Advertisement

Making Assessment Judgments: Policy, Practice, and Research

Living reference work entry
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE)

Abstract

The focus of this chapter is on the judgment process that underpins any assessment. Whatever form the assessment takes (grades/numbers/ranks) and for whatever motive it is being pursued (summative, formative, diagnostic, or evaluative), teachers will exercise that judgment process. So how do we make the decision that this piece is worth an A and that piece only a D?

There are some particular challenges when assessing technological capability, and these are shaped both by prevailing policy and by traditions of practice. Both have focused on the coursework portfolio that is essentially a storyline demonstrating learners’ journey through a technological task. The portfolio is a complex artifact and has been the target of considerable research.

In this chapter, I will show how our understanding of the judgment process has interacted with the evolution of policy and with the development of portfolio practice. Interestingly, from positions of great divergence, there emerges a common theme that has the potential to take us forward into a richer future.

Keywords

Teacher judgment Performance assessment Holistic assessment Process portfolios Comparative judgment 

References

  1. BBC News, 21 Oct 2014.Google Scholar
  2. Brooks, V. (2012). Marking as judgment. Research Papers in Education, 27(1), 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Daily Telegraph, 12 May 1993.Google Scholar
  4. DES. (1990). Technology in the national curriculum. Department of education and science. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  5. Eisner, E. W. (2002). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  6. Government of West Australia School Curriculum and Standards Authority. (2015). Engineering studies Y11 syllabus and examinations. Available at: http://wace1516.scsa.wa.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/11292/Engineering-Studies-Y11-Syllabus-ATAR-2016-GD_pdf.pdf#page=31
  7. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. London/New York/Toronto: Allen Lane/Penguin.Google Scholar
  8. Kimbell, R. (2012). Understanding assessment: Its importance; its dangers; its potential. In P. J. Williams (Ed.), Technology education for teachers. Rotterdam/Boston/Taipei: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Kimbell, R. (2013). Transferring standards: Judging ‘this-now’, by reference to ‘that-then’. In H. E. Middleton & L. K. S. Baatman (Eds.), Transfer, transitions and transformations of learning. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Kimbell, R., & Stables, K. (2007). Researching design learning. Dordecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kimbell, R., Stables, K., Wheeler, T., Wozniak, A., & Kelly, V. (1991). The assessment of performance in design & technology. London: School Examinations and Assessment Council/Central Office of Information.Google Scholar
  12. Kimbell, R., Wheeler, T., Stables, K., Shepard, T., Pollitt, A., Whitehouse, G., Martin, F., Lambert, D., & Davies, D. (2009). E-scape portfolio assessment phase 3 report. TERU: Goldsmiths University of London.Google Scholar
  13. Laming, D. (2004). Human judgment: The eye of the beholder. London: Thomson.Google Scholar
  14. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. New York State Department of Education. (2015). Teacher certificate examinations: Mathematics subject area test. Available at http://www.nystce.nesinc.com/PDFs/NY_fld04_objs.pdf
  16. NWSEB. (1970). A course of studies in design. North Western Secondary School Examinations Board Manchester: NWSEB.Google Scholar
  17. Penfold, J. (1988). Craft design & technology: Past, present and future. Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books.Google Scholar
  18. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.Google Scholar
  19. Pollitt, A. (2004, September). “Let’s stop marking exams”. Paper given at the IAEA Conference, Philadelphia. Available at: http://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/research/confproceedingsetc/IAEA2004AP
  20. Schools Council. (1975). Education through design and craft. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  21. Seery, N., Canty, D., & Phelan, P. (2012). The validity and value of peer assessment using adaptive comparative judgement in design driven practical education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(2), 205–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stables, K., & Kimbell, R. (2000). The unpickled portfolio; pioneering performance assessment in design & technology. In D&T International Millennium Conference: Learning from experience; Modelling new futures. Wellesbourne: Design and Technology Association.Google Scholar
  23. Suto, I. & Greatorex, J. (2008, September). What goes through an examiner’s mind? Using verbal protocols to gain insights into the GCSE marking process. Paper presented at BERA 2008, University of GlamorganGoogle Scholar
  24. Thurstone, L.L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34, 273–286. Reprinted as Chapter 3 in Thurstone, L. L. (1959). The measurement of values. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. Wiliam, D. (1992). Some technical issues in assessment: A user’s guide. British Journal of Curriculum and Assessment, 2, 11–20.Google Scholar
  26. Wiliam, D. (1994). Assessing authentic tasks: Alternatives to mark-schemes. Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education, 2(1), 48–68.Google Scholar
  27. Wiliam, D. (1996). Standards in examinations: A matter of trust? The Curriculum Journal, 7, 293–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wiliam, D. (1998, July). The validity of teachers’ assessments. Paper presented to Working Group 6 (Research on the Psychology of Mathematics Teacher Development) of the 22nd annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Stellenbosch.Google Scholar
  29. Wilson, T. (2002). Strangers to ourselves: Discovering the adaptive unconscious. Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Goldsmiths, University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations