Trustworthiness of Teacher Assessment and Decision-Making: Reframing the Consistency and Accuracy Measures

被引:0
作者
Alonzo, Dennis [1 ]
Teng, Steven [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ New South Wales SYDNEY, Sch Educ, Sydney, Australia
关键词
trustworthiness; assessment; reliability; validity; 'classroometric' principles; CLASSROOM ASSESSMENT; FAIRNESS; VALIDITY; COMPETENCE; MODERATION; SYSTEMS; IMPACT;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
The quality of assessment tools and the inferences drawn from the results to inform decisions in the classroom are usually measured using reliability and validity. These psychometric principles have been criticised for their inapplicability to classroom assessment, resulting in a parallel set of 'classroometric' principles. However, the use of two parallel principles widens the perceived dichotomy between formative and summative assessments. To overcome this dichotomy and ensure consistency of teachers' decision-making, the concept of trustworthiness, drawn from qualitative research methodology, is increasingly being adopted, but it is under-theorised. We used a scoping technique to explore how this concept has been used in the assessment literature since it was first introduced in 1993. We accessed journal articles from four databases using combinations of search terms, resulting to 1,872 papers. Upon removal of duplicates and application of exclusion criteria, 27 papers remain relevant for full analysis. Our analysis expands Lincoln and Guba's (1985) four criteria of qualitative research (credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability) to include authenticity, rigour, fairness, equity, consistency, defensibility, accuracy, and adequacy and appropriateness of data. We develop a framework and a working definition for understanding trustworthiness in the context of assessment.
引用
收藏
页码:1075 / 1094
页数:20
相关论文
共 80 条
[41]  
Hipps J.A., 1993, TRUSTWORTHINESS AUTH
[42]   Students' conceptions about a fair assessment of their learning [J].
Javier Murillo, F. ;
Hidalgo, Nina .
STUDIES IN EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION, 2017, 53 :10-16
[43]   Current concerns in validity theory [J].
Kane, MT .
JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT, 2001, 38 (04) :319-342
[44]  
Killen R, 2003, PERSPECT EDUC, V21, P1
[45]   Towards fairer assessment [J].
Klenowski, Val .
AUSTRALIAN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER, 2014, 41 (04) :445-470
[46]   The unfairness of equal treatment: objectivity in L2 testing and dynamic assessment [J].
Lantolf, James P. ;
Poehner, Matthew E. .
EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND EVALUATION, 2013, 19 (2-3) :141-157
[47]   'Formative good, summative bad?' - A review of the dichotomy in assessment literature [J].
Lau, Alice Man Sze .
JOURNAL OF FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION, 2016, 40 (04) :509-525
[48]  
Leung Lawrence, 2015, J Family Med Prim Care, V4, P324, DOI 10.4103/2249-4863.161306
[49]  
Lincoln Y., 1985, Naturalist Inquiry, DOI DOI 10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8
[50]  
Loh J, 2013, QUAL REP, V18