Social justice in education : how the function of selection in educational institutions predicts support for (non)egalitarian assessment practices

Educational institutions are considered a keystone for the establishment of a meritocratic society. They supposedly serve two functions: an educational function that promotes learning for all, and a selection function that sorts individuals into different programs, and ultimately social positions, based on individual merit. We study how the function of selection relates to support for assessment practices known to harm vs. benefit lower status students, through the perceived justice principles underlying these practices. We study two assessment practices: normative assessment-focused on ranking and social comparison, known to hinder the success of lower status students-and formative assessment-focused on learning and improvement, known to benefit lower status students. Normative assessment is usually perceived as relying on an equity principle, with rewards being allocated based on merit and should thus appear as positively associated with the function of selection. Formative assessment is usually perceived as relying on corrective justice that aims to ensure equality of outcomes by considering students' needs, which makes it less suitable for the function of selection. A questionnaire measuring these constructs was administered to university students. Results showed that believing that education is intended to select the best students positively predicts support for normative assessment, through increased perception of its reliance on equity, and negatively predicts support for formative assessment, through reduced perception of its ability to establish corrective justice. This study suggests that the belief in the function of selection as inherent to educational institutions can contribute to the reproduction of social inequalities by preventing change from assessment practices known to disadvantage lowerstatus student, namely normative assessment, to more favorable practices, namely formative assessment, and by promoting matching beliefs in justice principles.

Facing Structural Disadvantage: The Role of Ingroup Connectedness

This thesis focuses on the social-psychological factors that help coping with structural disadvantage, and specifically on the role of cohesive ingroups and the sense of connectedness and efficacy they entail in this process. It aims to complement existing group-based models of coping that are grounded in a categorization perspective to groups and consequently focus exclusively on the large-scale categories made salient in intergroup contexts of comparisons. The dissertation accomplishes this aim through a reconsideration of between-persons relational interdependence as a sufficient and independent antecedent of a sense of groupness, and the benefits that a sense of group connectedness in one's direct environment, regardless of the categorical or relational basis of groupness, might have in the everyday struggles of disadvantaged group members. The three empirical papers aim to validate this approach, outlined in the first theoretical introduction, by testing derived hypotheses. They are based on data collected with youth populations (15-30) from three institutions in French-speaking Switzerland within the context of a larger project on youth transitions. Methods of data collection are paper-pencil questionnaires and in-depth interviews with a selected sub-sample of participants. The key argument of the first paper is that members of socially disadvantaged categories face higher barriers to their life project and that a general sense of connectedness, either based on categorical identities or other proximal groups and relations, mitigates the feeling of powerlessness associated with this experience. The second paper develops and tests a model that defines individual needs satisfaction as antecedent of self-group bonds and the efficacy beliefs derived from these intragroup bonds as the mechanism underlining the role of ingroups in coping. The third paper highlights the complexities that might be associated with the construction of a sense of groupness directly from intergroup comparisons and categorization-based disadvantage, and points out a more subtle understanding of the processes underling the emergence of groupness out of the situation of structural disadvantage. Overall, the findings confirm the central role of ingroups in coping with structural disadvantage and the importance of an understanding of groupness and its role that goes beyond the dominant focus on intergroup contexts and categorization processes.

Measuring individuals' response quality in self-administered psychological tests : an introduction to Gendre's functional method

The functional method is a new test theory using a new scoring method that assumes complexity in test structure, and thus takes into account every correlation between factors and items. The main specificity of the functional method is to model test scores by multiple regression instead of estimating them by using simplistic sums of points. In order to proceed, the functional method requires the creation of hyperspherical measurement space, in which item responses are expressed by their correlation with orthogonal factors. This method has three main qualities. First, measures are expressed in the absolute metric of correlations; therefore, items, scales and persons are expressed in the same measurement space using the same single metric. Second, factors are systematically orthogonal and without errors, which is optimal in order to predict other outcomes. Such predictions can be performed to estimate how one would answer to other tests, or even to model one's response strategy if it was perfectly coherent. Third, the functional method provides measures of individuals' response validity (i.e., control indices). Herein, we propose a standard procedure in order to identify whether test results are interpretable and to exclude invalid results caused by various response biases based on control indices.

A genotypic mutation system measuring mutations in restriction recognition sequences.

The RFLP/PCR approach (restriction fragment length polymorphism/polymerase chain reaction) to genotypic mutation analysis described here measures mutations in restriction recognition sequences. Wild-type DNA is restricted before the resistant, mutated sequences are amplified by PCR and cloned. We tested the capacity of this experimental design to isolate a few copies of a mutated sequence of the human c-Ha-ras1 gene from a large excess of wild-type DNA. For this purpose we constructed a 272 bp fragment with 2 mutations in the PvuII recognition sequence 1727-1732 and studied the rescue by RFLP/PCR of a few copies of this 'PvuII mutant standard'. Following amplification with Taq-polymerase and cloning into lambda gt10, plaques containing wild-type sequence, PvuII mutant standard or Taq-polymerase induced bp changes were quantitated by hybridization with specific oligonucleotide probes. Our results indicate that 10 PvuII mutant standard copies can be rescued from 10(8) to 10(9) wild-type sequences. Taq polymerase errors originating from unrestricted, residual wild-type DNA were sequence dependent and consisted mostly of transversions originating at G.C bp. In contrast to a doubly mutated 'standard' the capacity to rescue single bp mutations by RFLP/PCR is limited by Taq-polymerase errors. Therefore, we assessed the capacity of our protocol to isolate a G to T transversion mutation at base pair 1698 of the MspI-site 1695-1698 of the c-Ha-ras1 gene from excess wild-type ras1 DNA. We found that 100 copies of the mutated ras1 fragment could be readily rescued from 10(8) copies of wild-type DNA.

Evaluation of steroidomics by liquid chromatography hyphenated to mass spectrometry as a powerful analytical strategy for measuring human steroid perturbations.

This review presents the evolution of steroid analytical techniques, including gas chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry (GC-MS), immunoassay (IA) and targeted liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry (LC-MS), and it evaluates the potential of extended steroid profiles by a metabolomics-based approach, namely steroidomics. Steroids regulate essential biological functions including growth and reproduction, and perturbations of the steroid homeostasis can generate serious physiological issues; therefore, specific and sensitive methods have been developed to measure steroid concentrations. GC-MS measuring several steroids simultaneously was considered the first historical standard method for analysis. Steroids were then quantified by immunoassay, allowing a higher throughput; however, major drawbacks included the measurement of a single compound instead of a panel and cross-reactivity reactions. Targeted LC-MS methods with selected reaction monitoring (SRM) were then introduced for quantifying a small steroid subset without the problems of cross-reactivity. The next step was the integration of metabolomic approaches in the context of steroid analyses. As metabolomics tends to identify and quantify all the metabolites (i.e., the metabolome) in a specific system, appropriate strategies were proposed for discovering new biomarkers. Steroidomics, defined as the untargeted analysis of the steroid content in a sample, was implemented in several fields, including doping analysis, clinical studies, in vivo or in vitro toxicology assays, and more. This review discusses the current analytical methods for assessing steroid changes and compares them to steroidomics. Steroids, their pathways, their implications in diseases and the biological matrices in which they are analysed will first be described. Then, the different analytical strategies will be presented with a focus on their ability to obtain relevant information on the steroid pattern. The future technical requirements for improving steroid analysis will also be presented.