The document discusses the complexities and challenges of assessment in education, including issues of validity, reliability, and the impact of assessment on teaching and learning. It stresses the confusion that can arise from assessment practices and highlights the limitations of testing, specifically addressing false positives and negatives. Ultimately, it encourages a deeper understanding of the assessment process, while acknowledging that confusion can be constructive in enhancing learning.

1. Problematising Assessment
(as if it needed it)
James Atherton
11 March 13

2. Problematising Assessment
(as if it needed it)
Balloons in this
James Atherton
colour are
11 March 13 additional notes for
the online version

3. This is the outcome
to which the
session relates
3.3: Understand theories, principles and
applications of formal and informal
assessment

4. 3.3: Understand theories, principles and
applications of formal and informal
assessment
And if I were teaching
Ofsted style I should
now recite the
objectives...

5. And for once I will.
At the end of this
session you should
be–
Confused

6. Confused
...but at a higher level than before

7. It is frowned
upon for you to
confuse your
students.
Confused
...but at a higher level than before
Probably from Kelley, 1951, but attributed to various sources

8. It is frowned
upon for you to ...which may well
confuse your be the biggest
students. limitation on your
teaching.
Confused
...but at a higher level than before
Probably from Kelley, 1951, but attributed to various sources

10. Confusion can be
constructive in teaching—
like ploughing before
planting

11. The Problem of Proxies

12. 1: The Problem of Proxies
...or surrogates, or
substitutes, or
stand-ins for the
real thing

13. 1: The Problem of Proxies
Assessment is rife with
them, and diluted by ...or surrogates, or
their use—but we are substitutes, or
stuck with them stand-ins for the
real thing

14. when
This is the essence of intuitive heuristics:
faced with a difficult question,
we often answer an easier one
instead, usually without noticing the
substitution
Kahneman 2011: 12
Thinking Fast and
Slow, Penguin

15. when
This is the essence of intuitive heuristics:
faced with a difficult question,
we often answer an easier one
instead, usually without noticing the
substitution
Kahneman 2011: 12
And this is exactly what we do in
assessment

16. Assess-
Content
ment

17. In principle our teaching is
governed by content, and the
assessment is just to check that it
has been learned
Assess-
Content
ment

18. Assess-
Content
ment

19. Assess-
Content
ment
In practice, the demands
of the assessment can all
to easily take over

20. Assess-
Content
ment
“Will we be In practice, the demands
tested on this?” of the assessment can all
too easily take over

21. Purposes
Forms Aspects

22. Purposes
Forms Aspects
Here are some
traditional
perspectives on
assessment...

23. Purposes
Forms Aspects
• Diagnosis
• Feedback
• Standards

24. Purposes
Forms Aspects
• Diagnosis
• Feedback
Pre-teaching
• Standards

25. Purposes
Forms Aspects
• Diagnosis
• Feedback During
teaching
• Standards

26. Purposes
Forms Aspects
• Diagnosis
• Feedback After
teaching
• Standards

27. Purposes
Forms Aspects
• Validity
• Reliability
• Fairness
• Security

28. Purposes
Forms Aspects
• Validity
• Reliability
• Fairness Traditional criteria
for evaluating
• Security assessment

29. Purposes
Forms Aspects
• Criterion-referenced
• Norm-referenced
• Ipsative

30. Purposes
Forms Aspects
• Criterion-referenced
• Norm-referenced
• Ipsative
Judging against fixed
pre-specified criteria

31. Purposes
Forms Aspects
• Criterion-referenced
• Norm-referenced
• Ipsative
Judging against other
people’s performance

32. Purposes
Forms Aspects
• Criterion-referenced
• Norm-referenced
• Ipsative
Judging against your
own prior
performance:
personal best

33. Purposes
• Formative Forms Aspects
• Summative
...etc. I could now
test you on your
knowledge of
assessment, but

34. See what I’ve
done? I’ve reduced
the whole topic to
• 12 items of jargon

35. Validity
• Does it do what it says on the tin?
• Is it really assessing the outcome?

36. What the area
of practice
actually Let’s look at the
requires whole process of
assessment drift.

37. What the area
of practice
actually Let’s look at the
requires whole process of
assessment drift.
Based on the work of
Howard Becker and
Etienne Wenger, among
others

38. What the course
sets out to teach

39. What the course
sets out to teach
There’s about 80%
overlap—never a
perfect fit

40. What the course
actually does
teach

41. What the course
sets out to assess

42. What the course
actually does
assess

43. What the area
of practice What the course
actually actually does
requires assess
That’s all the
overlap left

44. What the area
of practice What the course
actually actually does
requires assess
And if you
don’t pass
very well...

45. 2: False positives and false
negatives:
the inherent limitations of testing

46. 2: False positives and false
negatives:
the inherent limitations of testing
I got into some trouble in this section!
The maths are correct, but the problem comes with the labelling of
the False Positives (or Type 1 errors) and what happens if you try to
eliminate them simply by making the assessment stricter (rather than
by targeting it more precisely), so to avoid unnecessary extra
confusion, I’ve taken that out of this version.

48. Take a hundred people and train them for something....

49. In the real world, 80% are competent at it, and 20% aren’t

50. Not competent
(20%)
Competent (80%)
In the real world, 80% are competent at it, and 20% aren’t

51. But we’re not in the real world—we’re in a college—and we have to devise a
test to determine who can be let loose on the public

52. Inaccurate (20%)
Accurate (80%)
... but tests aren’t always good predictors. You devise the best you can,
but it may be only, say, 80% accurate.

53. Inaccurate (20%)
Not competent
(20%)
Accurate (80%)
Competent (80%)
So the 80% the test passes are not the same as the 80% who are genuinely
competent

54. False +
(4%)
False – (16%)
True –
True + (64%)
16%

55. False +
(4%)
False – (16%)
True –
True + (64%)
16%
These are the “true
positives”—they passed
the test, and so they
should have

56. These are the true
negatives: they
failed and so they
False +
should have done.
(4%)
False – (16%)
True –
True + (64%)
16%

57. These are the
unfortunates: the
test failed them,
but it was+
False wrong.
That is technically
(4%)
False – (16%)
a ‘Type 2’ error.
True –
True + (64%)
16%

58. False +
(4%)
False – (16%)
True –
True + (64%)
16%
These are the ‘Type 1’
errors: they should
have failed, but the
test passed them.

59. This test will always be 20% wrong.
So you can only reduce the False
Positives at the cost of increasing the
False Negatives.
See the notes for more on this.

60. So I hope you are now
confused at a higher level
than before...

61. • Becker H (1963) “Why school is a lousy place to learn anything in”
reprinted in R J Burgess (ed.) Howard Becker on Education
Buckingham; Open University Press, 1998
• Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow London; Penguin
• Kay J (2011) Obliquity; why our goals are best achieved indirectly
London; Profile Books
• Wenger E (1998) Communities of Practice; learning, meaning and
identity Cambridge; C.U.P.

62. www.bedspce.org.uk/cbc