Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability Journal Impact Factor & Information

Publisher: Springer (Firm), Springer Verlag

Journal description

Current impact factor: 0.69

Impact Factor Rankings

Additional details

5-year impact 0.69
Cited half-life -
Immediacy index 0.06
Eigenfactor 0.00
Article influence 0.18
Other titles Educational assessment, evaluation and accountability
ISSN 1874-8597
OCLC 316864809
Material type Periodical
Document type Journal / Magazine / Newspaper

Publisher details

Springer Verlag

  • Pre-print
    • Author can archive a pre-print version
  • Post-print
    • Author can archive a post-print version
  • Conditions
    • Author's pre-print on pre-print servers such as
    • Author's post-print on author's personal website immediately
    • Author's post-print on any open access repository after 12 months after publication
    • Publisher's version/PDF cannot be used
    • Published source must be acknowledged
    • Must link to publisher version
    • Set phrase to accompany link to published version (see policy)
    • Articles in some journals can be made Open Access on payment of additional charge
  • Classification
    ​ green

Publications in this journal

  • Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability 07/2015; DOI:10.1007/s11092-015-9224-7
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Numerous educational reforms have been initiated in Serbia since 2000. The aim of this study was to examine education policymaking in Serbia in order to provide policymakers and stakeholders with recommendations on how to minimize pitfalls and increase success of future educational endeavors. In the study, we utilized the education policy cycle heuristic to analyze formation, implementation, and evaluation of three major education policies in Serbia: in-service training of teachers (INSET), school development planning (SDP), and inclusive education (IE). Examining three reforms simultaneously enabled us to identify major characteristics of Serbian policymaking, regardless of the reform content. We also relied on educational change literature, so that we could assess complex contexts of reforms. Finally, considering the importance of school staff during implementation, we examined education policymaking in Serbia through the eyes of over 1,800 teachers, counselors, and principals. The results point out to dissatisfaction of school staff with all aspects of the policymaking in Serbia and with the social and education context. Reforms appear to be undertaken in a similar pattern across different reforms. The findings imply that a thorough examination of both the policymaking in Serbia and communication, organization, and administration within the education system itself is in order.
    Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability 06/2015; DOI:10.1007/s11092-015-9221-x
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: International development organizations increasingly use “participatory development” approaches to improve the effectiveness of their programs. Participatory frameworks are commonly limited in scope and funder-driven; these top-down approaches to participation have proven to be both ineffective, and at times, contradictory in their impacts. This article describes Malawi’s Participatory Action for School Improvement (PASI) project, which was an effort to transform participatory development approaches in international development education by engaging communities as full partners in the school improvement process. By acknowledging our own ideological intentions and attempting to work with community leaders to shift power dynamics within communities and between communities and funding bodies, PASI fueled significant positive changes in school functioning at a very small cost. The article concludes that PASI might represent a generative community-level cash transfer approach to participatory development.
    Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability 02/2015; 27(1). DOI:10.1007/s11092-015-9210-0
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We embarked on the development of this special issue with a clear intention to curate a collection of articles for Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability (EAEA) and to capture the current theory, practice and debates associated with participatory evaluation and research in developing contexts. This special issue coincides with a growing international and national interest in participatory methods for research, evaluation and policy implementation. However, like many others, we remain concerned that across many contexts ‘participation’ constitutes little more than a one-off consultation along with an exclusion from decision-making processes. We firmly believe, rooted in the evidence presented in this issue and beyond, that participatory processes must be continuous from the onset and consider the personal and collective experience of participants.The discussions and debates that have inspired this special issue arose from our longstanding professional collaboration on part ...
    Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability 02/2015; 27(1):1-3. DOI:10.1007/s11092-015-9217-6
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This commentary builds upon a very simple premise: Meeting the challenge of education quality around the globe depends first and foremost on the teacher in the classroom. It captures perspectives that are informed by over 25 years of work supporting and researching education quality and innovation in over 30 countries while working for international nongovernmental organizations, multilateral agencies, and academic institutions.Over this span, education reforms have come and gone while instructional styles have run the gamut from tyrannically teacher-centered to anarchically child-centered, and virtually every system has yielded brilliant graduates, poor ones, and most in-between. Along with such shifts have been transformations in countries’ learning goals, curricula, governance, texts, assessment methods, and many other factors. In all of this, however, the teacher has remained the one constant and critical element, whether embracing or withstanding the ever-shifting tides in the str ...
    Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability 02/2015; 27(1):93-102. DOI:10.1007/s11092-015-9216-7
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In response to US accountability policies and yearly performance targets, school districts are implementing periodic or benchmark assessments to provide teachers with data to improve instruction and student achievement. The tests are typically given quarterly to track student progress toward yearly accountability goals, as well as to inform teaching and identify individualized instructional enhancements to foster student achievement. Fifteen focus group sessions were conducted with 67 elementary and middle school teachers from several school districts surrounding an urban metropolitan area in Virginia to explore and better understand the ways in which benchmark testing can be used effectively as formative assessment. Participants had a range of experience from 1 to 3 to over 20 years in the classroom. The perceived quality of test items, timeliness in receiving results, accessibility of the data, and opportunities to review and discuss the results with others clearly influenced how teachers’ used the assessment results. Teachers described using benchmark test results formatively to make a variety of instructional adjustments, including modifications to whole class instruction, working with students in small groups, and providing individualized support, though important factors influenced the extent of use. The findings of this study suggest that under appropriate conditions, including having valid and transparent test items, support, immediacy of results, and time to discuss with others, benchmark testing programs have the potential of providing meaningful formative assessment.
    Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability 01/2015; DOI:10.1007/s11092-015-9214-9
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Frequent testing provides opportunities for students to receive regular feedback and to increase their motivation. It also provides the instructor with valuable information on how course progresses, thus making it possible to solve the problems encountered before it is too late. Frequent tests with noncumulative contents have been widely analysed in the literature with inconclusive results. However, cumulative testing methods have hardly been reported in higher education courses. This paper analyses the effect of applying an assessment method based on frequent and cumulative tests on student performance. Our results show that, when applied to a microeconomics course, students who were assessed by a frequent, cumulative testing approach largely outperformed those assessed with a single final exam.
    Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability 01/2015; 27(2):153-169. DOI:10.1007/s11092-014-9208-z
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Multi-source evaluation of school principals is likely to become increasingly common in education contexts as the evidence accumulates about the relationship between principal effectiveness and student achievement. The purpose of this study was to examine (1) the magnitude and direction of discrepancy between how principals and their teachers perceive the principal’s effectiveness and (2) what predicts principals who are at risk because their self-ratings considerably exceed the ratings others give them. We also investigated the appropriateness of various probability cut levels in analyses to predict overrating principals. The data sources were ratings by New Zealand principals (n = 135) and their teachers (n = 2757) of principal effectiveness—one scale (16 items) of an educational leadership practices survey. On average, both groups rated principals highly, and teachers tended to rate their principal higher than the principals rated themselves. There was more variance in teachers’ ratings than principals’ ratings. The variables of principal age (younger), time in principal role at the school (shorter), and socio-economic status of the school (lower) were all associated with greater magnitudes of discrepancy. Such discrepancies have implications for principals’ evaluations, principal development efforts, and for school improvement.
    Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability 01/2015; 27(3). DOI:10.1007/s11092-014-9209-y
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper explores approaches to support the consistent implementation of school self-evaluation. The first part of the paper outlines the changing nature of self-evaluation in Irish post-primary schools and how a new approach introduced by the Department of Education and Skills in 2012 demonstrates real intentionality in terms of implementation. This recent attempt to engage schools in self-evaluation is compared to a previous self-evaluation initiative introduced in 2003. Despite significant improvements to the self-evaluation process, a number of concerns remain particularly in relation to the capacity of schools to engage in the process and the limited level of support that is provided to schools. The question of how best to support the implementation of self-evaluation is a concern in many jurisdictions. This question was explored in research carried out on the implementation of self-evaluation in Centres for Education in Ireland, and the findings are outlined in the second part of the paper. The research highlights a relatively high level of implementation of self-evaluation in Centres for Education nationally as well as generally positive feedback on the self-evaluation experience from participants. Some of the factors that influenced successful implementation are outlined. Key among these is the facilitator-led approach, addressing the practicalities of implementation and the national monitoring system. While this research did not involve post-primary schools, the findings may have relevance for the provision of supports in post-primary schools in Ireland, and it may also have a wider application for self-evaluation policy and practice in other jurisdictions.
    Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability 01/2015; DOI:10.1007/s11092-015-9218-5
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper presents the findings of a research project that examines how middle leaders in Singapore schools understand ‘quality education’ and how they think quality education can be achieved. From the perspective of these middle leaders, quality education emphasises holistic development, equips students with the knowledge and skills for the future, inculcates students with the right values and imbues students with a positive learning attitude. Quality education is delivered by good teachers, enabled by good teaching and learning processes and facilitated by a conducive learning environment. The challenge of achieving quality education is to find the balance between lofty ideals and ground realities. One critical implication of the research findings is that policymakers should appeal to the ideals of practitioners to drive change.
    Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability 01/2015; DOI:10.1007/s11092-015-9223-8
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Information and communication technology (ICT) literacy education has become an important issue, and the necessity of computational literacy (CL) has been increasing in our growing information society. CL is becoming an important element for future talents, and many countries, including the USA, are developing programs for CL education. Accordingly, Korea’s Ministry of Education has modified the ICT education program created in 2000. The revised curriculum has emphasized computational thinking and informational ethics since 2007. However, in revising the ICT curriculum, we need to develop a new ICT test tool because the previous tool did not include CL. Thus, we developed a new ICT literacy test tool consisting of fundamental concepts, contemporary skills, and CL. We then carried out a test on 40,072 elementary students nationally. To determine the CL level of students, we used the standard level obtained from ten experts using the Angoff method (1971) and analyzed the difference between the standard level and students’ level in the test. The results showed that students’ CL scores were remarkably lower than their scores on fundamental concepts and contemporary skills. We consequently found that the revised ICT curriculum did not apply to the current ICT education domain, implying that we need to develop a strategy to expand CL to different educational fields, which would help researchers and administrators to measure CL in ICT education.
    Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability 11/2014; 26(4):319-332. DOI:10.1007/s11092-013-9185-7
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The current study examined the goal orientations that could be inferred from how teachers from six municipal schools in Chile described their understandings, emotions, and behaviors during their participation in the assessment phase of the School Management Quality Assurance System. Content analysis of focus group interview transcripts evidenced three school-level patterns of participation, associated with distinct goal orientations. Projective participation to judge the quality of the school’s practices was associated with a learning orientation (one school). Consultant participation to demonstrate competence to external inspectors was associated with a performance-approach orientation (one school). Simple participation to complete tasks imposed by administrators was associated with a performance-avoidance orientation (four schools). School-level differences highlighted teachers’ perceptions of the characteristics of their school’s culture associated with the adoption of these goal orientations. These included existing internal accountability practices, the social capital the school could leverage to implement self-assessment and use external feedback, and the existing structures for teacher participation in decision making. These factors may prove to be a useful guide for the development of induction strategies to support the use of school assessment in ways that foster, rather than diminish, teachers’ motivation.
    Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability 08/2014; 26(3):241-261. DOI:10.1007/s11092-014-9190-5
