Two Concepts of Assessment

Journal of Philosophy of Education 46 (4):589-602 (2012)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

It is sometimes said that there has been a ‘paradigm shift’ in the field of assessment over the last two or three decades: a new preoccupation with what learners can do, what they know or what they have achieved. It is suggested in this article that this change has precipitated a need to distinguish two conceptually and logically distinct methodological approaches to assessment that have hitherto gone unacknowledged. The upshot, it is argued, is that there appears to be a fundamental confusion at the heart of current policy, a confusion occasioned by the demand to know what learners know and compounded by a failure to recognise what this properly entails for assessment methodology

Other Versions

reprint Lum, Gerard (2013-04-11) "Two Concepts of Assessment". In Smith, Richard, Education Policy, pp. 74–88: Wiley (2013-04-11)

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 103,401

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2012-11-03

Downloads
20 (#1,084,435)

6 months
2 (#1,294,541)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Making Sense of Knowing‐How and Knowing‐That.L. U. M. Gerard - 2017 - Journal of Philosophy of Education 51 (3):655-672.
What is an Academic Judgement?Geoffrey Hinchliffe - 2020 - Journal of Philosophy of Education 54 (5):1206-1219.
Competence: A tale of two constructs.Gerard Lum - 2013 - Educational Philosophy and Theory 45 (12):1193-1204.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The Anatomy of Judgment.K. Neuberg & M. L. Johnson Abercrombie - 1960 - British Journal of Educational Studies 9 (1):86.
Reconsidering Competence.Terry Hyland - 1997 - Journal of Philosophy of Education 31 (3):491-503.
GCSE ‐ Does it support equality?Hilary Radnor - 1988 - British Journal of Educational Studies 36 (1):37-48.

Add more references