Sociocultural Implications for Assessment I

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511802157.011

9 - Sociocultural Implications for Assessment I

Classroom Assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012

Edited by

Edward H. Haertel and

Lauren Jones Young

Show author details

Pamela A. Moss: Affiliation:
Professor of education, University of Michigan School of Education
Pamela A. Moss: Affiliation:
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Diana C. Pullin: Affiliation:
Boston College, Massachusetts
James Paul Gee: Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Edward H. Haertel: Affiliation:
Stanford University, California
Lauren Jones Young: Affiliation:
The Spencer Foundation, Chicago

Book contents

Get access

Summary

In this chapter, I develop the implications of the earlier chapters – on sociocultural and situative perspectives – for the practice of classroom assessment. In chapter 11, Moss, Girard, and Greeno further develop the implications of these perspectives for assessment that crosses the boundaries – from the classroom to the school and from the school to the district, external organization, or beyond – to serve purposes of professional learning, evaluation, and accountability.

Perhaps the central message of the previous chapters on sociocultural and situative (SC/S) perspectives is that if we want to foster learning and opportunity to learn (OTL), we need to understand the dynamic “relationship between learners and their learning environment” (Gee, this volume, chapter 4). This includes the relationship between learners and the physical and conceptual tools in their environment; it also includes the relationship between learners and the other people in their environment. In fact, from an SC/S perspective, learning is routinely conceptualized in terms of changes in these relationships. Learners participate more proficiently in the community's activities, disciplinary concepts take on new meanings as they are put to work in solving problems, and so on. Even if one views learning as change in mental representations, the mental representation can only be acquired and demonstrated through interactions between learners and the tools and/or other people in their environment. There is no unmediated access to learning (Gee, this volume, chapter 4).

Type: Chapter
Information: Assessment, Equity, and Opportunity to Learn , pp. 222 - 258

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802157.011 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Education Research Association, American Psychological Association & National Council on Measurement in Education. 1999. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington DC: American Educational Research Association.

Barton, D. and Tusting, K.. 2006. Beyond communities of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Delandshere, G. 2002. Assessment as inquiry. Teachers College Record 104: 1461–84.CrossRef Google Scholar

Engeström, Y. 1993. Developmental studies of work as a testbench of activity theory: The case of primary care medical practice. In Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context, edited byChaiklin, S. and Lave, J., 64–103. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Engeström, Y. 1987. Learning by expanding: An activity theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.Google Scholar

Engeström, Y. 1999. Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Perspectives on Activity Theory, edited by Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., and Punämaki, R., 19–38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Engeström, Y. 2001. Expansive learning at work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work 14: 134–56.CrossRef Google Scholar

Erickson, F. 2007. Some thoughts on “proximal” formative assessment of student learning. In Evidence and decision making (Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education), issue 1, edited by Moss, P. A.. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

Gibson, J. J. 1977. The theory of affordances. In Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing: Toward an Ecological Psychology, edited by Shaw, R., and Bransford, J., 67–82. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Gibson, J. J. 1979. The ecological approach to visual preception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Gipps, C. V. 1999. Socio-cultural aspects of assessment. In Review of Research in Education, edited by Iran-Nejad, A. and Pearson, P. D., 355–92. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar

Gipps, C. V. 2002. Sociocultural perspectives on assessment. In Learning for Life in the 21st Century, edited by Wells, G. and Claxton, G., 73–83. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishing.CrossRef Google Scholar

Greeno, J. G. 2002. Students with competence, authority and accountability: Affording intellective identities in the classroom. The College Board.Google Scholar

Hickey, D. T. and Zuiker, S. J. 2003. A new perspective for evaluating innovative science programs. Science Education 87: 539–63.CrossRef Google Scholar

Johnston, P. H. 1992. Constructive evaluation of literate activity. New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Jordan, B. and Putz, P.. 2004. Assessment as practice: Notes on measures, tests, and targets. Human Organization 63: 346–58.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lampert, M. 2001. Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Lave, J. 1993. The practice of learning. In Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context, edited by Chaiklin, S. and Lave, J., 3–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lave, J. 1996. Teaching, as learning, in practice. Mind, Culture, and Activity 3: 149– 64.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lave, J. and Wenger, E.. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Mislevy, R J., J. P. Gee, and P. A. Moss. In press. On qualitative and quantitative reasoning about assessment validity. In generalizing from educational research: Beyond the quantitative-qualitative opposition, edited by Ercikan, K. and Roth, W. -M.. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Moss, P. A. 2004. The meaning and consequences of reliability. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 29: 241–5.CrossRef Google Scholar

Moss, P. A., Girard, B. J., and Haniford, L. C.. 2006. Validity in educational assessment. Review of Research in Education 30: 109–62.CrossRef Google Scholar

Shepard, L. A. 2006. Classroom assessment. In Educational Measurement, 4th ed, edited by Brennan, R. L., 623–46. Westport, Conn.: American Council on Education/Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar

Wertsch, J. V. 1998. Mind as Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Book contents

9 - Sociocultural Implications for Assessment I

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive