Overview

Fairness and Fear ? I was startled at the subtitle of the book when I first heard it! Our series has some imaginative titles but none so evocative as this one. But “fear” and “fairness” capture much of teacher thinking about assessment. Indeed, teachers struggle to be fair with students, certainly c- cerned (and often fearful) of failures to be fair, and repercussions that teachers can face as a result. Then there is the fearful enterprise of imposed assessment regimes that many teachers face. Dr. Yung’s book allows us to hear from the teachers on these concerns ? this is no top-down policy statement. His account is readable and highly instructive, and I hope that copies will find their way to the desks of many school administrators and policy personnel. We are indeed pleased to release this volume. William W. Cobern Book Series Editor (2000-2005) Foreword by Peter Fensham Two things are very clear to me about formal educational systems. • What is assessed in these systems determines what teachers and students recognize as knowledge of worth. • Teachers in general are conscientious in doing their best to ensure that their students will learn this knowledge of worth well. Science has now been widely acknowledged to be a core or key subject in the overall curriculum of schooling at all levels.

Full Product Details

Author:   Benny B.H.W Yung
Publisher:   Springer-Verlag New York Inc.
Imprint:   Springer-Verlag New York Inc.
Edition:   2006 ed.
Volume:   31
Dimensions:   Width: 16.00cm , Height: 1.90cm , Length: 24.00cm
Weight:   0.699kg
ISBN:  

9781402033742

ISBN 10:   1402033745
Pages:   296
Publication Date:   09 January 2006
Audience:   Professional and scholarly ,  Professional & Vocational
Format:   Hardback
Publisher's Status:   Active
Availability:   Out of stock  
The supplier is temporarily out of stock of this item. It will be ordered for you on backorder and shipped when it becomes available.

Table of Contents

Foreword by Peter Fensham. Foreword by Derek Hodson. Acknowledgements.- 1. Introduction.- 2. The assessment reform.- 3. Teachers' enactment of the reform.- 4. Alan-the students' companion.- 5. Bob-the teacher with a mission.- 6. Carl-the teacher committed to all-round education.- 7. Dawn-the evolving teacher.- 8. Eddy-the money-hunter.- 9. Hugo-the examiner of a driving test.- 10. Ivor-the police fears to be scolded by his superior.- 11. John-the examination-driven teacher.- 12. Looking across the cases-a preliminary analysis.- 13. Three views of fairness.- 14. Teacher professionalism and policy interpretation.- 15. Ways of seeing and ways of enacting.- Appendix A: A study transversing three bodies of literature. Appendix B: Reflecting on the research methodology. References. Index.

Reviews

International Journal of Science Education Vol. 30, No. 8, 25 June 2008, pp. 1129a 1133 ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/08/081129a 05 DOI: 10.1080/09500690701880167 BOOK REVIEW Assessment Reform in Science: Fairness and Fear Benny H. W. Yung, 2006 Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer $159.00 (hbk), 293 pp. ISBN 1-4020-3374-5 Benny H. W. Yunga (TM)s book, Assessment Reform in Science: Fairness and Fear, explores the issues that come to the fore when a major assessment reform is mandated. Yung began the study intending to focus on the features of 10 secondary biology teachersa (TM) practice with regard to the assessment reform; their perceptions of the intent and regulations of the reform itself; their beliefs about science, teaching, and learning; and the relationships among these practices, perceptions, and beliefs. As it turned out, however, two additional areas became important to consider, as well: the teachersa (TM) views of fairness, and their sense of professionalism. The specific focus of the book is the Hong Kong Advanced Level Teacher Assessment Scheme (TAS) for biology practical work. The TAS replaced a standard public examination based on the system in the UK. Yung was involved in the initial development of the TAS, and worked for the Hong Kong Examinations Authority at the time of its inception. (He left that post before conducting this study.) The teacher is required to enact a set number of TAS practicals, reporting assessment of studentsa (TM) work to the Hong Kong Examinations Authority. The intention of the TAS is not to replicate the public examination system, but rather tofold assessment into the teachera (TM)s normal routine, and thus to alleviate the challenges of enacting the public examinations. The TAS is also intended to reduce studentsa (TM) anxiety and allow a valid assessment of their practical work abilities. Finally, it is intended to enhance teachersa (TM) professionalism. In other words, although the TAS is mainly an assessment reform, it is also a pedagogical reform. It does, however, put teachers in a tricky position in which they need to administera and determine the results ofa a high-stakes assessment with their own students. The first two chapters of the book set the stage, with Chapter 1 giving a high-level overview of the study and the literature in which it is grounded, as well as the methodological approach taken. Chapter 2 describes the TAS and the Hong Kong educational systema although not in sufficient detail, perhaps, for some readers not familiar with the UK system. The in-depth treatment of the literature and methods are held back for appendices at the end of the book. Key perspectives are introduced when needed, but briefly and superficially; the approach does not always provide the foundation necessary for making sense of the analysis and interpretation. When 1130 Book Review reached, the literature review and methods do not seem integral to the story the author is telling, and are less engaging to read than the rest of the book. Chapter 3 uses a quantitative cross-case analysis, giving some sense of the 10 teachersa (TM) enactment of the TAS. This chapter nicely introduces and situates the indepth cases that are presented in the subsequent chapters. Oneconcern is that Yung does not very clearly define the a ~dialogical text unitsa (TM) that he uses to separate dialogical exchanges, yet the frequencies of various types of dialogical text units provide the basis for almost all of the analyses. Assuming the reader can get past that concern, the graphs of the various quantitative analyses in this chapter strikingly illustrate the differences among the teachers. The teachers are presented throughout the remainder of the book, ordered in terms of their increasing concern with assessment-related issues during practicals, with Alan, Bob, and Carl at one end of the list (with low concern for assessment-related issues), and Hugo, Ivor and John at the other end. This alphabetical presentation is extremely helpful in making sense of the results. The analyses in Chapter 3 show that: teachers who were more concerned with assessment-related issues tended to interact less frequently with students during the practical, and hence less teaching related to practical work per se occurred. In particular, these teachers tended to spend less of their [teacher-student] interaction a ] on developing studentsa (TM) scientific thinking and understanding of the theory behind the practical work compared with the teachers who saw TAS as both a pedagogical reform and an assessment reform. (p. 38) Chapters 4a 11 present cases representing eight of the 10 teachers who participated in the study. Through these chapters readers can get a sense of who these teachers are and what drives them. For example, Alana (TM)s goal was to educate students to be good citizens (see Chapter 4). He wanted to help students tolearn to engage in scientific investigation and to apply their knowledge to interpret their data. Alan allowed some leeway in the amount of time students had for writing up their results. Alan also emphasised the students learning what he called a ~bench cooperationa (TM) and, more generally, being able to learn together. In fact, at one point when Alan came upon two students talking during a practical, he encouraged them to carry on when they told him that they were learning from one another; other teachers in the study would never have tolerated such discussion during a TAS practical. Alan interacted with the students more than any other teacher, but his talk mainly took the form of guiding or focusing questions and statements. Alan almost never focused his interactions on assessment-related issues. By way of contrast, Hugo focused far more on assessment-related issues, and interacted with students far less (see Chapter 9). Hugoa (TM)s goal was to prepare students for a ~their future working lifea (TM), a big part of which, to him, was the importance of meeting deadlines. In fact, Hugo refused to give his students warnings about the amount of time left for the completion of the practical, noting that a ~people will not usually remind you kind-heartedly in the work placea (TM) (p. 116). Hugo also saw teaching as involving the transmission of information, and his stancea unlike Alana (TM)sa was more teaching focused than learning focused. In general, Hugoa (TM)s classroom was much like a public examination hall during the TAS Book Review 1131 practicals. Students were allowed exactly the same amount of time, and were not allowed to look up any information or discuss anything amongst themselves. Hugo avoided giving help to any individual student. While Hugo recognised how valuable discussion was for his studentsa (TM) learning, his view of fairnessa that he had to provide the same information to each student in the rooma precluded him from providing that type of help. Chapter 12 is subtitled a ~a preliminary analysisa (TM) and summarises issues related to the teachersa (TM) beliefs and their views about the TAS, cutting across the cases. Yung identifies three main themes in these data: the teachersa (TM) concern with fairness, interpretation of the rules of the TAS, and sense of professionalism. The remaining chapters continue to unpack these themesa with the first addressed in Chapter 13, and the second and third in Chapter 14. The teachers all used a ~fairnessa (TM) to justify their actions, but they defined fairness very differently. Chapter 13 characterises three views of fairness. In the first, teachers see fairness from the standpoint of extending the public examination procedure. Fay, Hugo, Ivor, and John reflected this stance. These teachersa as exemplified by John in the chaptera polarised teaching and assessment, and saw the TAS as purely a summative assessment. One view of fairness was held by only one teacher; Carl focused on providing students with what he called an a ~all-round educationa (TM), attending to their holistic development as individuals. In the final view of fairness, teachers saw their role, including their role when engaged in TAS practicals, as providing opportunities for students to learn the subject matter. Alan, Bob, Dawn, Eddy and Glen held, to varying degrees, this view of fairness, and tried to use the TAS to promote learning. Yung does not explore whether these differing views of fairness have implications for the nature of the assessment itself. For example, do teachers who hold one view distinguish among students in a different way than teachers who hold a different view? Chapter 14 explores teacher professionalism, or teachersa (TM) capacity to make judgements to promote improved outcomes. Yung identifies three strands that impact the teachersa (TM) overall stance toward the TAS. The first is how they approach and interpret the text defining the TAS and its policies, with some feeling empowered to use their professional judgement in interpreting it, and others feeling constrained and reading the TAS as authoritative and unchangeable. The second strand related to teacher professionalism is how high or low their professional confidence is, and the third is to what extent they prioritise studentsa (TM) interests versus their own interests. Four teachersa Alan, Bob, Carl and Dawna hold an interpretive and empowered stance (and thus interpret the TAS flexibly), have high professional confidence, and prioritise studentsa (TM) interests. Fay, Glen, and Hugo hold a non-interpretive and constrained stance, have low professional confidence, and prioritisest

International Journal of Science Education <p>Vol. 30, No. 8, 25 June 2008, pp. 1129a 1133 <p>ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/08/081129a 05 <p>DOI: 10.1080/09500690701880167 <p>BOOK REVIEW <p>Assessment Reform in Science: Fairness and Fear <p>Benny H. W. Yung, 2006 <p>Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer <p>$159.00 (hbk), 293 pp. <p>ISBN 1-4020-3374-5 <p>Benny H. W. Yunga (TM)s book, Assessment Reform in Science: Fairness and Fear, explores <p>the issues that come to the fore when a major assessment reform is mandated. Yung <p>began the study intending to focus on the features of 10 secondary biology teachersa (TM) <p>practice with regard to the assessment reform; their perceptions of the intent and <p>regulations of the reform itself; their beliefs about science, teaching, and learning; and <p>the relationships among these practices, perceptions, and beliefs. As it turned out, <p>however, two additional areas became important to consider, as well: the teachersa (TM) <p>views of fairness, and their sense of professionalism. <p>The specific focus of the book is the Hong Kong Advanced Level Teacher Assessment <p>Scheme (TAS) for biology practical work. The TAS replaced a standard <p>public examination based on the system in the UK. Yung was involved in the initial <p>development of the TAS, and worked for the Hong Kong Examinations Authority at <p>the time of its inception. (He left that post before conducting this study.) The <p>teacher is required to enact a set number of TAS practicals, reporting assessment of <p>studentsa (TM) work to the Hong Kong Examinations Authority. The intention of the <p>TAS is not to replicate the public examination system, but rather tofold assessment <p>into the teachera (TM)s normal routine, and thus to alleviate the challenges of enacting the <p>public examinations. The TAS is also intended to reduce studentsa (TM) anxiety and <p>allow a valid assessment of their practical work abilities. Finally, it is intended to <p>enhance teachersa (TM) professionalism. In other words, although the TAS is mainly an <p>assessment reform, it is also a pedagogical reform. It does, however, put teachers in a <p>tricky position in which they need to administera and determine the results ofa a <p>high-stakes assessment with their own students. <p>The first two chapters of the book set the stage, with Chapter 1 giving a high-level <p>overview of the study and the literature in which it is grounded, as well as the methodological <p>approach taken. Chapter 2 describes the TAS and the Hong Kong <p>educational systema although not in sufficient detail, perhaps, for some readers not <p>familiar with the UK system. The in-depth treatment of the literature and methods <p>are held back for appendices at the end of the book. Key perspectives are introduced <p>when needed, but briefly and superficially; the approach does not always provide the <p>foundation necessary for making sense of the analysis and interpretation. When <p>1130 Book Review <p>reached, the literature review and methods do not seem integral to the story the <p>author is telling, and are less engaging to read than the rest of the book. <p>Chapter 3 uses a quantitative cross-case analysis, giving some sense of the 10 <p>teachersa (TM) enactment of the TAS. This chapter nicely introduces and situates the indepth <p>cases that are presented in the subsequent chapters. Oneconcern is that <p>Yung does not very clearly define the a ~dialogical text unitsa (TM) that he uses to separate <p>dialogical exchanges, yet the frequencies of various types of dialogical text units <p>provide the basis for almost all of the analyses. Assuming the reader can get past <p>that concern, the graphs of the various quantitative analyses in this chapter <p>strikingly illustrate the differences among the teachers. The teachers are presented <p>throughout the remainder of the book, ordered in terms of their increasing concern <p>with assessment-related issues during practicals, with Alan, Bob, and Carl at one <p>end of the list (with low concern for assessment-related issues), and Hugo, Ivor <p>and John at the other end. This alphabetical presentation is extremely helpful in <p>making sense of the results. The analyses in Chapter 3 show that: <p>teachers who were more concerned with assessment-related issues tended to interact <p>less frequently with students during the practical, and hence less teaching related to <p>practical work per se occurred. In particular, these teachers tended to spend less of their <p>[teacher-student] interaction a ] on developing studentsa (TM) scientific thinking and understanding <p>of the theory behind the practical work compared with the teachers who saw <p>TAS as both a pedagogical reform and an assessment reform. (p. 38) <p>Chapters 4a 11 present cases representing eight of the 10 teachers who participated <p>in the study. Through these chapters readers can get a sense of who these teachers are <p>and what drives them. For example, Alana (TM)s goal was to educate students to be good <p>citizens (see Chapter 4). He wanted to help students tolearn to engage in scientific <p>investigation and to apply their knowledge to interpret their data. Alan allowed some <p>leeway in the amount of time students had for writing up their results. Alan also <p>emphasised the students learning what he called a ~bench cooperationa (TM) and, more <p>generally, being able to learn together. In fact, at one point when Alan came upon <p>two students talking during a practical, he encouraged them to carry on when they <p>told him that they were learning from one another; other teachers in the study would <p>never have tolerated such discussion during a TAS practical. Alan interacted with the <p>students more than any other teacher, but his talk mainly took the form of guiding or <p>focusing questions and statements. Alan almost never focused his interactions on <p>assessment-related issues. <p>By way of contrast, Hugo focused far more on assessment-related issues, and <p>interacted with students far less (see Chapter 9). Hugoa (TM)s goal was to prepare <p>students for a ~their future working lifea (TM), a big part of which, to him, was the importance <p>of meeting deadlines. In fact, Hugo refused to give his students warnings <p>about the amount of time left for the completion of the practical, noting that <p>a ~people will not usually remind you kind-heartedly in the work placea (TM) (p. 116). <p>Hugo also saw teaching as involving the transmission of information, and his <p>stancea unlike Alana (TM)sa was more teaching focused than learning focused. In <p>general, Hugoa (TM)s classroom was much like a public examination hall during the TAS <p>Book Review 1131 <p>practicals. Students were allowed exactly the same amount of time, and were not <p>allowed to look up any information or discuss anything amongst themselves. Hugo <p>avoided giving help to any individual student. While Hugo recognised how valuable <p>discussion was for his studentsa (TM) learning, his view of fairnessa that he had to <p>provide the same information to each student in the rooma precluded him from <p>providing that type of help. <p>Chapter 12 is subtitled a ~a preliminary analysisa (TM) and summarises issues related to <p>the teachersa (TM) beliefs and their views about the TAS, cutting across the cases. Yung <p>identifies three main themes in these data: the teachersa (TM) concern with fairness, <p>interpretation of the rules of the TAS, and sense of professionalism. The remaining <p>chapters continue to unpack these themesa with the first addressed in Chapter 13, <p>and the second and third in Chapter 14. <p>The teachers all used a ~fairnessa (TM) to justify their actions, but they defined fairness <p>very differently. Chapter 13 characterises three views of fairness. In the first, teachers <p>see fairness from the standpoint of extending the public examination procedure. <p>Fay, Hugo, Ivor, and John reflected this stance. These teachersa as exemplified by <p>John in the chaptera polarised teaching and assessment, and saw the TAS as <p>purely a summative assessment. One view of fairness was held by only one teacher; <p>Carl focused on providing students with what he called an a ~all-round educationa (TM), <p>attending to their holistic development as individuals. In the final view of fairness, <p>teachers saw their role, including their role when engaged in TAS practicals, as <p>providing opportunities for students to learn the subject matter. Alan, Bob, Dawn, <p>Eddy and Glen held, to varying degrees, this view of fairness, and tried to use the <p>TAS to promote learning. Yung does not explore whether these differing views of <p>fairness have implications for the nature of the assessment itself. For example, do <p>teachers who hold one view distinguish among students in a different way than <p>teachers who hold a different view? <p>Chapter 14 explores teacher professionalism, or teachersa (TM) capacity to make <p>judgements to promote improved outcomes. Yung identifies three strands that <p>impact the teachersa (TM) overall stance toward the TAS. The first is how they approach <p>and interpret the text defining the TAS and its policies, with some feeling empowered <p>to use their professional judgement in interpreting it, and others feeling <p>constrained and reading the TAS as authoritative and unchangeable. The second <p>strand related to teacher professionalism is how high or low their professional <p>confidence is, and the third is to what extent they prioritise studentsa (TM) interests <p>versus their own interests. Four teachersa Alan, Bob, Carl and Dawna hold an <p>interpretive and empowered stance (and thus interpret the TAS flexibly), have high <p>professional confidence, and prioritise studentsa (TM) interests. Fay, Glen, and Hugo <p>hold a non-interpretive and constrained stance, have low professional confidence, <p>and prioritisest

International Journal of Science Education Vol. 30, No. 8, 25 June 2008, pp. 1129a 1133 ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/08/081129a 05 DOI: 10.1080/09500690701880167 BOOK REVIEW Assessment Reform in Science: Fairness and Fear Benny H. W. Yung, 2006 Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer $159.00 (hbk), 293 pp. ISBN 1-4020-3374-5 Benny H. W. Yunga (TM)s book, Assessment Reform in Science: Fairness and Fear, explores the issues that come to the fore when a major assessment reform is mandated. Yung began the study intending to focus on the features of 10 secondary biology teachersa (TM) practice with regard to the assessment reform; their perceptions of the intent and regulations of the reform itself; their beliefs about science, teaching, and learning; and the relationships among these practices, perceptions, and beliefs. As it turned out, however, two additional areas became important to consider, as well: the teachersa (TM) views of fairness, and their sense of professionalism. The specific focus of the book is the Hong Kong Advanced Level Teacher Assessment Scheme (TAS) for biology practical work. The TAS replaced a standard public examination based on the system in the UK. Yung was involved in the initial development of the TAS, and worked for the Hong Kong Examinations Authority at the time of its inception. (He left that post before conducting this study.) The teacher is required to enact a set number of TAS practicals, reporting assessment of studentsa (TM) work to the Hong Kong Examinations Authority. The intention of the TAS is not to replicate the public examination system, but rather tofold assessment into the teachera (TM)s normal routine, and thus to alleviate the challenges of enacting the public examinations. The TAS is also intended to reduce studentsa (TM) anxiety and allow a valid assessment of their practical work abilities. Finally, it is intended to enhance teachersa (TM) professionalism. In other words, although the TAS is mainly an assessment reform, it is also a pedagogical reform. It does, however, put teachers in a tricky position in which they need to administera and determine the results ofa a high-stakes assessment with their own students. The first two chapters of the book set the stage, with Chapter 1 giving a high-level overview of the study and the literature in which it is grounded, as well as the methodological approach taken. Chapter 2 describes the TAS and the Hong Kong educational systema although not in sufficient detail, perhaps, for some readers not familiar with the UK system. The in-depth treatment of the literature and methods are held back for appendices at the end of the book. Key perspectives are introduced when needed, but briefly and superficially; the approach does not always provide the foundation necessary for making sense of the analysis and interpretation. When 1130 Book Review reached, the literature review and methods do not seem integral to the story the author is telling, and are less engaging to read than the rest of the book. Chapter 3 uses a quantitative cross-case analysis, giving some sense of the 10 teachersa (TM) enactment of the TAS. This chapter nicely introduces and situates the indepth cases that are presented in the subsequent chapters. Oneconcern is that Yung does not very clearly define the a ~dialogical text unitsa (TM) that he uses to separate dialogical exchanges, yet the frequencies of various types of dialogical text units provide the basis for almost all of the analyses. Assuming the reader can get past that concern, the graphs of the various quantitative analyses in this chapter strikingly illustrate the differences among the teachers. The teachers are presented throughout the remainder of the book, ordered in terms of their increasing concern with assessment-related issues during practicals, with Alan, Bob, and Carl at one end of the list (with low concern for assessment-related issues), and Hugo, Ivor and John at the other end. This alphabetical presentation is extremely helpful in making sense of the results. The analyses in Chapter 3 show that: teachers who were more concerned with assessment-related issues tended to interact less frequently with students during the practical, and hence less teaching related to practical work per se occurred. In particular, these teachers tended to spend less of their [teacher-student] interaction a ] on developing studentsa (TM) scientific thinking and understanding of the theory behind the practical work compared with the teachers who saw TAS as both a pedagogical reform and an assessment reform. (p. 38) Chapters 4a 11 present cases representing eight of the 10 teachers who participated in the study. Through these chapters readers can get a sense of who these teachers are and what drives them. For example, Alana (TM)s goal was to educate students to be good citizens (see Chapter 4). He wanted to help students tolearn to engage in scientific investigation and to apply their knowledge to interpret their data. Alan allowed some leeway in the amount of time students had for writing up their results. Alan also emphasised the students learning what he called a ~bench cooperationa (TM) and, more generally, being able to learn together. In fact, at one point when Alan came upon two students talking during a practical, he encouraged them to carry on when they told him that they were learning from one another; other teachers in the study would never have tolerated such discussion during a TAS practical. Alan interacted with the students more than any other teacher, but his talk mainly took the form of guiding or focusing questions and statements. Alan almost never focused his interactions on assessment-related issues. By way of contrast, Hugo focused far more on assessment-related issues, and interacted with students far less (see