Personalizing Assessment: Dream or Nightmare?
Saved in:
| Title: | Personalizing Assessment: Dream or Nightmare? |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Bennett, Randy E.1 (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Educational Measurement: Issues & Practice. Dec2024, Vol. 43 Issue 4, p119-125. 7p. |
| Subject Terms: | *Theory-practice relationship, Duty, Standardization |
| Abstract: | Over our field's 100‐year‐plus history, standardization has been a central assumption in test theory and practice. The concept's justification turns on leveling the playing field by presenting all examinees with putatively equivalent experiences. Until relatively recently, our field has accepted that justification almost without question. In this article, I present a case for standardization's antithesis, personalization. Interestingly, personalized assessment has important precedents within the measurement community. As intriguing are some of the divergent ways in which personalization might be realized in practice. Those ways, however, suggest a host of serious issues. Despite those issues, both moral obligation and survival imperative counsel persistence in trying to personalize assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Educational Measurement: Issues & Practice is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Education Research Complete |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Over our field's 100‐year‐plus history, standardization has been a central assumption in test theory and practice. The concept's justification turns on leveling the playing field by presenting all examinees with putatively equivalent experiences. Until relatively recently, our field has accepted that justification almost without question. In this article, I present a case for standardization's antithesis, personalization. Interestingly, personalized assessment has important precedents within the measurement community. As intriguing are some of the divergent ways in which personalization might be realized in practice. Those ways, however, suggest a host of serious issues. Despite those issues, both moral obligation and survival imperative counsel persistence in trying to personalize assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 07311745 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/emip.12652 |
