No abstract

The term 'authentic assessment' has recently gained widespread use in education. This paper explores various ways in which authentic assessment is being interpreted and the relationship between these different interpretations and the original focus of authenticity in learning. The paper explores briefly the ways in which implicit and explicit beliefs about the nature of learning and knowledge formation direct the ways in which authentic assessment is interpreted and used. Educational issues that arise from some implementations of authentic assessment, identified as camouflage, simulation and abstraction, are discussed. The need for authentic assessment to be contextualised through a coherent teaching, learning and assessment domain is stressed.

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability (CRPD) promotes equal and full participation by children in education. Equity of educational access for all students, including students with disability, free from discrimination, is the first stated national goal of Australian education (MCEETYA 2008). Australian federal disability discrimination law, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA), follows the Convention, with the federal Disability Standards for Education 2005 (DSE) enacting specific requirements for education. This article discusses equity of processes for inclusion of students with disability in Australian educational accountability testing,including international tests in which many countries participate. The conclusion drawn is that equitable inclusion of students with disability in current Australian educational accountability testing in not occurring from a social perspective and is not in principle compliant with law. However, given the reluctance of courts to intervene in education matters and the uncertainty of an outcome in any court consideration, the discussion shows that equitable inclusion in accountability systems is available through policy change rather than expensive, and possibly unsuccessful, legal challenges.

Computational facility and the relationship between automaticity or efficient processing of addition facts and success in more complex tasks were examined in a cross-sectional study of 109 children from Grades 3 through 6. Latency data and interview protocols enabled identification of speed and strategy use on the addition facts, grouped into eight fact bundles (e.g. zeroes, small doubles), as a parsimonious procedure for exploring processing efficiency. Profiles of children based on latency performance on the fact bundles were clustered. The slowest cluster reported use of counting strategies on many bundles; the fastest cluster reported use of retrieval or efficient-thinking strategies. Cluster group was the best predictor of performance on multidigit tasks. Addition fact accuracy contributed only for tasks without carrying, and grade level was not significant. Analysis by error type showed most errors on the multidigit sums were due to fact inaccuracy, not algorithmic errors. The implication is that the cognitive demands caused by inefficient solutions of basic facts made the multidigit sums inaccessible. Suggestions for instruction of students who have problems learning basic arithmetic are made.Mathematics education has changed dramatically during the twentieth century from a focus on rote acquisition of arithmetic and geometric facts and algorithms, to a constructivist emphasis on meaning-making, conceptual understanding, and problem-solving. Activities that promote rote learning in mathematics have lost favour as being anti-learning (if not anti-mathematical), time-consuming, and Requests for reprints should be sent to J. Joy Cumming,

Summary Paramedic judgment and decision-making, not unlike much of ambulance practice, have not been the subject of systematic, sustained research. There exists a paucity of research or inquiry that examines the mechanics of human error in paramedic practice, ambulance or pre-hospital settings. Little is known of how paramedics make judgments and decisions, and how paramedics deal with risk and uncertainty they commonly face in their tasks and the environment in which they work in. The literature and theories on judgment and decisionmaking are as extensive as they are controversial and the scientific community is yet to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the risk and uncertainty in judgment and decisionmaking. The following paper provides an introduction to the concepts of error, risk, and uncertainty in the context of paramedic judgment and decision-making, discussion of two analytic frameworks that examine such error, risk, and uncertainty, and commentary on their application to the paramedic setting.