Assessment as a Dimension of Globalisation: Exploring International Insights

  • Donald E. ScottEmail author
Part of the The Enabling Power of Assessment book series (EPAS, volume 2)


This chapter explores assessment as a dimension of globalisation, particularly linking themes of the knowledge economy, impacts of technologies, and international-national competitiveness. An inductive analysis was undertaken to explore international themes of assessment examining similarities and differences across nations. The themes to emerge involved the impact of globalisation in terms of the inter-relatedness of national economies, which has elevated the importance of transparency for accountability and national competitiveness. Additionally, the pursuit of quality education is discussed particularly in relation to standardised testing, classroom assessment practices, and teacher professionalism. Debates and controversies encompassed: the purposes of assessment, high stakes testing, what is valued is assessed, cultural sensitivity, teachers philosophical orientations, and societal trust and teacher accountability. Socio-cultural aspects were identified in terms of student diversity. The media also emerged as influencing the debates about assessment and public support for education.


Globalisation National competitiveness Standardised tests Teacher accountability System accountability Professionalism Politicisation of assessment Moderation Professional development Teacher judgement Socio-cultural diversity Purposes of assessment Media influences Cultural sensitivity Beliefs, ethics and relationships Assessment debates 


  1. Acar, T. (2012). The position of Turkey among OECD member and candidate countries according to PISA 2009 results. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12(4), 2567–2572.Google Scholar
  2. Barber, M. (2004). The virtue of accountability: System redesign, inspection, and incentives in the era of informed professionalism. Journal of Education, 185(1), 7–900.Google Scholar
  3. Beets, P. A. D. (2012). Strengthening morality and ethics in educational assessment through “Ubuntu” in South Africa. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(2), 68–83. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2011.00796.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bolt, S. (2011). Making consistent judgements. A professional development program based on using teacher judgement to assess student attainment of systemic achievement targets. Educational Forum, 75(2), 157–172. doi: 10.1080/00131725.2011.552694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brunello, G., Rocco, L., Ariga, K., & Iwahashi, R. (2012). On the efficiency costs of de-tracking secondary schools in Europe. Education Economics, 20(2), 117–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Commeyras, M., & Inyega, H. N. (2007). An integrative review of teaching reading in Kenyan primary schools. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 258–281. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.42.2.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cowie, B., Jones, A., & Otrel-Cass, K. (2011). Re-engaging students in science: Issues of assessment, funds of knowledge and sites for learning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(2), 347–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Boer, G. C., Minnaert, A. E. M. G., & Kamphof, G. (2013). Gifted education in the Netherlands. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36(1), 133–150. doi: 10.1177/0162353212471622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eurydice. (2009). National testing of pupils in Europe: Objectives, organisation and use of results (pp. 1–109). Brussels, Belgium: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, P9 Eurydice. doi: 10.2797/18294.
  10. Fenwick, L. (2012). Limiting opportunities to learn in upper-secondary schooling: Differentiation and performance assessment in the context of standards-based curriculum reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 42(5), 629–651. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-873X.2012.00609.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Friesen, J. B., & Ezeife, A. N. (2009). Making science assessment culturally valid for Aboriginal students. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 32(2), 24–37.Google Scholar
  12. Garner, M. (2013). Lies, damn lies, and tests. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 11(1–2), 36–39.Google Scholar
  13. Geçer, A., & Özel, R. (2012). Elementary science and technology teachers’ views on problems encountered in the instructional process. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12(3), 2256–2261.Google Scholar
  14. Gove, A., & Wetterberg, A. (2011). The early grade reading assessment: Applications and interventions to improve basic literacy. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Green, S. K., Johnson, R. L., Kim, D.-H., & Pope, N. S. (2007). Ethics in classroom assessment practices: Issues and attitudes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 999–1011. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Griffiths, J., Vidovich, L., & Chapman, A. (2008). Outcomes approaches to assessment: comparing non-government and government case-study schools in Western Australia. Curriculum Journal, 19(3), 161–175. doi: 10.1080/09585170802357470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harlen, W. (2005). Trusting teachers’ judgement: Research evidence of the reliability and validity of teachers’ assessment used for summative purposes. Research Papers in Education, 20(3), 245–270. doi: 10.1080/02671520500193744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harris, L. R., & Brown, G. T. L. (2009). The complexity of teachers’ conceptions of assessment: Tensions between the needs of schools and students. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16(3), 365–381. doi: 10.1080/0969594090331974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hulpia, H., & Valcke, M. (2004). The use of performance indicators in a school improvement policy: The theoretical and empirical context. Evaluation & Research in Education, 18(1–2), 102–119. doi: 10.1080/09500790408668311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. James, M., & Pedder, D. (2006). Beyond method: assessment and learning practices and values. Curriculum Journal, 17(2), 109–138. doi: 10.1080/09585170600792712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jordan, A. (2007). Introduction to inclusive education. Mississauga, ON: John Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd.Google Scholar
