I just figured out how to work this thing now... oy... better late than never, I suppose:

Reading for the week of Sept 24th:

In reading the Orzolek article, I have to say that I don't get much sense of accomplishment. In fact, much of what he says seems pretty obvious. By now, with all of the critical pedagogy propaganda here at Westminster, we are all in the mindset that students are the primary focus in education. So why should this be any different for assessment. I do think that it is a good point that assessment should be used to monitor progress, not permanently blotch records. It should be about the students' abilities to monitor them selves, and see growth and progress. However, I feel that this article offers a lot of problem, and little solution.

Brophy tends to be far more technical. There is little of the mushy types of philosophy that offer the ideal situation and the problems that exist in real life without much solution-posing. Brophy tends to offer different styles of assessment, presenting them by order of what they seek to accomplish/solve.

So, I would say that there is less bias in Brophy's text because it is a more straight-forward solution book. It may be a specific perspective on how assessment should happen, but it doesn't not present itself as anything other than just that. Orzolek philosophically summarizes what assessment is as a blanket term, what mission it should have, what problems it does have, and what problems it faces from the outside (or political) aspects of schooling. But, there is no practicality or logistical solution offered, which tend to be the main focus of the Brophy text.