Skip to main content

Assessment for Learning and Standards: A Norwegian Strategy and Its Challenges

Part of the Methodology of Educational Measurement and Assessment book series (MEMA)

Abstract

Assessment for learning in low-stakes contexts raises a series of problematic issues related to standards development. This chapter discusses several such issues on the basis of two interrelated data sets on writing as a key competency across the curriculum in Norway: How may standards communicate with teachers across the curriculum? How may standards fare in local learning environments over time? And most importantly: How can a shared rhetorical community among teachers develop over time and produce reliable assessment across local contexts? This chapter uses data sets that are based on a less than usual approach. In both data sets standards were developed in close collaboration with experienced primary-grade teachers, across the country. ICC analyses (time series as well as comparative analysis across contexts) demonstrate that a considerable increase in reliability develops over time, but simultaneously imply a number of remaining challenges and that further refinements will be needed in order to reach satisfactory levels.

Keywords

  • Assessment for learning
  • Standards development
  • Primary school writing across the curriculum
  • Sustainability

The approach taken in this chapter has been developed within a project group that also includes Kjell Lars Berge, Synnøve Matre, Hildegunn Otnes, Randi Solheim, as well as PhD candidates Sindre Dagsland, Trine Gedde-Dahl and Jannicke O. Bakke.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-50856-6_13
  • Chapter length: 17 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-319-50856-6
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 13.1

Notes

  1. 1.

    The domain Use of the written language is not presented or analysed further in this chapter.

References

  • AERA, APA, & NCEM. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachman, L. F. (2005). Building and supporting a case for test use. Language Assessment Quarterly: An International Journal, 2(1), 1–34. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15434311laq0201_1. Accessed 25 June 2016.

  • Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language assessment practice: Developing language assessments and justifying their use in the real world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baird, J.-A., Hopfenback, T. N., Newton, P. E., Stobart, G., & Steen-Utheim, A. T. (Eds.). (2014). Assessment and learning: State of the field review. Oslo: Knowledge Center for Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berge, K. L., Evensen, L. S., Thygesen, R. (2016a). The wheel of writing: a model of the writing domain for the teaching and assessing of writing as a key competency. The Curriculum Journal, 27(2), 172–189. http://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2015.1129980. Accessed 26 June 26 2016.

  • Berge, K. L., Skar, G. B., Matre, S., Solheim, R., Evensen, L. S., Ones, H., Thygesen, R. (2016b). Introducing new semiotic tools for writing instruction and writing assessment: Effects on students’ writing proficiency. Submitted.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. http://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102. Accessed 20 June 2016.

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broadfoot, P., Daugherty, R., Gardner, J., Harlen, W., James, M., & Stobart, G. (2002). Assessment for learning: 10 principles. Cambridge: University of Cambridge School of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brookhart, S. M. (2013). How to create and use rubrics for formative assessment and grading. Alexandria: ASCD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40–57. http://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.40. Accessed 20 June 2016.

  • Cicourel, A. V. (1996). Ecological validity and ‘white room effects’: The interaction of cognitive and cultural models in the pragmatic analysis of elicited narratives from children. Pragmatics & Cognition, 4(2), 221–264. http://doi.org/10.1075/pc.4.2.04cic. Accessed 20 June 2016.

  • Cizek, G. J. (2012). Setting performance standards: Foundations, methods, and innovations (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuban, L. (2009). Hugging the middle: How teachers teach in an era of testing and accountability. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeLuca, C., & Hughes, S. (2014). Assessment in early primary education: An empirical study of five school contexts. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 28(4), 441–460. http://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2014.944722. Accessed 25 June 2016.

  • Diederich, P. B. (1974). Measuring growth in English. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evensen, L. S. (2013). Applied linguistics. Towards a new integration? London: Equinox Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evensen, L. S., Berge, K. L., Thygesen, R., Matre, S., Solheim, R. (2016). Standards as a tool for teaching and assessing cross-curricular writing. The Curriculum Journal, 27(2), 229–245. http://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2015.1134338. Accessed 20 June 2016.

  • Gardner, J. (2006). Assessment for learning: A compelling conceptualization. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp. 197–204). London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorman, T. P., Purves, A. C., & Degenhart, R. E. (Eds.). (1988). The IEA study of written composition I. The international writing tasks and scorings scales. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. http://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487. Accessed 20 June 2016.

  • Hopfenbeck, T., Tolo, A., Florez, T., & El Masri, Y. (2013). Balancing accountability and trust. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kane, M. T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 1–73. http://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12000. Accessed 26 June 2016.

  • Kane, M. T. (2015). Validitet [Validity]. In G. Skar & M. Tengberg (Eds.), Bedömning i svenskämnet [Assessment in the School Subject Swedish] (pp. 212–237). Stockholm: Natur och kultur.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, L. G. (2007). Standards of experience. Young Children, 62(3), 94–95. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42730032. Accessed 26 June 2016.

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Matre, S., & Solheim, R. (2014). Lærarsamtalar om elevtekstar – mot eit felles fagspråk om skriving og vurdering [Teacher talk about student texts - towards a shared meta-language on writing and assessment]. In R. Hvistendahl & A. Roe (Eds.), Alle tiders norskdidaktiker [A mother tongue educator for all times] (pp. 219–244). Oslo: Novus forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matre, S., & Solheim, R. (2015). Writing education and assessment in Norway: towards shared understanding, shared language and shared responsibility. L1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 15, 1–33. http://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2015.15.01.05. Accessed 25 June 2016.

  • McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 30–46.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Mertz, E., & Parmentier, R. J. (Eds.). (1985). Semiotic mediation: Sociocultural and psychological perspectives. Orlando: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). New York: American Council on Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parr, J., & Brown, G. (2015). Learning about writing: A consideration of the recently revised baTTle: writing. Curriculum Matters, 11, 134–154. http://doi.org/10.18296/cm.0008. Accessed 20 June 2016.

  • Purves, A. C. (1986). Rhetorical communities, the international student and basic writing. The Journal of Basic Writing, 5(1), 38–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pyle, A., & DeLuca, C. (2013). Assessment in the kindergarten-classroom: An empirical study of teachers’ assessment approaches. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(5), 373–380. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-012-0573-2. Accessed 25 June 2016.

  • Scullen, S. E., Mount, M. K., Goff, M. (2000). Understanding the latent structure of job performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 956–970. http://doi.org/10.1037//00219010.85.6.956. Accessed 25 June 2016.

  • Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189. http://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795. Accessed 25 June 2016.

  • Skar, G. B., Evensen, L. S., Iversen, J. M. (2015). Læringsstøttende prøver i skriving 2014. Teknisk rapport [Formative Writing Assessment Package 2014. Technical Report]. Trondheim: Nasjonalt senter for skriveopplæring og skriveforsking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weigle, S. C. (1998). Using FACETS to model rater training effects. Language Testing, 15(2), 263–287. http://doi.org/10.1177/026553229801500205. Accessed 20 June 2016.

  • Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37, 3–14.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lars Sigfred Evensen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix

Appendix

Level Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Meaning Very low level of mastery within the domain Low level of mastery As to be expected from most students after 4 or 7 years of schooling High level of mastery Very high level of mastery within the domain
DESCRIPTOR for scale used at school year 4 The writer is expected to:
 Use some relevant principles of composition (temporal or thematic sequence, etc.)
 Use an introduction, a main part and an ending
 Create thematic cohesion within the various parts of the text
 Create textual cohesion by connectors (or, but, because, etc.)
DESCRIPTOR for scale used at school year7 The writer is expected to:
 Use a variety of ways of structuring the text
 Structure the text in a purposeful way (e.g., genre)
 Use paragraphs as an organising principle
 Create cohesion by a variety of connectors
  1. The assessment rubric for the domain ‘text organisation’ with descriptors for school years 4 and 7

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Skar, G.B., Thygesen, R., Evensen, L.S. (2017). Assessment for Learning and Standards: A Norwegian Strategy and Its Challenges. In: Blömeke, S., Gustafsson, JE. (eds) Standard Setting in Education. Methodology of Educational Measurement and Assessment. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50856-6_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50856-6_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-50855-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-50856-6

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)