Science for Education Today, 2021, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 121–141
© Varakuta A. A., Shelomentsev P. Y., Andrienko E. V., 2021
UDC: 
378

Defining different types of assessment systems and assessment procedures in the context of historical development

Varakuta A. A. 1 (Novosibirsk, Russian Federation), Shelomentsev P. Y. 2 (Pavlodar, Republic of Kazakhstan), Andrienko E. V. 1 (Novosibirsk, Russian Federation)
1 Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University
2 Innovative University of Eurasia
Full text (Open Access) — Downloaded 307
Abstract: 

Introduction. The authors investigate a wide range of assessment systems in modern education. They analyze and compare changes in educational assessment procedures, taking into account the periodization of their development and modern requirements and standards. The purpose of the article is to identify and clarify various types of assessment systems and assessment procedures in the context of historical development.
Materials and Methods. This theoretical research includes analysis, comparison, and generalization of Russian and international studies on the development of assessment systems based on the concept of the historical and socio-cultural determination of education. The study follows systemic, learner-centered and activity-based approaches in order to present the dynamics of the development of educational assessment as a system comprising interconnected parts and socio-psychological factors.
Results. The authors clarified the essence of the dual nature of educational assessment as a didactic and socio-psychological phenomenon. They described the relationship between assessment procedures and the quality of modern education. The study identified the main periods in the development of educational assessment based on the criteria for changing the requirements for the content of education, as well as changes in the assessment system regarding tasks, methods, forms of assessment, point scales and methods of motivation. The authors have developed and justified the historical periodization of educational assessment, which includes eight main stages. The main types of assessment including partial assessment, effective assessment, systemic assessment, standardized assessment, formative assessment, summative assessment, evaluation for management, and rating assessment have been identified and described.
Conclusions. The article concludes that modern education implements eight main types of assessment, which have been developed in a historical context. At the same time, standardization of education is considered as the main trend in the formation of assessment systems.

Keywords: 

Assessment; Assessment system; Assessment procedures; Historical development; Education; Standardization; Assessment typology.

URL WoS/RSCI: https://www.webofscience.com/wos/rsci/full-record/RSCI:47447641

For citation:
Varakuta A. A., Shelomentsev P. Y., Andrienko E. V. Defining different types of assessment systems and assessment procedures in the context of historical development. Science for Education Today, 2021, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 121–141. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.2106.07
References: 
  1. Allal L. Assessment and the co-regulation of learning in the classroom. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 2020, vol. 27 (2), pp. 332–349. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2019.1609411
  2. Andersson C., Palm T. Reasons for teachers’ successful development of a formative assessment practice through professional development – a motivation perspective. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 2018, vol. 25 (6), pp. 576–597. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2018.1430685
  3. Andrade H. L., Brookhart S. M. Classroom assessment as the co-regulation of learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 2020, vol. 27 (4), pp. 350–372. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2019.1571992
  4. Baas D., Vermeulen M., Castelijns J., Martens R., Segers M. Portfolios as a tool for AfL and student motivation: are they related? Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 2020, vol.  27 (4), pp. 444–462. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2019.1653824
  5. Barrance R., Elwood J. National assessment policy reform 14–16 and its consequences for young people: student views and experiences of GCSE reform in Northern Ireland and Wales. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 2018, vol. 25 (3), pp. 252–271. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2017.1410465
  6. Brandmo C., Panadero E., Hopfenbeck T. N. Bridging classroom assessment and self-regulated learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 2020, vol. 27 (4), pp. 319–331. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2020.1803589
  7. Brunfaut T., Harding L. International language proficiency standards in the local context: Interpreting the CEFR in standard setting for exam reform in Luxembourg. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 2020, vol. 27 (2), pp. 215–231. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2019.1700213
  8. Caro D., Kyriakides L. Assessment design and quality of inferences in PISA: limitations and recommendations for improvement. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 2019, vol. 26 (4), pp. 363–368. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2019.1645990
  9. Chen P. P., Bonner S. M. A framework for classroom assessment, learning, and self-regulation. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 2020, vol. 27 (4), pp. 373–393. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2019.1619515
  10. Cumming J. J. Senior secondary school assessment and standard-setting in Queensland, Australia: Social context and paradigmatic change. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 2020, vol. 27 (2), pp. 160–177. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2019.1684877
  11. DeLuca C., Pyle A., Braund H., Faith L. Leveraging assessment to promote kindergarten learners’ independence and self-regulation within play-based classrooms. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 2020, vol. 27 (4), pp. 394–415. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2020.1719033
  12. Goldstein H. PISA and the globalisation of education: a critical commentary on papers published in AIE special issue 4/2019. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 2019, vol.  26 (6), pp. 665–674. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2019.1674244
  13. Gray L., Baird J.-A. Systemic influences on standard setting in national examinations. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 2020, vol. 27 (2), pp. 137–141. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2020.1750116
  14. Greene J. A. Building upon synergies among self-regulated learning and formative assessment research and practice. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 2020, vol. 27 (4), pp. 463–476. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2020.1802225
  15. Guo W. Y., Yan Z. Formative and summative assessment in Hong Kong primary schools: students’ attitudes matter. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 2019, vol. 26 (6), pp.  675–699. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2019.1571993
  16. Hartmeyer R., Stevenson M. P., Bentsen P. A systematic review of concept mapping-based formative assessment processes in primary and secondary science education. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 2018, vol. 25 (6), pp. 598–619. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2017.1377685
  17. He J., Barrera-Pedemonte F., Buchholz J. Cross-cultural comparability of noncognitive constructs in TIMSS and PISA. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 2019, vol. 26 (4), pp. 369–385. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2018.1469467
  18. Imlig F., Ender S. Towards a national assessment policy in Switzerland: areas of conflict in the use of assessment instruments. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 2018, vol.  25  (3), pp. 272–290. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2017.1390439
  19. Isaacs T., Lamprianou I. International assessment policy reform: nothing new under the sun. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 2018, vol. 25 (3), pp. 227–229. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2018.1482094
  20. Knekta E., Sundström A. ‘It was, perhaps, the most important one’ students’ perceptions of national tests in terms of test-taking motivation. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 2019, vol. 26 (2), pp. 202–221. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2017.1323725
  21. Kuramoto N., Koizumi R. Current issues in large-scale educational assessment in Japan: focus on national assessment of academic ability and university entrance examinations. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 2018, vol. 25 (4), pp. 415–433. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2016.1225667
  22. Lenkeit J., Schwippert K. Doing research with international assessment studies: methodological and conceptual challenges and ways forward. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 2018, vol. 25 (1), pp. 1–4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2017.1352137
  23. LeRoy B. W., Samuel P., Deluca M., Evans P. Students with special educational needs within PISA. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 2019, vol. 26 (6), pp. 386–396. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2017.1421523
  24. MacPhail A., Halbert J., O’Neill H. The development of assessment policy in Ireland: a story of junior cycle reform. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 2018, vol. 25 (3), pp. 310–326. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2018.1441125
  25. Marchionni M., Vazquez E. The causal effect of an extra year of schooling on skills and knowledge in Latin America. Evidence from PISA. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 2019, vol. 26 (4), pp. 489–515. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2018.1454401
  26. Marksteiner T., Kuger S., Klieme E. The potential of anchoring vignettes to increase intercultural comparability of non-cognitive factors. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 2019, vol. 26 (4), pp. 516–536. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2018.1514367
  27. Nagy G., Nagengast B., Frey A., Becker M., Rose N. A multilevel study of position effects in PISA achievement tests: student- and school-level predictors in the German tracked school system. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 2018, pp. 1–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2018.1449100
  28. Opposs D., Baird J-A., Chankseliani M., Stobart G., Kaushik A., McManus H. Governance structure and standard setting in educational assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 2020, vol. 27 (2), pp. 192–214. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2020.1730766
  29. Perry N. E., Lisaingo S., Yee N., (...) Wan X., Muis K. Collaborating with teachers to design and implement assessments for self-regulated learning in the context of authentic classroom writing tasks. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 2020, vol. 27 (4), pp. 416–443. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2020.1801576
  30. Pinger P., Rakoczy K., Besser M., Klieme E. Implementation of formative assessment–effects of quality of programme delivery on students’ mathematics achievement and interest. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 2018, vol. 25 (2), pp. 160–182. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2016.1170665
  31. Robitzsch A., Lüdtke O. Linking errors in international large-scale assessments: calculation of standard errors for trend estimation. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 2019, vol. 26 (4), pp. 444–465. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2018.1433633  
  32. Rutkowski L., Rutkowski D., Liaw Y.-L. The existence and impact of floor effects for low-performing PISA participants. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 2019, vol. 26 (6), pp. 643–664. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2019.1577219
  33. Simons H. School self-evaluation in a democracy. School-Based Evaluation: An International Perspective, 2002, vol. 8, pp. 17–34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-7863(02)80005-9 
  34. Spaull N. Who makes it into PISA? Understanding the impact of PISA sample eligibility using Turkey as a case study (PISA 2003–PISA 2012). Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 2019, vol. 26 (6), pp. 397–421. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2018.1504742
  35. Tong Ch.-S., Lee Ch., Luo G. Assessment reform in Hong Kong: developing the HKDSE to align with the new academic structure. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 2020, vol. 27 (2), pp. 232–248. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2020.1732866
  36. Tveit S. Ambitious and ambiguous: shifting purposes of national testing in the legitimation of assessment policies in Norway and Sweden (2000–2017). Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 2018, vol. 25 (3), pp. 327–350. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2017.1421522
  37. von Davier M., Yamamoto K., Shin H. J., Kong N., Kandathil M. Evaluating item response theory linking and model fit for data from PISA 2000–2012. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 2019, vol. 26 (4), pp. 466–488. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2019.1586642
  38. Batalova Yu. A. Analysis of the results of evaluation procedures as a way to improve the teachers' professional competence. Science and School, 2019. no. 2, pp. 73–79. (In Russian) URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=37844974
  39. Kazakova I. A. Evaluation system in Russian education system. Higher Education in Russia, 2011, no. 6, pp. 153–157. (In Russian) URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=16462211
  40. Starichenko B. E. Point-rating system for evaluation of the student learning activity: The questions of purpose. Pedagogical Education in Russia, 2017, no. 5, pp. 116–124. (In Russian) URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=29233699
  41. Talalova L. N. to understanding the function of knowledge in the digital age. Taurida Studios. Cultural Science, 2019, no. 20, pp. 49–55. (In Russian) URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=44066514  
Date of the publication 31.12.2021