形成性評(píng)估的概念重構(gòu)

內(nèi)容概要

曹榮平編著的《形成性評(píng)估的概念重構(gòu)》旨在通過(guò)建立一個(gè)形成性評(píng)估的理論模型來(lái)彌補(bǔ)形成性評(píng)估理論研究的不足。該模型的認(rèn)識(shí)論基礎(chǔ)是控制論框架下評(píng)估和學(xué)習(xí)之間的關(guān)系。借鑒控制論有關(guān)復(fù)雜系統(tǒng)的思想，《形成性評(píng)估的概念重構(gòu)》推出的形成性評(píng)估模型可用于解釋評(píng)估與學(xué)習(xí)的關(guān)系和評(píng)估的形成性工作機(jī)理。該模型視評(píng)估為復(fù)雜的學(xué)習(xí)系統(tǒng)中的一個(gè)復(fù)雜的控制系統(tǒng)。該系統(tǒng)具開放性、非預(yù)決性和自律性特征。評(píng)估的控制性系統(tǒng)特質(zhì)決定了其在學(xué)習(xí)系統(tǒng)中的建構(gòu)作用，評(píng)估對(duì)學(xué)習(xí)的控制由信息反饋來(lái)實(shí)現(xiàn)?；诳刂普撍枷雽?duì)評(píng)估的推斷和解釋與現(xiàn)有形成性評(píng)估概念在內(nèi)涵和外延上有著顯著區(qū)別，從而支持了對(duì)形成性評(píng)估進(jìn)行概念重構(gòu)。概念重構(gòu)的意義在于：（1）修正了形成性評(píng)估的內(nèi)涵和外延；（2）淡化了形成性評(píng)估和終結(jié)性評(píng)估的對(duì)抗性；（3）指出了所有類型評(píng)估皆具形成性意義；（4）指出了評(píng)估的雙刃劍特性和評(píng)估系統(tǒng)的可自律性；（5）指出了正確認(rèn)識(shí)評(píng)估系統(tǒng)，進(jìn)而管理好這個(gè)復(fù)雜系統(tǒng)的必要性和可行性。

書籍目錄

Introduction
Chapter 1  Assessment and Learning
  1.1 The relatiohips between assessment and learning
  1.2 Mastery Learning aligned with Psychometrics
    1.2.1 The objectives model of curriculum
    1.2.2 Psychometrics
  1.3 Learning as a process: Assessment as research
    1.3.1 The progressive philosophy of learning
    1.3.2 The recotructionism philosophy of learning
    1.3.3 Curriculum design in learning as a process
    1.3.4 Teacher as researcher. What about assessment？
  1.4 Towards integrating assessment with itruction
    1.4.1 The invention of the formative concept
    1.4.2 Towards integrating assessment and itruction
    1.4.3 Behaviorist connectio of the formative concept
  1.5 Integrating assessment with learning
    1.5.1 The cotructivist claim
    1.5.2 AlL- Its ups and dow
    1.5.3 Advocating AfL
  1.6 Chapter summary and discussion
Chapter 2  Re-conceptualization of the formative role of assessment
  2.1 Redefining the relatiohip between FA and SA
  2.2 Redefining FA and AlL: Two different visio
  2.3 The formative role of assessment: A double-edged sword
  2.4 Summary-of the chapter
Chapter 3  Assessment as a cybernetic system
  3.1 Revisiting the meta-disciplinary character of cybernetics
  3.2 Control and feedback
  3.3 The features of assessment as a cybernetic system
    3.3.1 Assessment as an open, probabilistic system
    3.3.2 Assessment as a complex system
    3.3.3 Assessment as a self-regulatory system
    3.3.4 The implicatio of assessment being a cybernetic system
  3.4 Linking Chinese philosophy to cybernetics
    3.4.1 The Yin-Yang Doctrine
    3.4.2 The Doctrine of the Mean
    3.4.3 Discussion
  3.5 Towards a cybernetic model of assessment
    3.5.1 Theoretical assumptio
    3.5.2 The model
  3.6 Chapter summary
Chapter 4  Accommodating the cybernetic model in China's assessment
in education. A historical pepective
  4.1 The rationale and research methodology
  4.2 A cybernetic undetanding of China's assessment system
    4.2.1 Major themes in China's ancient assessment history
    4.2.2 China's assessment system since 1949
    4.2.3 The EFL education
  4.3 Discussion
    4.3.1 Assessment: A control system
    4.3.2 Assessment: A non-deterministic system
  4.4 Chapter summary
Chapter 5  Accommodating the model in classroom settings
  5.1 Cross-case analysis
    5.1.1 A general description of sources of data
    5.1.2 Unit of analysis
    5.1.3 Issue-based analyses
  5.2 Fitting the model in China's EFL tertiary education
  5.3 Chapter summary
Chapter 6  Winding up the research
References
Appendices
  Appendix 1a  Letter of Coent （for the IOE coues）
  Appendix 1b  Lette for informant review （some samples）
  Appendix 2  Sample session notes for Coue 2/SPSS
  Appendix 3  Lecturer's post-session email to CDD students
  Appendix 4  C1 Coue materials
  Appendix 5  An investigative questionnaire for C1, C2, C3 and C4

章節(jié)摘錄

　　Cronbach （1986） even claims that Tyler invented formative evaluation in the sense of assessment by teachers， which reflects Tyler's "firm commitment to democracy-to the wisdom of the people， but most especially to the wisdom of teachers" （Cronbach 1986： 48）. He sees Tyler's ideas on measurement and evaluation as "the extension of Dewey" in Tyler's life （ibid. ）. Cronbach believes that "Ralph （Tyler） more than any other individual provided the extension of pragmatism into the higher reaches of education （p.49）" while what Dewey said" were fairly clear as a guide for the elementary school， [but] in secondary and higher education he had said little or nothing at all" （ibid.）. This link between formative evaluation and democracy reflects humanistic thoughts about assessment. In this sense， the relationship between assessment and learning is one of negotiation.　　Bloom （1986） identifies Tyler's attempt "'to introduce a completely new paradigm in education-a paradigm that would relate curriculum， instruction， and evaluation" （p. 36）. Bloom maintains that it was Tyler's major innovation of educational evaluation that "the evaluation process could be integrally related to the educational purposes of the classroom and the educational system" （p. 43）.According to Bloom， Tyler not only stresses the notion of educational objectives， but also introduces the importance of changes in interests， attitudes， and problem solving， as well as information （Bloom 1986： 37）. If we look into what was attributed to Tyler by Cronbach， Bloom， Scriven and others in the special issue of Journal of Thought in memory of Tyler's contribution to measurement and evaluation， we could only be left at 'a wonder about and admiration for Tyler's wide and deep vision of evaluation in his time.　　Bloom et al. （1971） were regarded as the first who extended "formative evaluation" to its generally accepted current meaning in contrast with "summative evaluation tests" （Wiliam & Black 1996， Black 8; Wiliam 2003）. They termed "formative evaluation" and defined it as a type of evaluation that is so useful in helping all who are involved-student， teacher， curriculum maker-to improve what they wish to do （Bloom et al. 1971）.　　Interestingly， this contrastive understanding of formative evaluation and summative tests has a root in works of these authors best known as psychometricians， who belong to a camp called neo-behaviorists （Stobart 2008）.Su cha view of assessment is associated with the mastery learning model of curriculum （Stobart 2008） ， which is a radical application of the objectives model.　　……

媒體關(guān)注與評(píng)論

　　本項(xiàng)研究有兩個(gè)亮點(diǎn)，我很欣賞。一是我第一次聽說(shuō)所有的評(píng)估都應(yīng)當(dāng)是形成性評(píng)估。的確，我贊同形成性評(píng)估應(yīng)當(dāng)包括所有的評(píng)估。二是我注意到了該研究對(duì)評(píng)估的社會(huì)性的討論?！　　u為誠(chéng)　　　　這個(gè)選題非常好。控制論視角在評(píng)估領(lǐng)域的運(yùn)用是一個(gè)全新的課題，本研究應(yīng)用了控制論的幾個(gè)關(guān)鍵概念來(lái)幫助重構(gòu)形成性評(píng)估的內(nèi)涵和外延，非常好。我同意鄒老師對(duì)兩個(gè)重要觀點(diǎn)的肯定意見：一是所有評(píng)估都對(duì)學(xué)習(xí)有形成性作用，這對(duì)澄清概念非常有利；二是評(píng)估對(duì)學(xué)習(xí)的雙刃劍作用，這對(duì)解決終結(jié)性評(píng)估和形成性評(píng)估在已有研究里面的矛盾很有用。作者在理論上的探索很好。中國(guó)外語(yǔ)教育界缺乏理論研究，她的努力是一個(gè)非常有意義的嘗試，電是作者最生要的貢獻(xiàn)。　　——張紹杰　　　　形成性評(píng)估是教育評(píng)價(jià)研究領(lǐng)域的前沿課題，然而對(duì)它的研究近年來(lái)出現(xiàn)瓶頸。曹榮平在其作品中指出，突破瓶頸的關(guān)鍵在于對(duì)形成性評(píng)估的理論建構(gòu)。據(jù)此，該作品從控制論視角對(duì)形成性評(píng)估進(jìn)行了概念重構(gòu)，繼而推出了以評(píng)估和學(xué)習(xí)之間關(guān)系作為紐帶的形成性評(píng)估理論模型。作品的理論貢獻(xiàn)已經(jīng)引起該領(lǐng)域國(guó)際學(xué)者的重視，推動(dòng)了相關(guān)研究的發(fā)展；作品的寬闊學(xué)術(shù)視野不僅展現(xiàn)了作者對(duì)學(xué)習(xí)理論、課程理論、（語(yǔ)言）評(píng)測(cè)理論、系統(tǒng)論與控制論等跨學(xué)科研究領(lǐng)域的基礎(chǔ)理論和專業(yè)知識(shí)的良好把握，而且指出了形成性評(píng)估理論研究的重要導(dǎo)向。　　——吳一安

圖書封面

評(píng)論、評(píng)分、閱讀與下載

---

    形成性評(píng)估的概念重構(gòu) PDF格式下載

---