Overview

The conclusions and recommendations made in the book are derived from a study of ten teachers in Hong Kong as they tried to change their practice following a reform of the Hong Kong assessment system. Hong Kong is simply a context that provided the opportunity to gather very rich and informative data on issues pertaining to assessment reforms which also have very wide implications in many countries' contexts.

The book is written for practising teachers, teachers-in-training, teacher educators, policy makers and researchers who are interested in teachers' classroom practices, teacher beliefs, teacher professionalism, implementation of educational reforms in general and high stakes assessment reforms in particular.

The book is organized in a manner that rapidly presents the case histories of the teachers to the readers. These can be helpful to all teachers, whether in training or experienced, in a number of ways: (1) as a set of ideas to be debated upon and to act as a springboard for reflection on the purposes of assessment in education and on the role of teachers in these purposes; (2) as examples of practice that can be compared to the readers' own existing practices; and (3) as a source of models of practice to apply and test in readers' own classrooms. The case histories are followed by a discussion of a number of issues that arise from this group of teachers' beliefs and practices. To cater for research-oriented readers, the relevant literature, theoretical underpinnings, and the intriguing research methodology that led to the case histories will appear as appendices.

Full Product Details

9789048102860

Table of Contents

Reviews

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

Author Information

Tab Content 6

Customer Reviews

Recent Reviews

Countries Available