摘要：At a time where high-stakes national and international testing have assumed such prominence, one might begin to wonder about the status of teacher judgement when assessing and reporting on children’s knowledge and skills against the descriptors specified in curriculum standards. Were standardised test results congruent with the judgements that teachers make when reporting on students’ achievement, concern about how one type of judgement might compare with another would perhaps be unwarranted. This article, however, which draws on research that has investigated whether standardised assessments in the state of Victoria, Australia are actually comparable with teacher’s judgements about their students’ work, illustrates that discrepancies do exist. These results have been interpreted within an analytical framework that derives from Aristotle’s (350BC/2000) distinction between three types of knowledge, namely epistemic, technical and phronetic knowledge.
其他摘要：At a time where high-stakes national and international testing have assumed such prominence, one might begin to wonder about the status of teacher judgement when assessing and reporting on children’s knowledge and skills against the descriptors specified in curriculum standards. Were standardised test results congruent with the judgements that teachers make when reporting on students’ achievement, concern about how one type of judgement might compare with another would perhaps be unwarranted. This article, however, which draws on research that has investigated whether standardised assessments in the state of Victoria, Australia are actually comparable with teacher’s judgements about their students’ work, illustrates that discrepancies do exist. These results have been interpreted within an analytical framework that derives from Aristotle’s (350BC/2000) distinction between three types of knowledge, namely epistemic, technical and phronetic knowledge.
