Changes in the practice and the philosophy of assessment

Assessment practices have changed to focus more on the process of assessment and the learner’s role in it, as well as the importance of the teacher (O’Leary, 2006; Gipps, 1998). These changes are linked to changes in philosophy of the epistemology of knowledge, and in related developments in theories of learning (Howe and Mercer, 2010; Conway, 2002; Lin, 2002; Mayer, 1998; Broadfoot, 1996a). Three views of learning can be summarised as behaviourist-empiricist; cognitive-rationalist; and socio-constructivist. The review will continue by examining each view of learning, its epistemology of knowledge and its position on educational assessment.

2.3.1 Behaviourist-empiricist

The first view developed in the early part of the twentieth century. Learning is seen as response acquisition, which was based on learning in animals. The learner in such an outlook is a passive recipient of content, which is taught by the teacher. Knowledge is seen to be external to the learner and can be transmitted through techniques such as repetition. Schooling is quite hierarchical with the teacher/instructor as the dominant person in the interactions and driving the learning process. Instruction takes the form of drill and practice, with evaluation comprising of checklists. These checklists can be mechanical and include time-based responses. These methods are employed in some approaches to special education, such as Applied Behavioural Analysis (Howe and Mercer, 2010; Conway, 2002; Lin, 2002; Mayer, 1998; Broadfoot, 1996a).

32

2.3.2 Cognitive-rationalist

The second outlook was informed by laboratory work on human learning in the 1950s and 60s. Learning can be seen as knowledge acquisition. The learner in this perspective is a processor of information. Knowledge is seen as something that can be acquired by the learner through a variety of learning activities based on the learner’s stage of development. The learner is more of an active participant in this approach as he/she responds to learning tasks set by the teacher. The teacher is responsible for organising appropriate learning opportunities, which will assist the learner to reach the next stage of development. Instruction consists of increasing situations in which the student could acquire knowledge. Evaluation involves measuring learning outcomes (Howe and Mercer, 2010; Conway, 2002; Lin, 2002; Mayer, 1998; Broadfoot, 1996a). The assumptions informing this approach may be identified as:

(1) “That it is right, ‘objectively’ to seek to identify relative levels of student performance as the basis for educational selection.

(2) That it is possible to undertake such identification with a sufficient degree of ‘objectivity’ that it provides a broadly fair outcome for the candidates affected.

(3) That the quality of such assessment is embodied in notions of reliability and validity.

(4) That students’ scores on national examinations and tests provide a valid indicator of the quality of institutional performance.

(5) That it is possible usefully to compare the ‘productivity’ of individual education systems through international comparisons” (Broadfoot and Black, 2004, p.20).

Standardised testing would be informed by this outlook. In this approach, these tests can be administered at various levels to show what learners know and/or have learned. These tests are seen to be objective and a reliable indicator of a learner’s level of ability.

33 Standardised tests can be norm-referenced (compared with similarly aged children), criterion-referenced (compared with performance indicators) or ipsative- referenced (compared with pupil’s own previous performance). A postmodern approach to knowledge has critiqued the cognitive-rationalist perspective and standardised tests on a number of levels. The postmodern view offers a fundamental shift in ways of looking at the person – both the person who is the assessor and who is the assessed (Best and Kellner, 1991). In this outlook, both the learner and the assessor are capable of creating their own view of knowledge. A number of researchers have contested the objectivity of standardised tests (MacRuairc, 2009; Lin, 2002; Paris, 1998; Goldstein, 1996). They argue that there is choice in the construction of standardised tests – both in the items selected and in the language that is used. This may lead to cultural bias in the administration of the test. Lin (2002) and Goldstein (1996) both argue that the process of item selection for standardised tests should be subject to scrutiny as test designers must remove items based on their interpretation of the piloting stage. A number of researchers also argue that standardised tests distort curricula as they lead to a narrowing of what is taught in schools (Lin, 2002; Paris, 1998; Broadfoot, 1996b). This narrowing of the curriculum could also result in test pollution due to the fact that some teachers may teach to the test (Paris, 1998; Gray, 1996). Yet, there can be other consequences of such testing, such as an improvement in professional practice and knowledge about assessment procedures (Cizek, 2001 cited by Wang et al., 2006). MacRuairc states that policies promoting the use of standardised tests “are often strongly positioned within a functionalist, meritocratic perspective which does not reflect the complexity and diversity of issues underpinning current attainment patterns” (2009, p.52).

34 Assessment methods, such as standardised tests, based in the cognitive- rationalist approach have also been criticised based on their consequential validity (Elwood and Lundy, 2010; Sambell et al, 1997). Consequential validity refers to the effects of assessment or testing on the teaching and learning context and the social consequences of the use of assessment information. These criticisms are based on an approach that underlines the social nature of teaching, learning and assessment, which is termed socio-constructivist.

2.3.3 Socio-constructivist

In the 1970s and 80s, because of research completed in realistic situations, learning became seen as knowledge construction. The learner in this viewpoint is a constructor of knowledge and instruction is geared towards helping the student develop learning and thinking strategies. The teacher is a guide or a facilitator of learning and assessment becomes more co-operative. Evaluation is qualitative rather than quantitative. This approach espouses the use of portfolios, authentic tasks, group projects, cooperative learning, self-assessment and pupil choice on what they are learning. Knowledge in such a perspective is created by the learner through interactions with others and through the social context in which these interactions take place (Howe and Mercer, 2010; Conway, 2002; Lin, 2002; Mayer, 1998; Broadfoot, 1996a). From being the independent assessor under the cognitive- rationalist perspective in a largely hierarchical relationship, the teacher is now a partner with the student in the assessment. A key link between assessment and learning is feedback. In the socio-constructivist approach, it is vital for teachers to specify improvement or process rather than attainment in their feedback. This assists

35 the student in taking ownership of their learning, in identifying the improvements that need to be made, and in ascertaining the means to make these changes. If the feedback focuses on attainment it may lead to the student believing that they cannot improve. As much of this feedback takes place in a public environment, it plays a key role in the identity formation of the student. This is an important shift in the history of knowledge and learning theory and it is reviewed further in the next section.