| 查看: 825 | 回复: 23 | |||
| 当前主题已经存档。 | |||
sunyichong木虫 (著名写手)
纯纯家族之“入定”
|
[交流]
100金币求翻译【截至到10月31日】
|
||
|
发的篇幅的确有点长，但希望各位虫友能够帮帮忙 如果您能认真的翻译的话，我还会在追加一些金币给您 但请您不要那灵格斯或google翻译的东西给我，这样对大家都没有意义 提前谢谢好心的人 There can be no doubt that education in this century is a dynamic and exciting discipline. Students and teachers are engaging in learning dialogues of unprecedented complexity in recognition of changing times, changing needs, changing social groupings and, not least, changing technology. Educational policy is seen as a significant political area, with resultant high focus on educational content and delivery. Each of these dimensions of current educational contexts has import for educational assessment, ensuring that the traditional concept of ‘testing’ is to modern educational practice as the quill is to textual recording. In this book, we have drawn together the voices of international experts in educational assessment, talking about the issues with which they are concerned and providing opportunity to identify possible directions for future action. Even though the book is intended to be comprehensive, it can only touch on the issues and practices engaging educational assessment. What we hope we have portrayed successfully are the ongoing and increasing complexity and significance of the role of good educational assessment in modern education practice and the challenges that present in attaining such a goal. The 21st century has commenced with high expectations, not just for student outcomes but also for the professionalism of teachers and authorities—of clarity of purpose, approach and language, of recognition of different theoretical framings of assessment and, not least, of an overall care for the educational opportunities for all students. The authors in this book have written from a range of different theoretical and methodological framings of assessment, reflecting what are often referred to as different paradigms. Beyond points of difference, however, there are several calls that readers will hear resonating across the chapters. We refer deliberately to these as ‘calls’, in that they invite action in the fields of research, policy and practice. While readers will no doubt hear such calls differently, in this chapter we offer our framing—our hearing—of these. Throughout the chapters, a recurring call is for assessment to be relevant to the needs of the individual learner, in order to improve their educational opportunities and life outcomes and to provide the individual learner the opportunity to voice their needs. This goes beyond the long-standing stance for learner-centred approaches to a recognition of learner agency and the active contributions of the learner to inform how learning, and therefore assessment, should occur. The gravity of this call is to the fore when there is also the clear connection between educational, and more specifically, assessment opportunities and life opportunities. All too often in the past, assessment has worked to limit, even prescribe, such opportunities, inevitably impacting on what and how individuals achieve in social, workplace and civic spheres. An expansion on this is the need to go beyond policies of inclusion (which can focus on stereotypical and group identification drawing on a deficit perspective) to develop policies that recognise diversity and the complexity of the individual learner. Increasingly, teachers report that one of their main challenges in classroom practice is how to provide responsive teaching and assessment to diverse learners. Many of our authors recognised such challenges and demonstrated that assessment needs to chart student learning from the perspective of an underpinning theory of learning progress and development—whether such a theory is based on cognitive science, psychometric analyses, curriculum theories or combinations of these. From the standpoint of an underpinning theory of learning progress and development, the purposes of standards can be moved away from being a ‘standardising’ influence. More specifically, they need to be rethought and clearly defined in terms of their role in supporting learners and teachers in progressing learning and in understanding differences across learning development. There is also the strong call in the chapters for ‘salient’ or revealing evidence to support such charting and assessment of learning development, whether from formal or informal bases. Constant, therefore, is the need for sources of information and documentation. Related to this is the recurring challenge for assessment to take seriously the issues of equity by unpacking how the judgments of progress are being made. At play here are critical matters of the types of information that count as evidence and the ways in which the evidence is treated. Further, the chapters open spaces for different niche approaches to assessment and highlight the need for assessment researchers to theorise assessment practices in greater depth, elaborating and clarifying contexts and assumptions. This is particularly to the fore, for example, in how our chapters have conscientiously included commentary on the impact of technology on assessment, explored from various dimensions. What differentiates the 20th century from the beginning of the 21st century is the exponential and unbelievable development of new methods of communication, representing knowledge, and making knowledge available.Within this framework of the developments of the past 30 years—from clunky computer terminals with limited capacity to hand-held devices more powerful than computers of a decade ago and from a paper-based society to the development of the World Wide Web and the Internet in the past two decades—change in practices in education and assessment is inevitable. Last but not least, there is a call for opportunities to enhance the professional