It Ain’t Near ‘Bout Fair: Re-Envisioning the Bias and Sensitivity Review Process from a Justice-Oriented Antiracist Perspective

IF 2.1 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Educational Assessment Pub Date : 2023-04-03 DOI:10.1080/10627197.2023.2223924
Jennifer Randall
{"title":"It Ain’t Near ‘Bout Fair: Re-Envisioning the Bias and Sensitivity Review Process from a Justice-Oriented Antiracist Perspective","authors":"Jennifer Randall","doi":"10.1080/10627197.2023.2223924","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In a justice-oriented antiracist assessment process, attention to the disruption of white supremacy must occur at every stage – from construct articulation to score reporting. An important step in the assessment development process is the item review stage often referred to as Bias/Fairness and Sensitivity Review. I argue that typical approaches to the item and test review process miss the opportunity to actively disrupt white supremacist and racist logics – in other words, to be anti-racist. Using Critical Race and Critical Whiteness Theory as a frame, this paper challenges the field to re-envision the purpose and outcomes of the bias and sensitivity review process by (a) identifying common themes and/or recommendations found in bias and sensitivity guidelines that, even if unintentionally, center whiteness and/or the paradigm of white dominant culture; and (b) recommending a set of bias and sensitivity principles that promote an antiracist approach to assessment design, specifically item review.","PeriodicalId":46209,"journal":{"name":"Educational Assessment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2023.2223924","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

ABSTRACT In a justice-oriented antiracist assessment process, attention to the disruption of white supremacy must occur at every stage – from construct articulation to score reporting. An important step in the assessment development process is the item review stage often referred to as Bias/Fairness and Sensitivity Review. I argue that typical approaches to the item and test review process miss the opportunity to actively disrupt white supremacist and racist logics – in other words, to be anti-racist. Using Critical Race and Critical Whiteness Theory as a frame, this paper challenges the field to re-envision the purpose and outcomes of the bias and sensitivity review process by (a) identifying common themes and/or recommendations found in bias and sensitivity guidelines that, even if unintentionally, center whiteness and/or the paradigm of white dominant culture; and (b) recommending a set of bias and sensitivity principles that promote an antiracist approach to assessment design, specifically item review.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
这不是公平:从正义导向的反种族主义视角重新审视偏见和敏感性审查过程
在一个以正义为导向的反种族主义评估过程中,从结构表达到分数报告的每个阶段都必须关注白人至上主义的破坏。评估发展过程中的一个重要步骤是项目审查阶段,通常被称为偏见/公平和敏感性审查。我认为,项目和测试审查过程的典型方法错过了积极破坏白人至上主义和种族主义逻辑的机会——换句话说,是反种族主义的。本文以关键种族和关键白度理论为框架,挑战该领域重新设想偏见和敏感性审查过程的目的和结果,方法是(a)确定偏见和敏感性指南中发现的共同主题和/或建议,即使无意中,也会以白度和/或白人主导文化范式为中心;(b)建议一套偏见和敏感性原则,促进对评估设计,特别是项目审查采取反种族主义的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Educational Assessment
Educational Assessment EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
6.70%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Educational Assessment publishes original research and scholarship on the assessment of individuals, groups, and programs in educational settings. It includes theory, methodological approaches and empirical research in the appraisal of the learning and achievement of students and teachers, young children and adults, and novices and experts. The journal reports on current large-scale testing practices, discusses alternative approaches, presents scholarship on classroom assessment practices and includes assessment topics debated at the national level. It welcomes both conceptual and empirical pieces and encourages articles that provide a strong bridge between theory and/or empirical research and the implications for educational policy and/or practice.
期刊最新文献
Dialect and Mathematics Performance in African American Children Who Use AAE: Insights from Explanatory IRT and Error Analysis An Analysis of DIF and Sources of DIF in Achievement Motivation Items Using Anchoring Vignettes Resolving and Re-Scoring Constructed Response Items in Mixed-Format Assessments: An Exploration of Three Approaches Extending Principles of Evidence-Centered Design for Diverse Populations: K–12 English Learners with the Most Significant Cognitive Disabilities Reading Comprehension Tests: Students’ Question Reading and Responding Behavior
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1