Macro and micro influences on assessment practice

Assessment throws up novel problems in different educational cultural contexts and it would be easy for the field to become fragmented, with researchers working in isolation on seemingly different issues. In this edition, disparate approaches to educational assessment are outlined in the articles, from a test of graphics knowledge to alternative assessment practices in English as a foreign language examinations of critical thinking. In each of the papers, a strong theoretical position gives the research a framework upon which we can build. Each is distinctive, but jointly they produce a picture of macro and micro influences upon assessment practice, ranging from government policy to teachers’ beliefs about knowledge and learning, as well as pragmatic issues about the available technologies. What we see from this edition is a complex picture of teacher assessment processes in terms of practice and decision‐making.

Carmel Diezmann and Tom Lowrie argue that spatial, graphical ability is an important skill underpinning mathematics development and question the traditional view of teaching of numeracy. They argue that graphical numeracy is cross‐disciplinary and should be taught in that way. In the study reported here of Australian 9‐ and 10‐year‐olds’ performances on the graphical mathematics test that they have developed (Graphical Languages in Mathematics – GLIM), the authors provide empirical evidence for the inter‐disciplinary nature of graphical understanding. This research also produced benchmark data on children’s performances on the test that could be compared with data collected in other settings and is a useful resource for researchers working on mathematics teaching, learning and assessment.

In the next two papers, different theoretical frameworks are used to explore teachers’ assessment practices in formative, alternative and oral assessments. Mary Webb and Jane Jones outline their research on a professional development programme conducted on the island of Jersey. They draw out the dynamics of the process, which resulted in a variety of classroom practices with differing levels of success in terms of the programme’s objectives. Their theoretical model is based upon activity theory and produces good descriptive power that helps to elucidate problems that might be encountered when trying to adopt formative assessment practices.

Ofra Inbar‐Lourie and Smadar Donitsa‐Schmidt investigated English as a Foreign Language teachers’ alternative assessment practices in Israel using a theoretical framework from a paper by Hargreaves et al. (2002). The framework encompasses dimensions of technology, culture, politics and postmodernism that could potentially influence teachers’ assessment style decisions. Inbar‐Lourie and Donitsa‐Schmidt developed a quantitative instrument to measure teachers’ views and to link those views to the context in which teachers were working and to their beliefs about knowledge, learning and assessment. Their findings suggested that technology issues were most related to teachers’ decisions with respect to alternative assessment. This research took a theoretical model developed in Canada and, albeit by use of a different data collection method, applied it in an Israeli setting. Other researchers looking at alternative assessment will be interested in contrasting the findings with their own, but the quantitative instrument published with the paper could easily be adapted to focus upon other forms of assessment, and research comparing the impact of these factors upon decisions to utilise different forms of assessment would be feasible.

Staying with the theme of teachers’ practice, Uwe Maier describes teachers’ beliefs about the utility of large‐scale, external testing in Germany. In a survey of teachers’ views, he reports that they did not generally find the feedback from the tests to be useful in improving their teaching. He relates this to the school improvement agenda and argues that political use of the tests as an instrument to drive improvements in teaching is unlikely to be successful for some time.

In contrast to Germany’s system is the assessment system in Portugal, outlined in a Country Profile written by Domingos Fernandes. Assessment in Portugal is dominated by internal, formative assessment. However, Fernandes documents a policy‐practice gap such that formative assessment is predominantly being used for grading, selecting and certifying rather than for feedback to improve learning. This is a situation that is familiar, but the distinctive nature of Portugal’s adoption of formative assessment provides a useful addition to the literature, as does the critical evaluation of its implementation.

Changes to the journal

There are plans for the frequency of the journal to be increased from three times per year to quarterly. In addition, an electronic submission system will be introduced. More information on these changes will be outlined in subsequent editorials. In the interim, authors should continue to submit articles to the Editorial Office in the way described in the ‘Notes for Contributors’ in the inside leaf of the journal.

Changes to the Editorial Board

Professor Alison Wolf, who has been a member of the Editorial Board since the journal’s inception, has stepped down from her role as Executive Editor. We would like to thank Alison for her work on the journal over the years and recognise her contribution to the field through this work. Alison has a wealth of knowledge of assessment systems internationally and a view of policy that is difficult to match. This is clear in the recent Special Issue on The challenge of cross‐border qualifications recognition, for which Sandra Johnson and Alison Wolf were Guest Editors. We are glad that she will be able to continue working with the journal by acting as a member of the Editorial Advisory Board.

Professor Kathryn Ecclestone has taken up the role of Book Reviews Editor.

Professor Gordon Stobart will now be acting as the Profiles Editor.