Innovation in technology-enhanced assessment in the UK and the USA: future scenarios and critical considerations

References

• Acquisti, A., & Gross, R. (2006). Imagined communities: Awareness, information sharing, and privacy on Facebook. PET 2006. Retrieved from http://privacy.cs.cmu.edu/dataprivacy/projects/facebook/facebook2.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2002, March 28). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n18/
   Google Scholar
• Anushek, E., & Raymond, M. (2005). Does school accountability lead to improved student performance? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24, 297–327.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black, P., Harrison, C., Hodgen, J., Marshall, B., & Serret, N. (2010). Validity in teachers’ summative assessments. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17, 215–232.
   Google Scholar
• Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2005). Lessons from around the world: How policies, politics and cultures constrain and afford assessment practices. Curriculum Journal, 16, 249–261.
   Google Scholar
• Blackmore, J. (1995). Breaking out from a masculinist politics of education. In B. Limerick, & B. Lingard (Eds.), Gender and changing education management (pp. 44–56). Rydalmere, NSW: Hodder Education.
   Google Scholar
• Boekaerts, M., & Niemivirta, M. (2000). Self-regulated learning: Finding a balance between learning goals and ego-protective goals. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 417–451). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bohn, J., Coroama, V., Langheinrich, M., Mattern, F., & Rohs, M. (2005). Social, economic, and ethical implications of ambient intelligence and ubiquitous computing. In W. Weber, J. Rabaey, & E. H. L. Aarts (Eds.), Ambient intelligence (pp. 5–29). Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Boothe, J., Chisholm, M., Cutts, J., DuBravac, S., Joseph, D., Murphy, S., & Slater, C. (2010). Five technology trends to watch. VISION, CEA – Consumer Electronics Association. Retrieved from http://www.ce.org/PDF/2K11_5tech_web.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Boud, D. (1995). Assessment and learning: Contradictory or complementary? In P. Knight (Ed.), Assessment for learning in higher education (pp. 35–48). London: Kogan Page.
   Google Scholar
• Bowman, D. (2004). Thinking through the technology puzzle. From Now On: The Educational Technology Journal, 14(1). Retrieved from http://www.fno.org/oct04/integrating.html
   Google Scholar
• Brantlinger, E. (2003). Dividing classes: How the middle class negotiates and rationalizes school advantage. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bussey, M., & Inayatullah, S. (2008). Pathways: Alternative educational futures. In M. Bussey, S. Inayatullah, & I. Milojevic (Eds.), Alternative educational futures, pedagogies for emergent worlds (pp. 1–9). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Chaptal, A. (2002). Is the investment really worth it? Educational Media International, 39, 87–99.
   Google Scholar
• Daugherty, R. (1995). National curriculum assessment: A review of policy 1987–1994. London: Falmer.
   Google Scholar
• Debatin, D., Lovejoy, J. P., Horn, A. K., & Hughes, B. (2009). Facebook and online privacy: Attitudes, behaviors, and unintended consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15, 83–108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dede, C. (2005). Planning for neomillennial learning styles: Implications for investments in faculty and technology. In D. Oblinger & J. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the Net generation (pp. 15.1–15.22). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen
   Google Scholar
• Dede, C. (2011). Emerging technologies, ubiquitous learning, and educational transformation. In C. Kloos, D. Gillet, G. R. Crespo, F. Wild, & M. Wolpers (Eds.), Towards ubiquitous learning – Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 6964/2011, pp. 1–8). Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Facer, K. (2011). Learning futures: Education, technology and socio-technical change. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Gewirtz, S., Mahony, P., Hextall, I., & Cribb, A. (2008). Changing teacher professionalism. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, N., & Talburt, J. (2010). Hive: Crowdsourcing education data. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 25, 72–78.
   Google Scholar
• Govani, T., & Pashley, H. (2005). Student awareness of the privacy implications when using Facebook. Carnegie Mellon. Retrieved from http://lorrie.cranor.org/courses/fa05/tubzhlp.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Graue, M. E., Kroeger, J., & Prager, D. (2001). A Bakhtinian analysis of particular home school relations. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 467–498.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2008). The role of cognitive skills in economic development. Journal of Economic Literature, 46, 607–608.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harlen, W., & Deakin Crick, R. (2002). A systematic review of the impact of summative assessment and tests on students’ motivation for learning. In Research evidence in education library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.
   Google Scholar
• Harvey, D. (1990). The condition of postmodernity: An enquiry into the origins of cultural change. Malden: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: A source of novel product concepts. Management Science, 32, 791–805.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howe, K. R. (1994). Standards, assessment, and equality of educational opportunity. Educational Researcher, 23, 27–33.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, L., Smith, R., Willis, H., Levine, A., & Haywood, K. (2011). The 2011 Horizon Report. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, B. D. (2007). The unintended outcomes of high-stakes testing. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 23, 65–86.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, H., & Soltren, J. H. (2005). Facebook: Threats to privacy. Retrieved from http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/6805/student-papers/fall05-papers/facebook.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Jungk, R., & Müllert, N. (1987). Future workshops: How to create desirable futures. London: Institute for Social Inventions.
   Google Scholar
• Kozma, R. B. (Ed.). (2003). Technology, innovation and educational change: A global perspective. Eugene, OR: International Association for Technology in Education.
   Google Scholar
• Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Law, N., Pelgrum, W. J., & Plomp, T. (Eds.). (2008). Pedagogy and ICT use in schools around the world. Findings from the IEA SITES 2006 study. CERC Studies in Comparative Education. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong; and Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Lubienski, C. (2003). Innovation in education markets: Theory and evidence on the impact of competition and choice in Charter Schools. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 395–443.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luedtke, J. (2003, July 17). Toward pervasive computing – RFID tags: Pervasive computing in your pocket, on your key chain and in your car. DMReview.com. Retrieved from http://www.dmreview.com/
   Google Scholar
• McAdie, P., & Dawson, R. (2006). Standardized testing, classroom assessment, teachers, and teacher unions. Orbit, 36, 30–33.
   Google Scholar
• Mioduser, D., Nachmias, R., Tubin, D., & Forkosh-Baruch, A. (2003). Analysis schema for the study of domains and levels of pedagogical innovation in schools using ICT. Education and Information Technologies, 8, 23–36.
   Google Scholar
• Nichols, S. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
   Google Scholar
• Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ozga, J. (2009). Governing education through data in England: From regulation to self-evaluation. Journal of Education Policy, 24, 149–162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perrotta, C. (2013). Assessment, technology and democratic education in the age of data. Learning, Media and Technology, 38, 116–122.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perrotta, C., & Wright, M. (2010). New assessment scenarios. A Futurelab report. Retrieved from http://futurelab.org.uk/sites/default/files/New_assessment_scenarios.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rothensee, M., & Spiekermann, S. (2008). Between extreme rejection and cautious acceptance consumers, reactions to RFID-Based IS in Retail. Social Science Computer Review, 26, 75–86.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SAS. (2011). Ensuring effective data use in education: How SAS® solutions can help you execute the DQC’s recommended 10 state actions to meet NCES directives. SAS Institute Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Selwyn, N. (2012). Education in a digital world: Global perspectives on technology and education. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Sheng, H., Fui-Hoon, F., & Keng, S. (2008). An experimental study on ubiquitous commerce adoption: Impact of personalization and privacy concerns. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9, 344–376.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shute, V., Ventura, M., Bauer, M., & Zapata-Rivera, D. (2009). Melding the power of serious games and embedded assessment to monitor and foster learning – Flow and grow. In U. Ritterfeld, M. J. Cody, & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Serious games: Mechanisms and effects (pp. 295–321). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Slaughter, R. (2004). Futures beyond dystopia: Creating social foresight. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Tchounikine, P. (2008). Operationalising macro-scripts in CSCL. Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 193–233.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tushman, M. L., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 439–465.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Utterback, J. M. (1994). Mastering the dynamics of innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vavoula, G. N., Sharples, M., & Rudman, P. D. (2002). Developing the ‘Future Technology Workshop’ method. In M. M. Bekker, P. Markopoulos, & M. Kersten-Tsikalkina (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Workshop on Interaction Design and Children (IDC2002) (pp. 65–72). 28–29 August. Eindhoven, Netherlands: Shaker Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Whitty, G. (1997). Creating quasi-markets in education: A review of recent research on parental choice and school autonomy in three countries. Review of Research in Education, 22, 3–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 807–840.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar