Adapting to the test: performing algorithmic adaptivity in Danish schools

References

• Allerup, P. (2013). Undervisningsministeriet (Kvalitets-og Tilsynsstyrelsen) Bilag til Evaluering af de nationale test i folkeskolen BILAG 4: SELVSTAENDIGT NOTAT OM EKSPERT- VURDERING 2 [Expert evaluation report, Ministry of Education].
   Google Scholar
• Allerup, P., & Kjeldsen, C. C. (2017). Standard setting in Denmark: Challenges through computer-based adaptive testing. In S. Blömeke, & J. E. Gustafsson (Eds.), Standard setting in education. Methodology of educational measurement and assessment (pp. 101–121). Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Allerup, P., & Sorber, G. (1977). The rasch model for questionnaires: With a computer program. Copenhagen: Danmarks Paedagogiske Institut.
   Google Scholar
• Altinget. (2009). Nationale test rammer de svageste elever [National test affects weak students]. Altinget. Retrieved from https://www.altinget.dk/uddannelse/artikel/2009-5-4-nationale-test-rammer-de-svageste-elever
   Google Scholar
• Benavot, A., & Tanner, E. (2008). The growth of national learning assessments in the world, 1995–2006. Background paper prepared for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2008. UNESCO-IBE.
   Google Scholar
• Breakspear, S. (2012). The policy impact of PISA: An exploratation of the normative effects of international benchmarking in school system performance. OECD Education Working Papers, 71, 1–31.
   Google Scholar
• Callon, M. (1998). An essay on framing and overflowing: Economic externalities revisited by sociology. The Sociological Review, 46(1), 244–269.
   Google Scholar
• Callon, M. (1999). Actor-Network theory – The market test. The Sociological Review, 47(1), 181–195.
   Google Scholar
• Callon, M. (2007). An essay on the growing contribution of economic markets to the proliferation of the social. Theory, Culture & Society, 24(8), 139–163.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Danish Ministry of Education. (2014). Improving the public school - Overview of reform of standards in the Danish public school (primary and lower secondary education). Retrieved from https://www.uvm.dk/-/media/filer/uvm/publikationer/engelsksprogede/2014-improving-the-public-schools.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Danish Ministry of Education. (2017). Klassetrin, fag og profilområder [Form levels, subejcts and profile areas]. Retrieved from https://uvm.dk/folkeskolen/elevplaner-nationale-test-og-trivselsmaaling/nationale-test/klassetrin-fag-og-profilomraader
   Google Scholar
• Danish Ministry of Education. (2018). Vejledning om de nationale test [Instructions on national test]. Retrieved from https://uvm.dk/folkeskolen/elevplaner-nationale-test-og-trivselsmaaling/nationale-test/vejledninger
   Google Scholar
• Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2007). Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds. American Journal of Sociology, 113(1), 1–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EVA. (2011). Undervisningsdifferentiering som baerende paedagogisk princip [Differentiated teaching as a pedagogical principle]. Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut.
   Google Scholar
• Fenwick, T. J. (2010). (Un)Doing standards in education with actor-network theory. Journal of Education Policy, 25(2), 117–133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gergen, K. J., & Dixon-Román, E. J. (2014). Social epistemology and the pragmatics of assessment. Teachers College Record, 116(11), 1–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gillespie, T. (2014). Algorithm [draft] [#digitalkeywords]. Retrieved from http://culturedigitally.org/2014/06/algorithm-draft-digitalkeyword/
   Google Scholar
• Gorur, R. (2015). Producing calculable worlds: Education at a glance. Discourse, 36(4), 578–595.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gorur, R. (2017). Towards productive critique of large-scale comparisons in education. Critical Studies in Education, 58(3), 341–355.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gustafsson, L. (2012). What did you learn in school today? How ideas mattered for policy changes in Danish and Swedish schools 1990–2011. Politica. Aarhus University.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly, P., Andreasen, K. E., Kousholt, K., McNess, E., & Ydesen, C. (2017). Education governance and standardised tests in Denmark and England. Journal of Education Policy, 33(6), 739–758.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kousholt, K. (2016a). Børns gætterier ved nationale test [Children’s guesswork in the national test]. Cepra-Striben, 18, 46–57. Retrieved from https://journals.ucn.dk/index.php/cepra/article/view/145
   Google Scholar
• Kousholt, K. (2016b). Testing as social practice: Analysing testing in classes of young children from the children’s perspective. Theory & Psychology, 26(3), 377–392.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koyama, J. (2014). Principals as bricoleurs: Making sense and making do in an era of accountability. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(2), 279–304.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kreiner, S. (2009). Om udvikling og afprøvning af pædagogiske test [About the development and testing of pedagogical tests]. (C. Bendixen & S. Kreiner, Eds.), Test I Folkeskolen. Hans Reitzels Forlag.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Law, J. (2009). Seeing like a survey. Cultural Sociology, 3(2), 239–256.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lingard, B., Martino, W., & Rezai-Rashti, G. (2013). Testing regimes, accountabilities and education policy: Commensurate global and national developments. Journal of Education Policy, 28(5), 539–556.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lingard, B., & Sellar, S. (2013). ‘Catalyst data’: perverse systemic effects of audit and accountability in Australian schooling. Journal of Education Policy, 28(5), 634–656.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mol, A. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Durham: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. (2004). OECD-rapport om grundskolen i Danmark – 2004 [OECD-report on the elementary school in Denmark – 2004]. Retrieved from http://pub.uvm.dk/2004/oecd/
   Google Scholar
• Ozga, J., Segerholm, C., & Simola, H. (2011). The governance turn. In J. Ozga, P. Dahler-Larsen, C. Segerholm, & H. Simola (Eds.), Fabricating quality in education: Data and governance in Europe (pp. 93–103). New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Piattoeva, N. (2015). Elastic numbers: National examinations data as a technology of government. Journal of Education Policy, 30(3), 316–334.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ratner, H. (2016). Modern settlements in special needs education: Segregated versus inclusive education. Science as Culture, 25(2), 193–213.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ratner, H. (Forthcoming). Europeanizing the Danish school through national testing: Assessment scales and the anticipation of risky populations. Science, Technology and Human Values, 1–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sellar, S. (2015). A feel for numbers: Affect, data and education policy. Critical Studies in Education, 56(1), 131–146.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sellar, S., & Lingard, B. (2018). International large-scale assessments, affective worlds and policy impacts in education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 31(5), 367–381.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sellar, S., & Thompson, G. (2016). The becoming-statistic. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 16(5), 491–501.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, R. (2017). The emergence of the quantified child. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 38(5), 701–712.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Staunæs, D., Brøgger, K., & Krejsler, J. B. (2018). How reforms morph as they move. Performative approaches to education reforms and their un/intended effects. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 31(5), 345–352.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williamson, B. (2015). Governing software: Networks, databases and algorithmic power in the digital governance of public education. Learning, Media and Technology, 40(1), 83–105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williamson, B. (2016). Digital education governance: Data visualization, predictive analytics, and ‘real-time’ policy instruments. Journal of Education Policy, 31(2), 123–141.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson, M., & Gochyyev, P. (2013). Psychometrics. In T. Teo (Ed.), Handbook of quantitative methods for educational research (pp. 3–30). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Woolgar, S., & Neyland, D. (2013). Mundane governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ydesen, C. (2013). Educational testing as an accountability measure: Drawing on twentieth-century Danish history of education experiences. Paedagogica Historica, 49(5), 716–733.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar