Principles of Integrating Values in Assessment: Reflexivity, Hospitality and Dispositional Development

In the context of primary and secondary education, the assessment of values typically occupies a marginal place. Often, it is episteme (theoretical knowledge) and techne (skill or craft) that are emphasized over ethikos (ethics and virtues). In both formative and summative assessments, values are absent or less emphasized in assessment criteria. Given that assessment provides integral feedback and judgments about learning and has a trickle-down effect on curriculum and pedagogy, I seek to explore how values and virtues can be integrated in both formative and summative assessments. Specifically, I highlight three key principles that educators can apply in integrating values in assessment design.

Principle 1: Be reflexive about ideological values inherent in assessment

The differences between formative and summative assessments have been explored by various scholars (Black & William, 1998; Bloom et al., 1971; Harlen & James, 1997; Taras, 2005). In achievement-oriented cultures, summative assessment tends to overshadow formative assessment resulting in teaching to and learning for the test. Emphasis is placed on knowledge and skill mastery. What is commonly overlooked, however, is that all forms of assessment are values-driven and values are implicit in the very design of assessment. There is therefore a need to for educators to be reflexive about the implicit values in assessment.

Let me illustrate with an example. In this paper, I will use examples from the discipline of English Literature education although the principles can apply to other subject disciplines.

When the concept of literature first emerged in fourteenth century Europe, it was tied to the practice of reading. The Latin root, littera, denoted a letter of the alphabet. Thus, studying literature meant the ability to read and comprehend words. When Literature was later formally introduced as a subject in public schools in eighteenth century England, its practice shifted to the capacity to read aesthetically well-written and imaginative works (Williams, 1977). This tradition became cemented in English Literature education so that by the early twentieth century, entry into college was assessed on a standardized list of classical works such as Shakespeare (Applebee, 1974). Yet, inherent in the practice of literary appreciation was an invisible ideological value system. Under the guise of educating students with an appreciation for the “best that is known and thought in the world” (Arnold, 1993, p. 37), English Literature education was in fact perpetuating the values of Englishness. Englishness refers to the values of English bourgeois civility demonstrated not just in a taste for good writing but in a sense of loyalty to the British Empire (Doyle, 1989). When English Literature was then introduced in Britain’s colonies such as India and Singapore, this ideology of Englishness perpetuated a form of cultural colonization (Choo, 2018). In India, for example, English Literature was used as a catalyst to convert students from Hinduism to Christianity through works like Milton’s Paradise Lost (Viswanathan, 2014).

The point of this example is to highlight that all forms of assessment are grounded on an ideological system. The traditional definition of ideology is traced to Karl Marx (1845) who defined ideology as the ruling ideas of the ruling class. In this sense, ideology refers to the values and ideals supporting those in power. The problem with this classical view is that it assumes that ideology is static and one-sided based on dominance and subordination. More contemporary notions perceive ideology as dynamic, negotiated and occurring through influence rather than imposition. Here, the education system is one form of an “ideological state apparatus” (Althusser, 2004/1971) in which social values are explored, reinforced as well as negotiated by various agents e.g. school leaders, teachers, students, parents etc. Because schools are social institutions interconnected with communities and nation-states, there is no possibility of a value-less school just as there is no possibility of a non-ideological school and the aspects that constitute its historical and present system – assessment, curriculum, pedagogy etc.

In practice, educators should be reflexive about the implicit values inherent in assessment they assign and design. Some key questions to ask are:

• What values inform the questions asked in the assessment?
• What kinds of values are these – moral, political, disciplinary?
• What sources have given rise to these values? What is the historical context giving rise to the importance of these values?
• What assumptions underlie these values? What beliefs inform them?
• Are there alternative values that may be absent and that may provide a different perspective?

As an example, the International Baccalaureate’s (2018) English A: Literature specimen paper 2 includes this question: “Discuss how two works you have studied present concepts of good and bad, not as absolute notions, but as a matter of individual perception.” (p. 2). We may observe that this question encourages students to focus more on moral ambiguity, plurality, and fluidity that connects with postmodern conceptions of morality. The fact that the question asks students to focus on the author’s aesthetic presentation of these concepts implies there is less opportunity for students to engage with the ethics of these concepts and whether they subscribe to this philosophy or not. Thus, it is important for educators to be conscious of the values they may be implicitly imposing in their design of assessment as well as be critically aware of the values they may be unconsciously conveying through mimicking standardized assessments.

Principle 2: Cultivate hospitable rather than inhospitable values in assessment

Ideological values should not be perceived as “a static set of ideas through which we view the world but a dynamic social practice, constantly in process, constantly reproducing itself in the ordinary workings of these apparatuses” (Fiske, 1998, p. 307). In this sense, we should be aware that the values we hold may not be similar to the values of our students given the generational gap. Further, we are living in a digitally hyperconnected age where globalization is not an external phenomenon but part and parcel of everyday lived realities. “Glocalization” (Roudometof, 2016) has precipitated a greater consciousness and intermixing of cultural values. This also suggests that educators should be attentive to the degree to which the values informing assessment are hospitable to other cultures.

Hospitality has been stereotypically associated with the tourism industry although the concept has a rich history in ethical philosophy particularly via the works of Immanuel Kant and Jacques Derrida. Derrida (2002) critiqued Kantian hospitality as exemplifying conditional hospitality where, in the context of granting temporary asylum, openness to the other is premised on conditions set by those holding political power. In contrast, Derrida describes absolute hospitality as an openness without the imposition of expectations, interpretations and dominance. Grounded on an other-centric orientation, an ethics of hospitality aspires to a deep commitment to the other that transcends the politics of identity – race, gender, class, nationality etc. Its roots may be traced to Ancient Greek and Socratic philosophies of cosmopolitanism (defined from the Greek as citizen of the world) where one’s affiliation to others transcends material and political borders. This other-centric ethics of hospitality has also been located in Christian and Eastern philosophy including Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam etc. (see various articles in Rizvi and Choo’s [2020] special issue on “Asian Cosmopolitanisms”).

In practice, educators can be attentive not just to the kinds of implicit values in assessment but to the scope of these values. Using the notion of cosmopolitan hospitality as a lens, we can discern the extent to which assessment questions and tasks push the boundaries of affinity with diversity and difference. Some key considerations are:

• Are the values implicit in assessment universal or relevant to a specific context?
• Why are these values important to the culture promoting this?
• Who do these values support or benefit? Why?
• Who may be disadvantaged? How?
• What other values may need to be included to support a more caring and hospitable society?

As an example, consider two questions that John Churton Collins (1891), an important English literary critic proposed in the late nineteenth century when he called for reforms to Literature education in the university. One question asks, “Discuss the theology and ethics of Shakespeare, and show how they bear out Jonson’s assertion that he ‘not of an age but for all time.’” (p. 30). Another question asks, “Is Macbeth a responsible agent? If so, how does the drama illustrate Shakespeare’s ethics? If not, what light does it throw on Shakespeare’s theology?” (p. 48). Both these questions demonstrate different levels of hospitality. The first is a narrow example because it enforces a posture of admiration for the presumed universal morality of Shakespeare’s works. A student from a non-English culture, may be uncomfortable with the kinds of dehumanizing language used for Blacks and Jews among other races in Shakespeare’s Othello or Merchant of Venice, among other plays. However, the first question leaves no space for disagreement whereas the second question provides room for an evaluation, negative or positive, of Shakespeare’s ethics and theology. Hence, the second question provides a more hospitable space for ethical engagement.

Inhospitable values are essentially those that reinforce the moral superiority of one group at the expense of others in contrast to hospitable values that promote openness, empathy, and understanding of others. Questions in assessment can potentially support hospitable values even while addressing the kinds of knowledge and skills required in the subject discipline. For example, in 2016, one of the questions in the GCE ‘O’ level Literature in English paper 1 (2016) was on the poem “Foreign” by Carol Ann Duffy. This is a powerful poem that depicts the struggles of an immigrant as he/she attempts to assimilate in a foreign land. The questions asked students: “What vivid impressions do you form of the city imagined in the poem? How does the poet strikingly convey thoughts and feelings about living in a foreign country” (UCLES-MOE, 2016, p. 18). In both questions, students had to apply the skills of aesthetic close reading as part of their training in literary interpretation. Yet, in tackling the second question, students had to step into the shoes of the foreign other and understand his/her experiences through the eyes of the poet. The question thus encouraged cosmopolitan hospitality through what Martha Nussbaum (1997) describes as literature’s potential to cultivate a narrative imagination that pushes readers to step outside their own worldviews.

Principle 3: Integrate character virtues as part of assessment criteria

Values and virtues are often used interchangeably. However, there are subtle distinctions. Values refer more broadly to the goals and standards individuals, organizations, governments regard as important and desirable. They serve as a moral compass that guide and motivate our actions (Schwartz, 1994). In the same way, values provide signposts and ethical justification for assessment. Thus, the assessment objectives of the Singapore GCE ‘O’ level Literature in English syllabus is centered on values such as the capacity to “communicate a sensitive and informed personal response to what is read” and “express responses clearly and coherently, using textual evidence where appropriate” (MOE & UCLES, 2023, p. 3). These are values such as clear communication, deep and engaged reading, critical reflection, authentic voice etc. They inform teachers of the kinds of dispositions that should be cultivated in the classroom.

While there are overlaps between values and virtues, virtues refer to the long-term, stable, habitual character dispositions that inclines one to act consistently in personally and socially desirable ways (Arthur, 2020; Kristjánsson et al., 2021). Aristotle, who provided the earliest, most influential and systematic theorization of virtues, established the connection between human flourishing [eudaimonia] and virtues. He argued that even though human flourishing may be affected by luck or fortune, the central condition is the habitual exercising of virtues. As Aristotle (1985/350 BCE) explained, “it is the activities expressing virtue that control happiness [eudaimonia]” (§1100b, p. 25). Thus, the complete man, living life at its best, is one who continually exercises virtues that Aristotle categorized as moral (such as bravery, temperance, generosity, and friendliness) as well as intellectual (such as theoretical and practical wisdom). More recently, scholars from the Jubilee Centre for Character and Virtues at the University of Birmingham have derived a framework that encompasses four types of character virtues:

Intellectual virtues: Character traits necessary for discernment, right action and the pursuit of knowledge, truth and understanding.

Moral virtues: Character traits that enable us to act well in situations that require an ethical response.

Civic virtues: Character traits that are necessary for engaged responsible citizenship, contributing to the common good.

Performance virtues: Character traits that have an instrumental value in enabling the intellectual, moral and civic virtues. (Jubilee Centre for Character and Virtues, 2022, p. 8).

Given that these virtues operate oftentimes in tension, practical wisdom (phronesis) is a meta-virtue that involves critical reflection and discernment in negotiating the multiplicity of virtues (Kristjánsson et al., 2021).

While I have argued that educators need to be attentive to implicit values grounding assessment along with the degree of cosmopolitan hospitability these values support, educators should also consider the ways that character virtues can be integrated in assessment. If virtues are habitual character dispositions, then assessment can function as a powerful catalyst in virtue development. Given that students are formatively assessed throughout the year and summatively assessed at the end of the course of study, the incorporation of character virtues can serve to reinforce its habituation.

However, there are two main challenges to integrating character virtues in assessment. First, there is the prejudiced perspective that virtues are abstract, a matter of personal psychological development and cannot be objectively measured. As such, summative assessment, especially, tends to focus more on demonstrable knowledge and performative skills. Second, even when character virtues are incorporated in assessment, these may be confined to a limited type. For example, Literature educators may overly focus on the virtues of truth-seeking, tied to habits such as close reading, substantiating arguments with evidence, and finding multiple data sources etc. These virtues tend to be closely associated with expected values implicit in high-stakes assessment rubrics where a distinction grade is dependent on “good analysis and evaluation of content and presentation, and evidence of the ability to critically appreciate the text” among other factors (MOE & UCLES, 2023, p. 6). At the same time, other character virtues are then marginalized such as empathy.

In practice, educators can consider how to encourage a more holistic range of virtues in teaching and learning. Elsewhere, I have discussed the importance of dispositional routines (Choo, 2021, 2024). Drawing from two connected Confucian virtues – ren (benevolence) and li (ritual) – benevolence or love and care for others is not innate in human nature but rather must be continually cultivated through ritual practices. These ritual practices are not meant to be mechanical or rigid but are habit forming practices that allow one to internalize a cosmopolitan ethos. Gradually, the self learns to overcome egoism, the family learns to overcome nepotism, the community learns to overcome parochialism, the state learns to overcome ethnocentrism, and the world learns to overcome anthropocentrism (Tu, 1998).

In the context of schooling, I use the concept of dispositional routines to disrupt the notion of disciplinary routines where routines have been narrowly confined to managing student behaviour especially when it is disruptive. Instead, dispositional routines focus on the cultivation of character virtues (Choo, 2021, 2024). Drawing on Jubilee Centre of Character and Virtue’s (2022) four types of character virtues, the following are some examples of routines that can be incorporated in formative assessment: