View in EDS HTML Full Text

Two Models of Educational Assessment.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Two Models of Educational Assessment.
Language: English
Authors: Hager, Paul, Butler, Jim
Source: Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. Dec 1996 21(4):367-378.
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 12
Publication Date: 1996
Document Type: Reports - Evaluative
Opinion Papers
Journal Articles
Descriptors: Cognitive Psychology, Educational Change, Educational Trends, Higher Education, Measurement Techniques, Performance Based Assessment, Problem Based Learning, Relevance (Education), Scientific Principles, Student Evaluation, Trend Analysis
ISSN: 0260-2938
Abstract: Educational trends such as problem-based learning, newer understandings of cognition, and performance assessment are challenging the traditional scientific measurement model of evaluation. A new model, termed judgmental model, is emerging. The basic assumptions, features, and uses of the two models are examined in comparison with a third, proposed model of education, training, and assessment for workplace performance. (Author/MSE)
Journal Code: CIJMAY1997
Entry Date: 1997
Accession Number: EJ536011
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN9612244557;EVA01DEC.96;1997Jan24.06:36;v2.3</anid> <title id="AN9612244557-1">TWO MODELS OF EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT </title> <hd id="AN9612244557-2"> ABSTRACT </hd> <p>Many educational developments in recent decades pose a serious challenge to the traditional scientific measurement model that has dominated assessment practices. The scientific measurement model has led to an over-emphasis on statistical tests and the reification of single measure test scores. The educational developments that challenge the scientific measurement model include problem-based learning, newer understandings of cognition, and the rise of performance assessment. These developments reflect widespread attempts by educators to reform assessment practices so as to encourage more effective learning. As a result, a new model of educational assessment, which we call the judgmental model, is emerging. The basic assumptions, features and appropriate uses of these two assessment models are compared and contrasted by referring them to a three-level conceptual model of education, training and assessment for workplace performance. </p> <hd id="AN9612244557-3"> Introduction </hd> <p>Although educational assessment has been dominated by a model of scientific measurement, a wide range of educational innovations and initiatives over the past 20 years have seriously challenged the value and rationale of these traditional assessment practices. These recent innovations and initiatives include problem-based learning, education for capability, portfolio-based performance assessment of teaching (Shulman, 1987), the growing focus on the assessment of clinical competence in the final stages of medical and paramedical courses, and the increasing concern by cognitive theorists to assess how students go about solving problems as well as the solutions that they reach. We believe that these developments reflect the rise of a new model of assessment. Traditional assessment practices are based on a model whose features are well known and understood, which we call the scientific measurement model. The new model, which we call the judgmental model, is not so well known or understood in educational circles [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>]. However, the making of a judgement on the basis of a collection of evidence is familiar in both legal processes and in the workplace. The nature of this new assessment model and its impact on professional preparation courses are the main concerns of this paper. However, it will be helpful to start by examining some wider factors that have contributed to the change in our thinking about educational assessment and thereby created the climate that has encouraged the emergence of a new model of assessment. </p> <hd id="AN9612244557-4"> Factors Leading to a New Assessment Model </hd> <p>We are involved in a global shift in understanding of the nature of working. This statement applies to adults working at all levels and in every occupation. </p> <p>Conceptions of the mechanisms that underlie our thinking and reasoning processes have altered dramatically during the 1970s and 1980s. Our thought processes are not what we thought they were. This reconceptualisation of our mental lives, of our ways of knowing the world, of our ways of developing excellence in our lives and our work, has led to new understandings of how to enrich them through education and training. (See Butler, 1992, 1994.) Recent developments in cognitive science which are part of the reconceptualisation, are providing new avenues for designing the goals and processes of education and training. </p> <p>In essence, the shift comes down to two approaches to understanding people's capacities founded, respectively, on the concepts of intelligence and cognition. Intelligence is the measure that has been widely used to determine the level of learning and working that people are capable of achieving throughout their lives. According to the intelligence approach, the learner is conceived of as an individual with a genetically programmed limit. This concept leads to the categorisation of people which underpins a hierarchy of power and influence. This categorisation of people thereby supports highly segmented and specialised roles within the workplace. It has been used in the workplace to predict the learning expected of people and to understand the types of work that they are fitted to do. The process of human development within the intelligence approach is one which takes place within the bounds of the individual person, with limited influence by factors outside the person. The basic assumptions surrounding the intelligence concept have been strongly contested by empirical studies and by the theories of cognition that have become dominant over the last 20 years (Hayes, 1990). Although suspicion about the significance of IQ scores is now much greater than it once was, the continuing influence of the intelligence concept is evident in the widespread faith that is shown in Tertiary Entrance Ranking scores (or their equivalent) as predictors of ability to do almost anything. The cognition approach, on the other hand, focuses on the process by which we think and reason. It leads to the categorisation of tasks, of the thinking and reasoning processes and of the products of thinking, but not to the categorisation of people. Cognitive models posit considerable scope for individual capacity to develop and grow through the interactive processes between persons and varying contexts (Hayes, 1990; Yates & Chandler, 1991). </p> <hd id="AN9612244557-5"> Impact on the Preparation of Professionals </hd> <p>In many countries, the assessment of professional practice, skill levels or occupational competencies is an area that is in a state of intense development (Hager et al, 1994; Maatsch et al, 1987). Despite the fact that it would be extremely rare for people to answer a battery of multiple choice questions in everyday practice at work, and even more unusual for them to practice a specific skill in isolation, assessment technologies often rely on these techniques (Lareau, 1986). The American teaching profession is one such example. The national testing schemes for the registration of teachers, based on multiple choice formats, have undergone intensive development and have been extensively studied. One group of reviewers (Haney et al., 1987) concluded with this forthright statement: </p> <p>no evidence has been provided to indicate that currently used tests are significantly related to general teacher competence or performance. Therefore we conclude that people who refer to currently used teacher tests as 'teacher competency tests' are either engaging in self-delusion, in sloppy use of words, or in outright fraud. </p> <p>This is but one illustration of the widespread dissatisfaction with the professional assessment procedures that have been developed and used for many years (Gonczi et al., 1990; McGaghie, 1989; Masters & McCurry, 1990). There are at least four reasons for this dissatisfaction. First, the traditional assessment procedures typically sample a very narrow range of contexts compared to those which the practising professional is likely to encounter. The need to ensure a relationship between the professional practice context and assessment technologies for registration is well documented (McGaghie, 1989; Salman, 1981). Second, the assessment procedures are biased towards the assessment of practitioner knowledge rather than the performance capabilities of the practitioner. Third, where the skills of candidates are assessed, this is done by experts who usually have other responsibilities in the practice setting and who therefore use indirect, vicarious and unstructured methods. Finally, within the scope of the dominant assessment model virtually no attention is given to the assessment of the personal traits or attitudes of those candidates being assessed. </p> <p>For these reasons, assessment technologies are attempting to move away from an emphasis on the assessment of knowledge and are searching for schemes more closely aligned to the complex practices and procedures that the person will be expected to carry out safely and skilfully. The goal is to ensure that the criteria of success in education or training accreditation processes are the same as those used in the practice setting. This new model has been termed the judgmental model (Hager & Butler, 1994; Hager et al., 1994) [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>]. Most of the explorations for new assessment procedures are presently focused on competencies schemes (Benner, 1984; Boyatzis, 1982; Burke, 1989). The identification and assessment of competencies is now widespread within the professions, the paraprofessions and many other occupations (Gonczi et al., 1990). </p> <hd id="AN9612244557-6"> A Model of Education, Training and Assessment for Professions and Other Occupations </hd> <p>In order to prepare entrants well for a profession or occupation, it is necessary to have a conceptual model that encompasses the best understanding of what is involved in the practice of the profession or occupation. This model is necessary to guide both the curriculum development and the assessment technology. The model offered in this paper has three levels, with each level nested in and a requirement for the next level. Each of the three levels has an appropriate curriculum and assessment technology. The order of the levels, one to three, can be described on many separate dimensions: </p> <ulist> <item> component parts to the whole; </item> <item> analysis to synthesis; </item> <item> aspects remote from practice to actual practice; </item> <item> external rules governing behaviour to personal, experiential integration of practice; </item> <item> achievements early in the curriculum to exit achievements. </item> </ulist> <p>Each of these dimensions provides guidance to designers of curriculum and assessment procedures. </p> <p>The three levels of this model for education and training will now be outlined and discussed. </p> <hd id="AN9612244557-7"> 1. Knowledge, Attitudes and Skills </hd> <p>This is the level that historically dominates the education of professionals, but is less prominent in the training of skilled artisans. The knowledge section of the curriculum is derived from the sciences and social sciences that are regarded as being foundational to practice. This is the context-free knowledge that the curriculum designers decide is needed for future practice. There is also a skills section of the curriculum that is designed from a list of all those isolated skills--psychomotor and attitudinal--that the effective practitioner is deemed to need. </p> <p>Thus, the curriculum becomes an orderly sequence of knowledge and cognitive, technical and interpersonal skills. The assessment instruments are usually made up of: </p> <ulist> <item> multiple choice tests to measure retention of relevant knowledge; </item> <item> multiple choice tests to measure cognitive skills; </item> <item> problem-solving exercises to measure skills in this area; </item> <item> observational checklists of skills in the practice setting. </item> </ulist> <p>The scientific measurement model underpins nearly all of the assessment instruments at this level. The emphasis is on learners demonstrating achievement of a satisfactory range of the approved knowledge, attitudes and skills. Typically, the assumption is that students' results will be norm-referenced, even where, as in performance of a relatively discrete skill, a standards based approach would be preferable. </p> <p>There are those who argue that skilled practice is totally reducible to knowledge, attitudes and skills. They develop a 'Knowledge and Skills' conceptualisation of education, training and assessment. However, the congruency between this conceptualisation of the education and assessment of practitioners and the real world of practice does not appear to be very great. It has been shown (Maatsch et al., 1987) that when highly trained and expert practitioners assess their peers in the practice setting they do not perceive the performance in the terms of the 'Knowledge and Skills' model. Rather, expert practitioners grasp the general level of competence displayed in the total practice. This finding is important because as the researchers point out: </p> <p>Expert examiner evaluations of physicians in their own speciality is, after all, the only 'Gold Standard' that educators, researchers, the public, the courts and physician colleagues alike will accept. </p> <p>Thus, this first level of the model of practice is accepted as necessary but rejected as sufficient. It is designated as the first, earliest and most remote level that needs to be supplemented by the following two levels. </p> <hd id="AN9612244557-8"> 2. Performance in Simulated or Practice Domains </hd> <p>Performance is a higher level of integration of knowledge and skills, which presupposes the attainment of sections of the previous level. The student is placed in simulated or practice settings to perform detailed procedures at a more macro level. The performance is still conducted in a contrived setting, but it does require the student to operate at a level that integrates several knowledge areas and skill regimes. The curriculum for this level is necessarily derived from knowledge areas and performance roles that are proximate to the practice area of the professional candidate. </p> <p>The assessment of performance is widespread in the form of performance appraisal checklists. Typically, they are used with little documentation to assist their application and little reference to the context in which the performance occurs. These stark lists of performances are scored as 'satisfactory' or 'unsatisfactory'. The lists tend to be impersonal and fragmented. There are so many procedures that it is difficult to ensure that all are covered. Second, there is usually little guidance as to the process by which the global decision about a student's performance, based on numerous 'satisfactories' and perhaps a few 'unsatisfactories', will be made. The relationship between this global judgement and level of practice skills is left unexamined. </p> <p>The level two approach to the design of the curriculum for education, training and assessment for practitioners recognises the existence of a more integrated, macro level of performance. However, it still holds to an underlying assumption that practice can be captured in a list of isolated performances. The use of such 'objective' checklists to assess learners' performances at level two reflects a continuing commitment to the scientific measurement model of assessment. However, as this paper argues, such a commitment is unlikely to provide valid assessments for decisions concerning the skill levels of practitioners. If level two begins to provide scope for the judgmental model of assessment, this model really comes into its own at the third level. </p> <hd id="AN9612244557-9"> 3. Personal Competence in the Practice Domain </hd> <p>The third level of the model--personal competence--is a characteristic that can only be displayed in the practice setting. Therefore, it can be learnt and assessed only in the practice setting. It demonstrates the highest level of personal integration of knowledge, skills, personal qualities and accumulated reflective experience. It includes the previous two levels but goes far beyond them in the sense that their contributions are at the service of higher order thinking in a setting of complex practical problems. It is this form of reflective and integrarive thinking that needs to be the focus of assessment procedures that are faithful to real practice. </p> <p>Personal competence is a construct whose definition is debated and confused (Benner, 1984; Burg et al., 1982; Hager, 1994; Hager et al., 1994; Klemp, 1980; Mansfield, 1989). The definition of competence, proposed in this paper, is the ability of a person to fulfil a role effectively. It is an ability that encompasses the entire range of demands that make up a complicated role. Competence includes being able to carry out a range of routine and predictable procedures, having a store of knowledge and being able to pass knowledge-rich examinations, but it is much more than all of that. A competent practitioner is also expected to be flexible and versatile, a reflective practitioner, a manager of change who is willing to innovate, and a person who has the attitudes and motivations to act skilfully and ethically. Inherent in this definition is the expectation that the competent practitioner effectively demonstrates the ability to practice over an extended period of time within a wide range of diverse contexts that include uncommon occurrences and contingencies. Concerning the curriculum at this level, Kermode (1987), in calling for learning in the practice setting, refers to the learning richness of this setting and the contextual subtleties that impinge on the process of practice. </p> <p>Assessment at this third level involves the gathering of information which must be interpreted in terms of competencies and standards. This raises the question of the subjectivity of the assessors. Objectivity tends to be equated with low inference numerical data, but this is of very limited use in the assessment of competencies. Objectivity is often contrasted with subjectivity portrayed as high inference judgements, but this contrast is facile. Subjectivity can never be eliminated from the assessment process. It is also undesirable to do so. Judgements about competence depend on the tacit knowledge and expertise of the assessors. This does not mean that subjectivity is equivalent to bias. It is the learned, relative standards of the assessor being used as the basis for assessment judgements. Moreover, if standards can be learned they can also be shared and brought into some relationship of uniformity with the subjective standards of others with equivalent knowledge and experience. Objectivity is the intelligent learned use of subjectivity, not a denial of it. In the judgmental model of assessment it is the assessor who delivers objectivity, not the data. </p> <hd id="AN9612244557-10"> Fundamental Assumptions and Features of the Two Assessment Paradigms </hd> <p>Thus far in this paper, the traditional scientific measurement model of assessment has been contrasted with the emerging model which we call the judgmental model. The relevance of the newer model to assessment in the professions has been stressed and illustrated by the three-level model of professional development. Finally, we would like to provide a more detailed comparison of the two models. We begin with what they assume about the nature of the human subjects that they are measuring. The basic metaphysical assumptions about humans that underpin these two different approaches are set out in Table 1 below. </p> <p>These two contrasting philosophical positions have been characterised by Hayes (1990: p. 236) as 'preformationism' vs. 'epigenesis'. In preformationism ". . . all the structures are assumed to be present from conception, waiting merely to unfold, mechanically, across the lifespan of the person . . .", while in epigenesis ". . . the organism is seen as containing only the basic elements" with ". . . considerable scope for modification by the processes of interaction between person and environment". Thus, the two contrasting positions have distinctly different implications for the role of education and training and the types of assessment that are employed therein. The cognitive view argues that human development is not the gradual drawing out of our individual potential as measured by our IQ, but, rather, from the earliest stages of development there is cognitive complexity to life's tasks and all associated learning. Cognitive theories lead to quite different possibilities for the relations between adults and work. Whereas the intelligence approach encourages selection of people to fit prespecified jobs, the cognitive approach enables us to view the workplace as a set of opportunities for people to learn and grow. It is this shift in understanding from the metaphysics of intelligence to the metaphysics of cognition that we are witnessing today. It is the shift in emphasis from the limits of thinking, working and learning to the processes of thinking, working and learning. This shift is one of the explanations for the increasing interest in problem-based learning, education for capability, portfolio-based performance assessment, the work-competency movement, etc. These educational innovations and initiatives are being more widely adopted and, taken together, they constitute a formidable challenge to the dominant scientific measurement model of assessment. </p> <hd id="AN9612244557-11"> Basic Features of the Two Assessment Models </hd> <p>The hallmark of the scientific measurement model has been a focus on measures that are maximally objective. This quest for scientific objectivity in testing has led to an over-emphasis on statistical tests and the reification of single measure test scores, with IQ testing providing a case study of the abuses that can result from such thinking. When assessment is driven by the imperative of scientific objectivity in testing results, assessment methods which best yield such objectivity, e.g. pen-and-paper tests conducted in controlled conditions, are strongly favoured. The results of this have included: </p> <ulist> <item> theory being seen as easier to assess than practice (and students being given the message that theory is thereby more important than practice); </item> <item> assessment of well-founded certain knowledge; </item> <item> knowledge being seen as objective and context independent; </item> <item> assessment based on closed problems with definite answers avoiding more open problems with indefinite answers; </item> <item> the traditional disciplines being viewed as the major part of the curriculum. </item> </ulist> <p>What characterises problem-based learning, and the other initiatives and innovations listed earlier, is their adoption of a judgmental model of assessment to replace the scientific measurement one. These are all instances of widespread attempts by educators to reform assessment practices so as to encourage more effective learning (Ewell, 1991; Wolf et al., 1991). The adoption of a judgmental model of assessment leads to quite different results from those produced by the scientific measurement model: </p> <ulist> <item> assessment centres on the integration of theory and practice; </item> <item> assessment recognises the importance of provisional knowledge to practice; </item> <item> the stress on assessment of practice draws attention to the subjective and context-dependent aspects of knowledge; </item> <item> assessment, like actual practice, includes open problems with indefinite answers; </item> <item> the curriculum is conceptualised as interdisciplinary and problem focused. </item> </ulist> <p>A basic outline of the different assumptions about the nature of knowledge that underpin the two assessment models is given in Table 2. </p> <hd id="AN9612244557-12"> The Nature of the Measurement Process According to the Two Models </hd> <p>The scientific measurement model centres on the production of numerical scores that constitute evidence about examinees' innate capacities. Hence, the measurement process is designed to ensure valid and reliable measures. In practice the main emphasis has been on reliability, i.e. on score production that is scientifically reproducible. The result has been scientific technologies of measurement which have tended to become ends in themselves in education. One indication of this is the widespread lack of understanding amongst educators that a different assessment model is possible. Yet, as Norman et al. (1991) amongst others have found, assessment techniques that focus mainly on producing scores that are scientifically reproducible too often trivialise the curriculum content that they are supposed to be assessing. </p> <p>As against the scientific measurement model that has dominated traditional testing, the judgmental model of assessment underpinning assessment of the various educational initiatives and innovations, listed earlier, is a quite different one, more akin to a legal paradigm (Bailey, 1993: p. 6). For example, the decisions made in the judgmental model about a candidate's performance are more like those that are made in a court of law, than they are like decisions made on the quality of output from traditional examinations. Thus, a judgmental model of assessment allows for the calling of more evidence in a doubtful case, rather than relying on making inferences from a fixed and predetermined set of data. Another possibility, allowed for by the judgmental model, is that assessment can become a dialogue between the person being assessed and the assessor, so that there is scope for the person being assessed to present their case. In this way, learning and assessing can become much more integrated than they have been under the scientific measurement model. The judgmental model also creates interesting possibilities for the use of some self-assessment. The integration of learning and assessing also has important implications for the current educational ideal of lifelong learning. </p> <p>The different views of the nature of the measurement process adopted by proponents of the two models are shown in Table 3. </p> <hd id="AN9612244557-13"> The Different Assessment Principles and Practices Recommended by the Two Models </hd> <p>Eisner has noted the increasing interest amongst educators in "more authentic approaches to educational assessment" (1993: p. 219). He goes on to outline and discuss eight principles or criteria that distinguish the emerging approaches to authentic assessment from more traditional approaches to assessment [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>]. In fact the Eisner principles serve very well to distinguish what we have called the judgmental model of assessment from the scientific measurement model. The extent of differences in the principles that characterise the two models seems to us to be great enough to justify our claim that a paradigm shift is occurring in educational assessment. Once again the principles that characterise the judgmental model are clearly very close to those that underpin assessment in the various educational innovations and initiatives listed earlier in the paper. These contrasting sets of principles, adapted from Eisner, are shown in Table 4. </p> <p>Finally, it may be useful to emphasise major differences in the assessment practices that the two models would employ. These are summarised in Table 5. Most of the practices listed in Table 5 derive from the foregoing discussion, although the desirability of evidence from a variety of assessment events in the judgmental model perhaps needs more comment. Just as legal judgements usually require a range of evidence from a variety of sources to make the inference safe, likewise for educational assessment based on the judgmental model. An example might be the judgement as to whether a candidate at the completion of a problem-based medical course is competent at making diagnoses. The decision properly would be based on evidence of various kinds from various sources [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref4">4</reflink>]. </p> <hd id="AN9612244557-14"> Conclusion </hd> <p>This paper has argued that there are two distinctive models available for educational assessment and that only one of them, the judgmental model, is suited to recent and, increasingly, widespread educational innovations and initiatives such as problem-based learning, education for capability and portfolio-based performance assessment. This is evident from the contrasting features of the two models that have been outlined in the last part of this paper. As the influence of the newer judgmental model increases, a more favourable climate for the wider adoption of these and other similar educational innovations and initiatives will be created. This process will likely be accelerated by proponents of these educational innovations and initiatives extending their mutual professional contacts. </p> <hd id="AN9612244557-15"> NOTES </hd> <p>[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref5">1</reflink>] A similar distinction between assessment models is made by Taylor (1994). She calls them the measurement model and the standards model. Her paper focuses on the implications of the models for school reform and mass testing. </p> <p>[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref6">2</reflink>] The choice of the term 'judgmental model' is not intended to suggest that judgement is absent from assessment in the scientific measurement model. Rather, the term emphasises the point that professional judgement is at the heart of assessment according to the newer model. This point is discussed in more detail later. </p> <p>[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref7">3</reflink>] For other perspectives on challenges to traditional approaches to curriculum and assessment see Broadfoot, 1992; Hager, 1994; Taylor, 1994. </p> <p>[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref8">4</reflink>] For more on the principles and practice of the judgmental model of assessment see Gonczi et al., 1993 and Hager et al., 1994. </p> <hd id="AN9612244557-16">TABLE 1.</hd> <p>Metaphysical assumptions about humans </p> <ct id="AN9612244557-17">The following chart reads as follows: Row 1: Intelligence approach Row 2: Cognition approach Human capacities fixed by 'g' factor Human capacities reflect complex combinations of knowledge, skills, abilities, etc. Some fixed, some not Single factors Diverse factors Normal distribution of 'g' Distribution of complex combinations of knowledge, skills, abilities, etc. that are not assumed to be normal 'g' factor underpins all performances Different kinds of combinations of knowledge, skills, abilities, etc. underpin different kinds of performances</ct> <hd id="AN9612244557-18">TABLE 2.</hd> <p>Epistemological assumptions </p> <ct id="AN9612244557-19">The following chart reads as follows: Row 1: Scientific measurement model Row 2: Judgmental model Theory prior to practice Integration of theory and practice Foundationalist knowledge Non-foundationalist knowledge Certain knowledge Provisional knowledge Impersonal knowledge Knowledge as a human construct Context-free knowledge Context-dependent knowledge Disciplinary and subject focus Interdisciplinary and problem focus Structured problems Unstructured problems Curriculum unproblematic Curriculum problematic</ct> <hd id="AN9612244557-20">TABLE 3.</hd> <p>Assumptions about he nature of the measurement process </p> <ct id="AN9612244557-21">The following chart reads as follows: Row 1: Scientific measurement model Row 2: Judgmental model Measure 'g' factor Infer kinds of combinations of knowledge, skills, abilities, etc. from performances Problem of objectivity, i.e. how to ensure data are scientifically reproducible Problem of inductran, i.e. how to collect sufficient evidence</ct> <hd id="AN9612244557-22">TABLE 4.</hd> <p>Assessment principles </p> <ct id="AN9612244557-23">The following chart reads as follows: Row 1: Scientific measurement model Row 2: Judgmental model Assess tasks remote from the world outside of classrooms Assess tasks that reflect outside context Assess solutions to problems Assess processes by which problems are solved, as well as the solution Assess simplified, discrete tasks Assess performance of holistic tasks in their actual context Assess individuals only Assess group work as well as individual work Emphasise one right solution Emphasise alternative ways to reach acceptable solutions Assess tasks directly from the curriculum as taught Assess tasks that are relevant to the curriculum but expand on it Assess discrete tasks one by one Assess performance on holistic tasks as well Teachers rigidly prescribe nature and form of assessment tasks Learners help to design nature and form of their assessment tasks</ct> <hd id="AN9612244557-24">TABLE 5.</hd> <p>Assessment practices </p> <ct id="AN9612244557-25">The following chart reads as follows: Row 1: Scientific measurement model Row 2: Judgmental model Examination focus A variety of diverse assessment events as the focus Measurement of attainments Inference of competence Single scores and measures Multiple sources of evidence Controlled test conditions Simulation of life situations Emphasis on objectivity Emphasis on avoidance of bias Focus on test instruments, validity, reliability Focus on triangulation, direct evidence, informed judgement</ct> <hd1 id="AN9612244557-26"> REFERENCES </hd1> <p>BAILEY, M. (1993) Theoretical models and the assessment of competency, paper presented at the VEETAC National Assessment Research Forum, Sydney, April. </p> <p>BENNER, P. (1984) From Novice to Expert (Menlo Park, CA, Addison-Wesley). </p> <p>BOYATZIS, R. E. (1982) The Competent Manager (New York, John Wiley & Sons). </p> <p>BROADFOOT, P. (1992) Changing priorities in assessment: an international reform agenda, keynote address to the NZ conference Qualifications for the 21st Century, New Zealand Qualifications Authority, January. </p> <p>BURG, F. D., LLOYD, J. S. & TEMPLETON, B. (1982) Competence in medicine, Medical Teacher, 4(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref9">2</reflink>), pp. 60-64. </p> <p>BURKE, J. W. (1989) Competency Based Education and Training (London, The Falmer Press). </p> <p>BUTLER, J. (1992) Teacher professional development: an Australian case study, Journal of Education for Teaching, 18(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref10">3</reflink>), pp. 221-238. </p> <p>BUTLER, J. (1994) From action to thought: the fulfilment of human potential, in: EDWARDS, J. (Ed.) Thinking: International Interdisciplinary Perspectives (Melbourne, Hawker Brownlow). </p> <p>EISNER, E. (1993) Reshaping assessment in education: some criteria in search of practice, Curriculum Studies, 25(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref11">3</reflink>), pp. 219-233. </p> <p>EWELL, P. T. (1991) To capture the ineffable: new forms of assessment in higher education, Review of Research in Education, 17, pp. 75-125. </p> <p>GONCZI, A., HAGER, P. & OLlVER, L. (1990) Establishing competency-based standards in the professions, National Office of Overseas Skills Recognition Research Paper No. 1, DEET (Canberra, Australian Government Publishing Service). </p> <p>GONCZI, A., HAGER, P. & ATHANASOU, J. (1993) The Development of Competency-Based Assessment Strategies for the Professions, National Office of Overseas Skills Recognition Research Paper No. 8, DEET (Canberra, Australian Government Publishing Service). </p> <p>HAGER, P. (1994) Is there a cogent philosophical argument against competency standards?, Australian Journal of Education, 38(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref12">1</reflink>), pp. 3-18. </p> <p>HAGER, P. & BUTLER, J. (1994) Problem-based learning and paradigms of assessment, in: CHEN, S. E., COWDROY, R. M., KINGSLAND, A. J. & OSTWALD, M. J. (Eds) Reflections on Problem Based Learning (Sydney, Australian PBL Network). </p> <p>HAGER, P., GONCZI, A. & ATHANASOU, J. (1994) General issues about assessment of competence, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 19(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref13">1</reflink>), pp. 3-16. </p> <p>HANEY, W., MADAUS, G. & KREITZER, A. (1987) Charms talismatic: testing teachers for the improvement of American education, Review of Research in Education, 14, pp. 169-238. </p> <p>HAYES, A. (1990) Developmental psychology, education and the need to move beyond typological thinking, Australian Journal of Education, 34(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref14">3</reflink>), pp. 235-241. </p> <p>KERMODE, S. (1987) Pre-clinical preparation of undergraduate nursing students, Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 5(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref15">1</reflink>), pp. 5-10. </p> <p>KLEMP, G. O. (1980) The Assessment of Occupational Competence (Washington, DC, National Institute of Education). </p> <p>LAREAU, A. (1986) A comparison of professional examinations in seven fields: implications for the teaching field, The Elementary School Journal, 86(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref16">4</reflink>), pp. 553-569. </p> <p>MAATSCH, J. L, HUANG, R. R., DOWNING, S. M. & MUNGER, B. S. (1987) Examiner assessments of clinical performance: what do they tell us about clinical competence?, Evaluation and Program Planning, 10, pp. 13-17. </p> <p>MCGAGHIE, W. C. (1989) Assessing readiness for professional practice, an invited address to the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco. </p> <p>MANSFIELD, B. (1989) Competence and standards, in: BURKE, J. W. (Ed.) Competency Based Education and Training (London, The FalTer Press). </p> <p>MASTERS, G. N. & McCURRY, D. (1990) Competency-based assessment in the professions, National Office of Overseas Skills Recognition, Research Paper No. 2 (Canberra, Australian Government Publishing Service). </p> <p>NORMAN, G. R., VAN DER VLEUTEN, C. P.M. & DE GRAAF, E. (1991) Pitfalls in the pursuit of objectivity: issues of validity, efficiency and acceptability, Medical Education, 25, pp. 119-126. </p> <p>SALMAN, R. D. (1981 ) Putting testers to the test: relating professional licensing examinations to practice. Conference on the Professions: Professional Education, Professional Examinations and Practice--Defining the Right Relationships, New York. </p> <p>SHULMAN, L. S. (1987) Assessment for teaching: an initiative for the profession, Phi Delta Kappan, 69(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref17">1</reflink>), pp. 38-44. </p> <p>TAYLOR, C. (1994) Assessment for measurement of standards: the peril and promise of large-scale assessment reform, American Educational Research Journal, 31(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref18">2</reflink>), pp. 231-262. </p> <p>WOLF, D., BIXBY, J., GLENN III, J. & GARDNER, H. (1991) To use their minds well: investigating new forms of student assessment, Review of Research in Education, 17, pp. 31-74. </p> <p>YATES, G. & CHANDLER, M. (1991) The cognitive psychology of knowledge: basic research findings and educational implications, Australian Journal of Education, 35(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref19">2</reflink>), pp. 131-153. </p> <aug> <p>By PAUL HAGER[1] JIM BUTLER[2] </p> <p></p> <p>1 University of Technology, Sydney, Australia; 2 University of Queensland, Australi </p> <p>PAUL HAGER is an Associate Professor in the School of Adult Education, University of Technology, Sydney. He has published and researched on philosophy of adult education and vocational education and training, on critical thinking and on professional competence. Correspondence: School of Adult Education, University of Technology, Sydney, PO Box 123, Broadway NSW 2007, Australia. Tel: (0)2 9330 3900. Fax: (0)2 9330 3939 </p> <p>JAMES BUTLER is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education, University of Queensland. His current research interests centre on professional development through action learning in educational and industrial settings. </p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib1" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib2" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib3" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib4" firstref="ref4"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ536011
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Report
PubTypeId: report
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Two Models of Educational Assessment.
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hager%2C+Paul%22">Hager, Paul</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Butler%2C+Jim%22">Butler, Jim</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Assessment+%26+Evaluation+in+Higher+Education%22"><i>Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education</i></searchLink>. Dec 1996 21(4):367-378.
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 12
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 1996
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Reports - Evaluative<br />Opinion Papers<br />Journal Articles
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cognitive+Psychology%22">Cognitive Psychology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Change%22">Educational Change</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Trends%22">Educational Trends</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Measurement+Techniques%22">Measurement Techniques</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Performance+Based+Assessment%22">Performance Based Assessment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Problem+Based+Learning%22">Problem Based Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Relevance+%28Education%29%22">Relevance (Education)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scientific+Principles%22">Scientific Principles</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Evaluation%22">Student Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Trend+Analysis%22">Trend Analysis</searchLink>
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0260-2938
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Educational trends such as problem-based learning, newer understandings of cognition, and performance assessment are challenging the traditional scientific measurement model of evaluation. A new model, termed judgmental model, is emerging. The basic assumptions, features, and uses of the two models are examined in comparison with a third, proposed model of education, training, and assessment for workplace performance. (Author/MSE)
– Name: CodeSource
  Label: Journal Code
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JC" term="%22CIJMAY1997%22">CIJMAY1997</searchLink>
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 1997
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ536011
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ536011
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 12
        StartPage: 367
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Cognitive Psychology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Change
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Trends
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Higher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Measurement Techniques
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Performance Based Assessment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Problem Based Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Relevance (Education)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scientific Principles
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Trend Analysis
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Two Models of Educational Assessment.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hager, Paul
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Butler, Jim
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 1996
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0260-2938
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 21
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1