Chapter 9). Hugoa (TM)s goal was to prepare students for a ~their future working lifea (TM), a big part of which, to him, was the importance of meeting deadlines. In fact, Hugo refused to give his students warnings about the amount of time left for the completion of the practical, noting that a ~people will not usually remind you kind-heartedly in the work placea (TM) (p. 116). Hugo also saw teaching as involving the transmission of information, and his stancea unlike Alana (TM)sa was more teaching focused than learning focused. In general, Hugoa (TM)s classroom was much like a public examination hall during the TAS Book Review 1131 practicals. Students were allowed exactly the same amount of time, and were not allowed to look up any information or discuss anything amongst themselves. Hugo avoided giving help to any individual student. While Hugo recognised how valuable discussion was for his studentsa (TM) learning, his view of fairnessa that he had to provide the same information to each student in the rooma precluded him from providing that type of help. Chapter 12 is subtitled a ~a preliminary analysisa (TM) and summarises issues related to the teachersa (TM) beliefs and their views about the TAS, cutting across the cases. Yung identifies three main themes in these data: the teachersa (TM) concern with fairness, interpretation of the rules of the TAS, and sense of professionalism. The remaining chapters continue to unpack these themesa with the first addressed in Chapter 13, and the second and third in Chapter 14. The teachers all used a ~fairnessa (TM) to justify their actions, but they defined fairness very differently. Chapter 13 characterises three views of fairness. In the first, teachers see fairness from the standpoint of extending the public examination procedure. Fay, Hugo, Ivor, and John reflected this stance. These teachersa as exemplified by John in the chaptera polarised teaching and assessment, and saw the TAS as purely a summative assessment. One view of fairness was held by only one teacher; Carl focused on providing students with what he called an a ~all-round educationa (TM), attending to their holistic development as individuals. In the final view of fairness, teachers saw their role, including their role when engaged in TAS practicals, as providing opportunities for students to learn the subject matter. Alan, Bob, Dawn, Eddy and Glen held, to varying degrees, this view of fairness, and tried to use the TAS to promote learning. Yung does not explore whether these differing views of fairness have implications for the nature of the assessment itself. For example, do teachers who hold one view distinguish among students in a different way than teachers who hold a different view? Chapter 14 explores teacher professionalism, or teachersa (TM) capacity to make judgements to promote improved outcomes. Yung identifies three strands that impact the teachersa (TM) overall stance toward the TAS. The first is how they approach and interpret the text defining the TAS and its policies, with some feeling empowered to use their professional judgement in interpreting it, and others feeling constrained and reading the TAS as authoritative and unchangeable. The second strand related to teacher professionalism is how high or low their professional confidence is, and the third is to what extent they prioritise studentsa (TM) interests versus their own interests. Four teachersa Alan, Bob, Carl and Dawna hold an interpretive and empowered stance (and thus interpret the TAS flexibly), have high professional confidence, and prioritise studentsa (TM) interests. Fay, Glen, and Hugo hold a non-interpretive and constrained stance, have low professional confidence, and prioritisest An area of increasing interest in educational reform is the shift towards using assessment as a tool for improving teaching and learning. Benny Yung's book, Assessment Reform in Science: Fairness and Fear, is a report of research findings relating to teacher professional development and science pedagogy. Yung offers a case-driven account of how 10 teachers in Hong Kong taught and assessed A-level biology through a continuous marks-based scheme called the Teacher Assessment Scheme (TAS). Readers familiar with the Science Practical Assessment (SPA) in Singapore will see an immediate connection. The book has 15 chapters, and includes 2 appendices which explain the theory and methods used in the study.Following Chapters 1 and 2, which provide background information to the study, Chapter 3 portrays how the teachers implemented TAS. Using the frequency of dialogic interactions between teachers and students during the conduct of practical work as the principal unit of analysis, it was found that teachers who were more concerned with assessment issues in their laboratories tended to interact less often with their students than those teachers who were not.In Chapters 4 to 11, eight narrative-based case studies are presented that describe teachers' personal, educational and professional backgrounds, their stated beliefs about science practical work and pedagogy. Each case is supported with interview and lesson transcripts and includes a useful summary at the end. It is immediately noticeable that the teachers' practices in the various case studies were markedly different.In Chapter 12, the author shows how tensions arose when teachers were caught between the dual roles ofteaching and assessing in TAS. In Chapter 13, three differing views of TAS implementation are described and analysed. It was found that the teachers' discourses were dominated by, and their classroom actions were influenced by, their notion of fairness. They were fair in the sense of (1) assessing students on a fair basis; (2) not jeopardising students' chances to learn the subject matter while they are being assessed; or (3) not depriving