Search

This article proposes a pragmatic approach to data justice in education that draws upon Nancy Fraser's theory. The main argument is premised on the theoretical and practical superiority of a deontological framework for addressing algorithmic bias and harms, compared to ethical guidelines. The purpose of a deontological framework is to enable the evaluation of justice claims, not as a burden for individuals or groups, but as part of an ongoing public dialogue about the disparate impacts of algorithmic decisions. In a deontological framework, scrutiny is not limited to differences in treatment but is broader and more demanding, involving the evaluation of design approaches and a wider-ranging political discussion about who might be harmed.

This paper uses methods derived from the field of futures studies to explore the future of technology-enhanced assessment. Drawing on interviews and consultation activities with experts, the paper aims to discuss the conditions that can impede or foster "innovation" in assessment and education more broadly. Through a review of relevant research, the paper suggests an interpretive model of the factors sustaining the conservatism of educational assessment: the utilitarian view of education, dominant beliefs about academic excellence, and market or quasi-market dynamics. In the central section of the paper, three scenarios of innovation in assessment are described, developed through an iterative process involving researchers, representatives from the e-assessment industry, and experts from British awarding organisations. In the final section, a critical discussion draws attention to the implications that data pervasiveness and computer-generated predictive models may have for the future of education.

This paper contends that powerful techniques to manipulate data, enabled by technological and economic developments, can be easily co-opted to serve the restrictive frameworks of hyper-controlling, managerial accountability that characterise current cultures of summative assessment in education. In response to these challenges, research is urgently needed to increase our understanding of the impact that assessments have on individuals and society. The paper concludes that social research ought to contribute to the identification of responses – educational, technological and political – that can minimise inequalities and potential abuses through the encouragement of data literacy across society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this analytical essay, part of Harvard Educational Review's symposium on Platform Studies in Education, Ben Williamson, Kalervo N. Gulson, Carlo Perrotta, and Kevin Witzenberger argue that global technology companies have begun acting as governance organizations in education. Their analysis focuses on the global technology company Amazon, which has begun penetrating education through a connective architecture of digital infrastructure and platform services. Looking at Amazon technical documentation and publicly available materials, the authors identify and examine five interlocking governance operations and their effects: inscribing commercial business models on the education sector, habituating educational users to Amazon technologies, creating new interfaces with educational institutions, platforming third-party education providers on the cloud, and seeking market dominance over provision and control of key information infrastructures of education. In showing how Amazon is potentially developing infrastructural dominance in the education sector as part of its transformation into a statelike corporation with significant social, technical, economic, and political power to govern and control state and public services, this article highlights the broader implications of increasing technological governance in education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]