Advertisement

European Educational Systems and Assessment Practice

  • Robert Evans
  • David Cross
  • Michel Grangeat
  • Laurent Lima
  • Nadia Nakhili
  • Elie Rached
  • Mathias Ropohl
  • Silke Rönnebeck
Chapter
Part of the Contributions from Science Education Research book series (CFSE, volume 4)

Abstract

This chapter surveys the status of educational systems and assessment practices across eight European countries that are part of the ASSIST-ME project. First, variations in the country’s educational systems are examined to identify possible connections between systems and educational practices. Such associations are useful both for understanding different existing assessment conditions as well as for providing possible pathways for change. Next, the chapter takes a closer look at teacher practices in these educational systems in order to identify the actual assessment practices of teachers in each country. With these understandings of the systems and current uses of assessment, it is possible to identify affordances and challenges for improving assessment practices.

References

  1. Bernholt, S., Rönnebeck, S., Ropohl, M., Köller, O., & Parchmann, I. (2013). Report on current state of the art in formative and summative assessment in IBE in STM - Part I. (ASSIST-ME Report Series No. 1). Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  2. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74.Google Scholar
  3. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Black, P., Harrison, C., Hodgen, J., Marshall, B., & Serret, N. (2010). Validity in teachers’ summative assessments. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17(2), 215–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Black, P., Harrison, C., Hodgen, J., Marshall, B., & Serret, N. (2011). Can teachers’ summative assessments produce dependable results and also enhance classroom learning? Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(4), 451–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Christensen, T. S. (2004): Integreret Evaluering – En undersøgelse af den fagligt evaluerende lærer-elevsamtale som evalueringsredskab i Gymnasial Undervisning. PhD Dissertation, University of Southern Denmark. Retrieved from http://static.sdu.dk/mediafiles/Files/Om_SDU/Fakulteterne/Humaniora/Phd/afhandlinger/2005/Afhandlinger%2042_spanget%20pdf.pdf
  7. Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102(2), 294–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Creemers, B. P., & Kyriakides, L. (2006). Critical analysis of the current approaches to modelling educational effectiveness: The importance of establishing a dynamic model. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(3), 347–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cross, D., & Lepareur, C. (2015). PCK at stake in teacher–student interaction in relation to students’ difficulties. In Understanding science teachers’ professional knowledge growth (pp. 47–61). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dolin, J. (2002). Fysikfaget i forandring – læring og undervisning i fysik i gymnasiet med fokus på dialogiske processer, autenticitet og kompetenceudvikling. PhD Dissertation, Roskilde University. Retrieved from http://rudar.ruc.dk/handle/1800/1645
  11. Grangeat, M., & Hudson, B. (2015). 12. A new model for understanding the growth of science teacher professional knowledge. Understanding Science Teachers’ Professional Knowledge Growth, 205.Google Scholar
  12. Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2014). Institutional structures of the education system and student achievement: A review of Cross-country economic research. In Educational Policy Evaluation through International Comparative Assessments (pp. 145–175). New York: Waxmann Verlag.Google Scholar
  13. Harrison, C. (2013). Collaborative action research as a tool for generating formative feedback on teachers’ classroom assessment practice: The KREST project. Teachers and Teaching, 19(2), 202–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Issaieva, É., Pini, G., & Crahay, M. (2011). Positionnements des enseignants et des élèves du primaire face à l'évaluation: une convergence existe-t-elle? Revue française de pédagogie, 3, 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jundt, W., & Wälti, B. (2011). Mathematische Beurteilungsumgebungen; 7. Schuljahr. Zug: Klett und Schulverlag.Google Scholar
  16. Klieme, E., Bürgermeister, A., Harks, B., Blum, W., Leiß, D., & Rakoczy, K. (2010). Leistungsbeurteilung und Kompetenzmodellierung im Mathematikunterricht. Projekt Co2CA (pp. 64–74).Google Scholar
  17. Lepareur, C. (2016). L’évaluation dans les enseignements scientifiques fondés sur l’investigation: Effets de différentes modalités d’évaluation formative sur l’autorégulation des apprentissages. Thèse de doctorat. Université Grenoble Alpes. FranceGoogle Scholar
  18. Le Roux, B., & Rouanet, H. (2010). Multiple correspondence analysis (Vol. 163). Los Angeles: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lima, L., Cross, D., Nakhili, N., Grangeat, M., & Bressoux, P. (2013). Educational system factors influencing student assessment methods in science, technology and mathematics education (Delivrable 3.4). Report for the FP7 UE project Assess Inquiry in Science, Technology and Mathematics Education -ASSIST-ME. http://assistme.ku.dk/deliverables/wp3/Deliverable_3.4_-_Part_1.pdf
  20. Lima, L., Cross, D., Grangeat, M., & Nakhili, N. (2015, January). Évaluation Formative dans l’enseignement des sciences et mathématiques dans 8 pays européens: résultats de la première étape du projet ASSIST-ME. In Conditions enseignantes, conditions pour enseigner: réalités, enjeux, défis.Google Scholar
  21. Marshall, B., & Jane Drummond, M. (2006). How teachers engage with assessment for learning: Lessons from the classroom. Research Papers in Education, 21(02), 133–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. OECD. (2013). Education policy outlook. Germany: OECD. http://www.oecd.org/edu/EDUCATION%20POLICY%20OUTLOOK%20GERMANY_EN.pdf.
  23. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Santiago, P., & Source OECD. (2005). Teachers matter: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.Google Scholar
  24. Rakoczy, K., Harks, B., Klieme, E., Blum, W., & Hochweber, J. (2013). Written feedback in mathematics: Mediated by students' perception, moderated by goal orientation. Learning and Instruction, 27, 63–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rönnebeck, S., Bernholt, S., Ropohl, M., Köller, O., & Parchmann, I. (2013). National reports of partner countries reviewing research on formative and summative assessment in their countries, No. D 2.3. Kiel, Germany: IPN.Google Scholar
  26. Sach, E. (2012). Teachers and testing: An investigation into teachers’ perceptions of formative assessment. Educational Studies, 38(3), 261–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Smit, R. (2009). Die formative Beurteilung und ihr Nutzen für die Entwicklung von Lernkompetenz: eine empirische Studie in der Sekundarstufe I. Schneider-Verlag Hohengehren.Google Scholar
  28. Vögeli-Mantovani, U. (1999). Mehr fördern, weniger auslesen. Zur Entwicklung der schulischen Beurteilung in der Schweiz. Trendbericht SKBF, (3).Google Scholar
  29. Watkins, C., & Mortimore, P. (1999). Pedagogy: What do we know. Understanding pedagogy and its impact on learning, 1–19.Google Scholar
  30. Wiliam, D., Lee, C., Harrison, C., & Black, P. (2004). Teachers developing assessment for learning: Impact on student achievement. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 11(1), 49–65.Google Scholar
  31. Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Chapter 6: Teacher learning and the Acquisition of Professional Knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary Professional development. Review of Research in Education, 24(1), 173–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Winter, F. (2007). Fragen der Leistungsbewertung beim Lerntagebuch und Portfolio. Lernprozesse dokumentieren, reflektieren und beurteilen. Lerntagebuch und Portfolio in Bildungsforschung und Bildungspraxis (pp. 109–129).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Evans
    • 1
  • David Cross
    • 2
  • Michel Grangeat
    • 2
  • Laurent Lima
    • 2
  • Nadia Nakhili
    • 2
  • Elie Rached
    • 2
  • Mathias Ropohl
    • 3
  • Silke Rönnebeck
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Science EducationUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Educational ScienceUniversity of Grenoble AlpesGrenobleFrance
  3. 3.Leibniz-Institute for Science and Mathematics Education (IPN)KielGermany
  4. 4.Kiel UniversityKielGermany

Personalised recommendations