An Archaeological Effort on Assessment and Validity - Contextual and Conceptual Knowledge

Abstract

Praxis of educational assessment is based on a set of scientific and philosophical assumptions. Beyond the discussions related to technical concerns, a systematic inquiry on assessment, and seeking of solutions for problems on assessment issues require one to take the relationship between these assumptions and assessment practices into consideration. Considering the historical background, it becomes explicit that conceptualization of assessment and discourse on assessment has developed based on these assumptions and needs which had been emerged in consequence of the social, political, economical, and cultural context. Approaching to the validity and validation issues with such a comprehensive perspective in terms of assessment will also lead up to a deeper comprehension on the concept of validity.

This paper, aiming to address contemporary scientific discourse and measurement based assessment approach within the framework of the basic assumptions and historical context in which those had arise, is inspired by Foucault’s historical analysis method referred as “archeology”. This paper also aims to offer an in-depth examination of today’s dominant scientific discourse on assessment and validity through questioning our own conceptualization and practices; thus adding another dimension to the discussions mostly focusing on methods and technical issues.

Praxis of educational assessment is based on a set of scientific and philosophical assumptions. Beyond the discussions related to technical concerns, a systematic inquiry on assessment, and seeking of solutions for problems on assessment issues require one to take the relationship between these assumptions and assessment practices into consideration. Considering the historical background, it becomes explicit that conceptualization of assessment and discourse on assessment have developed based on these assumptions and needs which had been emerged in consequence of the social, political, economical, and cultural context. Approaching to the validity and validation issues with such a comprehensive perspective in terms of assessment will also lead up to a deeper comprehension on the concept of validity.This paper, aiming to address contemporary scientific discourse and measurement based assessment approach within the framework of the basic assumptions and historical context in which those had arise, is inspired by Foucault’s historical analysis method referred as “archeology”. This paper also aims to offer an in-depth examination of today’s dominant

Keywords

• Assessment; measurement; validity; positivism; critical reflection

Değerlendirme ve Geçerlik Üzerine Arkeolojik Bir Çaba – Bağlam ve Kavram Bilgisi

Abstract

Öğrenmenin ve öğrencilerin değerlendirilmesine ilişkin her uygulama bilimsel ve felsefi temel varsayımlara dayanmaktadır. Değerlendirme konusunda sistematik bir sorgulama yapılabilmesi, bu konuda yaşanan sorunlara çözüm aranması, yöntem ve teknik tartışmalarının ötesinde, bu temel varsayımlarla değerlendirme uygulamaları arasındaki ilişkinin dikkate alınmasını gerektirir. Tarihsel süreç göz önünde bulundurulduğunda, değerlendirme kavramsallaştırması ve söyleminin, sosyal, politik, ekonomik ve kültürel bağlama dayalı olarak ortaya çıkan bu temel varsayımlar ve ihtiyaçlar üzerinde geliştiği görülmektedir. Geçerlik ve geçerliğin gösterilmesine ilişkin tartışmaların da değerlendirme konusu ile beraber bütünlük içinde ele alınması, geçerlik kavramına ilişkin daha derin bir kavrayışın gelişmesine yardımcı olacaktır.

Değerlendirme ve geçerlik uygulamalarına ilişkin günümüzde kullanılan bilimsel söylemi ve ölçme ağırlıklı değerlendirme anlayışını, ortaya çıktığı tarihsel bağlam ve temel varsayımlar çerçevesinde ele almayı amaçlayan bu makale, Foucault’nun öne sürdüğü ve “arkeoloji” olarak adlandırdığı tarihsel analiz yönteminden esinlenerek hazırlanmıştır. Değerlendirme ve geçerlik konularına ilişkin bilimsel söylemi bu çerçevede sorgulayarak kendi kavramsallaştırmamızı, değerlendirme ve geçerlik uygulamalarını yeni sorularla başka bir açıdan gözden geçirmek, ağırlıklı olarak yöntem ve teknikler üzerine yürütülmekte olan tartışmalara da farklı bir boyut kazandırabilir.

Öğrenmenin ve öğrencilerin değerlendirilmesine ilişkin her uygulama bilimsel ve felsefi temel varsayımlara dayanmaktadır. Değerlendirme konusunda sistematik bir sorgulama yapılabilmesi, bu konuda yaşanan sorunlara çözüm aranması, yöntem ve teknik tartışmalarının ötesinde, bu temel varsayımlarla değerlendirme uygulamaları arasındaki ilişkinin dikkate alınmasını gerektirir. Tarihsel süreç göz önünde bulundurulduğunda, değerlendirme kavramsallaştırması ve söyleminin, sosyal, politik, ekonomik ve kültürel bağlama dayalı olarak ortaya çıkan bu temel varsayımlar ve ihtiyaçlar üzerinde geliştiği görülmektedir. Geçerlik ve geçerliğin gösterilmesine ilişkin tartışmaların da değerlendirme konusu ile beraber bütünlük içinde ele alınması, geçerlik kavramına ilişkin daha derin bir kavrayışın gelişmesine yardımcı olacaktır.Değerlendirme ve geçerlik uygulamalarına ilişkin günümüzde kullanılan bilimsel söylemi ve ölçme ağırlıklı değerlendirme anlayışını, ortaya çıktığı tarihsel bağlam ve temel varsayımlar çerçevesinde ele almayı amaçlayan bu makale, Foucault’nun öne sürdüğü ve “arkeoloji” olarak adlandırdığı tarihsel analiz yönteminden esinlenerek hazırlanmıştır. Değerlendirme ve geçerlik konularına ilişkin bilimsel söylemi bu çerçevede sorgulayarak kendi kavramsallaştırmamızı, değerlendirme ve geçerlik uygulamalarını yeni sorularla başka bir açıdan gözden geçirmek, ağırlıklı olarak yöntem ve teknikler üzerine yürütülmekte olan tartışmalara da farklı bir boyut kazandırabilir.

 

Keywords

• Değerlendirme; ölçme; geçerlik; pozitivizm; eleştirel refleksiyon

References

1. Demirel Ö. Eğitim Sözlüğü. Üçüncü Baskı. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık; 2005.
2. Atılgan H, Kan A, Doğan N. Eğitimde Ölçme ve Değerlendirme. İkinci Baskı. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık; 2007.
3. Tekin H. Eğitimde Ölçme ve Değerlendirme. On üçüncü Baskı. Ankara: Yargı Yayınları; 1991.
4. Turgut MF. Eğitimde Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Metotları. Onuncu Baskı. Ankara: Yargıcı Matbaası; 1983.
5. Baykul Y. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme: Klasik Test Teorisi ve Uygulaması Ankara: ÖSYM Yayınları; 2000.
6. Michell J. Measurement in Psychology: A Critical History of a Methodological Concept (Ideas in Context) New York: Cambridge University Press; 1999.
7. Linn RL, Miller DM. Measurement and Assessment in Teaching. Ninth Edition ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.; 2005.
8. Knight P. Grading, classifying and future learning. In Boud , Falchikov , editors. Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education. New York: Routledge; 2007. p. 72-86.

9. Dixon-Román, Ezekiel J; Gergen, Kenneth J. Epistemology and Measurement: Paradigms and Practices I. A Critical Perspective on the Sciences of Measurement. Princeton NJ: The Gordon Commission on the Future of Assessment in Education; 2012.
10. Gipps C. Beyond Testing. Towards a Theory of Educational Assessment London: The Falmer Press; 1994.
11. Moss PA, Pullin D, Gee , Haertel EH. The idea of testing: psychometric and sociocultural perspectives. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives. 2005; 3(2): p. 63-83.
12. Black P, Dylan W. Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. 1998; 5(1): p. 7-74.
13. Delandshere G, Petrosky AR. Assessment of complex performances: limitations of key measurement assumptions. Educational Researcher. 1998; 27(2): p. 14-24.
14. Pellegrino JW, Chudowsky N, Glaser R. Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment. Washington DC: Committee on the Foundations of Assessment, Center for Education, National Research Council, Rethinking the Foundations of Assessment; 2001.
15. Newton PE. Clarifying the consensus definition of validity. Measurement: Interdisiciplinary Research and Perspectives. 2012; 10(1-2): p. 1-29.
16. Moss PA, Girard BJ, Haniford LC. Validity in educational assessment. Review of Research in Education. 2006; 30(1): p. 109-162.
17. Kane MT. Current concerns in validity theory. Journal of Educational Measurement. 2001; 38(4): p. 319-342.
18. Foucault M. Bilginin Arkeolojisi İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları; 2011.
19. Kuper A, Whitehead C, Hodges BD. Looking back to move forward: Using history, discourse and text in medical education research: AMEE Guide No. 73. Medical Education. 2013; 35: p. e849-e860.
20. Rehm J. The Use of Foucault in the Creation of Educational History: A Review of Literature. In Plakhotnik MS, Nielsen SM, Pane DM, editors. Proceedings of the 11th Annual College of Education & GSN Research Conference; 2012; Miami. p. 150-157.
21. Ramirez O, Boli J. The political construction of mass schooling: European origins and worldwide institutionalization. Sociology of Education. 1987; 60(1): p. 2-17.
22. Willbrinck B. Assessment in historical perspective. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 1997; 23(1): p. 31-48.
23. Delandshere G. Implicit theories, unexamined assumptions and the status quo of educational assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. 2001; 8(2): p. 113-133.
24. Madaus GF, O’Dwyer LM. Short history of performance assessment: lessons learned. Phi Delta Kappan. 1999; 80(9).
25. Meroe AS. Democracy, Meritocracy and the Uses of Education. Princeton, NJ: The Gordon Commission on the Future of Assessment in Education; 2012.
26. Stray C. The shift from oral to written examination: Cambridge and Oxford 1700–1900. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Pract. 2001; 8(1): p. 33-50.
27. Cheetham G, Chivers G. Professions, Competence and Informal Learning Cheltenham: Edward ElgarPublishing; 2005.
28. Gipps C. Socio-cultural aspects of assessment. Review of Research in Education. 1999; 24: p. 355-392.
29. Sutherland. Examinations and the construction of professional identity: A case study of England 1800–1950. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. 2001; 8(1): p. 51-64.
30. Schön DA. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action New York: Basic Books; 1983.
31. Hoskin KW, Macve RH. Accounting and the examination: A genealogy of disciplinary power. Accounting Organizations and Society. 1986; 11(2): p. 105-136.
32. Newton PE, Shaw SD. Validity in Educational&Psychological Assessment. 1st ed. London: Sage Publications Ltd; 2014.
33. Kaestle C. Testing policy in the United States: A historical perspective. Princeton, NJ: Gordon Commission on the Future of Assessment in Education; 2012.
34. Glaser R, Silver E. Assessment,Testing, and Instruction: Retrospect and Prospect. CSE Technical Report. Washington DC: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing; 1994.
35. Madaus GF, Stufflebeam DL. Program Evaluation: A Historical Overwiew. In Stufflebeam DL, Madaus GF, Kellaghan T, editors. Evaluation Models: Viewpoints on Educational and Human Services Evaluation. Boston: Kluwer; 2000. p. 3-18.
36. Shepard LA. The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher. 2000; 29(7): p. 4-14.
37. Mershon S, Schlossman S. Education, science, and the politics of knowledge: The American Educational Research Association, 1915–1940. American Journal of Education. 2008;(114): p. 307–340.
38. Koppes LL, Pickren W. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: An Evolving Science and Practice. In Koppes LL, editor. Historical perspectives in industrial and organizational psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2007. p. 3-36.
39. McArthur L. Educational Testing and Measurement: A Brief History. CSE Report No:216. Los Angeles: National Institute of Education; 1983.
40. McGaghie WC. Assessing readiness for medical education: evolution of the Medical College Admission Test. JAMA. 2002;(288): p. 1085–90.
41. Melnick DE, Dillon GF, Swanson DB. Medical Licensing Examinations in the United States. Journal of Dental Education. 2002;(66): p. 595–9.
42. Filer A. Technologies of Testing: Editor’s Introduction. In Filer A, editor. Assessment : Social Practice and Social Product. London: Routledge Falmer; 2000. p. 43.
43. Dragositz A. The National Council on Measurement in Education: Its History, Purposes and Activities. In Yearbook of the National Council on Measurement in Education No. 20.: National Council on Measurement in Education; 1963. p. 170-172.
44. Brookhart S. Developing measurement theory for classroom assessment purposes and uses. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. 2003; 22(4): p. 5-12.
45. Ertürk R. Modern ve Postmodern düşüncelerde bilim. Felsefe Dünyası. 2004; 2(40): p. 65-76.
46. Pauli HG, White KL, McWhinney IR. Medical education, research, and scientific thinking in the 21st century (Part One of Three. Education for Health. 2000; 13(1): p. 15-25.
47. Michell J. Quantitative science and the definition of measurement in psychology. British Journal of Pyhology. 1997; 88: p. 355-383.
48. Mills JA. Operationism, Scientism and the Rhetoric of Power. In Tolman CW, editor. Problems, Positivism in Psychology: Historical and Contemporary. New York: Springer Verlag; 1991. p. 67-82.
49. Borsboom D. The attack of the psychometricians. Psychometrica. 2006; 71(3): p. 425-440.
50. Bechtel W, Adele A, Graham G. The Life of Cognitve Science. In Bechtel W, Graham G, editors. A Companion to Cognitive Science. Massachuetts, USA: Blackwell Publishers; 1998.
51. Pellegrino JW, Baxter GP, Glaser R. Addressing the “Two Disciplines” problem: linking theories of cognition and learning with assessment and instructional practice. Review of Research in Education. 1999; 24: p. 307-353.
52. Carver RP. Two dimensions of tests: psychometric and edumetric. American Psychologist. 1974; 29(7): p. 512-518.
53. Vinchur AJ. A History of Psychology Applied to Employee Selection. In Koppes LL, editor. Historical Perspectives in Industrial and Organizational Psychology. New York: Pschology Press; 2014. p. 193-218.
54. Cronbach LJ. My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2004; 64(3): p. 398-418.
55. Gregory RJ. The History of Psychological Testing. In Psychological Testing: History, Principles,and Applications. Fourth Edition ed. : Allyn & Bacon; 2004. p. 1-28.
56. Jones LV, Thissen D. A History and Overview of Psychometrics. Handbook of Statistics. 2007; 26: p. 1-27.
57. Goldstein H. Francis Galton, measurement, psychometrics and social progress. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. 2012; 19(2): p. 147-158.
58. Embretson SL. The Second Century of Ability Testing: Some Predictions and Speculations. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service; 2003.
59. Traub RE. Classical test theory in historical perspective. Educational Measurement Issues and Practice. 1997; 16: p. 8-14.
60. Michell J. Is psychometrics pathological science? Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives. 2008; 6(1-2): p. 7-24.
61. Borsboom D. Measuring The Mind Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005.
62. Shepard LA. Evaluating test validity. Review of Reseacrh in Education. 1993; 1(9): p. 405-450.
63. Hattie J, Jaeger RM, Bond L. Persistent methodological questions. Review of Research in Education. 1999; 24: p. 393-446.
64. Biggs J, Tang J. Teaching for Quality Learning in University. 3rd ed. Berkshire: Open University Press& McGraw-Hill Companies; 2007.
65. Falchikov N. The place of peers in learning and assessment. In Boud D, Falchikov N, editors. Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education: Learning for the long term. New York: Routledge; 2007. p. 128-143.
66. Baird JA, Black p. Test theories, educational priorities and reliability of public examinations in England. Research Papers in Education. 2013; 28(1): p. 5-21.
67. Baird JA, Hopfenbeck TN, Newton P, Stobart G, Steen-Utheim AT. Assessment and Learning: State of the field review. Oxford University Centre for Educational Assessment Report OUCEA/14/2, Valuable Learning; 2014.
68. McCourt W. Paradigms and their development: The psychometric paradigm of personnel selection as a case study of paradigm diversity and consensus. Organization Studies. 1999; 20(6): p. 1011-1033.
69. Driskell JE, Olmstead. Psychology and the military. American Psychologist. 1989; 44(1): p. 43-54.
70. Garavan TN, McGuire D. Competencies and workplace learning: some reflections on the rhetoric and the reality. Journal of Workplace Learning. 2001; 13(4): p. 144-163.
71. Zickar MJ, Gibby RE. Four Persistent Themes Throughout the History of I-O Pschology in the United States. In Koppes LL, editor. Historical Perspectives in Industrial and Organizational Psychology. New York: Pschology Press; 2014. p. 61-80.
72. Goldstein H. Assessing group differences. Oxford Review of Education. 1993; 19(2): p. 141-150.
73. Shultz KS, Riggs ML, Kottke JL. The Need for an evolving concept of validity in industrial and personnel psychology: psychometric, legal, and emerging issues. Current Psychology. 1999; 17(4): p. 265-286.
74. Delandshere G. Assessment as inquiry. Teachers College Record. 2002; 104(7): p. 1461-1484.
75. Boud D. Assessment and learning: contradictory or complementary? In Knight P, editor. Assessment for Learning in Higher Education. London: Kogan Publications; 1995. p. 35-48.
76. Stobart G. Validity in Formative Assessment. In Gardner J, editor. Assessment and Learning. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications; 2012. p. 234-243.
77. Govaerts MJB, Van der Vleuten CPM, Schuwirth LWT, Muijtsens AMM. Broadening perspectives on clinical performance assessment: Rethinking the nature of intraining assessment. Advances in Health Sciences Education. 2007; 12: p. 239-260.
78. Schuwirth L, Van der Vleuten C. A plea for new psychometric models in educational assessment. Medical Education. 2006; 40: p. 296-300.
79. Yorke M. Summative assessment: dealing with the ‘measurement fallacy’. Studies in Higher Education. 2011; 36(3).
80. Dochy F. The Edumetric Quality of New Modes of Assessment: Some Issues and Prospects. In Joughin G. Assessment, Learning and Judgement in Higher Education: Springer; 2009. p. 85-114.
81. Dierick S, Dochy F. New lines in edumetrics: new forms of assessment lead to new assessment criteria. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 2001; 27: p. 307-329.
82. Baartman LK. ‘Assessing the assessment’ : Development and use of quality criteria for Competence Assessment Programmes. Universiteit Utrecht, Utrecht, 2008.
83. Dochy FDJC, McDowell L. Assessment as a tool for learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 1997; 23(4): p. 279-298.
84. Torrance H. Postmodernism and educational assessment. In Filer A, editor. Assessment: Social Practice and Social Product. London, GBR: Routledge; 2000. p. 173-188.
85. Hanson AF. How Test Create What They are Intended to Measure. In Filer A, editor. Assessment: Social Practice and Social Product. London, GBR: Routledge; 2000. p. 67-81.
86. James M. Assessment and Learning. In Swaffield S, editor. Unlocking Assessment: Understanding for reflection and application. London: Routledge; 2008.
87. Knight PT. The Achilles’ Heel of Quality: The assessment of student learning. Higher Education. 2002b; 8(1): p. 107-115.
88. Shepard LA. Psychometricians’ belief about learning. Educational Researcher. 1991; 20(6): p. 2-16.
89. William D. Toward a philosophy for educational assessment. In British Educational Research Association’s 20th Annual Conference; 1994; Oxford.
90. Van der Vleuten CPM, Schuwirth LWT, Scheele F, Driessen EW, Hodges B. The assessment of professional competence: building blocks for theory development. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2010;: p. 1-17.
91. Borsboom D, Mellenbergh GJ. Test Validity in Cognitive Assessment. In Leighton JP, Gierl MJ, editors. Cognitive Diagnostic Assessment for Education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2007. p. 85-115.
92. Broadfoot P, Black P. Redefining assessment? The first ten years of assessment in education. Assessment in Education. 2004; 11(1): p. 7-26.
93. Moss PA. Shifting conceptions of validity in educational measurement: Implications for Performance. Educational Research. 1992; 62(3): p. 229-258.
94. Sambell K, McDowell L, Brown S. “But is it fair?”: An exploratory study of student perceptions of the consequential validity of assessment. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 1997; 23(4): p. 349-371.
95. Dochy F, Segers M, Gijbels D, Struyven K. Assessment engineering: Breaking down barriers between teaching and learning, and assessment. In Boud F, Falchikow N. Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education. NewYork: Routledge; 2007.
96. Pellegrino JW. Assessment as a positive influence on 21st century teaching and learning: A systems approach to progress. Psicología Educativa. 2014;(20): p. 65-77.
97. Ecclestone K, Pryor J. ‘Learning careers’ or ‘assessment careers’? The impact of assessment systems on learning. Assessment in Education. 2001; 29(4): p. 471-488.
98. Markus KA, Borsboom D. Frontiers of Test Validity Theory Measurement, Causation, and Meaning New York: Routledge; 2013.
99. Camara WJ, Lane S. A historical perspective and current views on the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. 2006; 25(3): p. 35-41.
100. Plake BS, Wise LL. What is the role and importance of the revised AERA, APA, NCME Standards for. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. 2014; 33(4): p. 4-12.
101. Newton PE, Shaw SD. Standards for talking and thinking about validity. Psychological Methods. 2013; 18(3): p. 301-319.
102. Lissitz RW, Samuelsen K. A suggested change in terminology and emphasis regarding validity and education. Educational Researcher. 2007; 38(8): p. 437-448.
103. Moss PA. Reconstructing Validity. Educational Researcher. 2007; 36(8): p. 470-476.
104. Kane MT. Validating interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement. 2013; 50(1): p. 1-73.
105. Kane M. An Argument-based Approach to Validation. ACT Research Report Series. Iowa City: The American College Testing Program; 1990.
106. Shay S. Beyond social constructivist perspectives on assessment: the centring of. Teaching in Higher Education. 2008; 13(5): p. 595-605.
107. Brennan RL. Commentary on “Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores”. Journal of Educational Measurement. 2013; 50(1): p. 74-83.
108. Sireci S, Padilla JL. Validating assessments: introduction to the special section. Psicothema. 2014; 26(1): p. 97-99.
109. Messick S. Validty. Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service; 1987.
110. Messick S. Validity of Psychological Assessment: Validation ofInferences from Persons’ Responses and Performancesas Scientific Inquiry into Score Meaning. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service; 1994.
111. Messick S. Meaning and values in test validation: The science and ethics of assessment. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service; 1988.
112. Shepard LA. The Centrality of test use and consequences for test validity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. 1997; 16(2): p. 5-24.
113. Borsboom D, Cramer AOJ, Kievit RA, Scholten AZ, Franic S. The End of Construct Validity. In Lissitz RW, editor. The Concept of Validity: Revisions, New Directions, and Applications. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing; 2009. p. 135-170.
114. Popham JW. Consequential validity: right concern-wrong concept. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. 1997; 16(2):p. 9-13.
115. Kane M. Validating score interpretations and uses. Language Testing. 2012; 29(1): p. 3-17.
116. Shaw S, Crisp V. Reflections on a framework for validation- Five years on. Research Matters: A Cambridge Assessment Publication. 2015;(19): p. 31-37.
117. Kane M. Terminology, Emphasis, and utility in validation. Educational Researcher. 2007; 37(2): p. 76-82.
118. Nichols PD, Meyers JL, Burling KS. A framework for evaluating and planning assessments intended to improve student achievement. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. 2009; 28(3): p. 14-23.
119. Perie M, Marion S, Gong B. Moving toward a comprehensive assessment system: A framework for considering interim assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. 2009; 28(3): p. 5-13.
120. Fook J, White S, Gardner F. Critical reflection: a review of contemporary literature and understandings. In Gardner F, Fook J, White S. Critical Reflection in Health and Social Care. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Education Open University Press; 2006. p. 3-20.
121. Mezirow J. How Critical Reflection Triggers Transformative Learning. In Mezirow J, editor. Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood. San Fransisco: Josey-Bass p. 1-20.
122. Fook J, White S, Gardner F. Critical reflection: a review of contemporary literature and understandings. In Gardner F, Fook J,