Assessment portfolios and cognitive demand in teacher education
Evidence from the School of Education, University of Education, The Gambia (UEG)
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 22166172 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Sheriff Ceesay (0009-0002-5982-4912, University of The Gambia), Omar Ceesay (0009-0007-9687-8721, Ministry of Education Science and Technology), Lamin L Kanteh (University of The Gambia), Aboubacarr Jallow (University of The Gambia), Binta J J Jallow (0000-0001-6753-9957, University of The Gambia), Ebriam Bah (University of The Gambia), Michael Hamadi Secka (University of The Gambia), Taofeek Olaniyi (University of The Gambia), Tolulope Olaoluwa Taiwo (University of The Gambia), Idogho Philipa Omamhe (University of The Gambia), Johnson Haniel Pongri (University of The Gambia) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Volume | 11 |
| Publication date | 2026-06-23 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Frontiers in Education (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2504-284X • E-ISSN: 2504-284X |
| Publisher | Frontiers Media SA (PUBLISHER • CH) |
| DOI | 10.3389/feduc.2026.1812002 |
| OpenAlex | W7165688329 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 14 |
Background Assessment shapes learning, but its quality depends on the extent to which assessment practices and examination tasks reflect the intended range of cognitive demand. Objectives To (a) describe patterns of assessment instrument use at the University of Education, The Gambia School of Education; (b) compare lecturers’ intended Bloom's cognitive levels with the observed distribution of those levels in past examinations; and (c) determine the alignment between intentions and observed exam content. Methods A validated Staff Assessment Practices Questionnaire (SAPQ; test–retest reliability α = 0.85) was administered to academic staff ( N = 68) across Brikama and Basse campuses. A content analysis of 643 examination questions between 2021 and 2024 (theory and objective sections) examined distributions of Bloom's cognitive levels in artefacts. Analyses used descriptive statistics with a 3.0 midpoint on a 5-point Likert scale as the “regular use/agreement” threshold. Results Staff reported high use of group work (Mean = 4.12; Often/Always = 86.8%) and oral presentations (Mean = 4.03; 80.9%), regular assignments (Mean = 3.76) and written tests (Mean = 3.75), and infrequent projects (Mean = 2.32; 80.9% never/rarely) and observation checklists (Mean = 2.84; 54.5% never/rarely). Intentions emphasized Comprehension (Mean = 4.41; Often/Always = 92.7%), Application (Mean = 4.24; 88.2%), and Knowledge (Mean = 4.00; 80.9%), with moderate use of Analysis/Synthesis/Create (Means = 3.76–3.88; Often/Always ≈ 78%). Artefact analysis showed a strong skew to Knowledge in theory (45.77%) and objective sections (79.56%); many objective papers contained no Comprehension or Application items (median = 0). Alignment synthesis confirmed convergence on lower-/mid-level emphasis and divergence on higher-order domains, which were not corroborated in artefacts. Conclusions The reported mix of assessment methods was not well reflected in the examination artifacts, and examinations placed excessive emphasis on recall-level tasks. This indicates a persistent gap between intended and enacted cognitive demand. To improve construct validity, authenticity, and cognitive coverage in teacher education, it is recommended that portfolio audits, standardized rubrics and exemplars, item-writing capacity building, post-examination item analysis, and cognitive blueprinting be used
Cognition · Comprehension · Descriptive statistics · Item analysis · Item response theory · Likert scale · Educational Assessment and Pedagogy · Educational Theory and Curriculum Studies · Student Assessment and Feedback
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |