CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 70

The past, present and future of educational assessment: a transdisciplinary perspective

Brown, Gavin T. L.·2022·Frontiers in Education
DOI 10.3389/feduc.2022.1060633
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

To see the horizon of educational assessment, a history of how assessment has been used and analysed from the earliest records, through the 20th century, and into contemporary times is deployed. Since paper-and-pencil assessments validity and integrity of candidate achievement has mattered. Assessments have relied on expert judgment. With the massification of education, formal group-administered testing was implemented for qualifications and selection. Statistical methods for scoring tests (classical test theory and item response theory) were developed. With personal computing, tests are delivered on-screen and through the web with adaptive scoring based on student performance. Tests give an ever-increasing verisimilitude of real-world processes, and analysts are creating understanding of the processes test-takers use. Unfortunately testing has neglected the complicating psychological, cultural, and contextual factors related to test-taker psychology. Computer testing neglects school curriculum and classroom contexts, where most education takes place and where insights are needed by both teachers and learners. Unfortunately, the complex and dynamic processes of classrooms are extremely difficult to model mathematically and so remain largely outside the algorithms of psychometrics. This means that technology, data, and psychometrics have become increasingly isolated from curriculum, classrooms, teaching, and the psychology of instruction and learning. While there may be some integration of these disciplines within computer-based testing, this is still a long step from where classroom assessment happens. For a long time, educational, social, and cultural psychology related to learning and instruction have been neglected in testing. We are now on the cusp of significant and substantial development in educational assessment as greater emphasis on the psychology of assessment is brought into the world of testing. Herein lies the future for our field: integration of psychological theory and research with statistics and technology to understand processes that work for learning, identify how well students have learned, and what further teaching and learning is needed. The future requires greater efforts by psychometricians, testers, data analysts, and technologists to develop solutions that work in the pressure of living classrooms and that support valid and reliable assessment.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/feduc.2022.1060633

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 56

  1. Assessment Reform Group (2002). Assessment for learning: 10 principles Research- based Principles to Guide Classroom Practice Cambridge: Assessment Reform Group. Autoimmunity Research Foundation. (2012). Differences between in vitro, in vivo, and in silico studies [online]. The Marshall Protocol Knowledge Base. Available at: http://mpkb.org/home/patients/assessing_literature/in_vitro_studies (Accessed November 12, 2015).
  2. Bennett, R. E. (2018). Educational assessment: what to watch in a rapidly changing world. Educ. Meas. Issues Pract. 37, 7-15. doi: 10.1111/emip.12231 · DOI
  3. Biggs, J., Kember, D., and Leung, D. Y. (2001). The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 71, 133-149. doi: 10.1348/000709901158433 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human Characteristics and School Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  5. Bloom, B., Hastings, J., and Madaus, G. (1971). Handbook on Formative and Summative Evaluation of Student Learning. New York:McGraw Hill.
  6. Boekaerts, M., and Niemivirta, M. (2000). "Self-regulated learning: finding a balance between learning goals and ego-protective goals, " in Handbook of Self- regulation. eds. M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich and M. Zeidner (San Diego, CA: Academic Press).
  7. Brown, G. T. L. (2011). Self-regulation of assessment beliefs and attitudes: a review of the Students' conceptions of assessment inventory. Educ. Psychol. 31, 731-748. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2011.599836 · DOI
  8. Brown, G. T. L. (2013). "Assessing assessment for learning: reconsidering the policy and practice, " in Making a Difference in Education and Social Policy. eds. M. East and S. May (Auckland, NZ: Pearson).
  9. Brown, G. T. L. (2019). Is assessment for learning really assessment? Front. Educ. 4:64. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2019.00064 · DOI
  10. Brown, G. T. L. (2020a). Responding to assessment for learning: a pedagogical method, not assessment. N. Z. Annu. Rev. Educ. 26, 18-28. doi: 10.26686/nzaroe. v26.6854 · DOI
  11. Brown, G. T. L. (2020b). Schooling beyond COVID-19: an unevenly distributed future. Front. Educ. 5:82. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2020.00082 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Brown, G. T. L., and Harris, L. R. (2014). The future of self-assessment in classroom practice: reframing self-assessment as a core competency. Frontline Learn. Res. 3, 22-30. doi: 10.14786/flr.v2i1. · DOI
  13. Brown, G. T. L., O'leary, T. M., and Hattie, J. A. C. (2018). "Effective reporting for formative assessment: the asTTle case example, " in Score Reporting: Research and Applications. ed. D. Zapata-Rivera (New York: Routledge).
  14. S. Suggate and E. Reese (New York: Routledge).
  15. Buckendahl, C. W. (2016). "Public perceptions about assessment in education, " in Handbook of Human and Social Conditions in Assessment. eds. G. T. L. Brown and L. R. Harris (New York: Routledge). China Civilisation Centre (2007). China: Five Thousand Years of History and Civilization. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press.
  16. Clauser, B. E. (2022). "A history of classical test theory, " in The History of Educational Measurement: Key Advancements in Theory, Policy, and Practice. eds. B. E. Clauser and M. B. Bunch (New York: Routledge).
  17. Croft, M., and Beard, J. J. (2022). "Development and evolution of the SAT and ACT, " in The History of Educational Measurement: Key Advancements in Theory, Policy, and Practice. eds. B. E. Clauser and M. B. Bunch (New York: Routledge).
  18. Cronbach, L. J. (1954). Report on a psychometric mission to Clinicia. Psychometrika 19, 263-270. doi: 10.1007/BF02289226 · DOI
  19. Dawson, P. (2021). Defending Assessment Security in a Digital World: Preventing e-cheating and Supporting Academic Integrity in Higher Education. London: Routledge.
  20. Denny, P., Hamer, J., Luxton-Reilly, A., and Purchase, H. PeerWise: students sharing their multiple choice questions. ICER '08: Proceedings of the Fourth international Workshop on Computing Education Research; September6-7 (2008). Sydney, Australia, 51-58.
  21. Elman, B. A. (2013). Civil Examinations and Meritocracy in Late IMPERIAL China. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  22. Feng, Y. (1995). From the imperial examination to the national college entrance examination: the dynamics of political centralism in China's educational enterprise. J. Contemp. China 4, 28-56. doi: 10.1080/10670569508724213 · DOI
  23. Gierl, M. J., and Lai, H. (2016). A process for reviewing and evaluating generated test items. Educ. Meas. Issues Pract. 35, 6-20. doi: 10.1111/emip.12129 · DOI
  24. Gipps, C. V. (1994). Beyond Testing: Towards a Theory of Educational Assessment. London: Falmer Press.
  25. Greiff, S., Wüstenberg, S., and Avvisati, F. (2015). Computer-generated log-file analyses as a window into students' minds? A showcase study based on the PISA 2012 assessment of problem solving. Comput. Educ. 91, 92-105. doi: 10.1016/j. compedu.2015.10.018 · DOI
  26. Hancock, D., Hare, N., Denny, P., and Denyer, G. (2018). Improving large class performance and engagement through student-generated question banks. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 46, 306-317. doi: 10.1002/bmb.21119 · DOI
  27. Harris, L. R., and Brown, G. T. L. (2016). "Assessment and parents, " in Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy And theory. ed. M. A. Peters (Springer: Singapore).
  28. Hattie, J. Models of self-concept that are neither top-down or bottom-up: the rope model of self-concept. 3rd International Biennial Self Research Conference; July, (2004). Berlin, DE.
  29. Hattie, J. A., and Brown, G. T. L. (2008). Technology for school-based assessment and assessment for learning: development principles from New Zealand. J. Educ. Technol. Syst. 36, 189-201. doi: 10.2190/ET.36.2.g Inhelder, B., and Piaget, J. (1958). The Growth of Logical Thinking from Childhood to Adolescence. New York; Basic Books Brown 10.3389/feduc.2022.1060633 Frontiers in Education 08 frontiersin.org · DOI
  30. Kingston, N. M., Alonzo, A. C., Long, H., and Swinburne Romine, R. (2022). Editorial: the use of organized learning models in assessment. Front. Education 7:446. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.1009446 · DOI
  31. Kline, R. B. (2020). "Psychometrics, " in SAGE Research Methods Foundations. eds.
  32. Lingard, B., and Lewis, S. (2016). "Globalization of the Anglo-American approach to top-down, test-based educational accountability, " in Handbook of Human and Social Conditions in Assessment. eds. G. T. L. Brown and L. R. Harris (New York: Routledge).
  33. Lundgren, E., and Eklöf, H. (2020). Within-item response processes as indicators of test-taking effort and motivation. Educ. Res. Eval. 26, 275-301. doi: 10.1080/13803611.2021.1963940 · DOI
  34. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., Artelt, C., Baumert, J., and Peschar, J. L. (2006). OECD's brief self-report measure of educational psychology's most useful affective constructs: cross-cultural, psychometric comparisons across 25 countries. Int. J. Test. 6, 311-360. doi: 10.1207/s15327574ijt0604_1 · DOI
  35. Mcmillan, J. H. (2016). "Section discussion: student perceptions of assessment, " in Handbook of Human and Social Conditions in Assessment. eds. G. T. L. Brown and L. R. Harris (New York: Routledge).
  36. Meissel, K., Meyer, F., Yao, E. S., and Rubie-Davies, C. M. (2017). Subjectivity of teacher judgments: exploring student characteristics that influence teacher judgments of student ability. Teach. Teach. Educ. 65, 48-60. doi: 10.1016/j. tate.2017.02.021 · DOI
  37. Murdock, T. B., Stephens, J. M., and Groteweil, M. M. (2016). "Student dishonesty in the face of assessment: who, why, and what we can do about it, " in Handbook of Human and Social Conditions in assessment. eds. G. T. L. Brown and L. R. Harris (New York: Routledge). National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. The National Academies Press.
  38. eds. G. T. L. Brown and L. R. Harris (New York: Routledge).
  39. Panadero, E. (2016). "Is it safe? Social, interpersonal, and human effects of peer assessment: a review and future directions, " in Handbook of Human and Social Conditions in Assessment. eds. G. T. L. Brown and L. R. Harris (New York: Routledge).
  40. Rogoff, B. (1991). "The joint socialization of development by young children and adults, " in Learning to Think: Child Development in Social Context 2. eds. P. Light, S. Sheldon and M. Woodhead (London: Routledge).
  41. Stobart, G. (2005). Fairness in multicultural assessment systems. Assess. Educ. Principles Policy Pract. 12, 275-287. doi: 10.1080/09695940500337249 · DOI
  42. eds. G. T. L. Brown and L. R. Harris (New York: Routledge).
  43. Thorndike, E. L. (1924). Measurement of intelligence. Psychol. Rev. 31, 219-252. doi: 10.1037/h0073975 · DOI
  44. Von Davier, A. A., Deonovic, B., Yudelson, M., Polyak, S. T., and Woo, A. (2019). Computational psychometrics approach to holistic learning and assessment systems. Front. Educ. 4:69. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2019.00069 · DOI
  45. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
  46. Weiner, B. (1985). An Attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychol. Rev. 92, 548-573. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548 · DOI · Paper page
  47. Wise, S. L. (2019). Controlling construct-irrelevant factors through computer- based testing: disengagement, anxiety, & cheating. Educ. Inq. 10, 21-33. doi: 10.1080/20004508.2018.1490127 · DOI
  48. Wise, S. L., and Demars, C. E. (2005). Low examinee effort in low-stakes assessment: problems and potential solutions. Educ. Assess. 10, 1-17. doi: 10.1207/ · DOI · Paper page
  49. s15326977ea1001_1 · DOI · Paper page
  50. eds. G. T. L. Brown and L. R. Harris (New York: Routledge).
  51. Zhao, A., Brown, G. T. L., and Meissel, K. (2020). Manipulating the consequences of tests: how Shanghai teens react to different consequences. Educ. Res. Eval. 26, 221-251. doi: 10.1080/13803611.2021.1963938 · DOI
  52. Zhao, A., Brown, G. T. L., and Meissel, K. (2022). New Zealand students' test- taking motivation: an experimental study examining the effects of stakes. Assess. Educ. 29, 1-25. doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2022.2101043 · DOI
  53. Zumbo, B. D. (2015). Consequences, side effects and the ecology of testing: keys to considering assessment in vivo. Plenary Address to the 2015 Annual Conference of the Association for Educational Assessment-Europe (AEA-E). Glasgow, Scotland.
  54. Zumbo, B. D., and Chan, E. K. H. (2014). Validity and Validation in Social, Behavioral, and Health Sciences. Cham, CH: Springer Press.
  55. Zumbo, B. D., and Forer, B. (2011). "Testing and measurement from a multilevel view: psychometrics and validation, " in High Stakes Testing in Education-Science and Practice in K-12 Settings. eds. J. A. Bovaird, K. F. Geisinger and C. W. Buckendahl (Washington: American Psychological Association Press).
  56. Zumbo, B. D., Maddox, B., and Care, N. M. (in press). Process and product in computer-based assessments: clearing the ground for a holistic validity framework. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brown, G. T. L.
Venue
Frontiers in Education
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2022-11-11
Volume
7
ISSN
2504-284X
DOI
10.3389/feduc.2022.1060633
Cited by
70
References
4
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)

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