English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Jennifer Randall’s paper on justice-oriented assessment and Randy Bennett’s paper on socioculturally responsive assessment address fairness in the testing of racially, culturally, and linguistically diverse student populations by providing principles and recommendations for improved assessment practice. I warn about the perils of assuming that principles and recommendations suffice to promote fair testing in the absence of serious changes in the entire process of assessment. I liken the limitations of this over-reliance on principles and recommendations to the limitations of the fairness chapter of the  Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing , whose wording portraits actions to address fairness in testing as optional. A transformative agenda on assessment practice needs to be based on a systemic perspective that involves all components and stages in the assessment process and needs to aim to produce a paradigm shift that establishes more rigorous expectations about what counts as fairness in assessment.

educational assessment

How Serious are We About Fairness in Testing and How Far are We Willing to Go? A Response to Randall and Bennett with Reflections About the  Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing