Reconceptualizing Accountability: The Ethical Importance of Expanding Understandings of Literacy and Assessment for Twenty-First-Century Learners

  • Kathryn Hibbert
  • Luigi Iannacci


A multiliteracies perspective that views accountability as an ethical imperative that is respectful of and responsive to the semiotic diversity within classrooms repositions accountability as responsibility to students, parents and the communities to which they belong. This responsibility focuses on ensuring that the various assets and communication and identity options students have and bring with them to school are accessed, valued, and fostered. This chapter explores what is necessary to reposition literacy and assessment in order for ethical, responsive, and semiotically rich pedagogies and curricula to develop within the current educational climate.


  1. Apple, M. (2000). Between neo-liberalism and neoconservatism: Education and conservatism in a global context. In N. C. Burbules & C. A. Torres (Eds.), Globalization and education: Critical perspectives (pp. 57–77). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Arce, M. C. (2012). Towards an emancipatory discourse of children’s rights. International Journal of Children’s Rights, 20, 365–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Au, W. (2011). Teaching under the new Taylorism: High-stakes testing and the standardization of the 21st century curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(1), 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Au, W., & Ferrare, J. (2015). Introduction: Neoliberalism, social networks, and the new governance of education. In W. Au & J. Ferrare (Eds.), Mapping corporate education reform: Power and policy networks in the neoliberal state (pp. 2–24). New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  5. Bailey, G. (2014). Accountability and the rise of ‘play safe’ pedagogical practices. Education + Training, 56(7), 662–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ball, S. (2015). Education, governance and the tyranny of numbers. Journal of Education Policy, 30(3), 299–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Black, P. (2006). Assessment for learning: Where is it now? Where is it going? In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning through assessment (pp. 9–20). Oxford, UK: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.Google Scholar
  8. Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Books, S. (2002). Making poverty pay: Children and the 1996 welfare law. In G. S. Canella & J. L. Kincheloe (Eds.), Kidworld: Childhood studies, global perspectives and education (pp. 21–38). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  10. Canella, G. S. (2002). Global perspectives, cultural studies, and the construction of a postmodern childhood studies. In G. S. Canella & J. L. Kincheloe (Eds.), Kidworld: Childhood studies, global perspectives, and education (pp. 3–20). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  11. Cannella, G. S., & Viruru, R. (2004). Childhood and post-colonization: Power, education and contemporary practice. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  12. Clarke-Midura, J., & Dede, C. (2010). Assessment, technology and change. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 309–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Code, L. (1987). Epistemic responsibility. London: University Press of New England.Google Scholar
  14. Code, L. (2006). Ecological thinking. The politics of epsitemic location. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009a). “Multiliteracies”: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4, 164–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009b). A grammar of multimodality. International Journal of Learning, 16(2).Google Scholar
  17. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2013). Multiliteracies: New literacies, new learning. In R. M. Hawkings (Ed.), Framing languages and literacies: Socially situated views and perspectives (pp. 105–135). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Cummins, J. (2001). Negotiating identities. Education for empowerment in a diverse society (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: California Association for Bilingual Education.Google Scholar
  19. Dawson, S., & Siemens, G. (2014). Analytics to literacies: The development of a learning analytics framework for multiliteracies assessment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(4), 285–305.Google Scholar
  20. Dei, G. S., & Karumanchry, L. L. (2001). School reform in Ontario: The ‘marketization of education’ and the resulting silence on equity. In J. P. Portelli & R. P. Solomon (Eds.), The erosion of democracy in education: Critique to possibilities (pp. 189–215). Calgary, AB: Detselig Enterprises Ltd.Google Scholar
  21. Delandshere, G. (2002). Assessment as inquiry. Teachers College Record, 104(7), 1461–1484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Delpit, L. (2003). Educators as “Seed People” growing a new future. Educational Researcher, 32(7), 14–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Easthope, C., & Easthope, G. (2000). Intensification, extension, and complexity of teachers’ workload. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 21(1), 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fenwick, T. (2013). Understanding transitions in professional practice and learning: Towards new questions for research. Journal of Workplace Learning, 25(6), 352–367.Google Scholar
  25. Foucault, M. (1977/1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  26. Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4), 777–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Freebody, P., & Luke, A. (2003). Literacy as engaging with new forms of life: The ‘four roles’ model. In G. Bull & M. Anstey (Eds.), The literacy lexicon (2nd ed., pp. 51–66). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  28. Gipps, C. (1994). Beyond testing. Towards a theory of educational assessment. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  29. Harcourt, D., & Hagglund, S. (2013). Turning the UNCRC upside down: A bottom-up perspective on children’s rights. International Journal of Early Years Education, 21(4), 286–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hibbert, K., & Iannacci, L. (2005). From dissemination to discernment: The commodification of literacy instruction and the fostering of ‘good teacher consumerism’. The Reading Teacher, 58(8), 716–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hopmann, S. T. (2008). No child, no school, no state left behind: Schooling in the age of accountability. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(4), 417–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Iannacci, L. (2005). Othered among others: A critical narrative of culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) learners’ literacy and identity in early childhood education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Western Ontario, London.Google Scholar
  33. Iannacci, L. (2015). Reconceptualizing assessment in early childhood education: Narrative documentation and asset-oriented ways of understanding culturally and linguistically diverse children’s literacies. The International Journal of Holistic Early Learning and Development, 2, 17–33.Google Scholar
  34. Iannacci, L. (2016). Impoverished pedagogy: A critical examination of assumptions about poverty, teaching and cultural and linguistic diversity. In S. Singer & M. J. Harkins (Eds.), Voices from the margins: Conversations about schooling, social justice, and diversity. Montreal, PQ: McGill-Queens University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 241–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kereluik, K., Mishra, P., Fahnoe, C., & Terry, L. (2013). What knowledge is of most worth: Teacher knowledge for 21st century learning. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 29(4), 127–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kress, G. (2000). Multimodality: Challenges to thinking about language. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 337–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kritt, D. (2011). Accountability to whom? Testing and social justice. A response to ‘imagining no child left behind freed from neoliberal hijackers’. Democracy and Education, 19(2), 1–5.Google Scholar
  39. Lipman, P. (2011). The new political economy of urban education: Neoliberalism, race and the right to the city. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Lundy, L., Kilkelly, U., & Byrne, B. (2013). Incorporation of the United Nations convention of the rights of the child in law: A comparative review. International Journal of Children’s Rights, 21, 442–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Majhanovich, S. (2005). Immigrant students and Canadian education. Compromised hopes. In S. Majhanovich (Ed.), Comparative and global equity access and democracy in education: Globalization, comparative education and policy research. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  42. McNeil, L. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational cost of standardized testing. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (n.d.). Available
  44. Mitchell, R. C. (2005). Postmodern reflections on the UNCRC: Towards utilising Article 42 as an international compliance indicator. The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 13, 315–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Murphy, S. (2015). Beyond governmentality: The responsible exercise of freedom in pursuit of literacy assessment. In M. Hamilton, R. Heydon, K. Hibbert, & R. Stooke (Eds.), Negotiating spaces for literacy learning (pp. 25–42). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  46. Pinar, W. (2004). What is curriculum theory? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  47. Reynaert, D., Bouverne-de-Bie, M., & Vandevelde, S. (2009). A review of children’s rights literature since the adoption of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Childhood, 16(4), 518–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rheingold, A. (2012). Unalienation recognition as a feature of democratic schooling. Democracy and Education, 20(2), 1–8.Google Scholar
  49. Rose, N. (1998). Inventing our selves: Psychology, power and personhood. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Silva, E. (2009). Measuring skills for 21st century learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(9), 630–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Smyth, J., Dow, A., Hattam, R., Reid, A., & Shacklock, G. (2000). Teachers’ work in a globalizing economy. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  52. Torrance, H. (2007). Assessment as learning? How the use of explicit learning objectives, assessment criteria and feedback in post-secondary education and training can come to dominate learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 14(3), 281–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Torrance, H., & Pryor, J. (1998). Investigating formative assessment: Teaching, learning and assessment in the classroom. London: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  54. United Nations. (1989). Convention of the rights of the child. Available at:
  55. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. (2010). United Nations. Dublin, Ireland: Children’s Rights Alliance.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kathryn Hibbert
    • 1
  • Luigi Iannacci
    • 2
  1. 1.Interdisciplinary Centre for Research in Curriculum as a Social Practice, Faculty of EducationWestern UniversityLondonCanada
  2. 2.School of EducationTrent University, Otonabee CollegePeterboroughCanada

Personalised recommendations