The role of student assessment in curriculum reform
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11260373 |
|---|---|
| Authors | George J Posner (Cornell University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 1994 |
| Volume | 69 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 91-99 |
| Publication date | 1994-06-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Peabody Journal of Education (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0161-956X • E-ISSN: 1532-7930 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/01619569409538788 |
| OpenAlex | W2059971159 |
| Language | EN |
Most people who do curriculum work regard the assessment of student learning outcomes as a domain distinct from curriculum. Curriculum texts, for example, devote little, if any, attention to the relation of student assessment to curriculum, much less to the technical aspects of assessment. The only aspect of assessment that receives any attention by curriculum writers is curriculum evaluation. Apparently, evaluation of a curriculum is relevant to curriculum work, but the ways in which assessment of learning shapes the curriculum is not. Student assessment seems to be considered a part of another domain, the domain of testing, informed by psychology, a domain too technical for curricular thought. In this article I will explore the effect of assessment (and testing in particular) on curriculum and show how the testing movement has undermined repeated attempts at curriculum change. Further, I will argue that more authentic approaches to assessment can lead directly to significantly improved curriculum, and that without changes in methods of assessment, significant curriculum reform is hopeless
Authentic assessment · Curriculum · Curriculum development · Curriculum mapping · Curriculum theory · Curriculum-based measurement · Domain (mathematical analysis · Emergent curriculum · Engineering ethics · Mathematics education · Pedagogy · Work (physics · Competency Development and Evaluation · Engineering · Higher Education Learning Practices · Psychology · Student Assessment and Feedback
| Highly cited | No |
|---|