A comparative study of Chinese and United States pre-service teachers’ perceptions about ethical issues in classroom assessment

Liu, Jin; Johnson, Robert L.; Fan, Xumei

doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.01.002

Cited by 25 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The last two studies (Green, Johnson, Kim, & Pope, 2007;Liu, Johnson, & Fan, 2016) focus on the metaphor of ethics as a basis for fairness. According to Liu et al (2016) "in the classroom, ethics serves to ensure the quality and fairness of assessment" (p. 57). These two studies define ethical behavior generally as "acting based on one's judgment of an obligation" (Greet et al, 2007(Greet et al, , p. 1000.…”

Section: Insert Table 1 Herementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Further, three studies (Green et al, 2007;Liu et al, 2016;Pope, Green, Johnson, & Mitchell, 2009) adopted do no harm and avoid score pollution principles to support their theoretical understanding of fairness. Do no harm mandates that assessment should avoid harming students while avoid score pollution implies teachers should exclude constructirrelevant factors (i.e., irrelevant to achievement) from assessments.…”

Section: Ca Fairness Theoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Prescriptive theories can be beneficial for theorizing ethics and fairness in CA when some consensus exist on what constitutes (un)fair practices among stakeholders. As little is known about the ethical and fairness conceptions of diverse stakeholders, these studies (Green, et al 2007;Pope et al, 2009;Liu, et al 2016) developed their instrument based on the ethical and fairness principles in standards [The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (JCSEE), 2003] and guidelines that reflect the ethical and fair values of researchers as the stakeholders who develop them. Furthermore, these studies aimed to only report on the extent to which teachers agreed or disagreed on an ethical or a fair scenario and avoided judging what practices were actually (un)ethical and (un)fair based on their theory.…”

Section: Ca Fairness Theoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Conceptualising fairness in classroom assessment: exploring the value of organisational justice theory

Rasooli

Zandi

DeLuca

2019

Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fairness has recently moved into the spotlight as a core foundation of classroom assessment (CA). However, despite its significance for high quality CA, fairness definitions and theories have been limited in the literature. Driven by the critiques directed at the 'inadequacy' and 'fuzziness' around CA fairness and recommendations to conceptualize fairness particularly for CA contexts, this paper aims to provide an explicit definition of CA fairness. Specifically, this paper brings together current scholarship in organizational justice theory and recent findings from the CA fairness literature to offer a more thorough conceptualization. This conceptualization not only presents a distinction between justice and fairness, but also provides a novel discussion of the relationship between justice and fairness with consideration for potential effects on students' learning. The paper concludes with an agenda for further research on CA fairness.

show abstract

Section: Insert Table 1 Herementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Ca Fairness Theoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Ca Fairness Theoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Conceptualising fairness in classroom assessment: exploring the value of organisational justice theory

Rasooli

Zandi

DeLuca

2019

Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite repeated calls for teachers to enact fair assessments (Sanders et al, 1990;Scott, Webber, Lupart, Aitken, & Scott, 2014;Tierney, 2013), researchers have argued that compared to other fundamental aspects of assessment (i.e., validity and reliability), there has been limited conceptualizations of fairness for CA contexts (Tierney, 2013). Moreover, research has revealed that teachers across contexts lack consensus on what they consider as fair assessment practices (Green, Johnson, Kim, & Pope, 2007;Liu, Johnson, & Fan, 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In an effort to define CA fairness, several researchers have empirically examined teachers' perspectives and practices (Green et al, 2007;Liu et al, 2016;Tierney, 2014). As an example, Green et al (2007), building on the previous conceptualizations of fairness in psychometrics and large-scale assessment, constructed items to measure teachers' ethical and fair dilemmas predominantly in summative assessment.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Re-conceptualizing classroom assessment fairness: A systematic meta-ethnography of assessment literature and beyond

Rasooli

Zandi

DeLuca

2018

Studies in Educational Evaluation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conceptualizing fairness in student assessment at classroom levels has been an area of focus in recent years given the growing emphasis on assessment-driven teaching and educational accountability across educational systems. However, previous studies into assessment fairness have predominantly drawn on assessment-based literature to conceptualize fairness. While this literature is central to the construct, we argue that it does not fully account for the dynamic relationship between assessment, teaching, and learning within the diverse socio-cultural classroom contexts. Therefore, using a systematic meta-ethnographic review of 150 studies, this study identifies a more comprehensive conception of fairness for classroom assessment drawn from not only assessment literature but also from literature beyond assessment, which has not already been included in the process of reconceptualizating classroom assessment fairness. The results of this study present a conceptualization of classroom assessment fairness with a dominant focus on the role of assessment fairness in supporting student learning.

show abstract

A comparative mixed‐methods study of in‐service teachers' ethical judgment about student assessment practices

Liu,

Bon,

Fan

et al. 2024

Psychology in the Schools

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Few studies have been conducted to investigate the ethical perspectives of in‐service teachers on assessment issues cross‐culturally. The purpose of the study was to investigate the ethical judgment by in‐service teachers in the United States and China on twenty scenarios of student assessment practices. In the spring of 2020, 130 American teachers and 161 Chinese teachers completed a survey questionnaire on these assessment scenarios. The quantitative and qualitative results indicated that respondents had different ethical decisions in 9 out of 20 scenarios. Further analysis indicated that there was a high degree of similarities in ethical reasoning, and 10 scenarios with mixed reasoning indicated that certain sub‐themes were different. This study reveals that cultural differences are likely reflected in their ethical judgment when presented with certain assessment scenarios. The awareness of such differences should be raised by considering assessment, teaching, and learning together.

show abstract

A comparative study of Chinese and United States pre-service teachers’ perceptions about ethical issues in classroom assessment

Cited by 25 publications

References 22 publications

Conceptualising fairness in classroom assessment: exploring the value of organisational justice theory

Conceptualising fairness in classroom assessment: exploring the value of organisational justice theory

Re-conceptualizing classroom assessment fairness: A systematic meta-ethnography of assessment literature and beyond

A comparative mixed‐methods study of in‐service teachers' ethical judgment about student assessment practices

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About