Advertisement

Educational Renovations: Nailing Down Terminology in Assessment

  • Michelle McKean
  • E. Nola AitkenEmail author
Part of the The Enabling Power of Assessment book series (EPAS, volume 3)

Abstract

There is currently a great deal of variation in the assessment terminology used by researchers and educators alike. Consistency of vocabulary is necessary for productive dialogue to occur between professionals. Well-defined assessment terminology contributes significantly to how educators and researchers conceptualise, and subsequently implement assessment processes. A brief history of assessment terminology is explored to provide a clearer comprehension of how our current understanding of assessment has been influenced. Using a cyclical model of assessment modified from previous work by Wiliam and Black, Harlen, and the Alberta Assessment Consortium, the authors define both assessment and evaluation and then proceed to further explore the various purposes and functions of assessment. Bidirectionality of feedback between external organisational-driven assessment and internal student-driven assessment is discussed as being essential to maintaining the formative intent of assessment while simultaneously meeting accountability needs. Other assessment terms are finally explored in the framework of these discussions.

Keywords

Assessment Evaluation Nature of assessment Nature of evaluation Educational terminology Purpose of assessment Purpose of evaluation Function of assessment Function of evaluation Formative assessment Summative assessment Assessment for learning Assessment of learning Assessment as learning Defining assessment and evaluation 