students' of opportunities of receiving an all-round education. ]For teachers to implement the new assessment scheme successfully their existing understanding and beliefs concerning assessment had to be challenged and opportunities provided for them to come to terms with the philosophy of the new assessment scheme. Most importantly, the teachers themselves had to undertake such a learning process.Chapter 14, Teacher Professionalism and Policy Interpretation is perhaps the most insightful of Yung's analyses. He revisits five of his cases to show the bases upon which his informants derived their interpretations of TAS. What emerge are threshold points in the teachers' capacity to make discretionary judgements in their classrooms relating to assessment.Chapter 15 recaps the research questions and presents an overview of findings in the study. Of particular interest are Yung's views on what could be done to assist teachers in raising teachers' professional consciousness and confidence in dealing with assessment reforms. A role is identified for continuing professional development that promotes collaboration and sustained effort.In our opinion, this book brings across the many interpretations and realisations of the same policy changethat are possible by different teachers. Meaningful learning experiences can only be formed if teachers are aware of their own beliefs and also those of others in the same profession. Awareness and comparison can lead to constructive dialogue between teachers which will lead, hopefully, to more thoughtful implementation of change.About the reviewersPhillip A. Towndrow and Tan Aik Ling are researchers in the Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice at the National Institute of Education. Published in SingTeach, December 2006 An area of increasing interest in educational reform is the shift towards using assessment as a tool for improving teaching and learning. Benny Yung's book, Assessment Reform in Science: Fairness and Fear, is a report of research findings relating to teacher professional development and science pedagogy. Yung offers a case-driven account of how 10 teachers in Hong Kong taught and assessed A-level biology through a continuous marks-based scheme called the Teacher Assessment Scheme (TAS). Readers familiar with the Science Practical Assessment (SPA) in Singapore will see an immediate connection. The book has 15 chapters, and includes 2 appendices which explain the theory and methods used in the study.Following Chapters 1 and 2, which provide background information to the study, Chapter 3 portrays how the teachers implemented TAS. Using the frequency of dialogic interactions between teachers and students during the conduct of practical work as the principal unit of analysis, it was found that teachers who were more concerned with assessment issues in their laboratories tended to interact less often with their students than those teachers who were not.In Chapters 4 to 11, eight narrative-based case studies are presented that describe teachers' personal, educational and professional backgrounds, their stated beliefs about science practical work and pedagogy. Each case is supported with interview and lesson transcripts and includes a useful summary at the end. It is immediately noticeable that the teachers' practices in the various case studies were markedlydifferent.In Chapter 12, the author shows how tensions arose when teachers were caught between the dual roles of teaching and assessing in TAS. In Chapter 13, three differing views of TAS implementation are described and analysed. It was found that the teachers' discourses were dominated by, and their classroom actions were influenced by, their notion of fairness. They were fair in the sense of (1) assessing students on a fair basis; (2) not jeopardising students' chances to learn the subject matter while they are being assessed; or (3) not depriving students' of opportunities of receiving an all-round education. ]For teachers to implement the new assessment scheme successfully their existing understanding and beliefs concerning assessment had to be challenged and opportunities provided for them to come to terms with the philosophy of the new assessment scheme. Most importantly, the teachers themselves had to undertake such a learning process.Chapter 14, Teacher Professionalism and Policy Interpretation is perhaps the most insightful of Yung's analyses. He revisits five of his cases to show the bases upon which his informants derived their interpretations of TAS. What emerge are threshold points in the teachers' capacity to make discretionary judgements in their classrooms relating to assessment.Chapter 15 recaps the research questions and presents an overview of findings in the study. Of particular interest are Yung's views on what could be done to assist teachers in raising teachers' professional consciousness and confidence in dealing with assessment reforms. A role is identified for continuing professional development that promotescollaboration and sustained effort.In our opinion, this book brings across the many interpretations and realisations of the same policy change that are possible by different teachers. Meaningful learning experiences can only be formed if teachers are aware of their own beliefs and also those of others in the same profession. Awareness and comparison can lead to constructive dialogue between teachers which will lead, hopefully, to more thoughtful implementation of change.About the reviewersPhillip A. Towndrow and Tan Aik Ling are researchers in the Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice at the National Institute of Education. Published in SingTeach, December 2006

Author Information

Tab Content 6

Author Website:  

Customer Reviews

Recent Reviews

No review item found!

Add your own review!

Countries Available

All regions