  22. Katsiyannis, A., Zhang, D., Ryan, J. B., & Jones, J. (2007). High-stakes testing and students with disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 18(3), 160–167. doi: 10.1177/10442073070180030401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Klenowski, V., & Wyatt-Smith, C. (2010). Standards-driven reform years 1–10: Moderation an optional extra? Australian Educational Researcher, 37(2), 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lebeer, J., Birta-Szekely, N., Demeter, K., Bohacs, K., Candeias, A. A., Sonnesyn, G., et al. (2012). Re-assessing the current assessment practice of children with special education needs in Europe. School Psychology International, 33(1), 69–92. doi: 10.1177/0143034311409975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Matsuoka, R. (2013). Learning competencies in action: Tenth grade students’ investment in accumulating human capital under the influence of the upper secondary education system in Japan. Educational Studies in Japan: International Yearbook, 7, 65–79.Google Scholar
  26. Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). (2008). Measurement Framework for National Key Performance Measures. Victoria, Australia: Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs.Google Scholar
  27. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECDa). Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Retrieved from
  28. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECDb, n.p.). About the OECD. Retrieved from
  29. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECDc, n.p.). Members and partners. Retrieved from
  30. Ozga, J., & Lingard, B. (2007). Globalisation, education policy and politics. In B. Lingard & J. Ozga (Eds.), The RoutledgeFalmer reader in education policy and politics (pp. 65–82). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Pepper, D. (2011). Assessing key competences across the curriculum – and Europe. European Journal of Education, 46(3), 335–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Poliandri, D., Cardone, M., Muzzioli, P., & Romiti, S. (2010). Dynamic database for quality indicators comparison in education. Paper presented at the bordering, re-bordering and New Possibilities in Education and Society, Istanbul. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1639398.
  33. Raisanen, A., & Rakkolainen, M. (2009). Social and communicational skills in upper secondary vocational education and training. US-China Education Review, 6(12), 36–45.Google Scholar
  34. Rajagopal. (2009). Globalization thrust: Driving nations competitive. Hauppauge/New York: Nova Science Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  35. Ross, H., Cen, Y., & Zhou, Z. (2011). Assessing student engagement in China: Responding to local and global discourse on raising educational quality. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 14(1), 24–37.Google Scholar
  36. Sahlberg, P. (2012). A model lesson: Finland shows us what equal opportunity looks like. American Educator, 36(1), 20–27.Google Scholar
  37. Sarjala, J. (2013). Equality and cooperation: Finland’s path to excellence. American Educator, 37(1), 32–36.Google Scholar
  38. Saunders, M., & Vulliamy, G. (1983). The implementation of curricular reform: Tanzania and Papua New Guinea. Comparative Education Review, 27(3), 351–373. doi: 10.2307/1187742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schagen, I., & Hutchison, D. (2003). Adding value in educational research – the marriage of data and analytical power. British Educational Research Journal, 29(5), 749–765. doi: 10.1080/0141192032000133659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schleicher, A. (2011). Is the sky the limit to education improvement? Phi Delta Kappan, 93(2), 58–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schleicher, A., & Stewart, V. (2008). Learning from world-class schools. Educational Leadership, 66(2), 44–51.Google Scholar
  42. Scott, S., Webber, C. F., Aitken, N., & Lupart, J. (2011). Developing teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and expertise: Findings from the Alberta Student Assessment Study. The Educational Forum, 75(2), 96–113. doi: 10.1080/00131725.2011.552594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Scott, S., Webber, C. F., Lupart, J. L., Aitken, N., & Scott, D. E. (2013). Fair and equitable assessment practices for all students. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2013.776943.Google Scholar
  44. Segers, M., & Tillema, H. (2011). How do Dutch secondary teachers and students conceive the purpose of assessment? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37, 49–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shafiq, M. N. (2011). Do school incentives and accountability measures improve skills in the Middle East and North Africa? The cases of Jordan and Tunisia. Review of Middle East Economics and Finance, 7(2), 1–28. doi: 10.2202/1475-3693.1279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Toakley, A. R. (2004). Globalization, sustainable development and universities. Higher Education Policy, 17(3), 311–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ungerleider, C. (2006). Reflections on the use of large-scale student assessment for improving student success. Canadian Journal of Education, 29(3), 873–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vikiru, L. I. (2011). From assessment to learning: The teaching of English beyond examinations. Educational Forum, 75(2), 129–142. doi: 10.1080/00131725.2011.552685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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
  50. Wainer, H. (2011). Uneducated guesses: Using evidence to uncover misguided education policies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wang, L., Beckett, G. H., & Brown, L. (2006). Controversies of standardized assessment in school accountability reform: A critical synthesis of multidisciplinary research evidence. Applied Measurement in Education, 19(4), 305–328. doi: 10.1207/s15324818ame1904_5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Webber, C. F., & Scott, S. (2013). Principles for principal preparation. In C. L. Slater & S. Nelson (Eds.), Understanding the principalship: An international guide to principal preparation (Vol. 19, pp. 95–124). Bingley, UK: Emerald.Google Scholar
  53. Winter, C. (2011). School curriculum, globalisation and the constitution of policy problems and solutions. Journal of Education Policy, 27(3), 295–314. doi: 10.1080/02680939.2011.609911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zhang, M., & Kong, L. (2012). An exploration of reasons for Shanghai’s success in the OECD Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2009. Frontiers of Education in China, 7(1), 124–162. doi: 10.3868/s110-001-012-0007-3.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Werklund School of EducationUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations