教育评估的有效性与种族公正

IF 1.1 4区 教育学 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Josh Lederman
{"title":"教育评估的有效性与种族公正","authors":"Josh Lederman","doi":"10.1080/08957347.2023.2214654","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Given its centrality to assessment, until the concept of validity includes concern for racial justice, such matters will be seen as residing outside the “real” work of validation, rendering them powerless to count against the apparent scientific merit of the test. As the definition of validity has evolved, however, it holds great potential to centralize matters like racial (in)justice, positioning them as necessary validity evidence. This article reviews a history of debates over what validity should and shouldn’t encompass; we then look toward the more centralized stances on validity – the book series Standards and Educational Measurement – where we see that test use, and the social impact of test use, has been a mounting concern over the years within these publications. Finally, we explore Kane’s argument-based approach to validation, which I argue could impact racial justice concerns by centralizing them within the very notion of what makes assessment valid or invalid.","PeriodicalId":51609,"journal":{"name":"Applied Measurement in Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validity and Racial Justice in Educational Assessment\",\"authors\":\"Josh Lederman\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08957347.2023.2214654\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Given its centrality to assessment, until the concept of validity includes concern for racial justice, such matters will be seen as residing outside the “real” work of validation, rendering them powerless to count against the apparent scientific merit of the test. As the definition of validity has evolved, however, it holds great potential to centralize matters like racial (in)justice, positioning them as necessary validity evidence. This article reviews a history of debates over what validity should and shouldn’t encompass; we then look toward the more centralized stances on validity – the book series Standards and Educational Measurement – where we see that test use, and the social impact of test use, has been a mounting concern over the years within these publications. Finally, we explore Kane’s argument-based approach to validation, which I argue could impact racial justice concerns by centralizing them within the very notion of what makes assessment valid or invalid.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51609,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Measurement in Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Measurement in Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2023.2214654\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Measurement in Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2023.2214654","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要鉴于其在评估中的中心地位,在有效性概念包括对种族正义的关注之前,这些问题将被视为存在于“真正”的验证工作之外,使其无法与测试的明显科学价值相抗衡。然而,随着有效性的定义不断演变,它有很大的潜力将种族正义等问题集中起来,将其定位为必要的有效性证据。这篇文章回顾了关于有效性应该包含什么和不应该包含什么的争论历史;然后,我们着眼于对有效性的更集中的立场——《标准与教育测量》系列丛书——在这本书中,我们看到,多年来,考试的使用以及考试使用的社会影响一直是这些出版物中越来越关注的问题。最后,我们探讨了凯恩基于论证的验证方法,我认为这可能会影响种族正义问题,因为它将种族正义问题集中在评估有效或无效的概念中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Validity and Racial Justice in Educational Assessment
Abstract Given its centrality to assessment, until the concept of validity includes concern for racial justice, such matters will be seen as residing outside the “real” work of validation, rendering them powerless to count against the apparent scientific merit of the test. As the definition of validity has evolved, however, it holds great potential to centralize matters like racial (in)justice, positioning them as necessary validity evidence. This article reviews a history of debates over what validity should and shouldn’t encompass; we then look toward the more centralized stances on validity – the book series Standards and Educational Measurement – where we see that test use, and the social impact of test use, has been a mounting concern over the years within these publications. Finally, we explore Kane’s argument-based approach to validation, which I argue could impact racial justice concerns by centralizing them within the very notion of what makes assessment valid or invalid.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
13.30%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: Because interaction between the domains of research and application is critical to the evaluation and improvement of new educational measurement practices, Applied Measurement in Education" prime objective is to improve communication between academicians and practitioners. To help bridge the gap between theory and practice, articles in this journal describe original research studies, innovative strategies for solving educational measurement problems, and integrative reviews of current approaches to contemporary measurement issues. Peer Review Policy: All review papers in this journal have undergone editorial screening and peer review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信