There is little question that education is changing, seemingly quickly and in some cases dramatically. The mechanisms through which individuals learn are shifting from paper-based ones to electronic media. Simultaneously, the nature of what individuals must learn is evolving, in good part due to an exponential accumulation of knowledge and of technology to access, share, and exploit that knowledge. Finally, how education is organized, offered, and administered is undergoing transformation, most apparently—but not only—in higher education. With potentially seismic changes in the mechanisms, nature, and organization of education must also come changes in educational assessment.
Purpose
This paper makes 13 claims about what educational assessment must do if it is to remain relevant in the face of rapid and potentially dramatic changes in education and society.
Research Design
Analytic essay.
Conclusions/Recommendations
If it is to remain relevant, educational assessment must provide meaningful information; satisfy multiple purposes; use modern conceptions of competency as a design basis; align test and task designs, scoring, and interpretation with those modern conceptions; adopt modern methods for designing and interpreting complex assessments; account for context; design for fairness and accessibility; design for positive impact; design for engagement; incorporate information from multiple sources; respect privacy; gather and share validity evidence; and use technology to achieve substantive goals.
BennettR. E. (2005). What does it mean to be a nonprofit educational measurement organization in the 21st century?Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/Nonprofit.pdf
3.
BennettR. E. (2010). Cognitively based assessment of, for, and as learning: A preliminary theory of action for summative and formative assessment. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 8, 70–91.
4.
BennettR. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 18, 5–25.
5.
BennettR. E., & GitomerD. H. (2009). Transforming K-12 assessment: Integrating accountability testing, formative assessment, and professional support. In Wyatt-SmithC. & CummingJ. (Eds.), Educational assessment in the 21st century (pp. 43–61). New York: Springer.
6.
BennettR. E., MorleyM., & QuardtD. (2000). Three response types for broadening the conception of mathematical problem solving in computerized tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 294–309.
7.
BennettR. E., PerskyH., WeissA., & JenkinsF. (2010). Measuring problem solving with technology: A demonstration study for NAEP. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 8(8). Retrieved from http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/jtla/issue/view/166
8.
BennettR. E., & WardW. C. (Eds). (1993). Construction vs. choice in cognitive measurement: Issues in constructed response, performance testing, and portfolio assessment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
9.
BlackP., & WiliamD. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74
10.
BlackP., & WiliamD. (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148.
11.
BlackP., & WiliamD. (1998c). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment.London: Kings College, London School of Education.
12.
BrighamC. C. (1923). A study of American intelligence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
13.
BrighamC. C. (1930). Intelligence tests of immigrant groups. Psychological Review, 37, 158–165.
14.
CoffeyJ. E., HammerD., LevinD. M., & GrantT. (2011). The missing disciplinary substance of formative assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 1109–1136.
15.
ColeN. S., & ZiekyM. J. (2001). The new faces of fairness. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 369–382.
16.
CorcoranT., MosherF. A., & RogatA. (2009). Learning progressions in science: An evidence-based approach to reform.New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
17.
DaroP., MosherF. A., & CorcoranT. (2011). Learning trajectories in mathematics: A foundation for standards, curriculum, assessment, and instruction.Philadelphia, PA: Center for Policy Research in Education.
18.
Educational Testing Service (ETS). (2012). The CBAL English Language Arts (ELA) Competency Model and provisional learning progressions.Princeton, NJ: Author. Retrieved from http://elalp.cbalwiki.ets.org/
19.
GeeJ. P., & HayesE. R. (2011). Language and learning in the digital age.Milton Park, Abingdon, England: Routledge.
20.
GordonE. W. (2007). Intellective competence: The universal currency in technologically advanced societies. In GordonE. W. & BridglallB. R. (Eds.), Affirmative development: Cultivating academic ability (pp. 3–16). Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield.
21.
KaneM. (2006). Validation. In BrennanR. (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 17–64). Westport, CT: American Council on Education and Praeger.
22.
KapurM. (2010). Productive failure in mathematical problem solving. Instructional Science, 38(6), 523–550
23.
KingstonN., & NashB. (2011). Formative assessment: A meta-analysis and a call for research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(4), 28–37
24.
KoretzD. M., & HamiltonL. S. (2006). Testing for accountability in K-12. In BrennanR. (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 531–578). Westport, CT: American Council on Education and Praeger.
25.
LinnR. L., & BurtonE. (1994). Performance-based assessment: Implications of task specificity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 13(1), 5–8
26.
LuechtR. M. (2009). Adaptive computer-based tasks under an assessment engineering paradigm. In WeissD. J. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2009 GMAC Conference on Computerized Adaptive Testing.
27.
MessickS. (1992). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments (Research Report 92-39). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service
28.
MislevyR. J., AlmondR. G., & LukasJ. F. (2003). A brief introduction to evidence-centered design (Research Report 03-16). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service
29.
MiyazakiI. (1976). China's examination hell: The civil service examinations of Imperial China. New York: Weatherhill.
30.
MyfordC. E., & MislevyR. J. (1995). Monitoring and improving a portfolio assessment system (MS-94-05). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
31.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council for Chief State School Officers (NGO & CCSSO). (2010). Common core state standards. Washington, DC: Author.
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers. (2010). The Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) application for the Race to the Top Comprehensive Assessment Systems Competition.
35.
PellegrinoJ. W., ChudowskiN., & GlaserR. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment.Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
ShafferD. W., & GeeJ. P. (2006). How computer games help children learn.Houdsmills, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.
40.
ShepardL. A. (1991). Psychometricians beliefs about learning. Educational Researcher, 20, 2–16.
41.
ShermanS. W., & RobinsonN. M. (Eds.). (1982). Ability testing of handicapped people: Dilemma for government, science, and the public.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
42.
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. (2010). Race to the Top Assessment Program application for new grants: Comprehensive assessment systemsCFDA Number: 84.395B.
43.
State of New Jersey, Department of Education. (n.d. a). NCLB school, district, and state reports.Trenton, NJ: Author.
44.
State of New Jersey, Department of Education. (n.d. b). Guide to the New Jersey school report card 2011. Trenton, NJ: Author.