development of teachers. This development is taken to include the repertoires of assessment practices that teachers rely on, especially in relation to student diversity and inclusion as well as teachers’ own knowledge of what counts as quality assessment and ways to promote student learning. This, of course, becomes critical, given the intensified policy interest in accountability of school decision making and transparency in how judgements, including grading decisions, are arrived at. A decade ago, Delandshere & Petrosky (1998) reported how, in the then recent past, there had been ‘a shift in the rhetoric (if not yet the practice) of assessment’ (p. 15). They went on to identify how, by 1998, ‘much more emphasis [had] been placed on the support of learning and teaching than on the sorting and ranking of individuals’ (p. 15). This observation informed their characterisation of how, at that time, ‘the field of assessment [was] challenged by many conflicting purposes that create interesting problems’, referring in particular to the challenges associated with how ‘performance assessment systems are implemented for their potential impact on instruction and, more generally, as a way to promote systemic change in schools’ (p. 15). The chapters in this book provide clear evidence of how the field of assessment, and further, the practice of assessment, has strengthened the focus on how assessment can support learning and teaching. Across the chapters, the concentration on assessment to improve the quality of learning is to the fore. Also clear is a shift in rhetoric away from ‘the problems’ of assessment through to opportunities for rethinking assessment. The chapters provide frames for seeing how such rethinking is occurring in relation to the changing contexts of education, developments in learning theory and different ways of thinking about the nature of knowledge itself. Further, the book as a whole presents new insights into the nature of assessment that go beyond the notion of assessment as evidence-based practice. There is recognition of how assessment is contextualised practice, linking in complex ways to social, cultural and policy/political contexts. This opens the space for a new appreciation of the forces at play in shaping how assessment occurs and should occur. In regard to the latter, there are, of course, the forces that are tied to ongoing and rapid changes in ICTs, bringing with them new interaction possibilities, as well as new ways to use, represent and create knowledge. It might be interesting for readers to revisit the idea, introduced earlier, that while we, as editors, made choices about the writers who would be invited to contribute chapters, taking account of what we knew of previous writings, we were not seeking to give greater prominence to any particular theoretical tradition or approach in the field of assessment. Therefore, on reflection, we know that different paradigms in assessment research focus on measurement versus assessment paradigms, with the former seen as having psychological and psychometric bases and the latter being more socially constructivist based. The authors in this collection show, however, that such characterisations may be too simplistic for assessment directions for the 21st century. Instead, there is emerging a new appreciation of how theoretical and disciplinary stances, and contexts and modes for enacting assessment, are fundamentally interactionist. Beyond this, there are some signs of movement towards a multitheoretical assessment approach. Readers will observe, for example, that writers working within the psychometric paradigms explored and considered sociocultural contexts, while, overall, the different assessment paradigms recognised the need for theoretical progressions of learning. Such signs hold promise for paradigmatic change, whereby assessment practices incorporate technological change and offer both new performance and new learning contexts that take account of new student cohorts. We hope that you as readers find this book a valuable addition to your library on assessment. We encourage you to delve into the chapters and to make your own reflections on the influence of the different theoretical and methodological frameworks of the authors on their work. We invite you to consider whether the frameworks are necessarily incompatible or whether they can all be perceived to contribute to our understanding of learners and learning and to contribute to the research, policy and practice imperatives that have identified the significant role that assessment plays in education at this point in the 21st century. [ Last edited by sunyichong on 2009-10-26 at 19:54 ] |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
假如你的研究生提出不合理要求
已经有8人回复
-
萌生出自己或许不适合搞科研的想法，现在跑or等等看？
已经有4人回复
-
Materials Today Chemistry审稿周期
已经有4人回复
-
参与限项
已经有3人回复
-
实验室接单子
已经有4人回复
-
全日制（定向）博士
已经有4人回复
-
对氯苯硼酸纯化
已经有3人回复
-
求助:我三月中下旬出站，青基依托单位怎么办？
已经有12人回复
-
所感
已经有4人回复
-
要不要辞职读博？
已经有7人回复
yzhang1986
铁杆木虫 (文坛精英)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 贵宾: 1.497
- 金币: 7998.7
- 散金: 299
- 红花: 5
- 帖子: 17111
- 在线: 142.9小时
- 虫号: 668685
- 注册: 2008-12-05
2楼2009-10-26 22:31:07
slowstar
木虫 (职业作家)
- 翻译EPI: 13
- 应助: 12 (小学生)
- 金币: 16708.5
- 红花: 2
- 帖子: 3376
- 在线: 803小时
- 虫号: 712881
- 注册: 2009-03-02
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 热力学
3楼2009-10-26 22:33:52
yaushz
木虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 2775.3
- 帖子: 606
- 在线: 201.1小时
- 虫号: 751360
- 注册: 2009-04-18
- 性别: MM
- 专业: 临床分子生物学检验
4楼2009-10-27 00:29:37
5楼2009-10-27 08:55:15
slwhot2334
铁杆木虫 (著名写手)
沙滩拾贝者
- 应助: 1 (幼儿园)
- 贵宾: 0.905
- 金币: 6101
- 红花: 7
- 沙发: 10
- 帖子: 2576
- 在线: 120.6小时
- 虫号: 521563
- 注册: 2008-03-09
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 电化学
6楼2009-10-27 09:52:26
7楼2009-10-27 10:06:45
8楼2009-10-27 10:29:31
9楼2009-10-27 10:57:00
10楼2009-10-27 11:00:20