Graduate studies at Western
British Journal of Educational Studies 49 (1):26 - 39 (2001)
|Abstract||This paper reviews the validity of National Curriculum assessment in England. It works with the concept of 'consequential validity' (Messick, 1989) which incorporates both conventional 'reliability' issues and the use to which any assessment is put. The review uses the eight stage 'threats to validity' model developed by Crooks, Kane and Cohen (1996). The complexity of National Curriculum assessment makes evaluation difficult. These assessments are used for a variety of purposes so that the 'consequential' aspects are compounded. National Curriculum assessment also involves both Teacher Assessment and tests - each of which has strengths and limitations in relation to validity. The main finding is that the validity of National Curriculum assessment hinges on the balance between Teacher Assessment and testing. Between them they can meet Crooks et al.'s requirements of a valid assessment system. The current emphasis on the use of test results for school accountability and as a measure of national standards has undermined Teacher Assessment to a point at which the validity of the system is in question.|
|Keywords||assessment validity National Curriculum|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Steve Sizmur & Marian Sainsbury (1997). Criterion Referencing and the Meaning of National Curriculum Assessment. British Journal of Educational Studies 45 (2):123 - 140.
Kelly C. Strong & Rhonda Wiley Jones (2005). A Model for Feed-Forward Assessment of Student Learning in Industry-Issues Courses. Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society 16:379-380.
H. Gill-Thwaites & R. Munday (2004). The Sensory Modality Assessment and Rehabilitation Technique (SMaRT): A Valid and Reliable Assessment for Vegetative State and Minimally Conscious State Patients. Brain Injury 18 (12):1255-1269.
Robert Keith Shaw (2007). Pedagogic Thinking That Grounds E-Learning for Secondary School Science Students in New Zealand. E-Learning and Digital Media 4 (4):471-481.
Katherine Covell & R. Brian Howe (2001). Moral Education Through the 3 Rs: Rights, Respect and Responsibility. Journal of Moral Education 30 (1):29-41.
Maddalena Taras (2005). Assessment: Summative and Formative: Some Theoretical Reflections. British Journal of Educational Studies 53 (4):466 - 478.
Barbara Crossouard & John Pryor (2012). How Theory Matters: Formative Assessment Theory and Practices and Their Different Relations to Education. [REVIEW] Studies in Philosophy and Education 31 (3):251-263.
John Threlfall (2005). The Formative Use of Assessment Information in Planning: The Notion of Contingent Planning. British Journal of Educational Studies 53 (1):54 - 65.
Brian J. Richards (2008). Formative Assessment in Teacher Education: The Development of a Diagnostic Language Test for Trainee Teachers of German. British Journal of Educational Studies 56 (2):184 - 204.
Eleanor M. Rawling (2001). The Politics and Practicalities of Curriculum Change 1991-2000: Issues Arising From a Study of School Geography in England. [REVIEW] British Journal of Educational Studies 49 (2):137 - 158.
Andrew Bolton (1997). Moral Development: Whose Ethics in the Teaching of Religious Education? Journal of Moral Education 26 (2):197-210.
David Hartley (1998). Repeat Prescription: The National Curriculum for Initial Teacher Training. British Journal of Educational Studies 46 (1):68 - 83.
Debra Baird-Wilson (2005). An Electronic Learning Community Partnership Uses Case Studies to Enhance Diversity. Inquiry 24 (3):33-36.
Peter A. D. Beets (2012). Strengthening Morality and Ethics in Educational Assessment Through Ubuntu in South Africa. Educational Philosophy and Theory 44 (s2):68-83.
Added to index2011-05-29
Total downloads7 ( #142,564 of 740,703 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,957 of 740,703 )
How can I increase my downloads?