Educational assessment as hope in uncertain times

Writing from the EARLI conference at Thessaloniki, Greece (22nd–26th August) with the conference theme Education as a hope in uncertain times it is clear that many education researchers are changing their focus of their research program to address the current global crises. The EARLI conference took place while the burning fires outside of Athens and Rhodes kept reminding everyone of the unprecedented summer of new heat records in Europe and the fires in Canada continued for weeks impacting the air quality even in New York. As the war in Ukraine continues, we are facing a new food crises globally threatening millions of people. In fact, The Global Report on Food Crises (GRFC, 2023) indicates that over a quarter of a billion people are facing acute hunger, with economic shocks and the Ukraine war contributing to the increase. So where do we go from here?

As Editor of this journal, I would welcome a discussion on our contemporary assessment research programs globally. Are we focusing upon the research questions worth asking in the field of educational assessment? Are we assessing what is needed for future generations? Are we developing tests and assessment which measures what is worth measuring? Are we developing and researching assessments worth using? Does our research represent a sign of hope in uncertain times for a world in crisis?

I will argue that if we continue focusing our research program on classical issues, such as standards, validity, and reliability only, we will fail to offer the next generation the research findings and knowledge that really matters. We owe it to the next generation to do better. Instead of an excessive preoccupation with how to raise standards, we should research how standards impact the future, who sets the standards in the first place, for whom and why. What is the purpose of discussing standards, if they do not address the dire problems in front of us and assess what matters the most; curriculum for sustainability, democracy, equity, creativity, compassion, ethics and the wisdom to meet climate change and other global challenges with hope and resilience.

The current regular issue offers some important articles addressing such issues, with examples of themes which need to be higher up on the research agenda if we are to succeed in creating a better future.

In the first article, Baidoo-Anu and DeLuca (2023) outline how assessment is currently conducted in Ghana, and how high-stake assessments have links to the country’s colonial history. The authors explain how formal education was introduced in the 15^th century when Europeans arrived and named the country The Gold Cost. The formal education in Ghana was only offered to children of mothers married to Western traders, with the main aim to establish schools who could serve the purpose of creating a privileged class of individuals to ‘support and run colonial activities’ (ibid). Until late 1800, assessments were in English, as was the language of instruction, serving as gatekeeping to better jobs and accountability purposes in the system. Educational assessment was primarily used as a tool for selecting students for higher education or employment opportunities. The assessment methods and standards were often geared towards measuring academic knowledge and proficiency in the English language, which was the medium of instruction in most schools.

Ghana did not gain independence from Britain until 1957 and as such it is still a young country, dealing with its colonial past. What the authors have demonstrated in this article, is the need for revisiting what we as a research community mean with fairness in assessment. Indeed, the authors suggest it is imperative we adopt decolonising approaches to assessment, because despite several educational reforms and revisions in Ghana, the educational assessment system still serves colonial and high-stake accountability purposes. If we are serious about a more equitable and inclusive assessment system, Baidoo-Anu and DeLuca (2023) argue that the decolonisation of the educational system and the assessment system, is needed. The current article is an important contribution to our understanding of assessment issues, as it demonstrates how colonial history has impacted current practices, where Ghanaian teachers’ views of assessment are basically that they are accountability-driven for summative purposes. Hence, although teachers are aware of formative assessment practices, teachers do not use such assessment in the classroom.

Similar points are made in the second article of this journal, where Kanjee and Ramollo (2023) make the point that this post-pandemic time is a critical moment in history where we have a unique opportunity to focus upon key challenges in the world. They outline how South African scholars rethink long-held educational dogmas and challenge traditional accountability systems, to instead focus upon formative assessment practices which enhance learning for all, both learners and teachers. In their article, Kanjee and Ramollo outline how the Department of Basic Education in South Africa implemented the School Recovery Plan (SRP) to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on teaching and learning. A survey of more than 1000 teachers reported promising results where formative assessment practices had a positive impact on their classroom practices. Further studies are clearly needed, but the study is part of a movement in South Africa, which should be of interest for the broader research society and educators, as they are redefining an education system post-apartheid.

The article reports from a study in Mexico where the research team explored the bridging role of feedback concerning teacher and headteacher assessments and continuing professional development (Ochoa et al., 2023). This study is particularly important, as empirical research studies from the Mexican context are scarce. The mixed-methods research contributes evaluation evidence of Mexico’s 2013–2018 education reform, including high-stakes staff assessments and individual feedback reports. Data from 122 primary school teachers and headteachers were collected, as well as interview data from 13 teachers and policy makers. The research team discusses challenges around professional development following the assessment feedback and issues on how to conduct such assessments for improvement of practice.

Bouwer et al. (2023) present research from two studies, examining a benchmark rating procedure for assessing written texts by upper-elementary students in the Netherlands. The research team investigated whether a benchmark rating procedure could produce reliable and generalisable scores that converge with holistic and analytic ratings. They further investigated whether the procedures could also be used for rating texts of varied different topics and genres. The article adds to the literature and ongoing discussion on rating, as is also a part of the educational assessment research profile of this journal. The question remains how these procedures will be informed by technology, such as AI, in the next decade to come.

Finally, Marcenaro-Gutierrez et al. (2023) report from a study in Spain, investigating the existence of a gender gap resulting from two methods of grading student achievement, teacher assessment vs standardised assessment. The researchers found that teachers overall favoured girls when conducting their assessing compared to the standardised assessments. Implications and recommendations are discussed, and their research will add to the ongoing discussion on biases in teacher assessments.

Changes in the Editorial board

Director of ARD Research Division, Cambridge University Press & Assessment, Tom Bramley, who joined the editorial board spring 2012, will step down from our Editorial Board due to other commitments. We are thankful for all the valuable work Tom has done for this journal; indeed, he has been a key figure in the last 10 years getting our journal to the high impact journal we currently have, as well as publishing on important issues, such as comparative judgement (Bramley & Vitello, 2019) and the use of item banks (Crisp et al., 2020). We are pleased to have Tom as one of our advisory board members moving forward.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Therese Hopfenbeck

Therese N. Hopfenbeck is Director of the Assessment and Evaluation Research Centre at the University of Melbourne, and Professor of Educational Assessment. She is Visiting Fellow at Kellogg College, University of Oxford and Adjunct Professor at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology.