在学科中签名评估和反馈实践

IF 2.7 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Edd Pitt, Kathleen M. Quinlan
{"title":"在学科中签名评估和反馈实践","authors":"Edd Pitt, Kathleen M. Quinlan","doi":"10.1080/0969594X.2021.1930444","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the main, attention to disciplinary practices has been neglected in assessment and feedback research (Coffey et al., 2011; Cowie & Moreland, 2015). Only recently, the longstanding interest in authentic assessment (e.g. Wiggins, 1989) has re-surfaced in higher education literature on authentic assessment design (Ashford-Rowe et al., 2014; Villarroel et al., 2018) and authentic feedback (Dawson et al., 2020). To address this gap, in our 2019 call for papers for this special issue, we sought articles that would explore the potential of what we called ‘signature’ assessment and feedback practices. Just as signature pedagogies (Shulman, 2005) have directed attention to disciplineand profession-specific teaching practices in higher education, we used the term ‘signature’ to invite researchers and educators to consider discipline-specific assessment and feedback practices. While these signatures will be authentic to a discipline, the term implies that they will be uniquely characteristic of a particular discipline. Thus, we invited researchers and educators to dig deeply into what makes a discipline or profession special and distinct from other fields. Because attention to disciplines has the potential to connect primary and secondary with tertiary education, which is often siloed in its own journals, the call for papers also explicitly sought examples from different levels of education. Two years later, this special issue contains five theoretically framed and grounded empirical papers that: a) situate particular assessment and feedback practices within a discipline; b) analyse how engagement with those assessment and feedback activities allows students to participate more fully or effectively within the disciplinary or professional community, and c) illuminate new aspects of assessment and feedback. We (Quinlan and Pitt, this issue) conclude this special issue with an article that draws on the five empirical papers to construct a taxonomy for advancing research on signature assessment and feedback practices.","PeriodicalId":51515,"journal":{"name":"Assessment in Education-Principles Policy & Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Signature assessment and feedback practices in the disciplines\",\"authors\":\"Edd Pitt, Kathleen M. Quinlan\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/0969594X.2021.1930444\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the main, attention to disciplinary practices has been neglected in assessment and feedback research (Coffey et al., 2011; Cowie & Moreland, 2015). Only recently, the longstanding interest in authentic assessment (e.g. Wiggins, 1989) has re-surfaced in higher education literature on authentic assessment design (Ashford-Rowe et al., 2014; Villarroel et al., 2018) and authentic feedback (Dawson et al., 2020). To address this gap, in our 2019 call for papers for this special issue, we sought articles that would explore the potential of what we called ‘signature’ assessment and feedback practices. Just as signature pedagogies (Shulman, 2005) have directed attention to disciplineand profession-specific teaching practices in higher education, we used the term ‘signature’ to invite researchers and educators to consider discipline-specific assessment and feedback practices. While these signatures will be authentic to a discipline, the term implies that they will be uniquely characteristic of a particular discipline. Thus, we invited researchers and educators to dig deeply into what makes a discipline or profession special and distinct from other fields. Because attention to disciplines has the potential to connect primary and secondary with tertiary education, which is often siloed in its own journals, the call for papers also explicitly sought examples from different levels of education. Two years later, this special issue contains five theoretically framed and grounded empirical papers that: a) situate particular assessment and feedback practices within a discipline; b) analyse how engagement with those assessment and feedback activities allows students to participate more fully or effectively within the disciplinary or professional community, and c) illuminate new aspects of assessment and feedback. We (Quinlan and Pitt, this issue) conclude this special issue with an article that draws on the five empirical papers to construct a taxonomy for advancing research on signature assessment and feedback practices.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51515,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Assessment in Education-Principles Policy & Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Assessment in Education-Principles Policy & Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2021.1930444\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Assessment in Education-Principles Policy & Practice","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2021.1930444","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: 2

摘要

总的来说,在评估和反馈研究中忽视了对学科实践的关注(Coffey et al., 2011;Cowie & Moreland, 2015)。直到最近,对真实评估的长期兴趣(例如Wiggins, 1989)才在关于真实评估设计的高等教育文献中重新浮出水面(Ashford-Rowe et al., 2014;Villarroel et al., 2018)和真实反馈(Dawson et al., 2020)。为了解决这一差距,我们在2019年的本期特刊征稿中寻找了一些文章,这些文章将探索我们所谓的“签名”评估和反馈实践的潜力。正如签名教学法(Shulman, 2005)将人们的注意力引向了高等教育中特定学科和专业的教学实践,我们使用“签名”一词来邀请研究人员和教育工作者考虑特定学科的评估和反馈实践。虽然这些签名对于一个学科来说是真实的,但这个术语意味着它们将是特定学科的唯一特征。因此,我们邀请研究人员和教育工作者深入挖掘是什么让一个学科或职业与众不同。由于对学科的关注有可能将中小学教育与高等教育联系起来,而中小学教育往往被孤立在自己的期刊中,因此论文征集也明确地从不同的教育水平中寻找例子。两年后,这个特刊包含了五篇理论框架和基础的实证论文:a)将特定的评估和反馈实践置于一个学科中;B)分析参与这些评估和反馈活动如何使学生更充分或更有效地参与学科或专业社区,c)阐明评估和反馈的新方面。我们(昆兰和皮特,本期)以一篇文章来总结本期特刊,该文章借鉴了五篇实证论文,为推进签名评估和反馈实践的研究构建了一个分类。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Signature assessment and feedback practices in the disciplines
In the main, attention to disciplinary practices has been neglected in assessment and feedback research (Coffey et al., 2011; Cowie & Moreland, 2015). Only recently, the longstanding interest in authentic assessment (e.g. Wiggins, 1989) has re-surfaced in higher education literature on authentic assessment design (Ashford-Rowe et al., 2014; Villarroel et al., 2018) and authentic feedback (Dawson et al., 2020). To address this gap, in our 2019 call for papers for this special issue, we sought articles that would explore the potential of what we called ‘signature’ assessment and feedback practices. Just as signature pedagogies (Shulman, 2005) have directed attention to disciplineand profession-specific teaching practices in higher education, we used the term ‘signature’ to invite researchers and educators to consider discipline-specific assessment and feedback practices. While these signatures will be authentic to a discipline, the term implies that they will be uniquely characteristic of a particular discipline. Thus, we invited researchers and educators to dig deeply into what makes a discipline or profession special and distinct from other fields. Because attention to disciplines has the potential to connect primary and secondary with tertiary education, which is often siloed in its own journals, the call for papers also explicitly sought examples from different levels of education. Two years later, this special issue contains five theoretically framed and grounded empirical papers that: a) situate particular assessment and feedback practices within a discipline; b) analyse how engagement with those assessment and feedback activities allows students to participate more fully or effectively within the disciplinary or professional community, and c) illuminate new aspects of assessment and feedback. We (Quinlan and Pitt, this issue) conclude this special issue with an article that draws on the five empirical papers to construct a taxonomy for advancing research on signature assessment and feedback practices.
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
Assessment in Education-Principles Policy & Practice
Assessment in Education-Principles Policy & Practice EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
3.10%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: Recent decades have witnessed significant developments in the field of educational assessment. New approaches to the assessment of student achievement have been complemented by the increasing prominence of educational assessment as a policy issue. In particular, there has been a growth of interest in modes of assessment that promote, as well as measure, standards and quality. These have profound implications for individual learners, institutions and the educational system itself. Assessment in Education provides a focus for scholarly output in the field of assessment. The journal is explicitly international in focus and encourages contributions from a wide range of assessment systems and cultures. The journal''s intention is to explore both commonalities and differences in policy and practice.
×
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