Assessment Reform in Science

the

public examinations. The TAS is also intended to reduce studentsa (TM) anxiety and

allow a valid assessment of their practical work abilities. Finally, it is intended to

enhance teachersa (TM) professionalism. In other words, although the TAS is mainly an

assessment reform, it is also a pedagogical reform. It does, however, put teachers in a

tricky position in which they need to administera "and determine the results ofa "a

high-stakes assessment with their own students.

The first two chapters of the book set the stage, with Chapter 1 giving a high-level

overview of the study and the literature in which it is grounded, as well as the methodological

approach taken. Chapter 2 describes the TAS and the Hong Kong

educational systema "although not in sufficient detail, perhaps, for some readers not

familiar with the UK system. The in-depth treatment of the literature and methods

are held back for appendices at the end of the book. Key perspectives are introduced

when needed, but briefly and superficially; the approach does not always provide the

foundation necessary for making sense of the analysis and interpretation. When

1130 Book Review

reached, the literature review and methods do not seem integral to the story the

author is telling, and are less engaging to read than the rest of the book.

Chapter 3 uses a quantitative cross-case analysis, giving some sense of the 10

teachersa (TM) enactment of the TAS. This chapter nicely introduces and situates the indepth

cases that are presented in the subsequent chapters. Oneconcern is that

Yung does not very clearly define the a ~dialogical text unitsa (TM) that he uses to separate

dialogical exchanges, yet the frequencies of various types of dialogical text units

provide the basis for almost all of the analyses. Assuming the reader can get past

that concern, the graphs of the various quantitative analyses in this chapter

strikingly illustrate the differences among the teachers. The teachers are presented

throughout the remainder of the book, ordered in terms of their increasing concern

with assessment-related issues during practicals, with Alan, Bob, and Carl at one

end of the list (with low concern for assessment-related issues), and Hugo, Ivor

and John at the other end. This alphabetical presentation is extremely helpful in

making sense of the results. The analyses in Chapter 3 show that:

teachers who were more concerned with assessment-related issues tended to interact

less frequently with students during the practical, and hence less teaching related to

practical work per se occurred. In particular, these teachers tended to spend less of their

[teacher-student] interaction a ] on developing studentsa (TM) scientific thinking and understanding

of the theory behind the practical work compared with the teachers who saw

TAS as both a pedagogical reform and an assessment reform. (p. 38)

Chapters 4a "11 present cases representing eight of the 10 teachers who participated

in the study. Through these chapters readers can get a sense of who these teachers are

and what drives them. For example, Alana (TM)s goal was to educate students to be good

citizens (see Chapter 4). He wanted to help students tolearn to engage in scientific

investigation and to apply their knowledge to interpret their data. Alan allowed some

leeway in the amount of time students had for writing up their results. Alan also

emphasised the students learning what he called a ~bench cooperationa (TM) and, more

generally, being able to learn together. In fact, at one point when Alan came upon

two students talking during a practical, he encouraged them to carry on when they

told him that they were learning from one another; other teachers in the study would

never have tolerated such discussion during a TAS practical. Alan interacted with the

students more than any other teacher, but his talk mainly took the form of guiding or

focusing questions and statements. Alan almost never focused his interactions on

assessment-related issues.

By way of contrast, Hugo focused far more on assessment-related issues, and

interacted with students far less (see Chapter 9). Hugoa (TM)s goal was to prepare

students for a ~their future working lifea (TM), a big part of which, to him, was the importance

of meeting deadlines. In fact, Hugo refused to give his students warnings

about the amount of time left for the completion of the practical, noting that

a ~people will not usually remind you kind-heartedly in the work placea (TM) (p. 116).

Hugo also saw teaching as involving the transmission of information, and his

stancea "unlike Alana (TM)sa "was more teaching focused than learning focused. In

general, Hugoa (TM)s classroom was much like a public examination hall during the TAS

Book Review 1131

practicals. Students were allowed exactly the same amount of time, and were not

allowed to look up any information or discuss anything amongst themselves. Hugo

avoided giving help to any individual student. While Hugo recognised how valuable

discussion was for his studentsa (TM) learning, his view of fairnessa "that he had to

provide the same information to each student in the rooma "precluded him from

providing that type of help.

Chapter 12 is subtitled a ~a preliminary analysisa (TM) and summarises issues related to

the teachersa (TM) beliefs and their views about the TAS, cutting across the cases. Yung

identifies three main themes in these data: the teachersa (TM) concern with fairness,

interpretation of the rules of the TAS, and sense of professionalism. The remaining

chapters continue to unpack these themesa "with the first addressed in Chapter 13,

and the second and third in Chapter 14.

The teachers all used a ~fairnessa (TM) to justify their actions, but they defined fairness

very differently. Chapter 13 characterises three views of fairness. In the first, teachers

see fairness from the standpoint of extending the public examination procedure.

Fay, Hugo, Ivor, and John reflected this stance. These teachersa "as exemplified by

John in the chaptera "polarised teaching and assessment, and saw the TAS as

purely a summative assessment. One view of fairness was held by only one teacher;

Carl focused on providing students with what he called an a ~all-round educationa (TM),

attending to their holistic development as individuals. In the final view of fairness,

teachers saw their role, including their role when engaged in TAS practicals, as

providing opportunities for students to learn the subject matter. Alan, Bob, Dawn,

Eddy and Glen held, to varying degrees, this view of fairness, and tried to use the

TAS to promote learning. Yung does not explore whether these differing views of

fairness have implications for the nature of the assessment itself. For example, do

teachers who hold one view distinguish among students in a different way than

teachers who hold a different view?

Chapter 14 explores teacher professionalism, or teachersa (TM) capacity to make

judgements to promote improved outcomes. Yung identifies three strands that

impact the teachersa (TM) overall stance toward the TAS. The first is how they approach

and interpret the text defining the TAS and its policies, with some feeling empowered

to use their professional judgement in interpreting it, and others feeling

constrained and reading the TAS as authoritative and unchangeable. The second

strand related to teacher professionalism is how high or low their professional

confidence is, and the third is to what extent they prioritise studentsa (TM) interests

versus their own interests. Four teachersa "Alan, Bob, Carl and Dawna "hold an

interpretive and empowered stance (and thus interpret the TAS flexibly), have high

professional confidence, and prioritise studentsa (TM) interests. Fay, Glen, and Hugo

hold a non-interpretive and constrained stance, have low professional confidence,

and prioritisest