Slomp, David

Permanent URI for this collection


Recent Submissions

Now showing 1 - 5 of 15
  • Item
    Disrupting white supremacy in assessment: toward a justice-oriented, antiracist validity framework
    (Taylor & Francis, 2022) Randall, Jennifer; Slomp, David; Poe, Mya; Oliveri, Maria E.
    In this article, we propose a justice-oriented, antiracist validity framework designed to disrupt assessment practices that continue to (re)produce racism through the uncritical promotion of white supremist hegemonic practices. Using anti-Blackness as illustration, we highlight the ways in which racism is introduced, or ignored, in current assessment and validation processes and how an antiracist approach can be enacted. To start our description of the framework, we outline the foundational theories and practices (e.g., critical race theory & antiracist assessment) and justice-based framings, which serve as the base for our framework. We then focus on Kane’s interpretive use argument and Mislevy’s sociocognitive approach and suggest extending them to include an antiracist perspective. To this end, we propose a set of heuristics organized around a validity argument that holds justice-oriented, antiracist theories and practices at its core.
  • Item
    The ethical turn in writing assessment: how far have we come, and where do we still need to go?
    (Cambridge Core, 2023) East, Martin; Slomp, David
    Both of us were drawn into the writing assessment field initially through our lived experiences as schoolteachers. We worked in radically different contexts – Martin was head of a languages department and teacher of French and German in the late 1990s in the UK, and David was a Grade 12 teacher of Academic English in Alberta, Canada, at the turn of the twenty-first century. In both these contexts, the traditional direct test of writing – referred to, for example, as the ‘timed impromptu writing test’ (Weigle, 2002, p. 59) or the ‘snapshot approach’ (Hamp-Lyons & Kroll, 1997, p. 18) – featured significantly in our practices, albeit in very different ways. This form of writing assessment still holds considerable sway across the globe. For us, however, it provoked early questions and concerns around the consequential and ethical aspects of writing assessment.
  • Item
    Our validity looks like justice. Does yours?
    (Sage, 2023) Randall, Jennifer; Poe, Mya; Slomp, David; Oliveri, Maria E.
    Educational assessments, from kindergarden to 12th grade (K-12) to licensure, have a long, well-documented history of oppression and marginalization. In this paper, we (the authors) ask the field of educational assessment/measurement to actively disrupt the White supremacist and racist logics that fuel this marginalization and re-orient itself toward assessment justice. We describe how a justice-oriented, antiracist validity (JAV) approach to validation processes can support assessment justice efforts, specifically with respect to language assessment. Relying on antiracist principles and critical quantitative methodologies, a JAV approach proposes a set of critical questions to consider when gathering validity evidence, with potential utility for language testers.
  • Item
    Justice-oriented, antiracist validation: continuing to disrupt white supremacy in assessment practices
    (Taylor & Francis, 2023) Randall, Jennifer; Poe, Mya; Oliveri, Maria Elena; Slomp, David
    Traditional validation approaches fail to account for the ways oppressive systems (e.g. racism, radical nationalism) impact the test design and development process. To disrupt this legacy of white supremacy, we illustrate how justice-oriented, antiracist validation (JAV) framework can be applied to construct articulation and validation, data analysis, and score reporting/interpretation phases of assessment design/development. In this article, we use the JAV framework to describe validation processes that acknowledge the role and impact of race/racism on our assessment processes—specifically construct articulation, analysis, and score reporting—on Black, Brown, Indigenous, and other students from historically marginalized populations. Through a JAV framework, we seek to disrupt inaccurate white supremacist approaches and interpretations that for too long have fuelled measurement practices.
  • Item
    Sex, finance, and literacy assessment
    (Wiley, 2020) Slomp, David H.
    Discussions about literacy assessment can often be polarizing for teachers, school administrators, and other stakeholders. Given the diverse and often charged perspectives on assessment within both the profession and the broader public discourse, it can be difficult to engage in productive dialogue about the role that literacy assessment plays in promoting or inhibiting effective models of literacy education. This department provides perspectives, questions, and research that enables readers to better advocate for themselves and their students as they develop their own assessment programs and respond to assessment programs that are imposed on them.