The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Rethinking assessment in a digital age: opportunities, challenges and risks
Open accessAbstract
While it is frequently argued that assessment sits at the heart of the learning process, in practice assessment often remains narrowly focused on qualifications and reporting achievements, driven by institutional and societal aspirations and tensions such as accountability and economic well being. Yet, the need for assessment to account for the knowledge, skills, dispositions and attitudes necessary to equip young people for a changing and increasingly digital world is also increasingly acknowledged. Based on our recent research review, this article critically examines the role of technology enhanced assessment (or TEA). We argue that while technology offers many potentially creative opportunities for innovation and for rethinking assessment purposes, there are also numerous risks and challenges. In particular we highlight ethical concerns over social exclusion and new forms of digital dividedness and the increasing risks associated with big data and the rise of learning analytics. Finally, we note that much research and innovation happens in silos, where policy, research and practice on assessment, technology enhanced assessment and ethical and political concerns are not linked up. We conclude that there needs to be a much more wide‐ranging, critical and nuanced discussion in educational and policy circles so that debates about the potential of technology can be linked to improving assessment in the light of the range of social and political challenges that such progress presents. We end with some critical questions for policy, practice and research communities, which we offer as a starting point for future thinking and ways forward.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/003465430298487 · Cited by 12,905
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075070600572090 · Cited by 5,846
Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards through Classroom Assessment
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2010) · Phi Delta Kappan · doi:10.1177/003172171009200119 · Cited by 4,231
Confronting the challenges of participatory cultures (media education for the 21st century)
Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Weigel, M., Clinton, K., & Robison, A. J. (2009) · Cited by 1,563
Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology
(2014) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5 · Cited by 1,475
Student Peer Assessment in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Peer and Teacher Marks
Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543070003287 · Cited by 1,170
Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education: Learning for the Longer Term
(2007) · doi:10.4324/9780203964309 · Cited by 1,049
Factors Affecting Technology Uses in Schools: An Ecological Perspective
Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.3102/00028312040004807 · Cited by 947
Säljö, R. (2010) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00341.x · Cited by 514
Blin, F., & Munro, M. (2008) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.017 · Cited by 482
Cited by
Sahu, P. (2020) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.7541 · Cited by 2,353
Spante, M., Hashemi, S. S., Lundin, M., & Algers, A. (2018) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2018.1519143 · Cited by 832
Learning analytics in higher education: a preponderance of analytics but very little learning?
Guzmán-Valenzuela, C., Gómez-González, C., Rojas-Murphy Tagle, A., & Lorca-Vyhmeister, A. (2021) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-021-00258-x · Cited by 131
Ethical issues in learning analytics: a review of the field
Tzimas, D., & Demetriadis, S. (2021) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/s11423-021-09977-4 · Cited by 119
Rise of the Machines? The Evolving Role of AI Technologies in High-Stakes Assessment
Richardson, M., & Clesham, R. (2021) · London Review of Education · doi:10.14324/lre.19.1.09 · Cited by 48
Metadata
- Authors
- Timmis, S., Broadfoot, P., Sutherland, R., & Oldfield, A.
- Venue
- British Educational Research Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-12-19
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 454-476
- ISSN
- 0141-1926 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-3518
- OpenAlex
- W2436493763
- Cited by
- 265
- References
- 58
- FWCI
- 12.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Rethinking assessment in a digital age: opportunities, challenges and risks. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/berj.3215
- The paper
- Timmis, S., Broadfoot, P., Sutherland, R., & Oldfield, A. (2016). Rethinking assessment in a digital age: opportunities, challenges and risks. British Educational Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3215
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.