The assessment of students, along with teachers and school systems, has largely taken place within a context of positivist science. An enormous range of scholarship now challenges the positivist paradigm, offering a social espistemological alternative. This alternative invites a reexamination of assessment processes and their policy implications.
Purpose/Objective
After sketching out the social constructionist alternative to positivist epistemology, the research centered on the pragmatics of existing assessment practices, including an analysis of who is helped or harmed but such practices.
Setting
The research included extended across a wide range of contemporary educational settings.
Research Design
The research was primarily analytic, drawing from wide-ranging sources in education and allied disciplines.
Conclusions/Recommendations
Among the general outcomes of current assessment practices are the fostering of social division and distrust, the creation of hierarchies of worth, and the diminution of pluralism. Within educational systems we find a sacrifice of curriculum and pedagogy for the production of higher test scores, and the diminution of teacher motivation and engagement. Within communities, there is a disregard for local needs and values, a loss in student motivation, and an increase in family tensions. Possible alternatives to current testing practices, along with recommendations for future policies, are considered.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BanduraA. (1994). Self-efficacy. In RamachaudranV. S. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (vol. 4, pp. 71–81). New York: Academic Press.
2.
BellahR. N., MadsenR., SullivanW. M., SwidlerA., & TiptonS. M. (1985). Habits of the heart: Individuals and commitment in American life. Berkeley: University of CA Press.
3.
Center for Education Policy. (2005). From the capital to the classroom: Year 3 of the No Chld Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Center for Education Policy Report.
4.
CoghlanA. T., PreskillH., & CatsambasT. T. (2003). An overview of appreciative inquiry in evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 100(Winter).
5.
CousinsJ. B., & WhitmoreE. (1998). Framing participatory evaluation. In WhitmoreE. (Ed.), Understanding and practicing participatory evaluation. Hoboken: Jossey Bass.
6.
Dahler-LarsenP. (2011). The evaluation society. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Business School Press.
7.
DerridaJ. (1976). Of grammatology. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
8.
DinesenM. S. (2009). Systemic appreciative evaluation: Developing quality instead of just measuring it. AI Practitioner, 11, 49–56.
9.
Dixon-RománE. (2010). Inheritance and an economy of difference: The importance of supplementary education. In LinL., GordonE. W., & VarenneH. (Eds.), Educating comprehensively: Varieties of educational experiences. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.
DuhemP. (1954). The aim and structure of physical theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press. (Originally published in 1914)
12.
FettermanD. M. (2000). Foundations of empowerment evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
FettermanD. M., & WandersmanA. (Eds.). (2004). Empowerment evaluation, principles in practice. New York: Guilford.
14.
FettermanD. M., & WandersmanA. (2007). Empowerment evaluation, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. American Journal of Evaluation, 28, 179–198.
15.
FishmanS., & McCarthyL. (2000). Unplayed tapes: A personal history of teacher research. New York: Teachers College Press.
16.
FleckL. (1979). Genesis and development of scientific fact. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Originally published in 1935)
17.
FoucaultM. (1978). The history of sexuality, Vol. 1, an introduction. New York: Pantheon.
18.
FoucaultM. (1980). Power/knowledge. New York: Pantheon.
19.
GeeJ. P. (2008a). A sociocultural perspective on opportunity to learn. In MossP. A., PullinD. C., GeeJ. P., HaertelE. H. & YoungL. J. (Eds.), Assessment, equity, and opportunity to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
20.
GeeJ. P. (2008b). Game-like learning: An example of situated learning and implications for opportunity to learn. In MossP. A., PullinD. C., GeeJ. P., HaertelE. H. & YoungL. J. (Eds.), Assessment, equity, and opportunity to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
21.
GenetteG. (1980). Narrative discourse. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
22.
GergenK. J. (1973). Social psychology as history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 309–320.
23.
GergenK. J. (2009). Relational being: Beyond self and community. New York: Oxford University Press.
24.
GreeneJ. C. (2001). Dialogue in evaluation, A relational perspective. Evaluation, 7, 181–187.
25.
GrossA. (1996). The rhetoric of science.Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
26.
GurvitchG. (1966). The social frameworks of knowledge. New York: Harper and Row.
27.
GutiérrezR., & Dixon-RománE. (2011). Beyond gap gazing: How can thinking about education comprehensively help us (re)envision mathematics education? In AtwehB., GravenM., SecadaW., & ValeroP. (Eds.), Mapping equity and quality in mathematics education. New York: Springer.
28.
HabermasJ. (1971). Knowledge and human interest. Boston: Beacon Press.
29.
KuhnT. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30.
LandauM. (1993). Narratives of human evolution. New Haven: Yale University Press.
31.
LearyD. (1990). Metaphors in the history of psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
32.
MartinE. (1987). The woman in the body: A cultural analysis of reproduction. Boston: Beacon Press.
33.
McNamaraT., & RoeverC. (2006). Language testing: The social dimension.Oxford: Blackwell.
34.
MislevyR. J. (1997). Postmodern test theory. In LesgoldA., FeuerM. J., & BlackA. M. (Eds.), Transitions in work and learning: Implications for assessment (pp. 280–299). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
35.
MossP. A., PullinD. C., GeeJ. P., HaertelE. H., & YoungL. J. (2008). Assessment, equity, and opportunity to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
36.
MyfordC. M., & MislevyR. J. (1996). Monitoring and improving a portfolio assessment system. CSE Technical Report 402. Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
NussbaumM. C. (2011). Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.
39.
PopperK. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge.
40.
PorterT. M. (1996). Trust in numbers. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
41.
PreskillH., & CatsambasT. T. (2006). Reframing evaluation through appreciative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
42.
QuineW. V. O. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
43.
RavitchD. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York: Basic Books.
44.
ResnickL., & ZurawskyC. (2005). Standards-based reform and accountability: Getting back on course. American Educator, Spring, 1–13.
45.
RyanK. E., & DeStefanoL. (Eds.). (2000). Evaluation as a democratic process: Promoting inclusion, dialogue, and deliberation.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
46.
SchwandtT. A. (2005). A diagnostic reading of scientifically based research for education. Educational Theory, 55, 285–305.
47.
ScottJ. C. (1999). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.
48.
ShaniA. B., MohrmanS. A., PasmoreW. A., StymneB., & AdlerN. (2007). (Eds.). Handbook of collaborative management research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
49.
WinchP. (1946). The idea of a social science. London: Routledge, Kegan, Paul.
