Assessing Learning and Policy - Case Study Example

Assessment Policy Introduction Assessment has gain prominence over the recent past with more efforts and attention being addressed to development and implementation of effective assessment policies, strategies and techniques. Assessment is not only concerned with the teachers assessing the abilities and performance of their students, but also, encompasses learners assessing their own learning styles and teaching styles with the view to acquire more knowledge and excel academically, administration assessing teachers and even government agencies assessing current educational courses, curriculums and learning institutions (Pollard, 2002, p.289). More often than not, studies and literature on assessment in the educational settings have predominantly focused on generating guidance to teachers on how to enhance their assessment practices and systems and giving more emphasis to specific assessment issues namely validity, reliability, efficiency and transparency in order to carry out quality assessment procedures as discussed by Leathwood (2005, p.308). Moreover, more concern with development and delivery of impartial and unbiased assessment systems and techniques as noted by Joughin (2008, p.15). This forms the basis of this study which is to critically analyze an assessment document by Leathwood (2005) and how it affects my work as a learner. In addition, the study will evaluate in depth the social, political and policy purposes of this assessment and how they affect me as a learner. The main reason why the assessment document is of importance and affects me as a learner is its change in focus of assessment. The document shifts its focus from merely addressing assessment from fairness and transparency point of view, to incorporating these two variables with addressing and understanding assessment from its social, political and historical context by examining the varied purposes of assessment, the standards and equity as a means to enhancing quality assessment procedures Leathwood (2005, p.308). The Assessment Document Leathwood, C. 2005. Assessment policy and practice in higher education: purpose, standards and equity. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 30, No. 3, June 2005, pp. 307–324. Innovative approaches to the assessment processes and procedures are currently harmonized by an increased distinction of educational evaluation as a policy issue. This is illustrated by the increased interests in assessment tools and processes that enhance as well as measure quality and standards, which have huge impact for learners, teachers, learning institutions and particularly, the educational system. This has therefore, generated questions ranging from what is the educational curriculum content, who the decision makers are, in whose interests assessments are carried out and what is not integrated in assessment procedures. Riding on these observations, Leathwood, notes a rising trend where there is an increased need for improved reliability and comparability of assessment results and implementation of formative assessments done to enhance learning through transparent and negotiated assessment procedures that incorporates different assessment tools such as the assessment of prior experience and learning, self and peer assessment, portfolio work and learning diaries and criterion-referenced assessment (Leathwood, 2005, p.312). According to the document, Criterion-referenced assessment is the most preferred in enhancing openness since all learners are mandated to meet certain criteria for themselves instead of competing with fellow learners as characterized in norm references system. Enhanced reliability and comparability as a learner, offers me an equal platform with every other student at my level regardless of status or where they are located globally, hence offering me equal chances of employability or even access to particular learning institution that may be assessed as quality. Leathwood cites a very important discussion on the perception that having many students entering universities means dumbing down for majority of learning institutions, which has necessitated development of new assessment tools and procedures for students entering institutions of higher learning (313). The question therefore becomes, is the need for newer ways of assessing students such as rating their thinking skills other than their qualifications related to an increased need to identify students with high abilities or is it merely a gimmick to assess the true capability of certain individuals despite their achieving good results or even meant to address concerns of the few proportion of learners from working class backgrounds in privileged universities, which often has favoured a particular ethnicity, social status and even gender. The perception that some courses and disciplines are of high standards than others necessitates the document to assert that “ different values accrue to different institutions and disciplines, but also to what constitutes a high standard of academic work” (315). From a social perspective, assessment tools and systems are based on deeply-rooted academic cultures and institutional habitus. Reay (1998, p. 523) supports these sentiments by emphasizing that there is a necessity to analyze ethnicity issues and issues of social status regarding prevailing cultural capital. This is because, learners from varied social classes and cultural backgrounds vary in the level at which they share the ideals that are the core basis to assessment and the value that assessment enhances, which therefore, generates issues regarding equity. In addition, learners from varied cultural settings and backgrounds possess varied intellectual practices, which therefore, necessitates a need to develop and implement assessment policies and tools are culturally fit for every learner (Leathwood, 2005, p.316). For instance, a fellow student from a different cultural group lets say, Eastern Culture, would see competitive testing very differently from how I would. Their culture is based on sharing and collaboration which openly contradicts competitiveness whilst mine which is dominated by individualism as a western culture, encourages competition. Therefore, using a similar assessment tool for both of us would not only be unfair for one of us, but it may ultimately fail to accomplish the intended purpose. An important aspect brought forward by Leatherwood is the impact assessment developers have on the assessment expectations and outcomes (Leathwood, 2005, p.316). This is because, the social, cultural and gender factors of those involved in designing assessment tools and programs defines what is considered ordinary and what is not and what is considered high quality and what is not where individuals who fail to meet these criteria are termed failures or inferior instead of viewing them as just different. This means, an assessment developer who is a male, white and is from a high social status is more likely to rate me based on his experience and perceptions as inferior or even disqualify if I were a female, black and from a low status. This is not because of my race, but due to the differences in our social status, gender and culture which makes our intellectual traditions different. Policies play a significant role in defining assessment and establishing how it should be carried out. Majority of challenges arising and facing assessment tools and systems, setting of standards and fostering equity in educational settings is based on ineffectiveness of educational policies and targets set. As Gillborn & Youdell (2000, p. 219) indicates, ‘by failing to demand that students in particular groups share equally in attaining the targets, these moves leave the way open for racialized and racist processes that simultaneously deliver improvements to the headline statistics while widening inequalities between different ethnic groups.’ This leads to enhanced inequalities among culturally and socially divergent students within learning environments. As supported by Bourdieu (1974, p. 38), ‘the formal equality which governs pedagogical practice is in fact a cloak for and a justification of indifference to the real inequalities with regard to the body of knowledge taught or rather demanded’ (Bourdieu, 1974, p. 38). This therefore means that there is need to review policies to ensure they not only focus on the content of the educational curriculum, but establish ways in which reliability; quality, objectivity, comparability, openness, integration and validity can be applied universally without offering added advantage to one gender, culture and social class over the other. Primarily, assessment should not be carried out to cut off students from accessing particular entities such as specific schools or gaining admittance to institutions of higher learning but it should be used to help learners identify areas they are strong on and pursue that. For example, making it mandatory to pass certain subjects such as Mathematics, should not decide my fate on whether I join a certain profession or not. Other variables such as cognitive abilities and psychosocial skills should be integrated to assess my chances for admittance. This is because, assessment outcomes have profound effect on my self esteem and how I define myself as a student as supported by (Canaan, 2001). The effect caused by the current government policies has led to enhanced social cost by development of learners who are performance oriented than learner oriented where for instance, I am more likely to concentrate my efforts and time on subjects and areas that are more likely to be assessed in order to acquire better rankings or ratings and less on creating long term flexible learning, where I am able to grow holistically as supported by Broadfoot & Pollard (2000). The document presents an argument that cannot be ignored where the need to critically review assessment processes and systems currently being used cannot be overemphasized. This is achievable through analysis of not only the issues of validity, reliability, efficiency and transparency in assessment practices which are very crucial, but also, in analyzing assessment practices from a broader context that encompasses the broader social and political frameworks and the academic cultures within which assessment practices are rooted (Filer, 2000, p.153). This is because, assessment practices and learning processes are socially built and is open to varied interpretations depending on social factors such as gender, social status and cultural ideals. Ecclestone and Swann (1999, p. 387) supports this by saying, ‘assessment will continue to be beset by political, educational and social tensions, particularly while it continues to be used to rank and grade students’ final degree results.’ Leatherwood document on assessment generates crucial questions on what purpose assessment does serve and whether the assessment outcomes generate positive learning or impairs learning for students who fall short of what is required. The application of this assessment document in real life learning environments has profound effect on me as an individual and as a learner where my self worth in life and academically will not be dictated by my rankings based on assessment tools but on how I compare with my fellow students within the same academic level regardless of our social and cultural differences. Through Leatherwood’s work, all learners are offered equal opportunities and rewards both occupationally and in learning. Although it is important to focus on assessment based on the validity, transparency, standards and reliability of the assessment practices and tools, analyzing the social, political and policy purposes of assessment is all the more important. This is because issues such as variations in intellectual traditions, cultural perceptions of education content, social constraints in acquiring quality education and educational policy assessments are effectively and efficiently addressed. By so doing, policy makers are able to deal with educational hiccups and assessment issues from the core thus, enhancing quality learning processes, developing conducive learning environments and attaining anticipated learning and teaching outcomes that are facilitated by teachers and centred on the learners. Socially, the assessment document allows for equal opportunities and learner centred educational content and assessment that are socially, politically and culturally fitted to the needs, capacities and expectations of students from varied social classes, different genders and from divergent cultural groups. As hard as academics may try not to view assessment practices and tools as a construct of social and political systems, they in fact are. Politically, the assessment document challenges the policy makers to critically review existing assessment policies and strategies to ensure their purposes and the design are essential in offering equal platforms for all stakeholders regardless of their social status, gender or even cultural grouping. Conclusively, the social, political and policy purpose of assessment is to collect, evaluate and reflect on evidence with a view to make informed decisions and reliable judgments intended to better learning, to help learners capitalize on their strengths and ameliorate their learning weakness, to help facilitate policy and education diagnosis and systems monitoring and for educational comparability as supported by Joughin (2008, p.14). Therefore, assessment should not be merely used to rank and grade students with a view to cut off some and reward others knowingly or unknowingly based on their gender, social class and cultural grouping. Conclusion Assessment plays a very important part in ensuring a favourable learning environment, successful learning processes and is core to achieving anticipated learning and teaching outcomes for both the learners and the teachers respectively. From the assessment document written by Leatherwood, it is of equal or even greater importance to focus on assessment by analyzing it from broader social and political contexts than merely on focusing on assessment issues such as validity, transparency and efficiency that primarily guides on how to carry out successful assessment processes. As Leatherwood notes ‘This does not mean that issues of ‘doing it better’ or working to ensure fairness and transparency are not important, but that assessment needs to be understood in its social, political and historical context.’(308). This perspective of looking at assessment influences how I perceive myself as a person, how I learn and how I define myself as a student in a socially, culturally and politically divergent learning environment. References Bourdieu, P. 1974. The school as a conservative force: scholastic and cultural inequalities. Contemporary research in the sociology of education, London, Methuen, pp. 32–46. Broadfoot, P. & Pollard, A. 2000. The changing discourse of assessment policy: the case of English primary education. London: Routledge Falmer, pp. 11–26. Canaan, J. E. 2001. Haunting assumptions of ‘ability’: how working class and ethnic minority students signify academic failure. Conference paper presented at Higher Education Close Up 2, Lancaster University. Ecclestone, K. 1999. Empowering or ensnaring? The implications of outcome-based assessment in higher education. Higher Education Quarterly, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 29–48. Filer, A. 2000. Assessment: social practice and social product. London, Routledge-Falmer, pp. 151–167. Gillborn, D. & Youdell, D. 2000. Rationing education: policy, practice, reform and equity. Buckingham: Open University Press. Joughin, G. 2008. Assessment, Learning and Judgment in Higher Education. New York: Springer. Leathwood, C. 2005. Assessment policy and practice in higher education: purpose, standards and equity. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 307–324. Pollard, A. 2002. Readings for reflective teaching. Sidney: Continuum International Publishing Group. Reay, D. 1998. ‘Always knowing’ and ‘never being sure’: familial and institutional habituses and higher education choice. Journal of Education Policy, vol. 13, no. 4, 519–529. Read More