Editorial
The landscape of education and…
by Mani Shobhana
“So long as the millions live in hunger and ignorance, I hold every man a traitor who, having been educated at their expense, pays not the least heed to them.” – Swami Vivekananda
Introduction
A successful, thriving, compassionate society is achieved through the contributions of the members of that society who are learned, skilled and intrinsically disposed towards the betterment of the community, rather than individual growth and development. Utopian as it may seem, individual success and fulfilment can be achieved through the success and happiness of the community or society. But how does one bring about such realization? Surely the place to sow the seeds of such practice would be in the context of education, where eager young minds seek inspiration and future direction. In modern society, most people spend a large part of their developing years in schools, colleges, and institutes of higher education where the goal typically progresses from topping the class, high achievement in subjects, to securing entry to subsequent programs of choice, ultimately leading up to professional success, financial stability and, hopefully, personal satisfaction.
However, a more ideal scenario would be for students to be actively involved in learning, and assessment through authentic tasks that develop awareness and attitudes regarding their identity and role in society, and encourage decision-making for societal betterment and change.
There is enough, and more, evidence in literature that ‘assessment is probably the most powerful shaper of what students do and how they see themselves’ (Boud, 2014, p. 24) In this work, assessment is examined from the standpoint of social justice to consider ensuring assessment in schools is a socially just and fair practice, which in turn can inculcate the same socially just and fair dispositions in our learners. This would see them become future citizens of a more inclusive, tolerant, and compassionate society.
Social Justice
Let us begin by understanding what social justice and which definition or analysis of it is pertinent to our context. The idea of social justice is such that all would claim to understand it at one level or another, and it is quite probable that the interpretation of each individual be unique. After all, our ideas of what is just and acceptable is determined by what we consider to be so based on the integrated individual experiences. Sen (2000, p. 60) in referring to the diversity of views on social justice says:
If notions of social justice belong to the ethical world of norms, actual beliefs- implicit or explicit- in notions of social justice are parts of the phenomenal world in which we live. Frequently, these beliefs may not have the analytical sophistication or the perceptive clarity that can be found in the professional writings of , say, Mill, or Sidgwick, or Rawls, or Nozick, or Dworkin, but they do involve far-reaching ideas of what is good and proper, and what is shameful, inexcusable, or intolerable.
Rawls (1958, p.166) envisioned a theory of justice as fairness, wherein we have a society whose members all hold equal rights and are free to mutually come to decisions regarding the society. He claimed his idea of justice was a “complex of three ideas: liberty, equality, and reward for services contributing to the common good.” Thus while one would not interest oneself in decisions that benefit them, it would be incumbent on all to ensure that no decision is taken which allows anyone a dominating position over others.
In Nussbaum’s (2006) work, she is critical of theories of justice that have been framed by individuals or groups, keeping in mind those who are like them, and disregarding the needs or predicaments of others, who are unlike. For example, as a healthy and fit individual what may appear appropriate and doable to one, might not be accessible to somebody else who has some form of physical or mental disability. They are excluded from such limited visualisations of ‘social justice’ where neither are they involved in the decision-making, nor are their needs justifiably represented. She suggests the formulation of social justice theories that are somewhat abstract, but take into cognizance the present social context, its pressing needs, yet are flexible to amendments.
Both the Sen and Nussbaum endorse a real and practical approach to a theory of social justice as opposed to an idealised one, that is neither inclusive nor representative of society at large.
Further to this approach comes the perspective of social justice from the lens of critical theory, which also is based on ‘lived reality’ rather than idealised contexts. Habermas (1990) was one of the proponents of Critical Theory and his concerns revolved around the issues of developing suitable social norms and principles for justice which were not just stated and celebrated in theory, but translated to implementation. Thus the principles should be designed bearing in mind that meaningful implementation would be possible in society. Thus Habermas’ vision is one of ethical procedure ensuring socially just practices are adopted.
Axel Honneth (2004) also working in the realm of critical theory, however, differs from this idea of procedural justice, instead focusing on the individual’s sense of identity and how it is acknowledged by those around them. In their participation as a member of society, the individual would enjoy the freedom to be their own selves and feel no sense of hesitation or shame in acknowledging the same. Honneth draws on three differentiated spheres of recognition — interpersonal, legal and community, within all of which the opportunity to express one’s self should be available to the individual. The three spheres are not mutually exclusive and overlap to contribute to the individual’s personality. The interpersonal sphere involves those that immediately surround a person, with whom the person shares close emotional bonds. The legal sphere refers to the rights and affordances an individual would enjoy in a democracy, with equal status in the eyes of law, as any other citizen. Finally, the sphere of community refers to the social esteem and the position of the individual in society, and their ability to contribute to the betterment of the society of which they are a part. Obtaining recognition in these three spheres is what drives individuals to seek change in societal norms and, the absence of securing recognition in one or more of these spheres could lead to social, emotional, or psychological problems for the individual.
In this paper, we consider social justice from the standpoint of Honneth’s Critical Theory (2004) and consider how it would be applicable to the student in the school context.
Assessment in schools
“Students can, with difficulty, escape from the effects of poor teaching, they cannot (by definition if they want to graduate) escape the effects of poor assessment. (Boud,1995)
This may not be the most promising line to start the overview of assessment in schools, but sadly, its truth cannot be denied. Assessment is considered as one of the most important aspects of a student’s learning. The experience of assessment determines many factors in the student’s future and can be an avenue not just for achieving the learning outcomes set out by the academic curriculum but also for gaining knowledge of and exposure to the real world in which the student will be expected to demonstrate their learning. Assessment is held in high importance by all stakeholders involved in the education process. To the student, assessment represents what is of value. This knowledge is often used to determine what needs to be learnt; otherwise,why would one bother with something which is not going to appear in assessments? It also is the avenue to achieving qualification, which holds the key to future opportunities both academically and professionally.
School assessments typically fall under the categories of formative and summative assessment, with some following the continual assessments format.
While formative assessments have in the past few decades evolved into assessment for learning and assessment as learning, summative assessments have remained mostly, assessment of learning. (Serafini, 2001, Black & William, 1998, Earl, 2013) The design of these assessments, their frequency, weightage, or marking and grading are typically decisions taken by either education boards, school administrators, or teachers. Well-meaning teachers, parents, or other helpful adults inform the learners how they should prepare for such assessment. Despite assessments being such an integral part of the student’s education experience, they are found to reveal ‘visceral emotions’ when they talk about assessments (Crossman, 2007).
“The predominant emotions described were anxiety, worry, hate, embarrassment, stress, terror, panic, humiliation, a sense of being under threat, horror, feeling overwhelmed, a sense of pointlessness, being upset, dread, hurt, frustration, boredom, resentment, being under pressure, loathing, fear, nervousness, emotional scarring and anger.” (McArthur, 2018)
As is evident, these are not positive or even healthy emotions and such emotional overtones do not support better learning (Immordino-Yang, 2007). Students look upon assessments not as an opportunity for learning, rather as a necessary hurdle that they have to cross to secure the certification they seek.
“Assessment is a process done to them”, says Boud (2007) and has little involvement of the learner beyond following the rules and regulations of the assessment process and participating in it. The students present themselves to be measured and evaluated, and they appear to have little to contribute to the assessment process, otherwise.
If we were to examine this in the light of social justice, educational organisations and schools may be doing a lot to ensure procedural justice and fairness, as they understand it. Much effort is taken to ensure that assessments are valid and reliable, marking is done in a fair manner and grading is arrived at through complex formulae that take into consideration the various times the student has been assessed and the range of skills demonstrated.
However, none of this necessarily attends to who the student is becoming through the process of these assessments.
Students who are unable to be reasonably successful in the school-based assessments would suffer the effects of it in all three spheres of Honneth. First, they may feel a sense of shame based on their poor performance in front of their family and friends. Second, they may perceive that they have been treated unfairly or unequally as their peers, which has contributed to their poor performance and finally in the sphere of community. Third, they may suffer from low self-esteem stemming from their lack of success in the assessments, and thus might be given to feel that they cannot contribute to the school community, or society at large, in any meaningful way. Failure in assessment may convince some learners that they are the ‘problem’ (Boud & Falchikov, 2007)
Even students who perform well may be given to believe that these exams are a routine that they have mastered, and hence may not reflect on the value of why they need to go through the assessment processes and what they are learning from it. Their goals may remain confined to succeeding in the limited space of their individual world, and they may not realise that the purpose of education is not to excel in the assessment, but to contribute to society, through their learning. Also, performance in standardized assessments may not be a true reflection of the student’s actual mastery or depth of learning. Hughes (2014) suggests when assessment becomes competitive in nature, it may become an impediment to learning.
In Laura Lundy’s seminal work on student voice, the one issue that emerges as the most significant with regard to children’s rights in schools is the feeling that their opinions do not matter. “Not having a say in decisions that concerned themselves” was considered one of the main problems. “Pupils don’t really have a say in school. Teacher’s opinions always come first.” (Lundy, 2007, p. 929)
Any theory of social justice is only as good as the people who will be experiencing it, implementing it, and making it an intrinsic part of societal structure. When students spend the formative years of their life at the receiving end of policies that have been laid for them by the more knowledgeable adults around them, when through the practices of assessment we expose them to an approach of prioritising their own interests, identify success with surpassing their peers, and single -mindedly pursuing individual prosperity and success, how could these students turn into adults who are aware and mindful of social justice?
Thus, a change is needed in the way schools present the pursuit of goals and what is worthy of achievement, wherein lies the purpose of learning. Towards this end, I suggest the adoption of Lundy’s (2007) framework of student voice.
Student Voice in Assessment
The work of Laura Lundy (2007) was based on interpreting Article 12 of the UNCRC (United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child) so that it may be better understood, and more importantly not misconstrued. The model proposed by her, and now widely accepted, involves consideration of four concepts:
“Space: Children must be given the opportunity to express a view
Voice: Children must be facilitated to express their views
Audience: The view must be listened to
Influence: The view must be acted upon, as appropriate”
How can we apply Lundy’s framework to assessment and ensure that social justice is being upheld? In the matter of school-based assessments, let us consider each of the factors that form part of Lundy’s model. It would require students’ views on assessment to be sought so that they feel they have a say on this very significant aspect of their education. Classroom and school environments could be modelled such that students can share their views unhesitatingly and fearlessly, without concerns of being judged or marked for voicing their opinions. Students could be invited to provide ideas on assessment products and co-construct assessment criteria with their teachers and peers for a better understanding of the requirements of the assessment task. Stiggins and Chappuis (2005) recommend, students should be invited as collaborators in constructing assessment criteria, whereby they develop an understanding of how the criteria are employed and can use this to constructively critique their own work. Beyond an opportunity to ‘speak’, it is recommended that what students say must also be ‘heard’ and weighed upon its own merits and demerits in the given context. It should not be written off with a feeling that students being immature are in no position to inform experienced and educated adults about the assessment practices. They are equal if not the greater stakeholders in the assessment process, and due importance must be attached to their contributions. This then makes the way for an assessment conversation between student and teacher or school administration, to listen to the students, discuss and come to a consensus. Bain (2010) found that such a dialogic interaction between student and teacher supports the validation of the student voice.
The feedback dialogue that follows assessment could also be perceived as a part of this same conversation, whereby students are provided opportunities to question and understand what they have done well, what could be done better, and how they can improve. A case is made for student voice, which when heard and respected by the adults, creates an environment for student-involved assessment in the classroom and ameliorates student inhibition and risk. In a classroom where the student feels safe and communicates without hesitation, learning and assessment are meaningful and accessible, students are more motivated, and the environment facilitates self-regulation and metacognition (Clark, 2012). Through the four-step framework, students can enjoy greater autonomy, which would permit them to take charge of their own learning, resulting in closing achievement gaps and development of metacognitive abilities (Chow, 2010).
Assessment for Social Justice
Following from the previous section, we have students who are given an opportunity to contribute to the decision-making on school-based assessment and this increases their sense of ownership of their own learning. It is hoped that this autonomy would encourage them to move on from the state of passively doing assessments to actively considering what assessment is doing for them. They would take cognizance of the fact that assessment is an opportunity for them to engage with the knowledge they are acquiring and transfer it to a real-world like context, in preparation for their future professional pursuits. They would, in being placed in an inclusive environment, appreciate the needs of others, and thus reflect on their role as an individual in society, beyond their own selfish goals. In the above context, they would from an early age, consider assessment as an essential component of their learning experience, and one that they have been involved in designing and implementing. They would be accustomed to matters of importance, like assessment, being decided after the needs and voices of all involved are heard and discussed, to arrive at decisions that take into account all appropriate needs and provisions. Thus they would feel free to be their own selves, state their own requirements and also hear those of others. They would be familiar with arriving at a consensus that is fair to all.
Thus, they would be in a position to participate in all three spheres of recognition as per Honneth’s critical theory of social justice.
This early experience with socially just practices through assessment, would inculcate in students a disposition of adopting similar practices when they find themselves as responsible and compassionate contributors of society. They would be in a position to look beyond their own needs to the larger picture, and ensure that those around them are free to be their own selves, and voice their individual opinions without reservation or fear. Problem-solving for them would include considering what is the common good, thus ushering in positive societal change. Thus, by addressing lack of social justice in the classroom assessment system, we could ensure presence of social justice in the society in the future.
Interestingly, if we are to consider how assessment for social justice could be implemented, McArthur (2016) is reluctant to suggest any prescriptive set of steps or principles. Doing so would render it similar to the idea of procedural justice, and not have the flexibility that is essential to make it truly representative of a broader perspective of social justice. Hanesworth et al (2019) suggest a model for achieving social justice in assessment through organisational change, within a theoretical backdrop achieved by the cross-pollination of Universal Design for Learning and Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy. They propose a four-step typology of assessment through assessment practices that reinforce social justice.
No specific practices are outlined for assessment for social justice, as it must evolve from student participation in decision-making. What needs to be reinforced is only the need to actively involve learners in their assessment process and alert them to the changes it brings about in them. In engaging with assessment, they must see one’s achievement not just as a lone score or grade, but rather as a contribution to the society, something useful for others at large, whereby the act provides fulfilment. Individual wellbeing comes about from social wellbeing, drawing upon the idea of assessment for social justice. (McArthur, 2020, McArthur et al, 2022)
Conclusion
After assessment of learning, for learning and as learning, is assessment for social justice just another flavour of the month, or is it an essential philosophical change that needs to be effected, keeping in mind that as a society we need to look beyond the confines of the individuals to the society at large? When students engage with assessments positively and in an informed manner during the school years, they would be disposed to adopt similar attitudes to matters of importance in their future lives. Society would no longer be a place for false pretences but one where each person is confident in their own skin and space and feel no inhibition in sharing this space honestly with others.
Challenging as it may sound, the idea of assessment for social justice is one that when adopted has much to offer. It would require cultural and ideological shifts from teachers, parents, and students, not to mention administrative bodies, however the efforts would be fruitful in realising a strong value-based, compassionate, and inclusive society, which should be the rightful outcome of a successful education.
References
Bain, & Jennifer. (2010). Integrating student voice: assessment for empowerment. Practitioner Research in Higher Education, 4(1).
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. International Journal of Phytoremediation, 21(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
Boud, David. (1995). Assessment and learning: Contradictory or complimentary. Assessment In Assessment for Learning in Higher Education. London: Kogan Page, 35-48. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203062074-8
Boud, D. (2014). Shifting views of assessment: From secret teachers’ business to sustaining learning. Advances and innovations in university assessment and feedback, 13-31.
Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2007). Developing assessment for informing judgement. Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the longer term, 14(4), 181-197.
Chow, W. K. A. (2010). Improving Learning through Student-Involved Assessment. The International Journal of Learning, Vol 16, No. 12, pp 87-101.
Clark, I. (2012). Formative Assessment: Assessment Is for Self-regulated Learning. In Educational Psychology Review (Vol. 24, Issue 2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9191-6
Crossman, J. (2007). The role of relationships and emotions in student perceptions of learning and assessment. Higher Education Research and Development, 26(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360701494328
Earl, L. M. (2003). Assessment For Learning; Assessment As Learning: Changing Practices Means Changing Beliefs. Assessment As Learning: Using Classroom Assessment to Maximize Student Learning, 80(2).
Earl, L. M. (2013). Assessment for learning; Assessment as learning: Changing practices means changing beliefs. assessment, 80, 63-71.
Habermas, Jürgen (1990): Moral consciousness and communicative action. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen (trans.). Maldon, MA: Polity Press.
Hanesworth, P., Bracken, S., & Elkington, S. (2019). A typology for a social justice approach to assessment: learning from universal design and culturally sustaining pedagogy. Teaching in Higher Education, 24(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1465405
Honneth, A. (2004). Recognition and justice: Outline of a plural theory of justice. Acta Sociologica, 47(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699304048668
Hughes, C. (2014). A critical analysis of the International Baccalaureate’s Middle Years Programme assessment design with particular focus on feedback. Journal of Research in International Education, 13(3), 203-217.
Immordino‐Yang, M. H., & Damasio, A. (2007). We feel, therefore we learn: The relevance of affective and social neuroscience to education. Mind, brain, and education, 1(1), 3-10.
Laura, L. (2007). “Voice” is not enough: Conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. British Educational Research Journal, 33(6). https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920701657033
McArthur, J. (2018). Assessment for social justice: perspectives and practices within higher education. Bloomsbury Academic, Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
McArthur, J. (2020). Student involvement in assessment: involving the whole student in pursuit of social justice and the social good. RELIEVE, 26(1), art. M2. http://doi.org/10.7203/relieve.26.1.17089
McArthur, J., Blackie, M., Pitterson, N., & Rosewell, K. (2022). Student perspectives on assessment: connections between self and society. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(5), 698-711.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2006). Education and Democratic Citizenship: Capabilities and Quality Education. Journal of Human Development, 7(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/14649880600815974
Rawls, J. (1958). Justice as fairness. The philosophical review, 67(2), 164-194.
Sen, A. (2000). Chapter 1 Social justice and the distribution of income. In Handbook of Income Distribution (Vol. 1). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0056(00)80004-4
Sen, A. (2010). The place of capability in a theory of justice. In Measuring Justice: Primary Goods and Capabilities. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810916.011
Serafini, F. (2000). Three paradigms of assessment: Measurement, procedure, and inquiry. The Reading Teacher, 54(4).
Stiggins, R., & Chappuis, J. (2005). Using student-involved classroom assessment to close achievement gaps. Theory into Practice, 44(1), 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4401_3