Abstract
Within self-regulated learning, learners exercise agency by setting targets, formatively monitoring progress, and evaluating results in ways which inform their own goal attainment. However, in real-world classroom situations, assessment processes can elicit behaviours that are more ego-protective than growth-oriented. Resistance to teacher expectations in assessment can arise from the individual’s need to protect his or her own identity or ego within the psychosocial context of the classroom. In addition, resistance can arise from strategic choices learners make to cope with competing demands on their time and resources. Thus, students may exercise their agency by not following assessment expectations or protocols (e.g. lying, cheating, or failing to give their best effort). These choices seem to undermine assessment validity. This paper shares student voice data from the Measuring Teachers’ Assessment Practices (MTAP) project (n = 46 students in seven focus groups) in New Zealand and the Supporting Student-assessment Success (SSAS) Project (n = 108 first-year university students) in Australia. Both highlight the different ways students resist, subvert, or act in contention with assessment. These data show that students in both sectors do not always act in the growth-oriented ways that educators envision. Students reported exercising potentially maladaptive assessment agency via Assessment dishonesty, Purposeful underperformance, and Doing it alone. These categories were underpinned by three differing rationales: Protection, Strategic prioritisation, and Mini-max. Educators must be mindful of these potential student actions and motives, working to establish psychological safety within the learning environment, and making sure links between learning and assessment are clear.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Andrade, H. L., & Brown, G. T. L. (2016). Student self-assessment in the classroom. In G. T. L. Brown & L. R. Harris (Eds.), Handbook of human and social conditions in assessment (pp. 319–334). New York: Routledge.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31.
Boekaerts, M. (1997). Self-regulated learning: A new concept embraced by researchers, policy makers, educators, teachers, and students. Learning and Instruction, 7, 161–186.
Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology, 54(2), 199–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00205.
Bradley, D., Noonan, P., Nugent, H., & Scales, B. (2008). Review of Australian higher education. Canberra: Australian Government.
Brown, G. T. L., & Harris, L. R. (2016). The future of assessment as a human and social endeavour. In G. T. L. Brown & L. R. Harris (Eds.), Handbook of human and social conditions in assessment (pp. 506–523). New York: Routledge.
Brown, G. T. L., Peterson, E. R., & Yao, E. S. (2016). Student conceptions of feedback: Impact on self-regulation, self-efficacy, and academic achievement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(4), 606–629. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12126.
Clance, P. R., & Imes, S. A. (1978). The imposter phenomenon in high achieving women: Dynamics and therapeutic intervention. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 15(3), 241–247. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0086006.
Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary research strategies. London: Sage.
Covington, M. V., & Teel, K. M. (1996). Overcoming student failure: Changing motives and incentives for learning. Washington, DC: APA.
Crooks, T. (2011). Assessment for learning in the accountability era: New Zealand. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 71–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.002.
Dawson, P., & Sutherland-Smith, W. (2017). Can markers detect contract cheating? Results from a pilot study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1336746.
Dinsmore, D. L., & Wilson, H. E. (2016). Student participation in assessment: Does it influence self-regulation? In G. T. L. Brown & L. R. Harris (Eds.), Handbook of human and social factors in assessment (pp. 145–168). New York: Routledge.
Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. M. (2004). Flawed self-assessment: Implications for health, education, and the workplace. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(3), 69–106.
Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023. https://doi.org/10.1086/231294.
Hall, K., Collins, J., Benjamin, S., Nind, M., & Sheehy, K. (2004). SATurated models of pupildom: Assessment and inclusion/exclusion. British Educational Research Journal, 30(6), 801–817. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192042000279512.
Harris, L. R. (2015, April 16–20). Reviewing research on parent attitudes towards school assessment: Implications for classroom assessment practices. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, Illinois.
Harris, L. R., & Brown, G. T. L. (2013). Opportunities and obstacles to consider when using peer- and self-assessment to improve student learning: Case studies into teachers’ implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.07.008.
Harris, L. R., & Brown, G. T. L. (2016). Assessment and parents. In M. A. Peters (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational philosophy and theory (pp. 1–6). Singapore: Springer.
Harris, L., Brown, G. L., & Harnett, J. (2014). Understanding classroom feedback practices: A study of New Zealand student experiences, perceptions, and emotional responses. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 26(2), 107–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-013-9187-5.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
Huberman, A. M., Miles, M. B., & Saldana, J. M. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Lipnevich, A. A., Berg, D. A. G., & Smith, J. K. (2016). Toward a model of student response to feedback. In G. T. L. Brown & L. R. Harris (Eds.), The handbook of human and social conditions in assessment (pp. 169–185). New York: Routledge.
Meyer, L. H., McClure, J., Walkey, F., Weir, K. F., & McKenzie, L. (2009). Secondary student motivation orientations and standards-based achievement outcomes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(2), 273–293. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709908X354591.
Ministry of Education. (2010). Ministry of Education Position Paper: Assessment [Schooling Sector]: Ko te Wharangi Takotoranga Arunga, a te Tauhuhu o te Matauranga, te matekitenga. Retrieved from http://www.minedu.govt.nz/theMinistry/PublicationsAndResources/AssessmentPositionPaper.aspx.
Murdock, T. B., Stephens, J. M., & Groteweil, M. M. (2016). Student dishonesty in the face of assessment: Who, why, and what we can do about it. In G. T. L. Brown & L. R. Harris (Eds.), Handbook of human and social conditions in assessment (pp. 186–203). New York: Routledge.
Nichols, S. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Panadero, E. (2016). Is it safe? Social, interpersonal, and human effects of peer assessment: A review and future directions. In G. T. L. Brown & L. R. Harris (Eds.), Handbook of human and social conditions in assessment (pp. 247–266). New York: Routledge.
Reay, D., & Wiliam, D. (1999). ‘I’ll be a nothing’: Structure, agency and the construction of identity through assessment. British Educational Research Journal, 25(3), 343–354.
Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 579–595. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032690.
Reeve, J., & Tseng, C.-M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002.
Vogl, E., & Pekrun, R. (2016). Emotions that matter to achievement: Student feelings about assessment. In G. T. L. Brown & L. R. Harris (Eds.), Handbook of human and social conditions in assessment (pp. 111–128). New York: Routledge.
Wiliam, D. (2010). An integrative summary of the research literature and implications for a new theory of formative assessment. In H. Andrade & G. J. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 18–40). New York: Routledge.
Winne, P. H. (2011). A cognitive and metacognitive analysis of self-regulated learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 15–32). New York: Routledge.
Wise, S. L., & Smith, L. F. (2016). The validity of assessment when students don’t give good effort. In G. T. L. Brown & L. R. Harris (Eds.), Handbook of human and social conditions in assessment (pp. 204–220). New York: Routledge.
Zeichner, N. (2013). Mapping a teacher boycott in Seattle. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(2), 52.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166–183. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207312909.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Harris, L.R., Brown, G.T.L. & Dargusch, J. Not playing the game: student assessment resistance as a form of agency. Aust. Educ. Res. 45, 125–140 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-018-0264-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-018-0264-0