References

  1. Alberta Assessment Consortium. (2005). A framework for student assessment (2nd ed.). Retrieved from: http://www.aac.ab.ca/framework_blue.html
  2. Anderson, R. S. (1998). Why talk about different ways to grade? The shift from traditional assessment to alternative assessment. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 74, 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Archbald, D. A., & Newmann, F. M. (1988). Beyond standardized testing: Assessing authentic academic achievement in the secondary school. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.Google Scholar
  4. Assessment. (2010). OxfordDictionaries.com. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from: http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1223361
  5. Bauer, N. J. (1993, April). Instructional designs, portfolios and the pursuit of authentic assessment. Paper presented at the spring conference of the New York State Association of Teacher Educators, Syracuse, NY.Google Scholar
  6. Berlak, H., Newmann, F. M., Adams, E., Archbald, D. A., Burgess, T., Raven, J., et al. (1992). Toward a new science of educational testing and assessment. New York, NY: SUNY.Google Scholar
  7. Black, P. (1993). Formative and summative assessment by teachers. Studies in Science Education, 21(1), 49–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Black, P. (2001). Dreams, strategies and systems: Portraits of assessment past, present and future. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 8(1), 65–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86, 8–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148.Google Scholar
  11. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2003). In praise of educational research: Formative assessment. British Educational Research Journal, 29, 623–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Black, P., & William, D. (2006). Assessment for learning in the classroom. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp. 9–26). London, UK: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  13. Bloom, B. S., Hastings, J. T., & Madaus, G. F. (1971). Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of student learning. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  14. Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54(2), 199–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Broadfoot, P., & Black, P. (2004). Redefining assessment? The first ten years of assessment in education. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 11(1), 7–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brookhart, S. M. (2001). Successful students’ formative and summative uses of assessment information. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 8(2), 153–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brookhart, S. M. (2013). The use of teacher judgement for summative assessment in the USA. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 20(1), 69–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Buhagiar, M. A. (2007). Classroom assessment within the alternative assessment paradigm: Revisiting the territory. The Curriculum Journal, 18(1), 39–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Christoforou, A. P., & Yigit, A. S. (2008). Improving teaching and learning in engineering education through a continuous assessment process. European Journal of Engineering Education, 33(1), 105–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Clark, I. (2012). Formative assessment: Assessment is for self-regulated learning. Educational Psychological Review, 24, 205–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Crick, R. D. (2007). Learning how to learn: The dynamic assessment of learning power. Curriculum Journal, 18(2), 135–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Crisp, G. T. (2012). Integrative assessment: Reframing assessment practice for current and future learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(1), 33–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dassa, C., Vazquez-Abad, J., & Ajar, D. (1993). Formative assessment in a classroom setting: From practice to computer innovations. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 39, 116.Google Scholar
  24. Daws, N., & Singh, B. (1996). Formative assessment: To what extent is its potential to enhance pupils’ science being realized? School Science Review, 77, 99.Google Scholar
  25. DÖrfler, T., Golke, S., & Artelt, C. (2009). Dynamic assessment and its potential for the assessment of reading competence. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 35, 77–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dunn, K. E., & Mulvenon, S. W. (2009). A critical review of the research on formative assessment: The limited scientific evidence of the impact of formative assessment in education. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14(7), 1–11. Retrieved from: http://pareonline.net/pdf/v14n7.pdf.Google Scholar
  27. Eisner, E. W. (1985). The art of educational evaluation. Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  28. Evaluation. (2010). OxfordDictionaries.com. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from: http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1417730
  29. Frey, B. B., & Schmitt, V. L. (2007). Coming to terms with classroom assessment. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(3), 402–423.Google Scholar
  30. Gallagher, C., & Worth, P. (2008). Formative assessment policies, programs, and practices in the southwest region (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2008–No. 041). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. Retrieved from: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/projects/project.asp?ProjectID = 150.Google Scholar
  31. Haney, W. (Ed.). (1991). We must take care: Fitting assessments to function. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  32. Harlen, W. (2000). Teaching, learning and assessing science (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Harlen, W. (2005). Teachers’ summative practices and assessment for learning: Tensions and synergies. Curriculum Journal, 16(2), 207–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Harlen, W. (2006). On the relationship between assessment for formative and summative purposes. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp. 103–117). London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Harlen, W. (2007). Criteria for evaluating systems for student assessment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 33, 15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hosp, J. L., & Ardoin, S. P. (2008). Assessment for instructional planning. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33, 69–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Irving, S. E., Harris, L. R., & Peterson, E. R. (2011). ‘One assessment doesn’t serve all the purposes or does it?’ New Zealand teachers describe assessment and feedback. Asia Pacific Education Review, 12, 413–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kealey, E. (2010). Assessment and evaluation in social work education: Formative and summative approaches. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 30, 64–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Leung, C. (2007). Dynamic assessment: Assessment for and as teaching? Language Assessment Quarterly, 4(3), 257–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Linden, J. D., & Linden, K. W. (1968). Tests on trial. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  41. Madaus, G. F., & Dwyer, L. M. (1999). Short history of performance assessment: Lessons learned. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 688–695.Google Scholar
