Recent reforms in England and the USA give evidence that teaching methods and content can change rapidly, given a strong external pressure, for example through economic incentives, inspections, school choice, and public display of schools’ and pupils’ performances. Educational activities in the Scandinavian countries have increasingly become dominated by obligations regarding assessment and grading. A common thread is the demand for equal and just assessment and grading through clear criteria and transparent processes. Torrance states that clarity in assessment procedures, processes, and criteria has underpinned widespread use of coaching, practice, and provision of formative feedback to boost achievement, but that such transparency encourages instrumentalism. He concludes that the practice of assessment has moved from assessment of learning, through assessment for learning, to assessment as learning, with “assessment procedures and practices coming completely to dominate the learning experience” and “criteria compliance” replacing “learning”. Thus, formative assessment, in spite of its proven educational potential, threatens to be deformative. In this article we will explore to what extent and how this development is visible in two cases, presenting music education in one Norwegian and one Swedish compulsory school setting. Three thematic threads run through this exploration: quality, power, and instrumentalism.
BlackP.HarrisonC.LeeC.MarshallB.WiliamD. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
2.
BlackP.WiliamD. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74.
3.
BlackP.WiliamD. (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. London, UK: GL Assessment.
4.
BlackP.WiliamD. (2006). Assessment for learning in the classroom. In GardnerJ. (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp. 9–25). London, UK: SAGE.
5.
ColwellR. (2006). Assessment’s potential in music education. In ColwellR. (Ed.), MENC handbook of research methodologies (pp. 199–271). New York: Oxford University Press.
6.
CostantinoT.BreslerL. (2010). Assessment in schools – creative subjects. In PetersonP.BakerE.McGawB. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (3rd ed., pp. 262–267). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
7.
DeweyJ. (2003). Art as experience. In The Later Works, 1925–1953 (Vol. 10): The Collected Works of John Dewey, 1882–1953 (Electronic ed.). Charlottesville, VA; InteLex Corporation. (Original work published 1934)
8.
EisnerE. W. (1998a). The kind of schools we need: Personal essays. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
9.
EisnerE. W. (1998b). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. Cambridge, MA: Pearson.
10.
EisnerE. W. (2002). The arts and the creation of mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
11.
EisnerE. W. (2007). Interlude: Assessment and evaluation in education and in the arts. In BreslerL. (Ed.), International handbook of research in arts education (pp. 423–426). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
12.
EricssonC.LindgrenM. (2010). Musikklassrummet i blickfånget: Vardagskultur, identitet, styrning och kunskapsbildning (The music classroom in focus: Every-day culture, identity, steering and knowledge development). Halmstad, Sweden: Högskolan i Halmstad.
13.
FautleyM. (2013). Assessment issues within national curriculum music in the lower secondary school in England. In BrophyT. S.Lehmann-WermserA. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Assessment in Music Education. Chicago: GIA Publications. Retrieved from http://drfautley.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/fautley_bremen_paper.pdf
14.
Ferm AlmqvistC.ZandénO. (2016). Swedish music teachers’ relations to an assessment reform: A national view: Specific focus on documentation demands and teachers’ autonomy. Manuscript submitted for publication.
15.
Ferm ThorgersenC.LeijonhufvudS. (2014). Music as art – art as being – being as music. A philosophical investigation of how music education can embrace the work of art based on Heidegger’s thinking. In PioF.VarkøyØ. (Eds.), Ontology, music, education: A Heideggerian ontological turn in the world of music and education. (pp. 113–128). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
16.
Finfgeld-ConnettD. (2014). Use of content analysis to conduct knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. Qualitative Research, 14(3), 341–352.
17.
FoucaultM. (1991). Governmentality. In BurchellG.GordonC.MillerP. (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 87–104). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18.
GarnettJ. (2013). Beyond a constructivist curriculum: A critique of competing paradigms in music. British Journal of Music Education, 30(2), 161–175.
19.
HattieJ. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating achievement. London, UK: Routledge.
20.
HattieJ.TimperleyH. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
21.
HickeyM. (2012). Standards, assessment and creativity in American music education: Intersection of opportunities. In BrophyT. (Ed.), Music assessment across cultures and continents: The culture of shared practice. Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Assessment in Music Education, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany (pp. 15–35). Chicago, IL: GIA Publications.
22.
KvaleS.BrinkmannS. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
MarsdalM. E. (2012). Kunnskapsbløffen: skoler som jukser, barn som gruer seg (The knowledge humbug: Schools that are cheating, children who are squirming). Oslo, Norway: Forl.manifest.
25.
MurphyR. (2007). Harmonizing assessment and music in the classroom. In BreslerL. (Ed.), International handbook of research in arts education (pp. 361–379). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
26.
OlssonB. (2001). Scandinavia. In HargreavesD. J.NorthA. C. (Ed.), Musical development and learning: The international perspective (pp. 175–186). London, UK: Continuum.
27.
PedersonP. V. (2007). What is measured is treasured: The impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on nonassessed subjects. Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 80(6), 287–291.
28.
RavitchD. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York: Basic Books.
29.
SadlerD. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144.
30.
SadlerD. R. (2007). Perils in the meticulous specification of goals and assessment criteria. Assessment in Education, 14, 387–392.
31.
Stewart RoseL.CountrymanJ. (2013). Repositioning “the elements”: How students talk about music. Action, Criticism and Theory for Music Education, 12(3), 45–64.
32.
StobartG. (2008). Testing times: The uses and abuses of assessment. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
33.
Swedish National Agency for Education. (2011). Curriculum for the compulsory school, preschool class and the recreation centre, 2011. Stockholm, Sweden: Author.
34.
TorranceH. (2007). Assessment as learning? How the use of explicit learning objectives, assessment criteria and feedback in post-secondary education and training can come to dominate learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 14(3), 281–294.
35.
TorranceH. (2011). Using assessment to drive the reform of schooling: Time to stop pursuing the chimera?British Journal of Educational Studies, 59(4), 459–485.
36.
TorranceH. (2012). Formative assessment at the crossroads: Conformative, deformative and transformative assessment. Oxford Review of Education, 38(3), 321–342.
37.
TorranceH.PryorJ. (2001). Developing formative assessment in the classroom: Using action research to explore and modify theory. British Educational Research Journal, 27(5), 354–271.
38.
VingeJ. (2012). Analytiske og holistiske tilganger til vurdering: en teoretisk drøfting Av vurderingsstrategier og vurderingshandlinger i musikkfaget (Analytic and holistic access to assessment: A theoretical exploration of valuing strategies and actions in music educational practice) (pp. 199–220). Oslo, Norway: Norges musikkhøgskole.
39.
VingeJ. (2014). Vurdering i musikkfag: en deskriptiv, analytisk studie av musikklæreres vurderingspraksis i ungdomsskolen (Assessment in music educational practice: a descriptive, analytic study of music teachers’ assessment practice in lower secondary schools) (Vol. 2014: 1). Oslo, Norway: Norges musikkhøgskole.
40.
WengerE. (2004). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
41.
ZandénO.Ferm ThorgersenC. (2014). Teaching for learning or teaching for documentation?: Music teachers’ perspectives on a Swedish curriculum reform. British Journal of Music Education, 32(1), 37–50.
