Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This paper discusses the emergence of assessment for learning (AfL) across the globe with particular attention given to Western educational jurisdictions. Authors from Australia, Canada, Ireland, Israel, New Zealand, Norway, and the USA explain the genesis of AfL, its evolution and impact on school systems, and discuss current trends in policy directions for AfL within their respective countries. The authors also discuss the implications of these various shifts and the ongoing tensions that exist between AfL and summative forms of assessment within national policy initiatives.

Keywords

Assessment for learning international trends educational policy

Introduction

Formative assessment has been an informal activity for a very long time in some classrooms and countries around the world. In 1971, Bloom et al., (1971) moved formative assessment into a more formal space when they wrote a book entitled Formative and Summative Evaluation of Student Learning, in which they described a view of education in which the primary purpose of schooling was the development of the individual. In their view, assessment and evaluation were a part of learning and classroom teachers played a prominent role in using evaluation to improve and extend student learning. Many educators and researchers began to advocate assessment as being educationally useful (e.g., Black, 1998; Crooks, 1988; Gipps, 1994; Popham, 1995; Shepard, 1989; Wolf et al., 1991; Stiggins, 1991; Sutton, 1995; Wiggins, 1993; Wiggins and McTighe, 1999). They focused on the importance and value of the assessment that teachers do every day in classrooms as a critical element in helping students learn.

Formative assessment moved to center stage when Black and Wiliam (1998a) synthesized over 250 studies linking assessment and learning and found that the intentional use of assessment in the classroom promoted learning and improved student achievement. The Assessment Reform Group, in England, described the findings this way Assessment Reform Group (1999):

Assessment that is explicitly designed to promote learning is the single most powerful tool we have for raising standards and empowering life-long learning. ( Assessment Reform Group, 2002 : 2)

They called this focus on assessment that is directly connected to helping students learn assessment for learning (AfL):

[The] process of seeking and interpreting evidence for use by learners and their teachers to decide where the learners are in their learning, where they need to go and how best to get there. ( Assessment Reform Group, 2002 : 2)

In the last two decades formative assessment has been taken up in practice and in policy around the world. In country after country, formative assessment or assessment for learning has been infused into or adopted for educational assessment and evaluation policies or practices.

Since 2001 a group of researchers, policy makers and professional development facilitators from a number of countries have been meeting every three or four years to share, examine and explore assessment for learning in a wide range of contexts (Klenowski, 2009). In this paper, researchers from seven of these countries (Australia, Canada, Ireland, Israel, New Zealand, Norway, and the USA) provide a chronicle of how formative assessment has emerged and describe the current status of AfL in their countries. Taken together they provide a rich and fascinating picture of the emergence of a major innovation in education.

International profiles

Australia

Genesis of assessment for learning

In Australia following the seminal work of Paul Black and Dylan Wiliam (1998a; 1998b) and the Assessment Reform Group (1999) the Curriculum Corporation developed a website on behalf of the education departments of the States and Territories and Commonwealth of Australia entitled Assessment for Learning (AfL) (www.curriculum.edu.au/assessment). AfL was defined according to the Assessment Reform Group’s (2002) definition. To support teachers’ in their understanding and practice the website provided links to 32 assessment tasks, to background research reference material and to professional learning modules. In addition, a series of DVDs to promote professional learning was developed. These resources focused on the importance of feedback, self-assessment and peer assessment and strategic questioning, and were identified as areas for further teacher development and national promotion.

Today, Education Services Australia (ESA), a national, not-for-profit company owned by all Australian education ministers has taken on the work of the Curriculum Corporation and Education Australia. ESA was established by the Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood (SCSEEC) and the company has responsibility for supporting national priorities and initiatives in the schools. Two assessment related initiatives are:

Devising, developing and delivering curriculum and assessment, professional development, career and information support services; and

Creating, publishing, disseminating and marketing curriculum and assessment materials, ICT-based solutions, products and services to support learning, teaching, leadership and administration. (http://www.esa.edu.au/projects/assessment-learning)

A team of ESA curriculum development, e-learning, assessment and publishing specialists manages projects for clients to create digital and print resources for schools in all learning areas. The AfL project comprises eight professional learning modules that have been designed for individual teacher use. Assessment theory and practical activities around the key AfL strategies are intended to support teachers to develop effective classroom assessment or to adapt for teacher development workshops. These modules focus on:

an introduction to AfL;

learning intentions;

success criteria and rubrics;

effective teacher feedback;

strategic questioning;

peer feedback;

student self-assessment; and

formative use of summative assessment. (http://www.esa.edu.au/projects/assessment-learning)

However, despite regular digital communication on national and international education and training issues to Australian education leaders and managers, and the provision and availability of resources, teachers across Australia do not regularly or consistently use assessment for learning. Each state or jurisdiction has adopted its own approach, which has led to variations in the understanding and uptake of the practice.

The view that assessment is integral to the teaching and learning cycle and to the construction of learning has evolved however and teachers are more aware that assessment constitutes a significant part of their pedagogic repertoire. Given global developments such as PISA, TIMSS and PIRLS in assessment and testing, and the Australian, National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN), teachers are struggling with ‘ensembles of policy’ (Bowe and Ball, with Gold, 1992) and their various conflicting pressures. To meet the accountability demands imposed, many Australian teachers appear to be directing more attention towards student preparation for summative type tests than to AfL strategies (Luke et al., 2011). From a recent, major, national evaluation of the Stronger Smarter Learning Communities (SSLC) project it was found that:

… classroom assessment practices… observed are those practices of teachers who are more reliant on assessment of learning, or summative assessments, as their dominant strategy. This often takes the form of work sheets and short answer tests. In some SSLC schools, principals were aware of the need to raise teachers’ awareness of contemporary understandings in assessment theory and practice and had organised professional development and training. For example here a secondary, metropolitan Hub school principal stated: ‘[s]o we try and look at a number of assessments. In previous years we’ve been looking at assessment for learning. We haven’t looked at that this year with our staff about assessment of, for and as learning. We’ll be doing a little bit of that or we’ll be doing a lot of that next year’. (Luke et al. 2013: 310 2011)

Evolution and impact of AfL on school systems

From the late 1990s there has been increased international systemic awareness of the centrality of assessment for learning in educational reform efforts. Such momentum for change, inspired by the work of Paul Black, Dylan Wiliam and the Assessment Reform Group, became apparent in the Asia Pacific region – notably in Australia, Hong Kong and New Zealand. In Australia at the federal level the Curriculum Corporation developed resources although each Australian state and territory adopted its own approach to AfL. Curriculum Corporation also published a practical guide to AfL entitled ‘Improving Student Achievement’ (Glasson, 2009). This guide highlighted the differentiated roles of the teacher and the student under the AfL umbrella as articulated by Lorna Earl (Earl, 2003). Drawing on classroom examples the collective experiences of international researchers were brought together with the aim of illustrating to Australian teachers the variety of AfL strategies and providing suggestions for teachers’ further professional learning.

Each state and territory has adopted a particular approach to AfL. This national profile describes the impact of AfL at a system level with reference to one Australian state (New South Wales), as an example. Teachers in Australia have experienced major reform not just with assessment but also with the introduction of an Australian Curriculum. The Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA), an independent authority, is responsible for the national curriculum (Foundation to Year 12), the national assessment program and the national data collection and reporting program. ACARA has developed achievement standards with the intention that they are ‘applied across every school in Australia’ (http://www.acara.edu.au/curriculum/curriculum.html).

However, as with the uptake of AfL, each state and territory has adopted its own approach to support the national curriculum and achievement standards. In New South Wales (NSW), syllabuses and support materials are designed to promote an integrated approach to teaching, learning and assessment.

Assessment for learning, assessment as learning and assessment of learning are approaches that can be used individually or together, formally or informally, to gather evidence about student achievement and to improve student learning. ( http://syllabus.bos.nsw.edu.au/support-materials/assessment-for-as-and-of-learning/ )

Teachers in NSW are informed that the common elements of assessment as learning strategies and AfL include self-assessment, peer assessment, strategies for students to actively monitor and evaluate their own learning, and feedback (together with evidence, to help teachers and students decide whether students are ready for the next phase of learning or whether they need further learning experiences to consolidate their knowledge, understanding and skills). It is suggested to teachers that these approaches will help them and their students know if current understanding is a suitable basis for future learning. In addition, teachers are informed that using their professional judgement in a standards-referenced framework is a way of extending the process of AfL into assessment of learning.

Specifically, AfL is described to teachers as integral to the teaching and learning process and as central for clarifying student learning and understanding. The use of evidence by teachers regarding students’ knowledge, understanding and skills to inform their teaching is considered to be important. The key characteristics of AfL have been interpreted and presented to teachers in NSW as follows:

a view of learning in which assessment helps students learn better rather than just achieve a better mark;

involve formal and informal assessment activities as part of learning and to inform the planning of future learning;

include clear goals for the learning activity;

provide effective feedback that motivates the learner and can lead to improvement;

reflect a belief that all students can improve;

encourage self-assessment and peer assessment as part of the regular classroom routines;

involve teachers, students and parents reflecting on evidence; and

inclusive of all learners. (http://syllabus.bos.nsw.edu.au/support-materials/assessment-for-as-and-of-learning/).

The centrality of AfL to learning and teaching, and practices that involve the students in the assessment process, are emphasized.

Current trends in policy directions for AfL within Australia

In 2010 the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) was established, with responsibility for professional standards, fostering and driving high quality professional development for teachers and school leaders and working collaboratively across jurisdictions and engaging with professional bodies. Apart from the national curriculum and the achievement standards, teachers have recently had the introduction of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. These standards aim to define the work of teachers and to make explicit the elements of high-quality, effective teaching in 21st-century schools. The goal is that these standards will drive improved educational outcomes for students. The standards framework explicates the knowledge, practice and professional engagement required across teachers' careers with the rationale that the framework will provide ‘a common understanding and language for discourse between teachers, teacher educators, teacher organisations, professional associations and the public’ (http://www.aitsl.edu.au/)

Standard 5 – Assess, provide feedback and report on student learning (see http://www.teacherstandards.aitsl.edu.au/DomainOfTeaching/ProfessionalPractice/Standards/5) – is the professional standard that addresses assessment skills. The standard aligns with recent major curriculum and assessment reforms and consists of the following.

5.1 Assess student learning.

5.2 Provide feedback to students on their learning.

5.3 Make consistent and comparable judgments.

5.4 Interpret student data.

5.5 Report on student achievement.

The implications for teaching practice have been considerable.

With the move to a standards-referenced framework both for the professional development of teachers and for the assessment of student learning using the national achievement standards there has been an emphasis on the integration of AfL practices as seen both in the NSW example of advice to teachers and Professional Standard 5 developed by AITSL. The importance of the use by teachers of evidence and student assessment data has now come to the fore.

Canada

Education in Canada falls under provincial jurisdiction. Each of Canada’s 10 provinces and 3 territories is responsible for generating its own assessment policies to support and monitor student learning. Prior to 2000, many provincial assessment policies emphasized a traditional diagnostic–formative–summative assessment sequence (Airasian et al., 2006). In this sequence, diagnostic and formative assessments were used by teachers to improve and tailor their instruction, while summative assessments were used to report publically on student achievement.

During the 1980s and 1990s, provincial assessment policies valued diagnostic, formative, and summative assessments differently depending upon their curricular orientation and provincial testing programs. In provinces with a long-standing history of large-scale testing, mainly in Western Canada (i.e., Alberta and British Columbia), summative classroom assessments were highly valued and regulated in relation to provincial test content and criteria (Klinger et al., 2008). Provinces with minimal large-scale testing, such as Manitoba, Ontario, and Prince Edward Island had a more balanced orientation toward formative and summative assessments. This balanced approach was supported further with a holistic curricular orientation characterized by less rigid provincial expectations, a constructivist learning approach, and a commitment to educational equity for a diverse student population (Miller, 1988). Indeed, in the 1980s there was a general movement across educational systems towards broader social and human rights that encouraged teaching to the individual needs of diverse student learners. In this context, formative assessment was seen as critical tool for informing teachers’ instructional practices and promoting differentiated teaching and learning.

In the late 1990s, concerns were beginning to surface across Canada for more unified educational standards and greater public accountability of student learning (Manley-Casimir, 1994). These concerns were principally targeted at provinces lacking large-scale testing programs, but with implications cross-nationally. For example, the landmark 1994 For the Love of Learning report on the Ontario education system recommended common core standards for school districts and multi-year, provincial proficiency testing in literacy and numeracy beginning in grade 3 (Ontario Royal Commission on Learning, 1994). This report inspired a rewriting of Ontario curriculum documents with greater emphasis on public accountability measures, standards-based teaching and increased use of both formative and summative classroom assessments. Since 2000, this accountability movement has proliferated in educational systems in Canada with assessment literacy now articulated as a core competency for teachers across the nation (Council of Ontario Directors of Education, 2006; Volante and Earl, 2013).

Within the current context of accountability of Canadian public schools, assessment for learning policies and protocols are beginning to emerge in an effort to support teacher practice in this area. Specifically, several provincial policies describe current priorities towards classroom assessment by articulating the linkages between assessment for, of, and as learning with provincial curriculum expectations. For example, the Western and Northern Canadian Protocol for Collaboration in Education, which represents Ministries of Education in Western and Northern Canada, published a document in 2006 entitled Rethinking Classroom Assessment with Purpose in Mind. The document describes assessment as follows:

Assessment for learning, assessment as learning, and assessment of learning all serve valuable, and different, purposes. It is not always easy, however, getting the balance right. If we want to enhance learning for all students, the role of assessment for learning and assessment as learning takes on a much higher profile than assessment of learning. (Western and Northern Canadian Protocol for Collaboration in Education, 2006: 14)

Across provincial assessment policies, there is an explicit articulation of the value and benefits of integrating assessment for and as learning into classroom teaching and learning (e.g., Alberta Assessment Consortium, 2005; British Columbia Ministry of Education, 2004; Ontario Ministry of Education, 2010a; see www.CAfLN.ca/resources for complete listing). These policies emphasize that assessment for learning supports students’ growth toward educational standards while assessment as learning cultivates students’ autonomy, self-regulation, and general learning skills. Underpinning these policies is the assertion that supporting the ability of students to learn (that is, assessment as learning) will accelerate learning, increase summative assessment results, and contribute to lifelong learning commitments.

However, despite provincial policies aimed at assessment for and as learning, several researchers have noticed gaps in the capacity of teachers to implement rigorous assessment for and as learning programs in their classrooms (DeLuca et al., 2012; Klinger et al., 2012). These gaps are attributed to challenges related to teacher professional learning opportunities in assessment, practical barriers (e.g., time, class size, resources), and limited research on the nuances of integrating assessment for learning in diverse classroom contexts. As a result of these challenges, several Canadian provinces have engaged in various initiatives to support teachers’ integration of assessment for learning. For example, since 1999 Alberta school districts have been provided with provincial funding to engage in cyclical professional development projects aimed at improving student learning and performance, with many of these projects focused on assessment for learning. Ultimately, these projects are intended to build capacity in assessment at classroom and school levels with results shared provincial to encourage systemic adoption of assessment for learning (Townsend et al., 2010).

Similarly, the Ontario Ministry of Education and teachers’ federations have supported Ontario teachers through programs of professional learning and funding for collaborative inquiries focused on assessment for learning (see: Ontario Ministry of Education, n.d.). These professional learning programs aim to generate cultures of learning that value assessment-informed decision-making that affects students, teachers and school administrators. Increasing assessment literacy across the province, specifically the use of assessment for, of, and as learning, is part of a larger effort toward a school-wide comprehensive reform model known as the School Effectiveness Framework (SEF). The SEF is ‘a school self-assessment tool, grounded in research and professional learning, used to promote school improvement and student success’ (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2010b: 1). In this framework, school improvement is predicated on reliable and valid assessment information about student learning, teacher effectiveness and school/district achievement of systemic goals. Accordingly, the use in Ontario of assessment for and as learning is integral to the educational system not only for enhancing student achievement but also for supporting teacher learning and school/district goals (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2010b, 2011).

Overall, assessment for learning is taking hold as a key feature of educational assessment programs in Canada. Classroom assessment policies that integrate and explain assessment for and as learning are evident across the provinces. Significant efforts are currently being made to support teachers and school administrators in interpreting and implementing these policies and assessment priorities. However, additional research is needed on professional learning structures that support teachers most effectively in this process as well as continued research on the ways assessment for learning is operationalized and integrated across curricular areas, disciplines, and diverse student learning groups. Ultimately, there is a concerted effort across the majority of provinces to integrate assessment for learning to support teacher learning and effectiveness, informed school decision-making and district priorities and, most importantly, to enhance student learning across Canada.

Republic of Ireland

The publication of the Black and Wiliam research review on assessment and classroom learning in Assessment in Education in 1998 coincided with the completion of a report on a policy review of lower secondary education, the junior cycle, in Ireland which noted the following:

Post-primary education in Ireland has an established tradition of assessment through high stakes examinations. Indeed it is noticeable that teachers rarely speak of ‘assessment’, or the need to ‘assess’ but focus instead on preparing students for ‘tests’ and ‘examinations’. This feature was commented on by the OECD report on 1991 which noted that post-primary teachers tended to be ‘purveyors of facts and coaches for examinations’ rather than ‘articulators, managers and organisers of learning. (NCCA, 1999: 46)

This progress report proposed a developmental project to support teacher capacity in formative assessment. Other projects – which would have seen the introduction of some school-based assessment into the examination at the end of junior cycle, although the school-based components would not contribute to the qualification – were also proposed. These were shelved in the face of opposition from teacher unions to teachers assessing their own students for the purposes of national certification, even in the relatively low stakes context of the Junior Certificate examination at the end of lower secondary education.¹ The basis for this opposition was that teachers would be open to parental and student pressures and even accusations of bias. By extension, the argument was that teachers would no longer be advocates for their students, but judges, leading to poorer teacher-student relationships. Furthermore, and perhaps more fundamentally, the concern was that teacher involvement would undermine the integrity and prized objectivity of a trusted examination. The latter was not based on any research evidence, nor any experience of school-based assessment beyond the setting of term examinations or weekly tests. Rather, it appeared to be informed by public interest in the state examinations (see OECD observation quoted above) and by the relative neglect of assessment in teacher education in Ireland, leading to underdevelopment of the field. Analyses by Hall (2000) and later by Hall and Kavanagh (2002) suggest that neither assessment practice nor assessment policy feature as strengths of the Irish education system. Hall’s assertion that assessment policy is characterized by a lack of conceptual clarity, and practice by underdevelopment and lack of support has only come to be challenged in and by very recent developments.

AFL in practice and policy

The first developmental work under an Assessment for Learning banner was initiated by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) in 2003, arising from a visit by staff to the Medway Oxfordshire project in England in the previous year. Interest in these projects had arisen from the initial Black and Wiliam review (1998a) and their subsequent account of the project (Black et al., 2003). The focus of the Irish project was the initial years of post-primary school and it was directly associated with the 1998 report. The information leaflet on Assessment for Learning generated for the project describes assessment for learning as a teacher ‘tool’ of sorts, in the following terms:

When a teacher is using assessment for learning he/she is trying to get learners ‘on the inside’ of the learning process, as it were. So, her/she will try to get the learners to see that there is a specific learning intention or target to each lesson and will share the learning intention with the learners. (NCCA, 2003)

Of note, the project material goes to great lengths to emphasize what AfL is not. It is not, the leaflet explains, ‘the same as continuous assessment’, or assessment of learning, ‘which is the kind of assessment traditionally associated with the examination hall’ and the purpose of which is ‘to measure achievement’. Clear efforts are made to take account of the sensitivities of teachers aabout the assessment ‘boundaries’. However, a consequence of this was that while the initiative was received positively by teachers, and those who participated reported significant impact on classroom practice and on student motivation and autonomy (NCCA, 2005), the initiative had no impact either on other kinds of assessment practice or on teachers’ willingness to engage with any formal school-based assessment. Further, system and teacher efforts to extend assessment discourse into consideration of quality was notably absent.

Work on assessment in primary schools which resulted in the publication of guidelines in 2007 which also distinguished between the ‘two’ assessments but offered a slightly different perspective on assessment for learning which,

…emphasises the child’s active role in his/her own learning, in that the teacher and child agree what the outcomes of the learning should be and the criteria for judging to what extent the outcomes have been achieved. (NCCA, 2007: 9)

Of note, the guidelines blur the carefully constructed boundary of the earlier post-primary initiative, by suggesting that both Afl and AoL are ‘interrelated and complementary’ and both are ‘central to the teacher’s work (NCCA, 2007: 8). Assessment is far less contested in the primary context in Ireland with no national tests or examinations in place therefore the boundary between assessment of and for learning can be more permeable. The agency of the younger learner by comparison to their post-primary counterpart is noteworthy.

Current developments

The agency of the learner, and an intentional blurring of boundaries are two features of the current wave of junior cycle reform. Although this reform was the focus of a year-long consultation process, it effectively began in October 2012 with the announcement by the Minister for Education and Skills of a new Framework for Junior Cycle and the phasing out of the Junior Certificate examination by 2020. This Framework for Junior Cycle is noteworthy, as a contemporary curriculum and assessment policy document, for the almost complete absence of any reference to AfL. ‘Formative’ and ‘summative’ are used, but as purposes for, rather than types of assessment; and both of these, it is proposed, should serve and promote learning (DES, 2012, p.18).

This focus on learning and the exclusion of the AfL label is an attempt to respond, at least in part, to Swaffield’s 2009 critique of what she termed the ‘(mis)interpretation of AfL as a teacher driven mechanism for advancing students up a prescribed ladder of subject attainment’ (Swaffield, 2009: 6), and the lack of attention paid to learning and to the central role of the learner in that process. It is also an attempt to move beyond the initial AfL developmental project and its focus on teacher action to reflect the emphasis on student agency in the 2007 Primary Assessment Guidelines. The intention is to build sustainable assessment cultures in schools whereby teachers develop specific assessment design capabilities as well as informed standards-referenced judgment practice. The latter extends to the use of stated standards (called ‘expectations for learners’ in the Framework for Junior Cycle) in teachers coming together for professional conversations for moderating student work. In turn, students develop knowledge about and expertise in using standards for self-assessment and improvement purposes. Given earlier discussions about current assessment practice and policy, this is a long term project. It will entail a concerted focus on shifting the assessment gaze of teachers, students and the public away from the terminal examination as the sole or only trustworthy arbiter of quality for junior cycle education. It will also entail a new valuing of teacher judgment, informed by system checks and balances, to maintain public confidence in the education system.

In the new junior cycle, all assessment should be for learning, and learning should be for students and for teachers. Ironically, the most notable and most significant feature of AfL in the most significant assessment policy of the modern era in the Republic of Ireland, is its absence.

Israel

The Israeli education system is centralized; in 2012/13 the system served about 1.6 million students from K–12 in 4502 education institutions (Israeli Ministry of Education, 2013a).

Genesis of AfL

Although AfL is not yet implemented systemically in Israel, its origin can be traced back to the mid 1970s, when a student-centered education policy was adopted, replacing the ‘melting pot’ policy aimed at integrating the many different culture groups that had emigrated to Israel following establishment of the state in 1948. Diversity, which had previously been considered detrimental, became valued under the new policy and thus adaptive instruction was enacted to cater to the needs of the individual student. Efforts were subsequently invested in promoting self-regulated learning and by the late 1990s alternative assessment methods were already widely employed and were even considered as a possible substitute for the matriculation exams. Performance tasks, research projects, portfolios, learning journals, exhibitions, rubrics, self- and peer-assessment have dominated the educational discourse, albeit often failing to be implemented successfully.

Although multiple-choice tests were never the predominant method of testing in Israeli schools, teachers’ assessment knowledge was quite shallow and teacher-made assessments lagged behind instruction and failed to tap higher-order skills or enable utilization of the results to advance learning. Consequently, the achievement level of the Israeli students in international tests was quite disappointing, leading to the adoption of an accountability policy at the beginning of the new millennium. The establishment of the National Authority for Measurement and Evaluation in 2005 supported this policy by offering superior/expert developed large-scale accountability tests (GEMS) for elementary and middle schools (grades 2, 5 and 8) which supplemented the existing matriculation exams in high schools. As a result, the focus of many schools shifted from learning to achievement and negative effects of accountability systems, similar to those witnessed in other countries enacting such accountability systems (Nichols & Berliner, 2007), were noticed. The situation deteriorated further as a result of the Supreme Court ruling that from 2012 the GEMS test scores (by school) should be released to the public. A new policy has since been declared by the recently nominated Minister of Education, which is aimed at fostering ‘meaningful learning’ rather than encouraging ‘competition for ranking on league tables’ (Israeli Ministry of Education, 2013b).

It seems that the current position of the ‘swaying pendulum’ holds great potential for AfL to play a significant role in advancing a systemic reform in education in alignment with the required competencies in the 21st century. Initiatives to fulfill the potential will be addressed following a brief account of lessons learned from successful, albeit sporadic, implementations of AfL in the past.

Evolution and impact of AfL on school systems

For over a decade our research group has been studying implementation of AfL in different elementary and middle school contexts in Israel in order to identify school-based conditions that support and those that constrain proper AfL implementations. Our findings pointed to the critical role of school-based professional learning communities in advancing teachers’ AfL practices (Birenbaum et al., 2009, 2011), thus corroborating research findings from the UK and Canada (James et al., 2007; Pedder and Opfer 2011; Earl and Katz, 2006). We identified similarities between cycles of assessment in classroom (AfL) and in school-based professional learning communities (inquiry into practice) as well as in their respective cultures. Furthermore, we underscored the school’s assessment culture as a key component. A forthcoming paper (Birenbaum, 2014) offers a conceptualization of the assessment culture from a complexity framework, viewing it as a complex system in which two other complex systems (student learning and teacher learning) are nested. By means of ongoing reciprocal relations among the three systems learning emerges and a mindset, which we termed ‘AfL mindset’, evolves. The attributes of this mindset, which were identified in schools with assessment culture where AfL was successfully implemented, seem to define the ‘spirit of AfL’ that is claimed to be missing from common implementations of AfL, causing itto fail to fulfill its potential to promote learning (Marshal & Drummond, 2006).

Current trends in policy direction for AfL

In line with his intention to foster ‘meaningful learning’ in schools, the current Minister of Education declared that the external GEMS tests will be withheld for at least a year and the number of matriculation exams will be drastically reduced. He further declared that the Ministry of Education intends to maintain trusting relations with schools as a step toward increasing mutual trust among all the participants in the educational system. Such steps could set the stage for a systemic reform; the question raised is what additional policy forces would lead to the desired reform.

Michael Fullan (2011) describes four ‘good drivers’ that lead to systemic education reforms: capacity building (rather than accountability); group quality (rather than individual quality) pedagogy (rather than technology) and ‘systemness’ (rather than fragmentation). It seems that the current Israeli evolving education policy is directed toward embracing those ‘good drivers’ but the way is still long and challenging. Initiatives addressing capacity building are beginning to take place with regard to in-service and pre-service teachers. Respectively, the Ministry of Education has recently issued an outline for a professional development program for in-service teachers, which consists of three AfL related modules (formal AfL, informal AfL, and school-based professional learning) (Birenbaum, 2013). Likewise, teacher-training institutes are preparing to integrate AfL in their programs.

If implemented successfully such programs would empower in-service and pre-service teachers driving them to engage, as a habit of mind, in collaborative inquiries into their practice thus leading to improved pedagogy practices including mindful consumption of technology (Salomon, 2002). Moreover, establishing meaningful connections between goals and practices (of instruction, learning and assessment) as well as supporting networking within and between schools including their stakeholders, would advance what Fullan (2011) terms ‘systemness’ or ‘coherent wholeness’. Under such conditions assessment culture is likely to sprout in schools and in teacher-training institutes enabling AfL to fulfill its potential to promote meaningful learning among students and teachers.

New Zealand

To understand the evolution of assessment for learning in New Zealand requires an understanding of the wider policy context and the changes enacted in 1989in relation to how schools are administered. At that time the New Zealand schooling system changed almost overnight, from one of the most bureaucratic systems internationally to one of the most decentralized. All layers of district administration were abolished and the old central Department of Education was downsized to a policy-only Ministry of Education whose primary role was to give policy advice to the Minister of Education in the government of the day (New Zealand Government, 1989). Although aspects of this reform have evolved over the 24 years since its introduction, most of the key tenets of the legislation are still in place and it remains one of the most highly devolved systems in the world (Nusche et al., 2012). Currently, there is no administrative layer between the Ministry of Education and the governing authority (which takes the form of parent-elected boards of trustees) of individual schools. This administrative organization means individual schools have considerable discretion about how they assess students and, until very recently, there were few mandated requirements about how they should do so. This administration system also means that the principal influencing mechanisms available to the Ministry of Education are concerned with the provision of nationally-funded professional development.

A brief history of assessment for learning

When other countries were introducing national testing in the 1990s, New Zealand rejected this approach for students in the first 10 years of their schooling (ages 5–15 years). Throughout the 1990s the emphasis was on the formative purpose of assessment on school or teacher-developed assessment tasks. This policy emphasis was strongly influenced by the work of Crooks (1988) who, through of a review of the research literature, found that classroom evaluation practices could have a powerful direct and indirect impact on student outcomes. In this review, Crooks identified the circumstances under which the impacts of assessment were likely to be positive or negative, thus developing a clear rationale for assessment for learning.

The emphasis on assessment for learning was supported by funding from the Ministry of Education for professional development through national contracts for both primary and secondary school teachers. These programs were school-based with the original title in 1995 of ‘Assessment for Better Learning’ evolving subsequently into ‘Assess to Learn’. Schools in these contracts typically participated over a two-year period with the professional learning undertaken primarily by facilitators who visited the schools on a regular basis. In the last two years, the importance of school leaders in the assessment was recognized, with the most recent contracts having the title ‘Leadership and Assessment’. The most important point here is the long term commitment demonstrated by the Ministry of Education to assessment for learning.

Part of the Ministry of Education’s support was to contract the development of nationally normed assessment tools for teaching and learning (‘asTTle’) in reading, writing and mathematics (e-asttle.tki.org.nz/). These innovative tools by design allowed teachers and students to determine the content and the timing of what was assessed. The analysis process developed individual student and class profiles of strengths and weaknesses, together with suggestions about what to teach next.

