using multiple assessment techniques, differentiated and equitable assessment, teachers' views on students' plagiarism, perceptions of awarding non-achievement scores, validity, and reliability in assessment, and educating parents on high stakes examinations.The findings in both phases of the study support the idea that teachers' ability to implement a reliable and valid assessment (i.e., assessment literacy) goes beyond their knowledge and skills in assessment.Based on our person-centred and thematic analysis, assessment literacy also involves how teachers could negotiate their knowledge and skills in assessment with the prevailing conditions in their teaching and learning contexts.This includes but is not limited to the technical and daily assessment and pedagogical issues they encounter during teaching and learning.In an conceptual article that focused on assessment literacy in a better assessment future, Brookhart (2023) highlighted that assessment literacy should involve how teachers integrate their dispositions, identities, and teaching competencies with their skills and knowledge of assessment.Until assessment literacy is broadly considered this way, it may be limited to teachers' cognitive skills in assessment to the neglect of other contextual factors, which may hinder effective assessment approaches.
The findings of this study have implications for assessment theory, teacher professional development, and pedagogy regarding classroom assessment practices.In terms of assessment theory, the current data highlights the importance of viewing teachers' classroom assessment approaches and assessment literacy in general, as situated, and differential activity that is shaped by technical and daily assessment issues teachers encounter in their classrooms.These findings add to the rapidly expanding field of the situated and differential view of assessment literacy, which argues that learning to assess is not only a complex process but also depends on several contextual factors within and across cultures.
Regarding teacher professional development and pedagogy, the findings imply that assessment literacy may not be the same for all teachers in their teaching and learning contexts.Due to certain multilevel factors in their schools and national contexts (see e.g., Fulmer et al., 2015;Xu & Brown, 2016), they are more likely to approach assessment differently.We should also expect that teachers in different educational contexts would have different assessment approaches and beliefs depending on what they experience in their teaching and learning contexts.As such, students would undergo different teaching, learning, and assessment experiences based on how their teachers prioritise and demonstrate literacy in certain assessment domains.As the findings have indicated, teachers may have a strong theoretical understanding of assessment.They may be expected to implement similar assessment strategies in their teaching and learning contexts.However, the technical and daily teaching and assessment issues they may encounter would result in differences in their assessment approaches.This situation presents possible teaching, learning, and assessment discrimination and inequality toward students.
Additionally, teachers' preferences in certain aspects of assessment would suggest that other important assessment aspects may be overlooked.For example, teachers may be literate and interested in test design and equitable assessment but may pay little attention to differentiated, valid, and reliable assessment or fail to communicate assessment results to key stakeholders.On the other hand, teachers may prioritise fair assessment and report assessment results to key stakeholders but may pay little attention to developing reliable and valid formative assessment.These situations may hinder holistic assessment information that can be used to support effective teaching and learning.The presence of this expected discrimination and inequality could be controlled when teachers and education stakeholders demonstrate awareness of these dynamics in teachers' assessment literacy development for the appropriate interventions to be implemented.These may include the provision of continuous assessment training based on contemporary assessment literacy standards and in line with teacher assessment preferences (Abdulghani et al., 2015;Darling-Hammond & Lieberman, 2012;Davidson, 2023).For example, Abdulghani et al. (2015) argued that training in test construction improved teachers' test construction skills significantly.Davidson (2023) corroborated that changes in assessment culture are possible if teachers are well supported in their assessment practices.Teacher could also develop their assessment literacy and control the possible assessment variations through dialogues, selfreflections, and action research in assessment practices in their community of practice (Adie, 2013;Klenowski, 2013) and vicarious learning (Wenger, 1998;Zwozdiak-Myers, 2012).These training opportunities could help teachers learn from each other in several assessment domains, as well as discuss, question, and challenge each other's point of view to improve their assessment literacy.
This study had several limitations.The online survey was done through convenience sampling, which was a non-probability sampling technique that affected the representativeness of a sample.The participants in both study contexts could conveniently access the survey links, which limited the generalisation of the findings across all secondary schools in the two countries.This study sampled Mathematics, Science, English, Social Studies, and General Paper teachers; therefore, the findings could not be generalised to other teaching subjects.Also, this study was limited to the exclusion of observations of teachers' assessment approaches in addition to the online surveys and the interviews, which could limit important insights into teachers' classroom approaches to assessment.
Notwithstanding, this study certainly adds to our understanding of the situated and differential view of teachers' approaches to classroom assessment across cultures.The importance and originality of this study lies in the fact that it is among the few studies, especially in the Southeastern Asian and West African contexts to investigate the different ways teachers respond to technical and daily classroom assessment scenarios in their assessment literacy development.The findings provide an initial understanding of how teachers approach classroom assessment in different educational contexts, which are potentially important enough to improve teachers' assessment literacy, inform the implementation of quality assessment and for future research to replicate.Follow-up studies can be conducted on how teachers approach classroom assessment using larger samples and other subject teachers in both local and international contexts through mixed-method approaches.Further studies could also be conducted on how teachers differ in their assessment literacy with respect to subject areas.The question of how contextual factors (i.e., students, teachers, schools, policymakers in education, and national factors) influence teachers' approaches to classroom assessment and their assessment literacy is also an intriguing one that could be usefully explored in further research.

Figure
Figure 1.Patterns in Bruneian teachers' approaches to classroom assessment.NB: Class 1 -Test design and equitable assessors; Class 2 -Moderately fair and consistent assessors; Class 3-Standardfocused assessors; Class 4 -Highly fair and accurate assessors.
He narrated: I diagnose students' problems . . . .[I] cannot stop the students from plagiarising.That's impossible.They learn from the initiative to copy and paste . . .but they should paraphrase. . . .[I] tell my special students that their brains work a bit differently . . .[I] tend not to devise any special types of assessments for them but join the crowd and [then] see if they can keep up with the pace.And yeah, they're fine . . .[We] teach the students, not the subject . . .[I] do the research on what I'm about to teach, or if it's something that I've taught before . . .[then] I'll reflect on which part worked and which didn't, which part did students really enjoyed . . .[and I] rewrite my exit ticket.So, every week the students must submit something.(BT2)

Figure
Figure 2. Patterns in Ghanaian teachers' approaches to classroom assessment.NB: Class 1 -Psychometrically focused; Class 2 -Floating assessors; Class 3-Instructional improvement and standard assessors; Class 4 -Highly fair and accurate assessors.
It's difficult to reward non-success due to integrity and honesty . . .[I try and] begin lessons with what the students know . . . .begin with some questions, put them into groups, use the pyramid discussion, let them feed on the knowledge from their peers . . . .[I] will inform parents about what their children are going through.I allow parents walkthroughs.Parents should understand the nature of the exam and what we must do for students.(BT5) [So] before students come to class, they already read.I use what they've learned in my lessons . . . .I use oral and written questions when teaching . . .[and] provide feedback.You know feedback is very important to direct their learning . . .[laughs].(GT6)