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to determine parents’ and teachers’ perceptions of standards-based and traditional report cards. Participants included 115 parents/guardians of students from a single, midsize school district that had implemented a standards-based report card. During the first two marking periods, all parents/guardians received both a traditional report card in which teachers assigned a single overall grade for each subject and a standards-based report card that included marks for individual standards within subjects. After midyear, parents were asked to complete a survey that asked which form they preferred and the reasons for their preference. Three hundred and eighty three teachers from two nearby midsize school districts considering the adoption of the same standards-based report card completed a similar survey. Parents overwhelmingly preferred the standards-based form. The teachers considering the adoption of a standards based report card were positive overall, but significantly less than the parents who had received them.
    Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability 08/2014; 26(3):289-299. DOI:10.1007/s11092-014-9191-4
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Improving collaboration among organizations is a goal of interagency educational teams, but collaboration is typically thought of as an ambiguous concept that cannot be quantified. To assess the collaborative strength of a state-level interagency team in a Midwestern state, team members completed the Levels of Collaboration Scale (Frey et al., American Journal of Evaluation 27(3):383, 2006) for three consecutive years. The team members then utilized the results of the social network analysis to support and sustain collaborative efforts. Findings revealed that the number of partnerships increased and the depth of collaboration expanded across the 3 years. Social network analysis results were utilized to develop collaboration strategies, thus influencing the expansion of the network across the 3-year period.
    Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability 08/2014; 26(3):301-316. DOI:10.1007/s11092-014-9193-2
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Current thinking encourages teachers to incorporate a range of assessment practices that are responsive to student thinking and promote student learning. At the same time, teachers are situated in a landscape of accountability, where they are often seen as technicians who implement prescribed curriculum, policies, and procedures with success measured by externally created assessments. This paper considers how teachers navigate this difficult terrain as they incorporate new assessment practices in their classrooms. We report on a two-year project undertaken with 42 teachers of mathematics (Grades 4–12) in Ontario, Canada. Using an analytic framework adapted from Windschitl (Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131–175.2002), we explore the dilemmas these teachers identified as they met in communities of practice. Our findings highlight the need for coherence in the assessment messages communicated to teachers and provide evidence of the critical role of ongoing collaboration and dialogue to support the development of teachers’ professional judgement and enable change in their assessment practice.
    Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability 08/2014; 26(3):263-287. DOI:10.1007/s11092-014-9195-0
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objective of this study was to verify whether personality (Big Five model) influences performance on the evaluation methods used in business administration courses. A sample of 169 students enrolled in two compulsory undergraduate business courses responded to an online questionnaire. As it is difficult within the same course to assess students’ performance on several evaluation methods, students’ performance is rated in this study using a latent variable inferred from two self-reported measures: preference for evaluation methods and grades generally obtained on each of these methods. Two control variables (gender and age) were also included in the analyses. Multiple linear hierarchical regressions indicate that the Big Five factors explains 6 to 13 % of the variability in performance on group work, oral exams, written exams, multiple choice tests, and practical work. The discussion focuses on how different personality factors are called upon when it comes to performance on evaluation methods.
    Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability 05/2014; 27(2):171-199. DOI:10.1007/s11092-014-9200-7
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the USA, trends in educational accountability have driven several models attempting to provide quality data for decision making at the national, state, and local levels, regarding the success of schools in meeting standards for competence. Statistical methods to generate data for such decisions have generally included (a) status models that examine simple indications of number of students meeting a criterion level of achievement, (b) growth models that explore change over the course of one or more years, and (c) value-added models that attempt to control for factors deemed relevant to student achievement patterns. This study examined a new strategy for student and school achievement modeling that augments the field through the use of the probit model to estimate the likelihood of students meeting an established level standard and estimating the proportion of individuals within a school meeting the standard. Results of the study showed that the probit model was an effective tool both for providing such adjustments, as well as for adjusting them based upon salient demographic variables. Implications of these results and suggestions for further use of the model are discussed.
    Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability 05/2014; 26(2):177-201. DOI:10.1007/s11092-013-9186-6