How Serious are We About Fairness in Testing and How Far are We Willing to Go? A Response to Randall and Bennett with Reflections About the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing

IF 2.1 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Educational Assessment Pub Date : 2023-04-03 DOI:10.1080/10627197.2023.2226388
Guillermo Solano-Flores
{"title":"How Serious are We About Fairness in Testing and How Far are We Willing to Go? A Response to Randall and Bennett with Reflections About the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing","authors":"Guillermo Solano-Flores","doi":"10.1080/10627197.2023.2226388","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Jennifer Randall’s paper on justice-oriented assessment and Randy Bennett’s paper on socioculturally responsive assessment address fairness in the testing of racially, culturally, and linguistically diverse student populations by providing principles and recommendations for improved assessment practice. I warn about the perils of assuming that principles and recommendations suffice to promote fair testing in the absence of serious changes in the entire process of assessment. I liken the limitations of this over-reliance on principles and recommendations to the limitations of the fairness chapter of the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, whose wording portraits actions to address fairness in testing as optional. A transformative agenda on assessment practice needs to be based on a systemic perspective that involves all components and stages in the assessment process and needs to aim to produce a paradigm shift that establishes more rigorous expectations about what counts as fairness in assessment.","PeriodicalId":46209,"journal":{"name":"Educational Assessment","volume":"28 1","pages":"105 - 117"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2023.2226388","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: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT Jennifer Randall’s paper on justice-oriented assessment and Randy Bennett’s paper on socioculturally responsive assessment address fairness in the testing of racially, culturally, and linguistically diverse student populations by providing principles and recommendations for improved assessment practice. I warn about the perils of assuming that principles and recommendations suffice to promote fair testing in the absence of serious changes in the entire process of assessment. I liken the limitations of this over-reliance on principles and recommendations to the limitations of the fairness chapter of the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, whose wording portraits actions to address fairness in testing as optional. A transformative agenda on assessment practice needs to be based on a systemic perspective that involves all components and stages in the assessment process and needs to aim to produce a paradigm shift that establishes more rigorous expectations about what counts as fairness in assessment.
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
我们对测试的公平性有多认真?我们愿意走多远?对Randall和Bennett关于教育和心理测试标准的思考
摘要Jennifer Randall关于公正导向评估的论文和Randy Bennett关于社会文化响应评估的论文通过为改进评估实践提供原则和建议,解决了种族、文化和语言多样性学生群体测试中的公平性问题。我警告说,在整个评估过程没有发生重大变化的情况下,假设原则和建议足以促进公平测试是危险的。我将这种过度依赖原则和建议的局限性比作《教育和心理测试标准》公平章节的局限性,该章节的措辞将解决测试公平问题的行动描述为可选。关于评估实践的变革性议程需要建立在一个涉及评估过程所有组成部分和阶段的系统视角之上,并需要旨在产生一种范式转变,对评估中的公平性建立更严格的期望。
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 Raising the Bar: How Revising an English Language Proficiency Assessment for Initial English Learner Classification Affects Students’ Later Academic Achievements Monitoring Rater Quality in Observational Systems: Issues Due to Unreliable Estimates of Rater Quality Improving the Precision of Classroom Observation Scores Using a Multi-Rater and Multi-Timepoint Item Response Theory Model High Stakes Assessments in Primary Schools and Teachers’ Anxiety About Work
×
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