07. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Paper
The Problem with Summative Literacy Assessments and How They Imagine Children: An International Comparison
Catherine Compton-Lilly1, Annette Woods2, Kerryn Dixon3
1University of South Carolina, United States of America; 2Queensland University of Technology; 3University of Nottingham
Presenting Author: Compton-Lilly, Catherine;
Woods, Annette
As a group of international scholars with experience in diverse international contexts across both the global south and north, we have become concerned about the increasingly rapid flow and (re)circulation of problematic, summative literacy assessments and international efficiency narratives. Our concerns, in part, are about how these assessments imagine children and their learning. In this presentation, we will examine the implementation of summative literacy assessments and accompanying data–driven instruction in elementary/primary classrooms around the globe. Specifically, we ask epistemological questions about the nature of summative assessment, by analysing examples of summative literacy assessments from across diverse international contexts, to see how those assessments imagine and represent children and childhood. We then turn our attention to formative assessments and explore how formative literacy assessment practices might be utilised to re-envision children and childhood while revealing promising instructional practices that have the potential to support student learning as well.
The circulation of summative literacy assessments across international contexts not only promotes problematic views of children, childhood and learning; but it also privileges Eurocentric, English dominant, colonialising, and narrow notions of literacy education and becoming literate, denying diversity and multiplicity which are two important principles of understanding literacy as a social practice. This we argue, is counter to equitable literacy teaching and learning. Commercial interests, the testing industry, and the commodification of testing, have contributed to the circulation of these assessments, and neoliberal ideologies have contributed to the proliferation of assessment practices across diverse international contexts without any heed paid to local social and cultural literacy understandings.
As scholars who have worked in the United Kingdom, Australia, South Africa, Taiwan, and the United States, we have individually and collectively encountered both summative and formative literacy assessment practices. These assessment practices often have global talons originating in other parts of the world and promote policy practices that entail global policy borrowing. Significantly, we are all employed by universities, teach in mid-sized or large urban areas, and engage with communities and schools where the dominant language is English. While each context brings its own set of challenges, policies and resources, we share a commitment to children who have been historically underserved in schools. We are particularly interested in how assessment practices have evolved in our respective systems and countries and how summative literacy assessments position children that schooling has historically failed to serve.
In this presentation, we open with two compelling views of childhood. Both situate children as capable of learning and knowing; however, one places the onus on leading, directing, and controlling children’s learning. The goal from this way of thinking is to measure and evaluate learning in relation to narrow, linear, and pre-determined learning progressions (Apple, 2011; Ball, 2021; Carnoy, 2015; Ravitch, 2013). The other (Gandini, 1993; Montessori, 2013) views learning as idiosyncratic, unpredictable, and stunningly contingent on each child’s vision of the world, particular interests and experiences, and their communities. We briefly review each perspective and reveal critical epistemological differences that operate below the surface of these perspectives as we conceptualise literacy learning for young children.
Our understandings of these theoretical differences led us to consider the international flow of literacy assessments –both summative and formative. Specifically, we ask what circulates, for what purposes, and what do these global flows mean for children and their becoming literate. We then introduce readers to a range of summative literacy assessments and the policies and purposes surrounding their use.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedMethodologically, we identified a summative literacy assessment used in three contexts, and focused on the international roots of these assessments and their relevance to assessment policy in diverse international contexts, including systems within the European Union. Criteria were used to select the assessments. These summative assessments were:
• used in schools and influence in how educators teach literacy,
• focused on young children and literacy, and
• circulated internationally, either in their current form or as sets of assessment principles taken up and applied in new international spaces.
We used discourse analysis to analyse documents surrounding each assessment. We explored the official, stated purpose for each assessment; revealed epistemological claims; discussed their international roots; and explore their flow and (re)circulation. Finally, we look across international system’s contexts, to identify other assessment practices shared by these example summative assessments, and identify assumptions about children and literacy learning operating through these assessment practices. The following assessments were analysed utilising discourse analysis, before the cross comparative analysis to investigate the global (re)circulation of policy talons in global south and north contexts :
Australia: A centerpiece of assessment in Australia - the National Assessment Program in Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) - was introduced in 2008 to test children in years three, five, seven, and nine using a suite of tests across four domains: reading, writing, language conventions, and numeracy. Children take these tests each May and in the weeks prior to testing, significant learning time is allocated to test-taking practice.
South Africa: While NAPLAN is supposedly a locally produced, tailored assessment for the Australian context, the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) is an international systemic evaluation of literacy in children’s home language or the language of instruction administered in grade 4. It has been administered every five years since 2001 by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). It aims to provide internationally comparative data on children’s reading achievement.
United States: The Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) was developed in 2006 by the Research International Triangle for US-AID. EGRA is a version of DIBELS, formerly a popular assessment in US schools. It has been adapted for use in African nations where international NGOs use it to track children’s reading progress. EGRA entails a series of one-minute assessments that measure the acquisition of supposedly discrete literacy skills, including phonemic awareness, alphabetic principle, accuracy and fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAnalytical methods have helped us to ascertain how summative assessments have often operated and (re)circulated in conjunction with instructional standards and educational practices in international spaces. Specifically, literacy assessments have been used to control what is taught and to mandate sets of literacy skills that all children are expected to learn. These standards have had a constraining force on local curricular decision-making as standards and benchmarks have become synonymous with achievement. However, these assessment systems appear to ignore what educators know about equitable, high quality, child-centered assessment systems and their role in literacy pedagogy and curriculum.
Large-scale literacy assessments that are used summatively are grounded in neoliberal and mechanical views of childhood and literacy that invite data–driven scripted and programmatic instruction, invoke and respond to supposedly universal conceptions of childhood, ignore the linguistic and literacy repertoires of multilingual children, often undermine and negate teachers’ professional judgement, and are driven by the investment of capital rather than the interests of children. We connect international flows of assessment practices and policies to international missions to measure learning in order to compare learners and their teachers, and alert readers to the operation of largescale summative assessments as colonising forces. Our goal is to raise awareness of the childhood-literacy-theory nexus that operates through the uses of assessments. Finally, we argue for the affordances of formative assessment including opportunities to discover what children know, individualise and inform instruction, honor cultural and linguistic diversity, and contribute to the development of teacher expertise.
ReferencesBall, S. J. (2021). The Education Debate. Policy Press.
Carnoy, M. (2015). International Test Score Comparisons and Educational Policy: A Review of the Critiques. National Education Policy Center.
Gandini, L. (1993). Fundamentals of the Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood education. Young children, 49(1), 4-8.
Montessori, M. (2013). The Montessori Method. Transaction publishers.
Ravitch, Diane. "Hoaxes in educational policy." The Teacher Educator 49.3 (2014): 153-165.
07. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Paper
Ethical Dilemmas in Special Education - The Challenge of Speech and Language Therapists.
Rachel Yifat, Debi Kastel
University of Haifa, Israel
Presenting Author: Yifat, Rachel
Professional ethics applies to a particular profession and focuses on protecting the interests of the individuals served. A professional code of ethics defines shared fundamental principles (based on values) specific to a particular group for practice, research, and education (Chabon & Ulrich, 2006). The code guides professionals' behavior concerning their interactions with clients, colleagues, and employers (Wesley & Buyesse, 2006). It supports self-reflection and public accountability and recognizes individuals as a community of professionals with distinct privileges and obligations. Furthermore, a professional code of ethics involves principles that a specific profession has established to judge the best action to take when facing ethical dilemmas that call for decision-making.
The relevance of ethics to the daily experience of healthcare professionals is highly acknowledged, and each healthcare association has formulated its code of ethics that is taught as part of professional training. Healthcare professionals (e.g., psychologists, occupational therapists, speech and language therapists) providing direct therapy to children in special education act in a unique situation where ethical dilemmas are examined according to the principles that reflect their values as professionals and establish expectations for their clinical practice. Given that special education is abundant with ethical problems and dilemmas, well-intentioned professionals must learn and apply the relevant ethical standards appropriate to this specific setting. Thus, the question is, how does a multidisciplinary team in special education school resolve cases when a conflict arises between definitions of an ethical dilemma?
Speech and language therapists (SLTs) are employed in various settings, including medical and educational. This study focuses on the unique circumstances associated with providing school-based services in special education and the challenge of applying SLTs' professional code of ethics in special education-based practice.
During training and development as healthcare professionals throughout their careers, SLTs devote much of their time and effort to assimilating theoretical and technical knowledge with professional and clinical skills. Nevertheless, only a small amount of time is dedicated to considering the substantial ethical implications of what they are learning to do.
Given that SLTs often significantly influence the special education programs and services provided for children with disabilities, the role of SLTs in special education has been insufficiently examined regarding the complex ethical dilemmas they are likely to face.
The aims of the present study were as follows:
(1) to explore how SLTs in special education identify ethical dilemmas and examine the ethical perspectives that influence their decision-making.
(2) to examine whether SLTs’ professional code of ethics provides comprehensive guidance to address ethical dilemmas in special education.
(3) to examine what SLTs claim are the significant sources of ethical dilemmas in special education schools.
(4) to explore whether and how often SLTs in special education are involved in ethical deliberations with multidisciplinary staff, and whether they recall cases when these lead to competing interests and controversies.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedUsing a purposeful sampling method, we invited SLTs employed in Special Education schools to participate in the study. Seventy-three clinicians responded to our request. Of these, 35 clinicians who met the following criteria were chosen to be included in the study:
At least three years of experience as SLTs employed in a special education school.
Attended a course on professional ethics as part of their academic training.
Familiar with the SLTs’ professional code of ethics.
A focus group interview was chosen to gather direct thoughts and observations from the SLTs regarding their involvement in ethical dilemmas. Based on a semistructured interview protocol (Morgan, 2002), we conducted five focus group interviews, each lasting approximately 3 hours. All focus group conversations were recorded and transcribed.
Using specific questions to guide but not limit their discussions within each focus group, we asked the SLTs to share their views and other information regarding their experiences with ethical dilemmas in special education. In addition, we presented several cases and then used this discussion to begin a dialogue about general ethical issues in special education and strategies for making principled ethical decisions.
The data analysis process included reviewing transcripts of the focus group discussions, notating concepts that emerged from the data and related to the study’s aims, identifying categories, and determining relationships among categories to reveal emerging themes (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsMost participants needed clarification on the differences between professional ethics and laws, rules, and regulations since they referred to them as interchangeable.
Many of the SLTs need help explaining how to identify an ethical dilemma.
SLTs are faced with the dilemma of choosing between potentially contradictory obligations. For example, confidentiality, a term in widespread use and familiar to healthcare professionals, is challenging with another familiar concept, teamwork. To respect the issue of confidentiality, not releasing information outside the therapy room may risk undermining the teacher's contribution.
Although SLTs are often uncertain about how to proceed when faced with ethical dilemmas, deliberations about ethics in special education are infrequent.
The participants raised the issue that some dilemmas are conceptualized as clinical in nature, involving clinical decision-making, but still have ethical implications. For example, when (or how much information) an SLT needs to bring to the notice of parents a suspicion that their child might have some severe additional difficulty that requires assessment and intervention.
Using the 'four principles approach' (Beauchamp & Childress, 1994) as a directive guideline to resolve ethical dilemmas poses interpretation challenges in particular cases. For example, failing to provide any service while searching for an SLT expert in a specific area (e.g., autism, cerebral palsy) may not be in the child's best interest and may even result in harm.
The participants agreed that SLTs are not prepared enough to cope with ethical dilemmas in special education.
ReferencesBeauchamp, T. & Childress, J. (1994). Principles of biomedical ethics, 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (4th ed.). New York: Pearson Education.
Chabon, S., & Ulrich, S. (2006). Uses and abuses of the ASHA Code of Ethics. The ASHA Leader, 11(2), 22–23.
Morgan, D. L. (2002). Focus group interviewing. In J. Gubrium & J. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research (pp. 141–160). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wesley, P. W., & Buysse, V. (2006). Ethics and evidence in consultation. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 26(3), 131–141.
|