These efforts to promote the formative purposes of assessment were also supported by the revision to the New Zealand Curriculum in 2007 which similarly foregrounded assessment for learning. It stated that ‘The primary purpose of assessment is to improve students’ learning and teachers’ teaching as both students and teachers respond to the information it provides’ (New Zealand Ministry of Education, 2007: 38). More recently, a visionary statement on student assessment was published by the Ministry of Education (2011). This statement strongly defines the purpose of assessment in formative, developmental terms. It describes assessment as “a process of inquiry, decision-making, adaptation and transformation…. assessment is a process of learning, for learning” (New Zealand Ministry of Education, 2011: 12–13).

One of the constraints on schools’ independence in 1989 was the establishment of the Education Review Office, an independent statutory authority responsible for monitoring schools and early childhood centres. The Office was charged with investigating and reporting on compliance with legal requirements, together with a review of the quality of the education they offered. At the time of writing, schools are reviewed in cycles that occur approximately every three years: the interval is longer if the school is deemed to be performing well and shorter if there are concerns. The categories used to assess school performance include two based on assessment for learning purposes. The associated suggested indicators include co-constructing learning intentions and success criteria; regular, specific and constructive teacher feedback on students’ work contributing to the next stage of learning; teachers assisting students to understand more about their own learning; the use of exemplars to help students understand what high quality work looks like; and students being able to talk about their own learning and achievements and their next steps for learning.

Assessment for learning has thus received much official support. The extent to which it has been enacted in accordance with the ‘letter’ rather than the ‘spirit’ of assessment for learning (James, 2006), through such practices as altering the power balance between teachers and students in learning environments and promoting metacognition, remains an open question. A recent review of assessment and evaluation undertaken by the OECD (Organisation for Economic and Cultural Development) (Nusche et al., 2012) indicates that the emphasis on school self-management makes it ‘…challenging to bring about systemic change in approaches to assessment and evaluation, and ultimately to teaching and learning’ (Nusche et al., 2012: 23). This report goes on to say that,

Evaluation and assessment frameworks have little value if they do not lead to the improvement of classroom practice and student learning. Therefore securing effective links to classroom practice is one of the most critical factors in designing the evaluation and assessment framework. The variation in practices across New Zealand raises questions as to the degree of consistency that is desirable set against what may be seen as legitimate diversity in the context of school self-management… the New Zealand education system is conceived as a high trust model relying strongly on teacher judgment. There is, however an inevitable tension between variety of practice and consistency across the system. Autonomy at the school level helps to create a sense of ownership and self-direction, but is not easy to reconcile with the drive for consistency of standards. (Nusche et al., 2012: 34)

Recent threats

Since 2010 threats to assessment for learning have begun to creep into the education system. In 2010 and 2011 the government introduced National Standards for students in Years 1–8 in English and Māori-medium schools respectively, with the ostensible aim of giving parents clearer information about students’ achievements. The official formative approach to assessment strongly influenced the way in which these standards were developed, with a deliberate focus on the use of professional teacher judgment underpinned by assessment for learning principles rather than a narrow testing regime (NZ Ministry of Education, 2011). Teachers must assess students by making an overall teacher judgment which takes into account the full range of information about student performance available to teachers. Standardized tests could be included but other sources of information, including observations and teacher interviews, were to be used to determine if a particular student was at or below the national standard.

Not surprisingly, considerable variability in practices became evident across schools in undertaking this complex task (Wylie and Hodgen, 2010). There were always reporting requirements associated with the National Standards. Teachers were required to report this information, together with a given students’ progress, to parents. Boards were required to report collated information to the community and the Ministry on the numbers and proportions of students at, above, below or well below National Standards by ethnicity, gender and year level.

However, the greatest threat to the formative purposes of assessment came in 2012, when despite the variability in practices, the Minister of Education decided to publish school-level results, thus providing for school comparisons. The introduction of the standards was highly contested (Ministry of Education, 2010), and this step has no doubt increased the stakes related to what has now become assessments with a more summative purpose. Although, in theory, the overall teacher judgments can still be used for formative purposes, and teachers are encouraged to do so, a recent report by the OECD (2013) identified that ‘there is a risk that pressures for summative scores may undermine effective formative assessment practices in the classroom….Such tensions between formative and summative assessment need to be recognised and addressed’ (OECD, 2013: 215).

Norway

In Norway, as in many other countries, the trigger of the Assessment for Learning movement can, to a large extent, be traced back to Black and Wiliam’s 1998 review paper, Inside the Black Box. Before its publication, assessment had not been a widely discussed theme in Norway, mainly because the schools followed traditional assessment approaches. Assessment was understood as testing, often as end-of-school level testing – that is, end of primary, middle or secondary school. While no grades were given in elementary schools, grades in secondary schools were based on tests. It is safe to say that Scriven’s (1967) definition of summative and formative evaluation was not widely known by policy makers or by teachers. Building on Scriven’s work, Bloom (1969) advocated that the conceptualization of summative and formative assessment should not be related to the assessment instrument, but more to the purposes of assessment. The uses of information collected through assessment is what determines if assessment is characterized as formative or summative (Bloom, 1969; Black and Wiliam, 2009).

At the same time as international educators engaged in promoting ‘assessment for learning’ as opposed to ‘assessment of learning’ at the end of the 1990s and in the beginning of the current millennium, Norwegian evaluation reports identified problems in the assessment practices of Norwegian teachers. The school reform, Reform 97, was evaluated by a number of Norwegian researchers (Haug, 2003; Klette, 2003; among others) who concluded that Norwegian teachers were found to support their students and to create a safe and inclusive learning environment. However, the main problem was that the students experienced teachers’ feedback as general and too positive. The students did not find this helpful because it lacked corrective information and did not provide directions for the students’ future learning (Dale, 2008). More recent international studies (OECD, 2011) support the findings from the earlier Norwegian research – that the quality of feedback practice by Norwegian teachers is still not up to the expected level. Another important finding from Norwegian research is that it seems that the quality of feedback correlates negatively with the students’ advancement from level to level. In secondary schools, assessment is to a large extent focused on testing, and grades are still given as the average of test scores (Wendelborg et al., 2011).

In response to the research presented in summary above, various decisions were made at the political level. At the start of the 1990s, in fact, a pioneer project – Assessment and Mentoring (Vurdering og veiledning) – was initiated, which was based on the principle that assessment can promote learning (Raaen, 1990). Similar ideas were also expressed in policy documents from 1997 (L–97 by KUF, 1996). However, in reality there was a large gap between the intentions presented in the policy papers and classroom practice, and few initiatives were initiated in order to implement the politicians’ intentions (Eggen, 2011).

Only in the last decade has more focus been placed on the implementation of the ideas and principles behind assessment for learning in schools, and much effort and funding have both been put into various in-service activities for teachers. The point of change came as a response to the disappointing PISA results for Norwegian students in 2000. In 2006 a steering document was published (Ministry of Knowledge, 2006) which gave clear directives about how to practice assessment, emphasizing assessment of achievements of pre-defined goals in each and every school subject. Moreover, the importance of ‘during-learning-assessment’ was stressed, without any clear explanation of why the more international term, formative assessment, was not used. This was due in particular to the fact that ‘formative’ carries the same meaning in Norwegian as in English. Assessment for learning subsequently became and remains the commonly used term. In the steering documents published in 2006 the students’ rights to assessment with and without grades was emphasized, which led to an intensive demand for documentation of all assessment practice to avoid legal actions taken by students and their parents. In 2009 a revised version of the steering document about assessment was introduced (Ministry of Knowledge, 2009), which specified the demand for learning-focused assessment, students’ rights to receive mid- and end-of-year assessment and, not least, the requirement to involve students in the assessment process.

Concurrent with the publication of explicit prescriptions of how to practice assessment to which teachers must adhere, several in-service activities have been initiated to empower teachers in assessment. The aim is to change teachers’ assessment practice and recently there has been a welcome tendency to move away from a top-down prescriptive approach to a more competence-development approach. The principles behind assessment for learning and the understanding that schools and teachers need to develop their own practice of assessment within a given framework are being addressed in the most recent initiative, ‘Assessment-for-Learning-2010–2014’ (http://www.udir.no/Vurdering-for-laring/VFL-skoler/). The project covers all Norwegian counties and involves 184 of the counties’ 428 municipalities. It is important to note that in Norway the local authorities are given the responsibility for implementing macro-decided educational changes: in a recent report, which looked at the governance of the new project, some of the key findings were as follows.

For successful implementation of the ‘Assessment for Learning’ program trust between the local Municipalities and the stakeholders of school is needed.

The goals of the program had a better chance to be implemented if they aligned with wider educational goals at a school and at a macro level (policy).

Learning networks between schools and sharing knowledge among peers supported professional learning.

On-line examples of ‘best practice’ were of help, especially to the smaller, rural municipalities.

Many of these felt overwhelmed by the multiple policy reforms. (Hopfenbeck et al., 2013).

The above findings align with the meta-study by Timperley et al. (2007) of professional learning with a positive impact on student achievement, and there is cautious optimism that Norwegian policy makers understand the need to look at educational change in a long-term perspective, and the need to trust teachers and provide autonomy within a given framework.

The challenge for Norwegian teachers is that alongside political rhetoric, and the most welcome movement toward an ‘assessment-for-learning’ practice, teachers are faced with an increasingly extensive testing regime for accountability purposes. The number of national tests is high and testing of all students becomes more and more common and includes young learners. In addition, the importance of end-of-school exams is increasing because of more competition for entrance into higher education. Thus teachers have to practice assessment within two competing paradigms, one more explicit – the assessment-for-learning – and one implicit and ‘hidden’ in the political rhetoric, an increasing testing regime. The backlash effect of the latter presents the many teachers who believe in the ‘assessment-for-learning’ principles with a professional dilemma, which could and should be avoided.

United States

Comparatively recently, in describing assessment for learning (or formative assessment as the practice is referred to in the United States), noted assessment expert Lorrie Shepard observed that ‘recently, this robust and well-researched knowledge base has made its way back across the oceans, offering great promise for shifting classroom practices toward a culture of learning’ (Shepard, 2005: 2). Assessment for learning has long been a staple of educational practice in Europe, Australasia and Canada. Shepard’s observation implies that its practice has been a recognizable feature of ‘good teaching’ in American classrooms in the past, even though it lacked formalization in theory and research. The advent of robust theory and research, much of it conducted outside the United States, offers the prospect of the institutionalization of assessment for learning in teacher education and classroom practice.

Shepard’s hope for a shift in classroom practice is a reaction to the dominance of the culture of testing in the United States in which for most of the 20th century attention to assessment was focused on large-scale testing (McMillan, 2013). This situation has been compounded in the last fifteen years or so by state and, more recently, federal legislation that held schools accountable for student performance on annual standardized tests, with a menu of increasingly severe sanctions for low performance. The net effect of the predominance of large-scale testing has been to squeeze out attention and resources to support assessment for learning.

Since returning to North American shores, however, formative assessment has received a good deal of attention. For example, in 2001 an influential committee of the National Research Council advanced, in a seminal report, Knowing What Students Know, an ambitious vision for comprehensive assessment systems that specifically included formative assessment. This vision has been taken up by others in the United States and formative assessment is routinely discussed together with summative and interim/benchmark assessment in conceptions of ‘balanced assessment systems’ (see, for example, Darling-Hammond and Pecheone, 2010; Stiggins, 2006, 2008).

A by-product of the long predominance of a testing culture in the United States is that assessment for learning is often treated as a particular kind of measurement instrument rather than a process that is fundamental and indigenous to the practice of teaching and learning. This is particularly the case in conceptualizations of formative assessment in the context of so-called balanced assessment systems. Emphasizing this situation, Erickson (2007) argued that the long-standing dominance of summative testing as a tool of evaluation in the United States has led to a devaluation of teachers’ discretionary authority relative to professional psychometrics and has eroded the value of teachers’ clinical judgment in the process of teaching and learning.

However, while the ‘test’ view of formative assessment persists in various quarters, advances have been made in a number of individual states. Of particular significance is the work of a state collaborative, ‘Formative Assessment for Teachers and Students (FAST)’, which, under the aegis of the Council of Chief State School Officers, a nationwide membership organization for state education leaders, has placed formative assessment firmly on the national agenda. In October 2006, after an extensive review of the formative assessment literature, consideration of its theoretical foundations, and consultation with an advisory board comprising internationally recognized assessment experts, the FAST group adopted the following definition of formative assessment:

Formative assessment is a process used by teachers and students during instruction that provides feedback to adjust ongoing teaching and learning to improve students’ achievement of intended instructional outcomes.

The member states, currently numbering about a third of the states in the USA, have adopted this definition to guide their practice and policy. In addition, it has become a widely cited definition and is used by many other organizations to inform their work with respect to formative assessment.

This definition and other supporting material from the FAST group has moved the focus in the member states from testing and providing teachers with more measurement instruments, to offering professional development for teachers to incorporate assessment for learning, rather than just assessment of learning, in their classrooms. It is also noteworthy that students are prominently included in this definition as equal stakeholders in the assessment process, indicating the beginning of a shift in the United States from a testing to a learning culture. However, while gaining traction, the involvement of students, or indeed a central focus on the student role in assessment for learning, is not as yet well established in the United States.

This move to formative assessment as assessment for learning is also reflected in other policy initiatives in the USA. Two consortia of states have been funded by the federal government to develop new assessment systems that measure student skills against a common set of college- and career-ready standards in mathematics and English (US Department of Education, 2010). One of them, Smarter Balanced, will provide a digital library of artifacts to support teachers’ formative assessment practice, ranging from professional development modules to exemplar lessons to coaching protocols, in addition to annual summative and interim assessments in the context of a balanced assessment system. In contrast however, the other consortium, the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, does not include assessment for learning in its conception of an assessment system.

From shaky beginnings in the United States, the idea of formative assessment or assessment for learning is slowly taking hold. Assessment for learning is becoming an increased focus for educational researchers in the United States, the evidence for which is the increase in sessions on the topic at recent meetings of the American Educational Research Association. Growing numbers of state departments of education are supporting implementation across their states, and there have been some advances at the policy level, including a definition of formative assessment that embraces the idea of assessment for learning in calls for proposals from the Institute of Education Science, the research arm of the federal government. Ultimately it remains to be seen how extensively assessment for learning will become part of daily practice for teachers and students in American classrooms; but for now, it is on the way.

Conclusions

Although the research base for AfL seems to be well established and accepted in the various countries studied here, it appears that education policies have yet to be fully enacted in a manner that would lead to a significant shift in teacher practice. The ongoing tensions between formative and summative forms of assessments, as reflected in large-scale testing programs, continue to pose a significant risk to the uptake of authentic and sustained AfL practices in school systems across much of the Western world. This threat has already been noted by the OECD and represents the greatest challenge facing federal and regional Ministries of Education as they seek to reconcile accountability demands with the push for improved student learning. The synergy (or lack thereof) that often exists between large-scale testing and teachers’ classroom assessments is often the result of contradictory messages given to school leaders and classroom practitioners. From our perspective, this tension will never be resolved until both modes of assessment complement one another in a meaningful way. In essence, AfL research should inform both the design and administration of accountability measures and more importantly promote national/state policies that underpin the prominence of AfL as the key driver of student learning. The profiles presented here suggest that some nations are further along in this regard that others and ultimately it is the overarching policy context that is providing the necessary zeitgeist for success.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Note

References

Airasian

Engemann

Gallagher

(2006) Classroom assessment: Concepts and Applications (Canadian edition), Toronto, ON: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.

Alberta Assessment Consortium (2005) A framework for student assessment. Edmonton, AB, (author) Assessment program application for new grants: Comprehensive assessment systems. Available at:http://www.k12.wa.us/SMARTER/pubdocs/SBAC_Narrative.pdf (accessed 02 October 2010).

Assessment Reform Group (1999) Assessment for Learning: Beyond the Black Box, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.

Assessment Reform Group (2002) Assessment for Learning: Research-based Principles to Guide Classroom Practice, Cambridge, UK: Assessment Reform Group.

Birenbaum

(2013) Conditions that support formative assessment: Assessment for Learning (AfL) in teacher preparation programs. Bimat Diun 51: 6–12. (Hebrew).

Birenbaum

Kimron

Shilton

(2011) Nested contexts that shape assessment for learning: School-based professional learning community and classroom culture. Studies in Educational Evaluation – Special Issue on Assessment for Learning 37(1): 35–48.

Birenbaum

Kimron

Shilton

Shahaf-Barzilay

(2009) Cycles of inquiry: Formative assessment in service of learning in classrooms and in school-based professional communities. Studies in Educational Evaluation 35: 130–149.

Birenbuam

(2014) Conceptualizing assessment culture in school. In: Wyatt-Smith

Klenowski

Colbert

(eds) Assessment for Learning Improvement and Accountability: The Enabling Power, Berlin, Germany: Springer.

Birenbaum M (2013). Outline for professional development of teachers in assessment for learning (AfL). The Israeli Authority for Measurement and Evaluation in Education (RAMA), Ministry of Education. (Hebrew). Available at: http://cms.education.gov.il/educationcms/units/rama/aarachabeitsifrit/mitve_halel.htm.

10.

Black

Wiliam

(1998a) Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education. Principles, Policy and Practice 5(1): 7–74.

11.

Black

Wiliam

(1998b) Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards through Classroom Assessment, London, UK: King’s College.

12.

Black

Wiliam

(2009) Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 21(1): 5–31.

13.

Black

Harrison

Lee

Marshall

Wiliam

(2003) Assessment for Learning. Putting it into Practice, Buckinghamshire, UK: Open University Press.

14.

Black P (1998) Testing: Friend or foe? Theory and practice of assessment and testing. London: Falmer.

15.

Black P and Wiliam D (1998) Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. London: King's College School of Education.

16.

Bloom

(1969) Some theoretical issues relating to educational evaluation. In: Tyler

(ed.) Educational Evaluation: New Roles, New Means, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

17.

Bloom BS, Hastings JT and Madaus GF (1971) Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw Hill.

18.

Bowe

Ball

Gold

(1992) Reforming Education and Changing Schools: Case Studies in Policy Sociology, London, UK: Routledge.

19.

British Columbia Ministry of Education (2004) Classroom Assessment and Evaluation. Victoria, BC: BC Ministry of Education.

20.

Council of Ontario Directors of Education (2006) Consistency in classroom assessment. Available at: http://www.cpco.on.ca/ProfessionalDevelopment/Resources/CCA-Final.pdf (accessed 3 July 2014).

21.

Crooks

(1988) The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational Research 58(4): 438–481.

22.

Dale

(2008) Del III: Reproduksjon av sosial ulikhet og ettergivenhet i utdanningssystemet. In: Dale

(ed.) Fellesskolen – reproduksjon av sosial ulikhet, Oslo, Norway: Cappelen Akademisk forlag, pp. 279–377.

23.

Darling-Hammond

Pecheone

(2010) Developing an Internationally Comparable Balanced Assessment System That Supports High-quality Learning, Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Services.

24.

DeLuca

Luu

Youyi

Klinger

(2012) Assessment for learning in the classroom: Barriers to implementation and possibilities for teacher professional learning. Assessment Matters 4: 5–29.

25.

Department of Education and Skills (2012b) The Framework for Junior Cycle. Dublin, Ireland: DES. Available at: http://www.juniorcycle.ie/NCCA_JuniorCycle/media/NCCA/Documents/JC-Framework_FINAL_02oct12.pdf (accessed 15 October 2013).

26.

Dori

(2003) From nationwide standardized testing to school-based alternative embedded assessment in Israel: Students’ performance in the ‘matriculation 2000’ project. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 40(1): 34–52.

27.

Earl

(2003) Assessment as Learning: Using Classroom Assessment to Maximize Student Learning, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

28.

Earl L M and Katz S (2006) Rethinking Classroom Assessment with Purpose in Mind: Assessment for Learning, Assessment as Learning, Assessment of learning. Western and Northern Canadian Protocol for Collaboration in Education. Available at: https://www.wncp.ca/english/subjectarea/classassessment.aspx.

29.

Eggen

(2011) Vurdering for Skoleutvikling, Oslo, Norway: Gyldendal akademisk.

30.

Erickson

(2007) Some thoughts on ‘proximal’ formative assessment of student learning. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education 106(1): 186–216.

31.

Formative Assessment for Students and Teachers (FAST) State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards (SCASS) (2006, October) Definition of formative assessment. Council of Chief State School Officers. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

32.

Forskrift til opplæringslova (2006) FOR-2006–06–23–724. Sist endret FOR-2013–10–14–1270. Available at: http://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/2006–06–23–724/*.

33.

Fullan M (2011) Choosing the Wrong Drivers for Whole System Reform. Centre for Strategic Education (CSE). East Melbourne, Victoria. Available at: http://www.edsource.org/today/wp-content/uploads/Fullan-Wrong-Drivers1.pdf (accessed 3 July 2014).

34.

Gipps C (1994) Beyond testing: Towards a theory of educational assessment. London: Falmer.

35.

Glasson

(2009) Improving Student Achievement: A Practical Guide to Assessment for Learning, Carlton, South Victoria: Curriculum Corporation.

36.

Hall

(2000) A conceptual evaluation of primary assessment policy and the education policy process in the Republic of Ireland. Compare 30: 85–101.

37.

Hall

Kavanagh

(2002) Primary assessment in the Republic of Ireland: Conflict and consensus. Educational Management and Administration 30(3): 261–274.

38.

Haug

(2003) Evaluering av Reform 97: Sluttrapport frå styret for program for evaluering av Reform 97, Oslo, Norway: Norges forskningsråd.

39.

Hopfenbeck T, Tolo A, Florez T and El Masri Y (2013) Balancing Trust and Accountability? The Assessment for Learning Programme in Norway, “Governing Complex Education Systems” (GCES), Paris, France: OECD.

40.

Israeli Ministry of Education (2013a) Press Release (25 August 2013).

41.

Israeli Ministry of Education (2013b) Policy to Advance Meaningful Learning in the Education System (in Hebrew). (08 August 2013). Available at: http://blogs.haaretz.co.il/orkashti/files/2013/08/

42.

James

(2006) Assessment, teaching and theories of learning. In: Gardner

(ed.) Assessment and Learning, London, UK: Sage, pp. 47–60.

43.

James

McCormick

Black

Carmichael

Drummond

Fox

MacBeath

Marshall

Pedder

Procter

Swaffield

Swann

Wiliam

(2007) Improving Learning How to Learn: Classrooms, Schools and Networks, London, UK: Routledge.

44.

Kirke-, utdannings- og forskningsdepartementet (1996) Læreplanverket for den 10-årige grunnskolen (L–97). Oslo, Norway.

45.

Klenowski

(2009) Assessment for learning revisited: An Asia-Pacific perspective. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice 16(3): 263–268.

46.

Klette

(2003) Klasserommets praksisformer etter Reform 97, Oslo, Norway: Pedagogisk forskningsinstitutt.

47.

Klinger

Volante

DeLuca

(2012) Building teacher capacity within the evolving assessment culture in Canadian Education. Policy Futures in Education, Special Issue: Developing Sustainable Assessment Cultures in School Learning Organisations 10(4): 447–460.

48.

Klinger

DeLuca

Miller

(2008) The evolving culture of large-scale assessments in Canadian education. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy 76: 1–34.

49.

Kunnskapsdepartementet (2006b) Forskrift til opplæringslova.Available at: http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/kilde/kd/reg/2006/0034/ddd/pdfv/284963-ny_forskr_til_oppll.pdf (accessed).

50.

Luke A, Cazden CB, Coopes R, Klenowski V, Ladwig J, Lester J, MacDonald S, Phillips J, Shield P, Theroux P, Tones M, Villegas M and Woods A (2011) A Summative Evaluation of the Stronger Smarter Learning Communities Project, March 2013 Report, Volumes 1 and 2. Brisbane, Australia: Queensland University of Technology. Available at: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/59535/ (accessed 16 January 2013).

51.

Manley-Casimir

(1994) Education in Canada: Seeking a common purpose. In: Nagy

Lupart

(eds) Is There a National Role in Education?, Toronto, ON: Canadian Education Association and Canadian Society for the Study of Education, pp. 67–80.

52.

Marshall

Drummond

(2006) How teachers engage with Assessment for Learning: Lessons from the classroom. Research Papers in Education 21(2): 133–149.

53.

McMillan

(2013) Sage Handbook of Research on Classroom Assessment, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

54.

Miller

(1988) The Holistic Curriculum, Toronto, ON: OISE Press, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

55.

National Research Council (2001) Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment. In: Pellegrino

Chudowsky

Glaser

(eds) Committee on the Foundations of Assessment. Board on Testing and Assessment, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

56.

NCCA (National Council for Curriculum and Assessment) (1998) The Junior Cycle Review Progress Report: Issues and Options for Development, Dublin, Ireland: NCCA.

57.

NCCA (National Council for Curriculum and Assessment) (2003) Assessment for Learning. Available at: http://www.ncca.ie/uploadedfiles/JuniorCycleReview/Aflleaflet2.pdf (accessed 14 October 2013).

58.

New Zealand Government (1989) Education Act, No. 80, Wellington, NZ.

59.

Nichols

Berliner

(2007) Collateral Damage: The Effects of High-stakes Testing on America’s Schools, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

60.

Nusche

Laveault

MacBeath

Santiago

(2012) OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education: New Zealand 2011, Paris, France: OECD.

61.

NZ Ministry of Education (2007) The New Zealand Curriculum. Available at: http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/the_new_zealand_curriculum/the_school_curriculum_design_and_review (accessed 10 October 2008).

62.

NZ Ministry of Education (2011) Ministry of Education Position Paper: Assessment (Schooling Sector), Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media.

63.

OECD (2011) OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education: Norway. In: Nusche D, Earl L, Maxwell W and Shewbridge C (eds) Paris, France: OECD. Available at: www.oecd.org/dataoecd/60/60/48632032.pdf.

64.

OECD (2013) Synergies for Better Learning, Paris, France: OECD.

65.

Ontario Ministry of Education (2010a) Growing Success: Assessment, Evaluation and Reporting in Ontario Schools, Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printers for Ontario.

66.

Ontario Ministry of Education (2010b) School Effectiveness Framework: A Support for School Improvement and Student Success, Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

67.

Ontario Ministry of Education (2011) Learning For All: A Guide to Effective Assessment and Instruction for All Students, Kindergarten to Grade 12. Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. National Research Council (2001).

68.

Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment. In: Pellegrino J, Chudowsky N and Glaser R (eds), Committee on the Foundations of Assessment. Board on Testing and Assessment, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

69.

Ontario Ministry of Education (n.d.) AER Gains. Available at: http://www.edugains.ca/newsite/aer2/index.html (accessed 3 July 2014).

70.

Ontario Royal Commission on Learning (1994) For the Love of Learning: Report of the Royal Commission on Learning, Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

71.

Pedder D and Opfer VD (2011) Are we realising the full potential of teachers’ professional learning in schools in England? Policy issues and recommendations from a national study. Professional Development in Education, 37(): 741–758. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

72.

Popham J (1995) Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

73.

Raaen

(1990) Elevvurdering i nytt perspektiv: Sluttrapport for prosjektet «Vurdering og veiledning, Oslo, Norway: Grunnskolerådet.

74.

Salomon G (2002) Technology and pedagogy: why don’t we see the promised revolution? Educational technology, 42(1): 71–75. National Research Council (2001) Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment. Pellegrino J, Chudowsky N and Glaser R (eds), Committee on the Foundations of Assessment. Board on Testing and Assessment, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

75.

Schriven

(1967) The Methodology of Evaluation, Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

76.

Shepard LA (2005) Formative assessment: caveat emptor. Paper presented at the ETS Invitational Conference, The Future of Assessment: Shaping Teaching and Learning, New York, NY:.

77.

Shepard L (1989) Why we need better assessments. Educational Leadership 46(7), 4–9.

78.

SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) (2010) Race to the Top.

79.

Stiggins RJ (2006) Balanced Assessment Systems: Redefining Excellence in Assessment.

80.

Stiggins RJ (2008) Assessment Manifesto: A Call for the Development of Balanced Assessment Systems. Portland, OR: ETS Assessment Training Institute.

81.

Stiggins R (1991) Assessment literacy. Phi Delta Kappan 72(7): 534–539.

82.

Swaffield S (2009) The misrepresentation of Assessment for Learning – and the woeful waste of a wonderful opportunity. Paper presented at the Conference of the Association for Achievement and Improvement through Assessment, Bournemouth, UK.

83.

Timperley H, Wilson A, Barrar H and Fung I (2007) Teacher Professional Learning and Development: Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration, pp. 291. Available at: http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/16901/TPLandDBESentire.pdf (accessed).

84.

Townsend D, Adams P and White R (2010) Alberta Initiative for School Improvement: Successful Assessment for Learning Projects from AISI Cycle 3. Lethbridge, AB: University of Lethbridge.

85.

Volansky A (2007) The Israeli education system. Available at: http://stwww.weizmann.ac.il/st_seminar8/Volansky%20-%20The%20Israeli%20Education%20System%20(English%2022007). pdf (accessed).

86.

Volante L and Earl L (2013) Standards, accountability, and student assessment systems: An international overview. Education Canada, 53(4): Available at: http://www.cea-ace.ca/education-canada/article/standards-accountability-and-student-assessment-systems (accessed).

87.

Wendelborg C, Røe M and Skaalvik E (2011) Elevundersøkelsen 2011: Analyse av Elevundersøkelsen 2011,: Mangfold og inkludering. [Student Survey 2011: Analysis of the Student Survey 2011: Diversity and inclusion]. Trondheim, Norway: NTNU Samfunnsforsking AS.

88.

Wiggins G and McTighe J (1999) Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

89.

Wiggins G (1993) Assessing student performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

90.

Wolf D, Bixby J, Glenn J and Gardner H (1991) To use their minds well: Investigating new forms of student assessment. Review of Research in Education 17: 31–74.

91.

Wyatt-Smith

Klenowski

(2014, in press) Standards, judgement and moderation: Communities of practice. In: Wyatt-Smith

Klenowski

Colbert

(eds) Designing Assessment for Quality, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer International.

92.

Wylie

Hodgen

(2010) NZCER 2010 primary and intermediate schools national survey: A snapshot of overall patterns and findings related to national standards, Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

International trends in the implementation of assessment for learning: Implications for policy and practice

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

International profiles

Australia

Genesis of assessment for learning

Evolution and impact of AfL on school systems

Current trends in policy directions for AfL within Australia

Canada

Republic of Ireland

AFL in practice and policy

Current developments

Israel

Genesis of AfL

Evolution and impact of AfL on school systems

Current trends in policy direction for AfL

New Zealand

A brief history of assessment for learning

Recent threats

Norway

United States

Conclusions

Footnotes

Funding

Note

References