Assembled validity: rethinking Kane's argument-based approach in the context of International Large-Scale Assessments (ILSAs)
Assembled validity: rethinking Kane's argument-based approach in the context of International Large-Scale Assessments (ILSAs)
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/0969594x.2020.1843136
复制
发表时间：
2020-11-18
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
Zumbo, Bruno D.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Addey, Camilla;Maddox, Bryan;Zumbo, Bruno D.
借鉴凯恩的基于论证的有效性方法和图尔明后来的世界主义和多样性的工作，本文问谁的有效性论点和证据正在提交国际大规模评估（ILSA），在哪里和何时。通过对经合组织发展比萨项目的案例研究，我们证明了有效性论证是由参与者网络组装、协商和转化的。我们主张，国际劳工法协定的挑战不是通过取代多种解释和使用来确立一个单一的权威性论点。相反，基于论点的方法的任务应该是创造一个民主空间，在这个空间中，合法的不同论点和意图可以得到承认、考虑、汇集和展示。
Drawing on Kane's argument-based approach to validity and Toulmin's later work on cosmopolitanism and diversity, this paper asks whose validity arguments and evidence are being presented in International Large-Scale Assessments (ILSAs), where and when. With a case study of the OECD's PISA for Development, we demonstrate that validity arguments are assembled, negotiated and transformed by the network of actors. We claim that the challenge of ILSAs is not to establish a single authoritative argument through the displacement of plural interpretations and uses. Instead, the tasks of an argument-based approach should be to create a democratic space in which legitimately diverse arguments and intentions can be recognized, considered, assembled and displayed.