Critical discursive approaches to evaluating policy-driven testing: Social impact as a target for validation

Abstract

This paper addresses the intersection of testing and policy, situating test-driven impact and validation within the context of policy-led educational reform in Korea. I will briefly review the existing validation models. Then, arguing for an expansion of the conventional conceptualization of consequential validity research, I use Fairclough’s dialectic–relational approach in critical discourse analysis (CDA), positioned in critical and poststructuralist research tradition, to evaluate social realities, such as intended and actual impact of policy-led testing, I take, as an example, the context of the development of the National English Ability Test (NEAT) in Korea, which had been used as a means of implementing government policies. Combining Messick’s validity framework for consequential evidence, Bachman and Palmer’s argument-based approach to validation (assessment use argument, AUA), and Fairclough’s dialectic–relational approach, I will illustrate how the impact of policy-led testing is performed and interpreted as a sociopolitical and discursive phenomenon, constituted and enacted in and through “discourse.” By revisiting the previous Faircloughian research works on NEAT’s impact, I postulate that the discourses arguing for and against social impact acquire their meanings from dialectical standpoints.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 8 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.