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

  • Gustaf B. Skar
  • Ragnar Thygesen
  • Lars Sigfred Evensen
Chapter

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 

References

  1. AERA, APA, & NCEM. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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.
  8. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148.Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Brookhart, S. M. (2013). How to create and use rubrics for formative assessment and grading. Alexandria: ASCD.Google Scholar
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. Cizek, G. J. (2012). Setting performance standards: Foundations, methods, and innovations (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Cuban, L. (2009). Hugging the middle: How teachers teach in an era of testing and accountability. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  15. 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.
  16. Diederich, P. B. (1974). Measuring growth in English. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
  17. Evensen, L. S. (2013). Applied linguistics. Towards a new integration? London: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar
  18. 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.
  19. Gardner, J. (2006). Assessment for learning: A compelling conceptualization. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp. 197–204). London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 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.
  22. Hopfenbeck, T., Tolo, A., Florez, T., & El Masri, Y. (2013). Balancing accountability and trust. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.Google Scholar
  23. 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.
  24. 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
  25. Katz, L. G. (2007). Standards of experience. Young Children, 62(3), 94–95. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42730032. Accessed 26 June 2016.
  26. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 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.
  29. McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 30–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mertz, E., & Parmentier, R. J. (Eds.). (1985). Semiotic mediation: Sociocultural and psychological perspectives. Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  31. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). New York: American Council on Education.Google Scholar
  32. 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.
  33. Purves, A. C. (1986). Rhetorical communities, the international student and basic writing. The Journal of Basic Writing, 5(1), 38–51.Google Scholar
  34. 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.
  35. 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.
  36. 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.
  37. 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
  38. 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.
  39. Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37, 3–14.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gustaf B. Skar
    • 1
  • Ragnar Thygesen
    • 2
  • Lars Sigfred Evensen
    • 3
  1. 1.Norwegian Centre for Writing Education and ResearchTrondheimNorway
  2. 2.Agder UniversityKristiansandNorway
  3. 3.NTNUTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations