Assessment Understood as Enabling

A Time to Rebalance Improvement and Accountability Goals
  • Claire Wyatt-Smith
  • Valentina Klenowski
  • Peta Colbert
Chapter
Part of the The Enabling Power of Assessment book series (EPAS, volume 1)

Abstract

This chapter outlines a perspective of educational assessment as enabling, whereby the learner is central and assessment is focused on supporting the knowledge, skills and dispositions necessary for lifelong learning. It argues that better education for young people is achievable when educational policy and practice give priority to learning improvement, thereby making assessment for accountability a related, though secondary, concern. The chapter describes how this work of internationally recognized scholars brings together diverse perspectives and theoretical frameworks and, in so doing, provides readers with a range of ways to consider their pathway through the book. A ‘map’ and summaries of chapters suggest a reading according to a thematic approach, geographical setting, author/s profile or content purposes depending on the reader’s own priorities. A section on assessment past, present, and futures calls for a rebalancing of improvement and accountability goals, and for countries to be careful to avoid privileging large-scale testing over other forms of data about learning and achievement.

Keywords

Professional Learning Assessment Practice Assessment Task Summative Assessment Assessment Literacy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ainscow, M. (2010). Achieving excellence and equity: Reflections on the development of practices in one local district over 10 years. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(1), 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
  4. Bishop, R., O’Sullivan, D., & Berryman, M. (2010). Scaling up education reform: Addressing the politics of disparity. Wellington: NZCER Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture (R. Nice, transl., 2nd edn). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Comber, B., & Kamler, B. (2004). Getting out of deficit: Pedagogies of reconnection. Teaching Education, 15(3), 293–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Connolly, S. (2012). ‘Students’ cultural capital: A study of assessment for learning as a field of exchange. Unpublished PhD thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.Google Scholar
  8. Cook, S., & Brown, J. (2005). Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organizational Science, 10(4): 381–400.   <http://orgsci.journal.informs.org/content/10/4/381.short> Accessed 3 Nov 2009.Google Scholar
  9. Cooksey, R., Freebody, P., & Wyatt-Smith, C. M. (2007). Assessment as judgement-in-context: Analysing how teachers evaluate students’ writing. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13(5), 401–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hipwell, P., & Klenowski, V. (2011). A case for addressing the literacy demands of student assessment. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 34(2), 127–146.Google Scholar
  11. Kimber, K., & Wyatt-Smith, C. (2010). Student assessment and digital futures. How shall we know them? In G. Finger & M. Lee (Eds.), The Home–School Nexus: The development of networked school communities (pp. 259–276). Camberwell: ACER Press.Google Scholar
  12. Klenowski, V., & Wyatt-Smith, C. M. (2014). Standards, moderation and teacher judgement: Policy and practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Luke, A., Cazden, C., Coopes, R., Klenowski, V., Ladwig, J., Lester, J., MacDonald, S., Phillips, J., Shield, P., Spina, N., Theroux, P., Tones, M., Villegas, M., & Woods, A. (2013). A summative evaluation of the stronger smarter learning communities project, March 2013 Report, Volume 1. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.Google Scholar
  14. Mahuika, R., Berryman, M., & Bishop, R. (2011). Issues of culture and assessment in New Zealand education pertaining to Mãori students. Assessment Matters, 3, 183–198.Google Scholar
  15. MCEEDYA, Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs. (2009). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Action Plan 2010–2014. Canberra: MCEEDYA.Google Scholar
  16. NRC, National Research Council. (2011). Incentives and test-based accountability in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  17. OECD, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2005). The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities: Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data: Oslo Manual (3rd edn, prepared by the Working Party of National Experts on Scientific and Technology Indicators). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  18. OECD. (2013). Synergies for Better Learning: An International Perspective on Evaluation and Assessment Synergies for Better Learning. Report on Evaluation and Assessment Frameworks for Improving School Outcomes. <www.oecd.org/site/eduistp13/Synergies%20for%20Better%20Learning%20-%20Policy%20Pointers.pdf> Accessed 17 April 2013.
  19. Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). The knowledge creation metaphor-An emergent epistemological approach to learning. Science & Education, 14, 535–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Wyatt-Smith, C. M., & Cumming, J. J. (2003). Curriculum literacies: Expanding domains of assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 10(1), 47–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wyatt-Smith, C. M., & Klenowski, V. (2013). Explicit, latent and meta-criteria: Types of criteria at play in professional judgement. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 20(1), 35–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claire Wyatt-Smith
    • 1
  • Valentina Klenowski
    • 2
  • Peta Colbert
    • 3
  1. 1.Australian Catholic UniversityBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Queensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia
  3. 3.Faculty of Education and ArtsAustralian Catholic UniversityBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations