{"title":"Teachers’ perceptions of national large-scale assessment: the pedagogical dimension","authors":"Rinat Arviv Elyashiv, Orit Avidov-Ungar","doi":"10.1080/00131911.2023.2256996","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTLarge-scale assessments have become a basic national policy for educational improvement encouraging standards, decentralisation and school accountability. The current study focuses on the pedagogical dimension of large-scale assessments, examining its uses as a policy instrument for effecting pedagogical change. The paper presents and discusses the case of the Israeli NLSA (national large-scale assessment) regime – the Meitzav (Hebrew acronym for: Growth and Effectiveness Measures for Schools) tests. Although it aimed to design a low-stakes testing regime, its implementation was a top-down procedure which, in practice, restricts principals’ and teachers’ autonomy. Using qualitative and quantitative methods, the findings showed that the Meitzav test results are barely used as a means leading to pedagogical change to improve learning. Teachers considered these tests an unreliable assessment tool that in the main, does not reflect the school curriculum or student learning, while producing a high level of pressure on the teaching routine. In consequence of the Meitzav test results, the most common pedagogical change in practice chosen by teachers was: “teaching to the test”. Other pedagogical changes following the Meitzav were implemented to a minor extent. Policy implications are discussed.KEYWORDS: Large-scale assessmentsschool accountabilitypedagogical change Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).","PeriodicalId":47755,"journal":{"name":"Educational Review","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2023.2256996","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
ABSTRACTLarge-scale assessments have become a basic national policy for educational improvement encouraging standards, decentralisation and school accountability. The current study focuses on the pedagogical dimension of large-scale assessments, examining its uses as a policy instrument for effecting pedagogical change. The paper presents and discusses the case of the Israeli NLSA (national large-scale assessment) regime – the Meitzav (Hebrew acronym for: Growth and Effectiveness Measures for Schools) tests. Although it aimed to design a low-stakes testing regime, its implementation was a top-down procedure which, in practice, restricts principals’ and teachers’ autonomy. Using qualitative and quantitative methods, the findings showed that the Meitzav test results are barely used as a means leading to pedagogical change to improve learning. Teachers considered these tests an unreliable assessment tool that in the main, does not reflect the school curriculum or student learning, while producing a high level of pressure on the teaching routine. In consequence of the Meitzav test results, the most common pedagogical change in practice chosen by teachers was: “teaching to the test”. Other pedagogical changes following the Meitzav were implemented to a minor extent. Policy implications are discussed.KEYWORDS: Large-scale assessmentsschool accountabilitypedagogical change Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
期刊介绍:
Educational Review is a leading journal for generic educational research and scholarship. For over seventy years it has offered scholarly analyses of global issues in all phases of education, formal and informal. It publishes peer-reviewed papers from international contributors across a range of education fields and or perspectives including pedagogy and the curriculum, history, philosophy, psychology, sociology, international and comparative education and educational leadership. Articles offer original insights to formal and informal educational policy, provision, processes and practice and the experiences of all those involved in many countries around the world. The editors welcome high quality, original papers which encourage and enhance debate on social justice and critical enquiry in education, besides innovative new theoretical and methodological scholarship. The journal offers six editions a year. The Board invites proposals for special editions as well as commissioning them.