Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T00:06:31.721Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TEST USE AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2009

Glenn Fulcher
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Since Messick (1989) included test use in his validity matrix, there has been extensive debate about professional responsibility for test use. To theorize test use, some researchers have relied upon Foucault's social criticism, thereby stressing the negative role of tests in the surveillance of the marginalized. From a wider perspective, Shohamy (2001a) sees negative test impact as stemming from centralizing agencies, which still leaves open the possibility of positive test use. In this article I argue that how tests are used is a reflection of the wider political philosophy of a society. Political philosophy can generally be characterized as placing more emphasis on either the state or the citizen, leading to collectivist or individualist solutions to problems, be they real or perceived. In collectivist societies, tests, like history, are used to achieve conformity, control, and identity. In individualistic societies, they are used to promote individual progress. The role of tests within each broad approach will be described and illustrated. Finally, I briefly describe effect-driven test architecture as a method for testers to proscribe unintended uses of their tests.

Type
Research Article
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 29 , March 2009 , pp. 3 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

Fulcher, G., & Davidson, F. (2008). Tests in life and learning: A deathly dialogue. Educational Theory and Philosophy, 40 (3), 407–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulcher, G., & Davidson, F. (2009). Test architecture. Test retrofit. Language Testing, 26, 1 123–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansell, W. (2007). Education by numbers: The tyranny of testing. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
McNamara, T., & Roever, C. (2006). Language testing: The social dimension. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Shohamy, E. (2001a). The power of tests: A critical perspective on the uses of language tests. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Shohamy, E. (2001b). Democratic assessment as an alternative. Language Testing, 18 (4), 373–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

OTHER REFERENCES

Alderson, J. C. (2007). The CEFR and the need for more research. Modern Language Journal, 91 (4), 659–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
German Propaganda Archive. (1937). The educational principles of the new Germany. Frauen-Warte, 22, 692–693. Retrieved July 15, 2008, from http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/frau01.htmGoogle Scholar
Benn, T. (1976). The legacy of the levellers. [Speech delivered on May 15, 1976, at Burford, Oxfordshire] Retrieved July 12, 2008, from http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/a-b/pdf/benn.pdfGoogle Scholar
Black, E. (2003). War against the weak: Eugenics and America's campaign to create a master race. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows.Google Scholar
Black, J. (2005). Using history. London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar
Bonnet, G. (2007) The CEFR and education policies in Europe. Modern Language Journal, 91 (4), 669–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brindley, G. (2008). Educational reform and language testing. In Shohamy, E. & Hornberger, N. H. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Vol. 7. Language testing and assessment (2nd ed., pp. 365–378). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Carpenter, D. (2004). The struggle for mastery: Britain 1066–1284. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Cassirer, E. (1946). The myth of the state. New Haven, CT, and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B. (1937). The fight for our national intelligence. London: P. S. King and Son.Google Scholar
Cecil, R. (1971). Education and elitism in Nazi Germany. ICR Monograph Series No. 5. London: Institute for Cultural Research.Google Scholar
Chalhoub-Deville, M., & Deville, C. (2008). Nationally mandated testing for accountability: English language learners in the U.S. In Spolsky, B. & Hult, F. (Eds.), The handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 510–522). London: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C. A., Enright, M. K., & Jamieson, J. M. (Eds.). (2008). Building a validity argument for the test of English as a foreign language. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, Teaching and assessment. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved July 12, 2008, from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdfGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe (2008). Recommendation CM/Rec(2008)7 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the use of the Council of Europe's common European framework of reference for languages (CEFR) and the promotion of plurilingualism. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Davidson, F., & Fulcher, G. (2006). The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) and the design of language tests: A matter of effect. Language Teaching, 40, 231–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, A. (1997a). Introduction: The limits of ethics in language testing. Language Testing, 14 (3), 235–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, A. (1997b). Demands of being professional in language testing. Language Testing, 14 (3), 328–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, A. (2008). Ethics and professionalism. In Shohamy, E. & Hornberger, N. H. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Vol. 7. Language testing and assessment (2nd ed., pp. 429–443). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1888). The ethics of democracy. In Menand, L. (Ed.), Pragmatism: A reader (pp. 182–204). New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Elder, C. (1997). What does test bias have to do with fairness? Language Testing, 14 (3), 261–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, B., & Waites, B. (1981). IQ and mental testing: An unnatural science and its social history. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fejes, A. (2008). European citizens under construction: The Bologna process analysed from a governmentality perspective. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40 (4), 515–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality: An introduction. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
Fulcher, G. (2004). Deluded by artifices? The Common European Framework and harmonization. Language Assessment Quarterly, 1 (4), 253–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulcher, G. (2008, July 20–24). Testing times ahead? Liaison Magazine, 1. Retrieved July 12, 2008, from www.llas.ac.uk/resourcedownloads.aspx?resourceid=179&filename=liaison_july08.pdfGoogle Scholar
Fulcher, G., & Davidson, F. (2007). Language testing and assessment. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fulcher, G., & Davidson, F. (2008). Tests in life and learning: A deathly dialogue. Educational Theory and Philosophy, 40 (3), 407–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulcher, G., & Davidson, F. (2009). Test architecture. Test retrofit. Language Testing, 26, (1)123–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gobineau, de, A. (1999). The inequality of human races. New York: Howard Fertig.Google Scholar
Harris, S. (2008). Internationalising the university. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40 (2), 346–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, C. W. (1963). An early medieval licensing examination. History of Education Quarterly, 3 (1), 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaftandjieva, F. (2007). Quantifying the quality of linkage between language examinations and the CEF. In Carlsen, C. & Moe, E. (Eds.), A human touch to language testing (pp. 33–43). Oslo: Novus Press.Google Scholar
Kelly, M. (2004) Engaging with Europe. Liaison Magazine, 5 (1), 1. Retrieved August 11, 2007, from http://www.llas.ac.uk/resourcedownloads.aspx?resourceid=179&filename=liaison_feb04.odfGoogle Scholar
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, E. (2008a). Dynamic assessment. In Shohamy, E. & Hornberger, N. H. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Vol. 7. Language testing and assessment (2nd ed., pp. 273–284). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, E. (2008b). Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages. London: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Locke, J. (2002). The second treatise of government. In Crawford, T. (Ed.), The second treatise of government and a letter concerning toleration. New York: Dover. (Original work published 1690)Google Scholar
Maier, P. (Ed.). (1998). The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
Mansell, W. (2007). Education by numbers: The tyranny of testing. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
McNamara, T. (2005). 21st century Shibboleth: Language tests, identity and intergroup conflict. Language Policy, 4 (4), 351–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNamara, T. (2008). The socio-political and power dimensions of tests. In Shohamy, E. & Hornberger, N. H. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Vol. 7. Language testing and assessment (2nd ed., pp. 415–427). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
McNamara, T., & Roever, C. (2006). Language testing: The social dimension. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In Linn, R. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 13–103). New York: Macmillan/American Council on Education.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. (1859). On liberty. In Gray, J. (Ed.), John Stuart Mill on liberty and other essays. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. (1873). Autobiography. London: Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer.Google Scholar
Mislevy, R. J., & Riconscente, M. M. (2005). Evidence-centered assessment design: layers, structures, and terminology. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.Google Scholar
Miyazaki, I. (1981). China's examination hell (2nd ed.) New Haven, CT, and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Moss, P. (2003). Reconceptualizing validity for classroom assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22 (4), 13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noakes, J., & Pridham, G. (1983). Nazism: A history in documents and eyewitness accounts, 1919–1945. Exeter, England: Exeter University Press.Google Scholar
North, B., Figueras, N., Takala, S., Van Avermaet, P., & Verhelst, N. (2003). Relating language examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEF): Manual preliminary pilot version. Strasbourg, France: Language Policy Division of the Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Paine, T. (1999). Rights of man. New York: Dover. (Original work published 1791)Google Scholar
Plato. (1987). The republic (2nd rev. ed.; Desmond Lee, Trans.). London: Penguin Classics. Retrieved July 12, 2008, from http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html (Original work published 360 BC)Google Scholar
Popper, K. (2002). The open society and its enemies. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1995). A reconsideration of Deweyan democracy. Goodman, R. B. (Ed.), Pragmatism: A contemporary reader (pp. 183–204). London: Routledge. (Original work published 1990: Southern Californian Law Review, 63, 1671–1697)Google Scholar
Rauhvargers, A. (2004). Improving the recognition of qualifications in the framework of the Bologna process. European Journal of Education, 39 (3), 331–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rea-Dickens, P. (2001). Mirror, mirror on the wall: Identifying processes of classroom assessment. Language Testing, 18 (4), 429–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharp, A. (1998). The English levellers. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shohamy, E. (2001a). The power of tests: A critical perspective on the uses of language tests. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Shohamy, E. (2001b). Democratic assessment as an alternative. Language Testing, 18 (4), 373–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spearman, C. (1904). General intelligence: Objectively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, J. (1994). The European revolutions, 1848–1851. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spolsky, B. (1995). Measured words. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Terman, L. (1919). The measurement of intelligence. London: Harrap.Google Scholar
Thucydides. (1954). History of the Peloponnesian war (Rex Warner, Trans.). London: Penguin Classics. [Cira. 404 BC]Google Scholar
Tillich, P. (1952). The courage to be (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT, and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
von Humboldt, W. (1854). The limits of state action. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Press.Google Scholar
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. (Henderson, A. M. & Parsons, T., Trans.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Xi, X. (forthcoming). How do we go about investigating test fairness? Language Testing.Google Scholar
Yerkes, R. M. (1921). Psychological examining in the United States Army. Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. XV. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.CrossRefGoogle Scholar