Internet-Based Assessment 2002 -2004Bibliography |
 |
Assessment for learning (general):
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking University Teaching (2nd.ed). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
A new edition of a classic text which explores a model of teaching and learning
based on the idea that the aim of teaching is to 'make student learning possible'.
Develops a model of education as conversation and gives close attention to assessment
as feedback.
Wootton, S. (2002). Encouraging learning or measuring failure? Teaching in
Higher Education, 7(3), 353-357.
A short polemic based on the claim: 'it is time to re-assess the whole educational
process and the question whether the system exists to encourage learning or
to measure failure.(Contact address: School of Higher Education, Barnsley College,
Church Street, Barnsley, South Yorkshire S70 2YW, United Kingdom.)
Harvey, L. (2002). Evaluation for what? Teaching in Higher Education, 7(3),
245-263.
A review article that argues that 'external evaluation legitimates the status
quo and fails to ask substantial questions about the nature of learning. External
quality monitoring is pre-occupied with method and has almost entirely ignored
a quarter of a century of research into learning theory, the nature and styles
of learning and classroom innovations'. (Contact address: Centre for Research
into Quality, University of Central England, 90 Aldridge Rd. Perry Barr, Birmingham
B42 2TP, United Kingdom.)
Assessment for learning (key ideas):
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment
(2001). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
This influential text was produced after extensive trialling. It was prepared
for language teachers, but can be generalised to other areas of performance.
It focuses on the assessment of performance, and on the differentiation of different
levels of performance.
Tara, M. (2002). Using assessment for learning and learning from assessment.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(6), 501-510.
A fine review, derived from Sadler's work, of the role of feedback in student
learning through both formative and summative assessment. Contact address: School
of Education, Chester Road, Sunderland SR1 3SD. United Kingdom (maddalena.taras@sunderland.ac.uk).
History of testing:
Wolf, A. (2002). Ships in the American night?: Assessment paradigms and political
imperatives. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 9(3),
379-386.
An essay review of a range of recent texts arising from the growth of testing
in the USA. Suggests, however, that the 'whole delivers so much less that is
novel….Which is sad because improving the nature of large-scale assessments
and the way they affect teaching and learning is undojbtedly the major assessment
issue of the decade' (contact address: Institute of Education, Bedford Way,
London WC1H OAL.)
Assessment as a socio-technical process:
Stake, Robert E. (1999) The Goods on American Education. Phi Delta Kappan, May,
668-672.
A thorough review of the consequences of 'raising the stakes' of assessment
in educational institutions. Contact Address: School of Education, University
of Illinois, Champaign, IL 61820.
Grant, S. G. (2001). An uncertain lever: Exploring the influence of state-level
testing in New York State on teaching social studies. Teachers College Record,
103(3), 398-426.
A valuable paper related to discussions about high stakes testing and the impact
of test policy on schoolroom practice. Based on fieldwork in schoolrooms, it
suggests that test policy is substantially mediated by the teaching context
that it remains 'an uncertain lever'.
Gerard, B. (2002). Reflection in a critical eye: on the pitfalls of international
assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 9(3),
387-399.
An essay review of Knowledge and Skills for Life, the first results from the
OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Comments, for instance,
on the 'overconfidence' of the report, its exaggerated emphasis on the socio-economic
analysis of the results to the detriment of a contenxtual understanding of the
outcomes' and the 'definite bias in the report in favour of assessing education
from the point of view of economic efficiency somewhat overshadows another conception
of education, prevailing in Europe, whereby education is just as much about
social cohesion, personal fulfilment and cultural development'. (Contact address:
Bedford Group, Institute of Education, Bedford Way, London WC1H OAL.)
Broadfoot, P. (2002). Editorial: Beware the consequences of assessment! Assessment
in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 9(3), 285-288.
Suggest that the 'most important lesson' of the past decade is that 'it is essentiala
that as much effort be given to documenting the impoact of assessment as has
been traditionally been given to its design. Otherwise we are not only wasting
our time as a community of scholars and practitioners; we may be also be in
danger of unwittingly unleashing a Frankenstein's monster. Indeed, we may have
already done so'. (Contact Address: Graduate School of Education, University
of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1JA.)
Impact of the internet on testing:
Bennett, R. E. (2002). Inexorable and inevitable: The continuing story of technology
and assessment. Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment ., 1(1). Available
from www.jtla.org.
Written by a 'distinguished presidential appointee at Educational Testing Services
in Princeton', this paper concludes that educational efforts (in the USA) 'need
to go beyond the initial achievement of computerizing traditional multiple-choice
tests to create assessment that facilitate learning and instruction in ways
that paper measures cannot'.
S. Woolgar (ed.) (2002) Virtual Society? -technology, cyberbole, reality. Oxford
Oxford University Press.
Provides valuable background to the social dimensions of technological change.
It offers a counter-intuitive vision of the impact of new technologies, set
against the question: Are we moving to a virtual society?
Pedagogics:
McConnell, D. (2002). The experience of collaborative assessment in e-learning.
Studies in Continuing Education, 24(1), 73-92.
An interesting study of how students were able to engage in peer assessment,
given the prior existence of clear criteria (of the kind identified in the Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages, 2001). Contact address: School
of Education, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2JN, United Kingdom (d.mcconnell@sheffield.ac.uk).
Ricketts, C., & Wilks, S. J. (2002). Improving student performance through
computer-based assessment: Insights from recent research. Assessment and Evaluation
in Higher Education, 27(5), 475-479.
A short but provocative study of how the presentation of on-line testing affects
the outcomes. Different performance was produced by presenting questions collectively,
and presenting them one at a time. Contact address: C. Ricketts, Dept. of Mathematics
and Statistics, University of Plymouth, Plymouth PL4 8AA.)