  42. Maeroff, G. I. (1991). Assessing alternative assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(4), 273–281.Google Scholar
  43. McMillan, J. H., & Hearn, J. (2008). Student self-assessment: The key to stronger student motivation and higher achievement. Educational Horizons, 87(1), 40–49.Google Scholar
  44. Meyer, C. A. (1992). What’s the difference between authentic and performance assessment? Educational Leadership, 49(8), 39–40.Google Scholar
  45. Murphy, R., & Torrance, H. (1988). The changing face of educational assessment. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  46. National Center for Fair and Open Testing. (1992). What is authentic evaluation? Cambridge, MA: Author.Google Scholar
  47. Newmann, F. M., Secada, W. G., & Wehlage, G. G. (1995). A guide to authentic instruction and assessment: Vision, standards and scoring. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.Google Scholar
  48. Newton, P. E. (2007). Clarifying the purposes of educational assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 14(2), 149–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Perie, M., Marion, S., & Gong, B. (2009). Moving toward a comprehensive assessment system: A framework for considering interim assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(3), 5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Perrenoud, P. (1991). Towards a pragmatic approach to formative evaluation. In P. Weston (Ed.), Assessment of pupils’ achievement: Motivation and school success (p. 92). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  51. Perrone, V. (1991). ACEI position paper on standardized testing (Available from the Association for Childhood Educational International, 17904 Georgia Ave, Suite 215, Olney, Maryland 20832). Retrieved from: http://uee.uabc.mx/valora/infoEvaluacion/criticaapruebas.pdf
  52. Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting L2 development. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 233–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2010). Vygotsky’s teaching-assessment dialectic and L2 education: The case for dynamic assessment. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 17(4), 312–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rothman, R. (1990). New tests based on performance raise questions. Education Week, 10(2), 1.Google Scholar
  56. Sadler, R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Savickiene, I. (2011). Designing of student learning achievement evaluation. Quality of Higher Education, 8, 74–93.Google Scholar
  58. Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. Tyler, R. Gagne, & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation (pp. 39–83). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  59. Segers, M., Dochy, F., & Gijbels, D. (2010). Impact of assessment on students’ learning strategies and implications for judging assessment quality. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (3rd ed., pp. 196–201). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Stiggins, R. J., & Chappuis, S. (2005). Putting testing in perspective: It’s for learning. Principal Leadership, 6(2), 16–20.Google Scholar
  61. Stobart, G., & Gipps, C. (2010). Alternative assessment. In B. McGraw, E. Baker, & P. Peterson (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (3rd ed., pp. 202–208). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sulzby, E. (1990). Qualities of a school district culture that support a dynamic process of assessment. In J. A. Roderick (Ed.), Context-responsive approaches to assessing children’s language (pp. 97–104). Urbana, IL: National Conference on Research in English.Google Scholar
  63. Sutton, R. (1995). Assessment for learning. Salford, UK: RS.Google Scholar
  64. Taras, M. (2005). Assessment – Summative and formative – Some theoretical reflections. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(4), 466–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Taras, M. (2007). Machinations of assessment: Metaphors, myths and realities. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 15(1), 55–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Taras, M. (2008a). Assessment for learning: Sectarian divisions of terminology and concepts. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 32(4), 389–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Taras, M. (2008b). Summative and formative assessment: Perceptions and realities. Active Learning in Higher Education, 9(2), 172–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Taras, M. (2009). Summative assessment: The missing link for formative assessment. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 33(1), 57–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Taras, M. (2010). Assessment for learning: Assessing the theory and evidence. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 3015–3022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Thomson, K., Bachor, D., & Thomson, G. (2002). The development of individualised educational programmes using a decision-making model. British Journal of Special Education, 29(1), 37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Trevisan, M. S. (2007). Evaluability assessment from 1986 to 2006. American Journal of Evaluation, 28(3), 290–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Turner, M., VanderHeide, K., & Fynewever, H. (2011). Motivations for and barriers to the implementation of diagnostic assessment practices – A case study. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12, 142–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Volante, L., & Beckett, D. (2011). Formative assessment and the contemporary classroom: Synergies and tensions between research and practice. Canadian Journal of Education, 34(2), 239–255.Google Scholar
  74. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Warmington, E. H., & Rouse, P. G. (1956). Great dialogues of Plato. Toronto, ON, Canada: The New English Library.Google Scholar
  76. Wehlburg, C. M. (2007). Closing the feedback loop is not enough: The assessment spiral. Assessment Update, 19(2), 1–2, 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Western and Northern Canadian Protocol for Collaboration in Education. (2006). Rethinking classroom assessment with purpose in mind: Assessment for learning, assessment as learning, assessment of learning. Retrieved from: http://www.wncp.ca/media/40539/rethink.pdf
  78. Wiggins, G. P. (1993). Assessment: Authenticity, context, and validity. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(3), 200–214.Google Scholar
  79. Wiliam, D., & Black, P. (1996). Meanings and consequences: A basis for distinguishing formative and summative functions of assessment. British Educational Research Journal, 22, 537–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wiliam, D., & Black, P. (2003). In praise of educational research: Formative assessment. British Educational Research Journal, 29, 623–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Willis, S. (1990). Transforming the test. ASCD update. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 32(7), 3–6.Google Scholar
  82. Yeomans, J. (2008). Dynamic assessment practice: Some suggestions for ensuring follow-up. Educational Psychology in Practice, 24(2), 105–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Yoakum, C. S., & Yerkes, R. M. (1920). Army mental tests. New York, NY: Holt.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationUniversity of LethbridgeLethbridgeCanada

Personalised recommendations