Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Eggen, Astrid Birgitte (2004)
Publisher: Co-Action Publishing
Journal: Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy
Languages: English
Types: Article
This article is about assessment literacy among teachers. It deals with five science teachers’ different ways of thinking about knowledge, learning and knowledge assessment. Their approaches are contradictory and referring to different levels of reflection: to a practical, a didactic and a theoretical level. A teacher can in words express one approach but act on another. Such incoherence may for instance prevent teachers from regarding knowledge assessment as a key issue in their instructional activity and thus not something worth reflecting on. The teachers take position according to different educational contexts when considering the multiple purposes of assessment. They construct and reconstruct ideologically and epistemologically different but corresponding identities.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanesian, H. 1968. Educational psycology. A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
    • Berlak, A., & Berlak, H. 1981. Dilemmas of schooling. Teaching and social change. London: Methuen.
    • Black, P. 1998b. Testing: Friend or foe? Theory and Practice of Assessment and Testing. London: Falmer Press.
    • Bloom, B. S. 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York: David McKay Company.
    • Eggen, A. B. 2003b. Sigma; A case of teacher reflection within formative student assessment. In E. Forsberg (Ed.), Skolan och tusenårsskiftet. En vänbok til Ulf P. Lundgren. Uppsala: Department of Teacher Education, Uppsala University.
    • Eggen, A. B. 2004. Alfa and Omega in Student Assessment; Exploring Identities of Secondary School Science Teachers. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Oslo.
    • Engeström, Y. 2000. From individual action to collective activity and back: developmental work research as an interventionist methodology. In P. Luff, J. Hindmarsh & C. Heath (Eds.), Workplace Studies. Recovering Work Practice and Informing Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Engeström, Y., Meittinen, R., & Punamäki, R. L. 1999. Perspectives on Activity Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Englund, T. 1986. Curriculum as a Political Problem. Changing Educational Conceptions, with Special Reference to Citizenship Education. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
    • Englund, T. 1998a. Problematizing School Subject Content. In D. A. Roberts & L. Östman (Eds.), Problems of Meaning in Science Curriculum. New York: Teacher College Press.
    • Gagné, R. M. 1965. The Psychological Bases of Science: A Process Approach. Washington: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
    • Granheim, M., Kogan, M., & Lundgren, U. 1990. Evaluation as Policymaking. Introducing Evaluation into a National Decentralised Educational System. London: Jessica Kinsley Publishers.
    • Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. 1996. Cognition and learning. In D. C. C. Berlinec, R. C. (Eds.) (Ed.), Handbook of educational psychology. New York.
    • Greeno, J. G., & MSMTAPG. 1998. The Situativity of Knowing, Learning and Research. American Psychologist, 53(1), 5-26.
    • Haug, P. 1998. Linking Evaluation and Reform Strategies. New Directions for Evaluation, 77.
    • Hickman, L. A., & Alexander, T. A. 1998. The Essential Dewey. Bloomington: Indiana University press.
    • Hodson, D. 1985. Philosophy of Science, Science and Science Education. Studies in Science Education, 12, 25-57.
    • Knain, E. 1999. Naturfagets tause stemme. Diskursanalyse av Natur- og miljøfag i et allmenn-dannelsesperspektiv. Unpublished Doctoral TheseRealfagdidaktikk, Universitetet i Oslo, Oslo.
    • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. 1991. Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Lefrancois, G. R. 1997. Psychology for Teaching. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
    • Lindensjö, B., & Lundgren, U. 2000. Utbildningsreformer och politisk styrning. Stockholm: HLS Förlag.
    • Lundgren, U. P. 1979. Att organisera omvärlden. En introduksjon til läroplansteori. Stockholm: Liber Förlag.
    • O'Neill, W. F. 1981. Educational Ideologies. Contemporary Expressions of Educational Philosophy. Santa Monica: Goodyear Publishing Company, Inc.
    • Piaget, J. 1972. The principles of genetic epistemology (W. Mays, Trans.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
    • Pressley, M., & Mc Cormick, C. B. 1995. Advanced Educational Psychology for Educators, Researchers, and Policymakers. New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.
    • Roberts, D. A. 1983. Scientific literacy. Towards Balance in Setting Goals for School Science Programs (Dicsussion Paper). Ottawa: Science Council of Canada/Minister of Supply and Services.
    • Roberts, D. A. 1988. What counts as Science Education? In P. Fensham (Ed.), Development and Dilemmas in Science Education. London: Falmer Press.
    • Roberts, D. A., & Östman, L. 1998. Problems of Meaning in Science Curriculum. London: Teacher College Press.
    • Segers, M., Dochy, F., & Cascallar, E. 2003. Optimising New Modes of Assessment: In Search of Qualities and Standards. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
    • Sfard, A. 1998. On Two Metaphors for Learning and the Dangers of Choosing Just One. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4-13.
    • Sinclair, A. 1995. The Chameleon of Accountability: Forms and discourses. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20(2/3), 219-237.
    • Skinner, B. F. (1958). Teaching machines. Science, 128.
    • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. 1997. Grounded theory in practice. London: SAGE Publications.
    • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research. Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousands Oaks: SAGE publications.
    • Tyler, R. W. 1949. Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    • Vedung, E. 1991. Utvärdering i politik och förvaltning. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
    • Vuyk, R. 1981. Overview and Critique of Piaget's Genetic Epistemology 1965- 1980. London: Academic Press.
    • Vygotsij, L. 2001. Tenkning og tale (Thought and Language.). Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.
    • Vygotsky, L. 1978. Mind in Society: The development of higher psyshological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    • Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice. Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Wertsch, J. V. 1985. Culture Communication and Cognition. Vygotskian Persepctives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Wertsch, J. V. 1998. Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.
    • Östman, L. 1995. Socialisering och mening; NO-utbildning som politiskt och miljömoraliskt problem. Unpublished Doctoral thesis, Uppsala Universitet, Uppsala.
    • Eggen, Astrid Birgitte. 2004: Teacher assessment literacy beyond technicalities and intuition I Studies in Educational Policy and Educational Philosophy: E-tidskrift, 2004:2. .
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Cite this article

Collected from