Developing an assessment pedagogy: the tensions and struggles in re-theorising assessment from a cultural–historical perspective

Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 224-246

  Fleer, Marilyn ^a  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

assessment; child development; cultural historical theory; elementary; primary; sociocultural theory

Indexed keywords

EID: 84926509830     PISSN: 0969594X     EISSN: 1465329X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0969594X.2015.1015403     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Allal, L., & Ducrey, G. P. (2000). Assessment of – or in – the zone of proximal development. Learning and Instruction, 10, 137–152.10.1016/S0959-4752(99)00025-0
2. Alton-Lee, A. (2011). (Using) evidence for educational improvement. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41, 303–329.10.1080/0305764X.2011.607150
3. Berliner, D. (2011). Rational responses to high stakes testing: The case of curriculum narrowing and the harm that follows. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41, 287–302.10.1080/0305764X.2011.607151
4. Bozhovich, L. I. (2009). The social situation of child development. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 47, 59–86.10.2753/RPO1061-0405470403
5. Bozhovich, L. I. (2010). Zone of proximal development. The diagnostic capabilities and limitations of indirect collaboration. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 47, 48–69.
6. Carr, M. (2001). Assessment in early childhood settings: Learning stories. London: Paul Chapman.
7. Chaiklin, S. (1996). Understanding the social scientific practice of understanding practice. In S. Chaikin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice. Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 377–401). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
8. Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky's educational theory in cultural context (pp. 39–64). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511840975
9. Crossouard, B. (2009). A sociocultural reflection on formative assessment and collaborative challenges in the states of Jersey. Research Papers in Education, 24, 77–93.10.1080/13669870801945909
10. Crossouard, B., & Pryor, J. (2008). Becoming researchers: A sociocultural perspective on assessment, learning and the construction of identity in a professional doctorate. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 16, 221–237.
11. Davydov, V. V. (2008). D. Robbins, & V. Lektorsky (Eds.), Problems of developmental instruction. A theoretical and experimental psychological study. New York, NY: Nova Science.
12. Dixon, H. R., Hawe, E., & Parr, J. (2011). Enacting assessment for learning: The beliefs practice nexus. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18, 365–379.
13. Eisner, E. (2002). The arts and the creation of mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
14. Elkonin, D. B. (1999). Toward the problem of stages in the mental development of children. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 37, 11–30.10.2753/RPO1061-0405370611
15. Elwood, J. (2006). Formative assessment: Possibilities, boundaries and limitations. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 13, 215–232.
16. Fleer, M. (2006). Potentive assessment in early childhood education. In M. Fleer, S. Edwards, M. Hammer, A. Kennedy, A. Ridgway, J. Robbins, & L. Surman (Eds.), Early childhood learning communities. Sociocultural research in practice (pp. 161–173). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education.
17. Fleer, M. (2010). Early learning and development: Cultural-historical concepts in play. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511844836
18. Fleer, M., & Richardson, C. (2003). Collective mediated assessment: Moving towards a sociocultural approach to assessing children’s learning. Journal of Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 10, 41–55.
19. Fleer, M., & Richardson, C. (2009). Cultural-historical assessment: Mapping the transformation of understanding. In A. Anning, J. Cullen, & M. Fleer (Eds.), Early childhood education. Society and culture (2nd ed., pp. 130–144). London: Sage.
20. Gee, J. P. (2008). A sociocultural perspective on opportunity to learn and assessment. In P. A. Moss, D. C. Pullin, J. P. Gee E. H. Haertel, & L. Jones Young (Eds.), Assessment, equity, and opportunity to learn (pp. 76–108). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511802157
21. Haertel, E. H., Moss, P. A., Pullin, D. C., & Gee, J. P. (2008). Introduction. In P. A. Moss, D. C. Pullin, J. P. Gee, E. H. Haertel, & L. Jones Young (Eds.), Assessment, equity, and opportunity to learn (pp. 1–16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511802157
22. Haigh, M., & Dixon, H. (2007). ‘Why am I doing this?’: Engaging in classroom-based inquiry around formative assessment. Journal of In-Service Education, 33, 359–376.10.1080/13674580701487000
23. Hargreaves, E. (2005). Assessment for learning? Thinking outside the (black) box. Cambridge Journal of Education, 35, 213–224.10.1080/03057640500146880
24. Hedegaard, M. (2002). Learning and child development: A cultural-historical study. Denmark: Aarhus University Press.
25. Hedegaard, M., Edwards, A., & Fleer, M. (Eds.). (2012). Motives and emotions in children’s development: Cultural historical perspectives. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
26. Hedegaard, M., & Fleer, M. (2013). Play, leaning and children’s development: Everyday life in families and transition to school. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139236744
27. Hickey, D. T., & Zuiker, S. J. (2005). Engaged participation: A sociocultural model of motivation with implications for educational assessment. Educational Assessment, 10, 277–305.10.1207/s15326977ea1003_7
28. Karpov, Y. V. (2005). The Neo-Vygotskian approach to child development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781316036532
29. Kravtsova, E. E. (2010). Vygotsky’s nonclassical psychology: The dual nature of the position of the subject. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 48, 17–24.10.2753/RPO1061-0405480402
30. Lave, J. (1993). The practice of learning. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511625510
31. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511815355
32. Lee, C. D. (2008). Cultural modeling as opportunity to learn: Making problem solving explicit in culturally robust classrooms and implications for assessment. In P. A. Moss, D. C. Pullin, J. P. Gee, E. H. Haertel, & L. Jones Young (Eds.), Assessment, equity, and opportunity to learn (pp. 136–169). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511802157
33. Leontiev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
34. Lunt, A. (2008). Assessment made visible: Individual and collective practices. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 15, 32–51.
35. Moll, L. C. (1990). Vygotsky and education. Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139173674
36. Moss, P. A. (2008). Sociocultural implications for assessment 1: Classroom assessment. In P. A. Moss, D. C. Pullin, J. P. Gee, E. H. Haertel, & L. Jones Young (Eds.), Assessment, equity, and opportunities to learn (pp. 222–258). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511802157
37. Moss, P. A., Girard, B. J., & Greeno, J. G. (2008). Sociocultural implications for assessment II: Professional learning, evaluation, and accountability. In P. A. Moss, D. C. Pullin, J. P. Gee, E. H. Haertel, & L. Jones Young (Eds.), Assessment, equity, and opportunity to learn (pp. 295–332). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38. Moss, P. A., Pullin, D. C., Gee, J. P., Haertel, E. H., & Jones Young, L. (Eds.). (2008). Assessment, equity, and opportunity to learn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39. Otero, V. K. (2006). Moving beyond the ‘‘get it or don’t’’ conception of formative assessment. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 247–255.10.1177/0022487105285963
40. Pullin, D. C. (2008). Individualizing assessment and opportunity to learn: Lessons from the education of students with disabilities. In P. A. Moss, D. C. Pullin, J. P. Gee, E. H. Haertel, & L. Jones Young (Eds.), Assessment, equity, and opportunity to learn (pp. 109–135). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41. Smith, M. E., Teemant, A., & Pinnegar, S. (2004). Principles and practices of sociocultural assessment: Foundations for effective strategies for linguistically diverse classrooms. Multicultural Perspectives, 6, 38–46.10.1207/s15327892mcp0602_8
42. Swaffield, S. (2011). Getting to the heart of authentic assessment for learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18, 433–449.
43. Tzuriel, D. (2000). Dynamic assessment of young children: Educational and intervention perspectives. Educational Psychology Review, 12, 385–435.10.1023/A:1009032414088
44. Vygotsky, L. S. (1966). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. Voprosy psikhologii, 12, 62–76.
45. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), N. Minick (Trans.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky, Volume 1: Problems of general psychology (pp. 39–285). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
46. Vygotsky, L. S. (1994). The problem of the environment. In R. van der Veer & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader (pp. 338–384). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
47. Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). R. W. Rieber (Ed.), M. J. Hall (Trans.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky, Volume 4: The history of the development of higher mental functions. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
48. Vygotsky, L. S. (1998). R. W. Rieber (Ed.), M. J. Hall (Trans.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky, Volume 5: Child psychology. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
49. Zinchenko, V. P. (1985). Vygotsky’s ideas about units for the analysis of mind. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 94–118). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.