Assessment in education: Current trends, problems and contradictions (review of scientific publications)

Introduction. Modern views on the goals and content of education around the world are changing the viewpoints on educational assessment: the goals and functions of assessment are expanded, new assessment forms and tools are being introduced, the roles of students and teachers in assessment practice are revised. Global trends in educational assessment are reflected in national education systems, many of which have made the transition to criteria-based assessment. This process is accompanied by a rapid increase in the volume of scientific and methodological publications on this issue, reducing the ability of scientists and practising educators to comprehend the cumulative evidence in this area of research, which is important at the stage of reform. The solution to this problem can be facilitated by an analytical review of sources, representing a generalisation of international experience in the development of educational assessment.

Aim. Based on the analysis of scientific publications, the current research is aimed to comprehend and generalise the current trends prevailing in the world theory and practice of assessment of student learning outcomes, to identify problems and contradictions as a potential basis for the occurrence of risks in assessment practices, to determine the current research directions towards the improvement of assessment in education.

Methodology and research methods. The scientific papers of the last thirty years, revealing the issues of the education process assessment, have been used in the research. Sources were selected through the methods of descriptive and bibliometric analysis. The comparative and aspect-based analyses were employed in the research.

Results. The wide range of assessment goals confirms the significance of the assessment as the education component; however, it results in some contradictions between the goals, which appear in estimated dichotomies: formative and summative assessment, norm-based and criteria-based assessment. Despite the contrapositive between the formative and summa-tive assessments, the analysis conducted shows the necessity of their integration. The variety of theoretical approaches to the interpretation of assessment forms, the ambiguous definition and use of terminology, the multiplicity of criteria-based assessment models, qualitatively different approaches to the development of criteria and the creation of assessment rubrics on their basis are sources of risks in the practice of educational assessment. In addition, an obstacle to ensuring effective assessment of students’ educational achievements is the insufficient level of competence of teachers as assessors, the unpreparedness of students themselves to take responsibility for the results of their learning.

Scientific novelty. From a critical standpoint, the ideas are presented and the results of discussions on the problems of assessing the educational results of students in scientific sources are summarised. The analysis performed can serve as a basis for further research to build an ordered theoretical framework for assessment in education.

Practical significance. An analysis of the pros and cons of international experience in the field of educational assessment can help scientists and practising teachers gain a more objective view of new approaches to the assessment of student learning outcomes, thereby contributing to the minimisation of the manifestation of possible risks in the development of assessment tools and procedures and their implementation in educational practice.

1. Taras M. Assessment for learning: Understanding theory to improve practice. Journal of Further and Higher Education. 2007; 31 (4): 363-371. DOI: 10.1080/03098770701625746

2. Ball S. Introduction: The great education debate (1976-2016). In: The education debate [Internet]. 3rd ed. Bristol, UK; Chicago, IL, USA: Bristol University Press; 2017 [cited 2020 Aug 19]. p. 1-12. Available from: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10018968/1/250102.pdf

3. Palmatier R. W., Houston M. B., Hulland J. Review articles: Purpose, process, and structure. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science volume. 2018; 46: 1-5. DOI: 10.1007/s11747-017-0563-4

4. Baird J., Hopfenbeck T. N., Newton P. E., Steen-Utheim A. T. State of the field review: Assessment and learning, Oxford University Centre for Educational Assessment Report OUCEA/14/2 [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2020 Aug 21]; Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263654863

5. Bennett R. E. Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice. 2011; 18 (1): 5-25. DOI: 10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678

6. Lau A. M. Formative good, summative bad? - A review of the dichotomy in assessment literature. Journal of Further and Higher Education. 2016; 40 (4): 509-525. DOI: 10.1080/0309877X.2014.984600

7. Gikandi J. W., Morrowa D., Davisa N. E. Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature. Computers & Education. 2011; 57 (4): 2333-2351. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.004

8. Bodony M. A. Foreign and domestic experience of the use of modern technologies in formative assessment. Otechestvennaya i zarubezhnaya pedagogika = Domestic and Foreign Pedagogy [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Jul 23]; 3 (68): 78-95. Available from: https://publica-tions.hse.ru/mirror/pubs/share/direct/382850089.pdf (In Russ.)

9. Pepper D. KeyCoNet 2013 literature review: Assessment for key competences [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2020 Jul 12]. 35 p. Available from: http://keyconet.eun.org/c/document_li-brary/get_file?uuid=b1475317-108c-4cf5-a650-dae772a7d943&groupId=11028

10. Siarova H., Sternadel D., Mašidlauskaitė R. Assessment practices for 21st century learning: Review of evidence, NESET II report [Internet]. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2017 [cited 2020 Jul 08]. Available from: https://nesetweb.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/AR1_20172.pdf

11. Potemkina T. V., Pudenko T. I. Independent evaluation of the quality of education: social expertise in foreign and Russian practice. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2015; 10: 64-79. DOI: 10.17853/1994-5639-2015-10-64-79 (In Russ.)

12. DeLuca C., LaPointe-McEwan D., Luhanga U. Teacher assessment literacy: A review of international standards and measures. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability. 2016; 28 (3): 251-272. DOI: 10.1007/s11092-015-9233-6

13. Temnyatkina O. V., Tokmeninova D. V. Modern approaches to teacher performance assessment. An overview of foreign publications. Voprosy obrazovaniya = Educational Studies Moscow. 2018; 3: 180-193. DOI: 10.17323/1814-9545-2018-3-180-195 (In Russ.)

14. Shadrikov V. D., Shadrikova I. A. Pedagogicheskoe ocenivanie = Pedagogical assessment [Internet]. Moscow: Publishing House Universitetskaja kniga; 2018 [cited 2020 Dec 07]. 156 p. Available from: https://publications.hse.ru/mirror/pubs/share/direct/286820966.pdf (In Russ.)

15. Harlen W. On the relationship between assessment for formative and summative purposes. In: Assessment and learning [Internet]. 2nd ed. London: Sage; 2012 [cited 2020 Jul 21]. p. 87-102. Available from: http://sk.sagepub.com/books/assessment-and-learning-2e/n6.xml

16. Newton P. E. Clarifying the purposes of educational assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. 2007; 14 (2): 149-170. DOI: 10.1080/09695940701478321

17. Archer E. The assessment purpose triangle: Balancing the purposes of educational assessment. Frontiers Education [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2020 Jul 23]; 4, Article 41. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2017.00041/full DOI: 10.3389/feduc.2017.00041

18. Black P., Wiliam D. Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. 1998; 5 (1): 7-74. DOI: 10.1080/0969595980050102

19. Black P., Wiliam D. Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability. 2009; 21 (1): 5-31. DOI: 10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5

20. Black P. Formative assessment - an optimistic but incomplete vision. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. 2015; 22 (1): 161-177. DOI: 10.1080/0969594X.2014.999643

21. Dixson D. D., Worrell F. C. Formative and summative assessment in the classroom. Theory into Practice. 2016; 55 (2): 153-159. DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2016.1148989

22. Pinskaya M. A. Formiruyushcheye otsenivaniye: otsenivaniye v klasse = Formative assessment: Classroom assessment [Internet]. Moscow: Publishing House Logos; 2009 [cited 2020 Jul 23]. 264 p. Available from: http://school257-newiz.ucoz.ru/dok/formirujushhee_ocenivanie-avtor_m.a-pinskaja.pdf (In Russ.)

23. Harlen W. Teachers’ summative practices and assessment for learning-tensions and synergies. The Curriculum Journal. 2005; 16 (2): 207-223. DOI: 10.1080/09585170500136093

24. Newton P. E. Validity, purpose and the recycling of results from educational Assessment. In: Assessment and learning [Internet]. 2nd ed. London: Sage; 2012 [cited 2020 Jul 21]. p. 264-276. Available from: http://sk.sagepub.com/books/assessment-and-learning-2e/n16.xml

25. Sadler D. R. Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science [Internet]. 1989 [cited 2020 Jul 21]; 18: 119-144. Available from: http://michiganassessmentconsortium.org/wp-content/uploads/Formative-Assessment-and-De-sign-of-Instructional-Systems.pdf

26. Taras M. Assessment - summative and formative - some theoretical reflections. British Journal of Educational Studies. 2005; 53 (3): 466-478. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8527.2005.00307.x

27. Sj6gren A. The long run consequences of being graded in elementary school. In: Final Conference of the RTN Network “Economic of Education and Education Policy in Europe: (EEEPE) [Internet]. London: LSE; 2009 [cited 2020 Jul 29]. Available from: https://www.re-searchgate.net/publication/46470357

28. Butt G. Making assessment matter [Internet]. London: Bloomsbury Continuum; 2010 [cited 2020 Jul 28]. 156 p. Available from: https://scholar.google.com/citations?us-er=ptgvb4wAAAAJ&hl=en

29. Silfver E., Sjoberg G., Bagger A. An ‘appropriate’ test taker: The everyday classroom during the national testing period in school year three in Sweden. Ethnography and Education. 2016; 11 (3): 237-252. DOI: 10.1080/17457823.2015.1085323

30. Courtney S. Post-panopticism and school inspection in England. British Journal of Sociology of Education. 2016; 37 (4): 623-642. DOI: 10.1080/01425692.2014.965806

31. Bolotov V. A. The past, present, and possible future of the Russian education assessment system. Voprosy obrazovaniya = Educational Studies Moscow. 2018; 3: 287-297. DOI: 10.17323/1814-9545-2018-3-287-297 (In Russ.)

32. Shapovalova O. N., Efremova N. F. The didactic potential of formative assessment of meta-disciplinary results of schoolchildren: Russian and foreign experience. Mir nauki. Peda-gogika i psikhologiya = World of Science. Pedagogy and Psychology [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2020 Aug 22]; 7 (6). Available from: https://mir-nauki.com/PDF/94PDMN619.pdf (In Russ.)

33. Chetvertnykh T. V. Comprehensive content of formative evaluation. Vestnik Kostromskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Pedagogika. Psikhologiya. Sotsiokinetika = Bulletin of the Kostroma State University. Series: Pedagogy. Psychology. Sociokinetics. 2019; 2: 21-25. DOI: 10.34216/2073-1426-2019-25-2-21-25 (In Russ.)

34. Cisterna D., Gotwals A. W. Enactment of ongoing formative assessment: Challenges and opportunities for professional development and practice. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 2018; 29 (3): 200-222. DOI: 10.1080/1046560X.2018.1432227

35. Hill J., West H. Improving the student learning experience through dialogic feed-forward assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2020; 45 (1): 82-97. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2019.1608908

36. Phelps R. P. Synergies for better learning: An international perspective on evaluation and assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. 2014; 21 (4): 481-493. DOI: 10.1080/0969594X.2014.921091

37. Torrance H. Formative assessment at the crossroads: Conformative, deformative and transformative assessment. Oxford Review of Education. 2012; 38 (3): 323-342. DOI: 10.1080/03054985.2012.689693

38. Harrison C. J., K6nings K. D., Dannefer E. F., Schuwirth L. W., Wass V., Van der Vleuten C. P. Factors influencing students’ receptivity to formative feedback emerging from different assessment cultures. Perspectives on Medical Education. 2016; 5 (5): 276-284. DOI: 10.1007/s40037-016-0297-x

39. Henderson M., Ryan T., Phillips M. The challenges of feedback in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2019; 44 (8): 1237-1252. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2019.1599815

40. Dann R. Assessment as learning: Blurring the boundaries of assessment and learning for theory, policy and practice. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. 2014; 21 (2): 149-166. DOI: 10.1080/0969594X.2014.898128

41. Vilkova L. V. Implementation of formative assessment of students’ educational achievements: problems and solution. Nauchno-pedagogicheskoye obozreniye = Pedagogical Review. 2019; 4 (26): 7-13. DOI: 10.23951/2307-6127-2019-4-7-13 (In Russ.)

42. Chetvertnykh T. V. Teachers’ readiness for using the forming assessment in the educational process. Vestnik Omskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta. Gumani-tarnyye issledovaniya = Bulletin of the Omsk State Pedagogical University. Humanities Research [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2020 Jul 27]; 4 (21): 146-150. Available from: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=36961492 (In Russ.)

43. Shmigirilova I. B., Rvanova A. S., Tadzhigitov A. A. Pedagogical workshop as a form of development of estimated competence of a mathematics teacher. Sovremennyye problemy nauki i obrazovaniya = Modern Problems of Science and Education [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Dec 21]; 6: 87. Available from: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=44595518 (In Russ.)

44. Florez M. T., Sammons P. Assessment for learning: Effects and impact [Internet]. Oxford University Department of Education; 2013 [cited 2020 Aug 03]. 32 p. Available from: https://www.educationdevelopmenttrust.com/EducationDevelopmentTmst/files/5a/5a6d6203-ec49-4d33-9c5d-42c188184807.pdf

45. Herman J. L., Osmundson E., Silver D. Capturing quality in formative assessment practice: Measurement challenges, CRESST Report 770 [Internet]. Los Angeles: National Centre for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing; 2010 [cited 2020 Jul 16]. 26 p. Available from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED512648.pdf

46. Velasco L. C., Tojar J-C. Competency-based evaluation in higher education - design and use of competence rubrics by university educators. International Education Studies. 2018; 11 (2): 118-132. DOI: 10.5539/ies.v11n2p118

47. Efremova N. Conceptual model of evaluation of competence of students. Sovremen-nyye naukoyemkiye tekhnologii = Modern High Technologies. 2019; 7: 169-174. DOI: 10.17513/snt.37607 (In Russ.)

48. Wiliam D. Standards in examinations: A matter of trust? The Curriculum Journal. 1996; 7 (3): 293-306. DOI: 10.1080/0958517960070303

49. Sadler D. R. Interpretations of criteria-based assessment and grading in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2005; 30 (2): 175-194. DOI: 10.1080/0260293042000264262

50. Dann R. Promoting assessment as learning: Improving the learning process [Internet]. London: Routledge Falmer; 2002 [cited 2020 Jul 18]. 176 p. Available from: https://books.google.ru/books?id=EGVCe-r-bXwC&hl=ru

51. Wikstrom C. Criterion-referenced measurement for educational evaluation and selection [Internet]. Department of Educational Measurement Umea University Thesis; 2005 [cited 2020 Jul 21]. 46 p. Available from: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:143588/FULLTEXT01.pdf.

52. Hornby W. Assessing using grade-related criteria: a single currency for universities? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2003; 28 (4): 435-454. DOI: 10.1080/0260293032000066254

53. Ling L., Yuen B., Loo W., Prinsloo C. Students’ conceptions of bell curve grading fairness in relation to goal orientation and motivation. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 2020; 14 (1). DOI: 10.20429/ijsotl.2020.140107

54. Krasnoborova A. A. The criteria assessment in the concentration of students. Pedagog-icheskoye obrazovaniye i nauka = Pedagogical Education and Science [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2020 Jul 20]; 6: 91-94. Available from: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=17062493 (In Russ.)

55. Pinskaya M. A., Ivanov A. V. Formative approach: Criteria-based assessment in action Narodnoye obrazovaniye = People’s Education [Internet], 2010 [cited 2020 Jul 20]; 5: 192-201. Available from: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=15516810 (In Russ.)

56. Abekova Zh. A., Oralbaev A. B., Ermahanov M. N., Dzhakipova A. S. Method of forming of educational-cognitive activity student at criterion evaluation knowledge Uspekhi sovremennogo estestvoznaniya = Advances in Current Natural Sciences [Internet], 2015 [cited 2020 Jul 20]; 1 (2): 295-296. Available from: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=23068809 (In Russ.)

57. Lipatnikova I. G. Assessment as a diagnostic procedure of forming the final results of teaching mathematics. Pedagogicheskoye obrazovaniye v Rossii = Pedagogical Education in Russia [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2020 Jul 20]; 7: 177-182. Available from: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=26638542 (In Russ.)

58. Sokolova E. V. Construction of diagnostic tasks in the conditions of criteria-based assessment of students’ achievements in the study of school geometry course. Prepodavatel’ XXI vek = Teacher XXI Century [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2020 Jul 20]; 4: 277-287. Available from: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=27633963 (In Russ.)

59. Lok B., McNaught C., Young K. Criterion-referenced and norm-referenced assessments: Compatibility and complementarity. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2016; 41 (3): 450-465. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2015.1022136

60. Brown G., Bull J., Pendlebury M. Assessing student learning in higher education [Internet]. London: Routledge; 1997 [cited 2020 Aug 03]. 317 p. Available from: https://ar-chive.org/details/assessingstudent1997brow_kl150

61. Barrie S., Brew A., McCulloch M. Qualitatively different conceptions of criteria used to assess student learning. In: Proceedings of the AARE-NZARE Conference [Internet]; 1999; Melbourne. 1999 [cited 2020 Aug 03]. Available from: https://www.aare.edu.au/data/publica-tions/1999/bre99209.pdf

62. Wiliam D. Assessing authentic tasks: Alternatives to mark-schemes. Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education [Internet]. 1994 [cited 2020 Aug 04]; 2 (1): 48-68. Available from: https://www.dylanwiliam.org/Dylan_Wiliams_website/Papers_files/Nomad.PDF

63. Green S. Criterion referenced assessment as a guide to learning - the importance of progression and reliability. In: Association for the Study of Evaluation in Education in Southern Africa International Conference [Internet]; 2002 July 10-12. Johannesburg; 2002 [cited 2020 Jun 04]. Available from: https://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/Images/109693-criterion-refer-enced-assessment-as-a-guide-to-learning-the-importance-of-progression-and-reliability.pdf

64. Popham W. J. Criterion-referenced measurement: Half a century wasted? Educational Leadership [Internet], 2014 [cited 2020 Aug 05]; 71 (6): 62-66. Available from: http://www.educationalleadership-digital.com/educationalleadership/201403?pg=65#pg65

65. Grigorenko O. V., Rvanova A. S. Shmigirilova I. B. Problems of introduction of crite-ria-related assessment in school education practice. Sibirskiy uchitel’ = Siberian Teacher [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Jul 27]; 2 (129): 13-19. Available from: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=43044448 (In Russ.)

66. Linn R. L. Criterion-referenced measurement: A valuable perspective clouded by surplus meaning. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. 1994; 13 (4): 12-14. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.1994.tb00564.x

67. Sadler D. R. The futility of attempting to codify academic achievement standards. Higher Education. 2014; 67 (3): 273-288. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-013-9649-1

68. Dawson P. Assessment rubrics: Towards clearer and more replicable design, research and practice. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2017; 42 (3): 347-360. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2015.1111294

69. Wiggins G., McTighe J. Understanding by design [Internet]. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development; 2005 [cited 2020 Jun 11]. 370 р. Available from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED509029

70. Haraway D., Flinders D. Rubrics in context. In: Rubric nation: Critical inquiries on the impact of rubrics in education [Internet]. Charlotte, NC: Information Age; 2015 [cited 2020 Aug 11]. p. 119-134. Available from: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/fse_facbooks/130/

71. Chan Z., Ho S. Good and bad practices in rubrics: The perspectives of students and educators. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2019; 44 (4): 533-545. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1522528

72. Humphry S. M., Heldsinger S. A Two-stage method for classroom assessments of essay writing. Frontiers in Education. 2019; DOI: 10.1111/jedm.12223

73. Chadha P., et al. A rubric guide for new academics, practitioner research project re-portn[Internet]. TU Dublin; 2019 [cited 2020 Aug 11]. Available from: https://arrow.tudublin.ie/ltcpgdprp/23/

74. Jescovitch L. N., Scott E. E., Cerchiara J. A., Doherty J. H., Wenderoth M. Pat, Merrill J. E., Urban-Lurain M., Haudek K. C. Deconstruction of holistic rubrics into analytic rubrics for large-scale assessments of students’ reasoning of complex science concepts. {Tactical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2020 Jun 13]; Vol. 24, Article 7. Available from: https://https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10166313 DOI: 10.7275/9h7f-mp76

75. Randel B., Apthorp H., Beesley A. D., Clark T. F., Wang X. Impacts of professional development in classroom assessment on teacher and student outcomes. The Journal of Educational Research. 2016; 109 (5): 491-502. DOI: 10.1080/00220671.2014.992581

76. Emelyanova I. N., Teplyakova O. A., Efimova G. Z. Modern evaluation methods at various levels of education. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2019; 6 (21): 9-28. DOI: 10.17853/1994-5639-2019-6-9-28 (In Russ.)