Conference Program

As an object of study, the teacher’s profession is often examined in its implicit (beliefs and attitudes) and explicit (practical) aspects. Many implicit are ascribable to forms of non-cognitive knowledge (van Manen, 1999) that emerge from specific areas of ordinary class life whose tacit is made explicit to make it available for reflection and professional transmission. Anglo-Saxon didactic research of a cognitive background has long been investigating the predictive role played by these constructs on teaching and assessment methods in the classroom (Calderhead & Robson, 1991). The connection between teachers' beliefs and teaching practices is also supported by theories related to the constructivist approach (Richardson, 2002). The implicit also include attitude (Sharma et al., 2017; Aiello et al., 2016; Saloviita & Schaffus, 2016; Sharma & Sokal, 2015; Forlin et al., 2014; Canevaro et al., 2011; Ianes et al., 2010) intended as a conditioning element the intention to act and determine the practices of teachers, from the perspective of theoretical frameworks such as the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991) or Theory 3-H (Florian & Rouse, 2009; Shulman, 2004).

This contribution aims to present a multiple case study on three omnicomprehensive schools where teachers' beliefs and practices on formative assessment, engagement, and student learning during emergency remote teaching (activated during the COVID-19 pandemic) have been studied. Starting from the empirical study of these three cases, the role of implicit and explicit in the teaching profession will be deepened, drawing on some data collected through semi-structured interviews with principals, questionnaires administered to teachers and focus groups carried out with some privileged witnesses (principal, Internal Evaluation Unit and two teachers for each school order). The results of the research made it possible to suggest to the schools studied some reflections on the activation of training courses and other general reflections were formulated to be presented to researchers and policy makers.

In general, to design and implement effective teacher training the literature suggests that research should address not only the explicit but also the implicit; if not properly considered, there is a risk of replicating traditional models of professional development that do not affect teaching practice. Changes in teachers caused by emergencies, such as the pandemic, are not enough to achieve lasting change. It is necessary to develop pathways consistent with the implicit and explicit educational needs and beliefs of teachers, extended over an appropriate time, inserted in a community of practice in which to give and receive feedback from colleagues and experts and where to start from the concrete experiences in the classroom and see the impact on the practice. As research evidence shows, only in this way are teachers willing to embark on an effective and long-term path of change and thus be ready to face other possible emergencies.

The competency-based teaching curricular approach currently implemented at all educational levels encourages breaking paradigms, allowing the introduction of new proposals that support meaningful learning by students, developing self-awareness of learning and, at the same time, fostering the competency of life-long learning.

In this paper, we focus on exploring assessment practices and their alignment with curricular teaching approaches to identify whether they facilitate the development of life-long learning competency. Assessment practices constitute a compelling context of activity to facilitate the acquisition of this competence.

The participants of this study were four secondary school teachers with adolescent pupils between 12-15 years old in Mexico. We invited them to implement a strategy called Synchronous Self-Assessment (SSA) (Remesal, 2021). This strategy highlights the students' voice in the assessment process, giving them greater weight in the balance of power traditionally established between teacher and students. The SSA is implemented in exam situations and consists of asking the students to make two critical decisions regarding the assessment of their learning. First, students decide on which activities (from a set offered) to solve to demonstrate what they learned. Secondly, they choose from various options for the weighted grading of the solved activities (Remesal & Estrada, 2023).

The teaching experience of the participants ranges from 33 years to only one year; they are three women and one man. In all cases, it was the first occasion of implementing the SSA, both for teachers and students. Each of the four teachers had the opportunity to implement the SSA strategy in a class group of students to contrast the experience with their usual practices in another group. In this paper, we want to focus on the quality of assessment practices in both situations, observing their quality according to how they align with the teaching approach focused on developing competencies.

The participating teachers were interviewed before and after the assessment situations. They offered us examples of their usual assessment activities and assessment program designs to identify in detail the assessment practices they usually carry out in an exam situation versus the implementation of this novel strategy. We analyzed all these data from the perspective of the multidimensional assessment model (MAM) (Coll, et al. 2012) and also contrasted with a previous study at the higher education level (Estrada, 2021; Remesal & Estrada, 2023). The study has allowed us to identify gaps in assessment literacy and, consequently, training needs for teachers in relation to this model of assessment practice. Thus, SSA becomes a trigger for teacher training to improve assessment practices towards a more competency-based and inclusive paradigm.

If one follows the current educational, social and political discourse, the discussion about 'participation' appears to be particularly en vogue. In the German school system, it is mainly the primary school that has claimed, since its establishment, to enable all children to participate. Nevertheless, peculiarly Special Needs Assessment Procedures (SNAPs) present barriers to this claim, since they culminate in decisions about “special educational treatment" (Rohrmann 2013, 113), often combined with placement in separate special schools. Not only currently in the context of school inclusion, but already in the 1970s in connection with school system reform efforts this form of assessment has been criticized in Germany regarding equal participation in school (cf. Deutscher Bildungsrat 1973; Kottmann 2006; Katzenbach 2015). However, there was and is a lack of certainty as to how reliable pedagogical decisions were made in SNAPs (cf. ibid.). The research project to be presented contributes to addressing this desideratum from an historical perspective. Funded by the German Research Foundation it examines the SNAP at the transition between primary and special school in the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) between 1958 and 1977. Based on the analysis of professional reports written about primary school students, who underwent the SNAP, the project reconstructs and contextualizes the consistency – and, derived from this, the reliability – of school placement decisions resulting from the SNAP. Particular attention is paid to potentially occurring decision inconsistencies, which are project-specifically understood as a 'border zone' between primary school eligibility and the need for special education. With the concept of the 'border zone', the project is orientated in its theoretical setting towards Link’s (1997) and Treptow’s (2009) ideas. Its research methodology and method rely on Wittgenstein’s (1958) family resemblance (1958) and the historical-contextualizing content analysis combined with a qualitative form of typification (cf. Gerhardt 1986; Vogt 2015).

As central findings, which are interpreted from a social constructivist perspective (cf. Berger & Luckmann 2004), the project reveals the existence of a 'border zone' in the FRG during the period under investigation, but only manifesting itself in individual exceptional cases. For the most part, however, the study shows consistent and correspondingly reliable school placement decisions. These can be traced back to a special unchanged mode of the SNAP, which primarily serves to maintain institutional differentiation between regular and special schools in the interests of educational policy (cf. e.g. KMK 1960). With these findings, the study also reveals a historically traditional assessment and selection practice, which still shapes the school experiences of many children today and which urgently requires critical reflection not only for the past, but above all for the present, with regards to inclusion and participation as well as equity (cf. e.g. Garz 2022; Kottmann 2006).

Our presentation takes a closer look at the key findings of the historical project they are derived from as well as its theoretical and methodological foundation, in addition to a brief introductory discussion of participation, especially in and around schools.

A growing number of studies highlight the potential of formative assessment for improving student achievement and increasing students' self-regulated learning. New technologies offer the possibility to enhance the scope and effective employment of formative assessment practices in schools. However, little is known about what interventions effectively increase whole-schools' systematic and purposeful adoption of digital formative assessment (DFA) practices. The Assess@Learning (A@L) trial evaluates a newly developed online toolkit aimed at increasing lower secondary education schools' readiness to implement digital formative assessment. The toolkit is made available to a sample of school heads, teachers and students across five European Union Member States (Estonia, Finland, Greece, Portugal and Spain). A sample of 208 schools have been sampled and recruited across the five countries and randomly assigned to either the treatment or the control group. Participants in the treatment group are invited to use the toolkit between December 2021 and April 2022. The trial evaluates the effects of the intervention on a set of short-term primary outcomes collected on teachers and related to their awareness, attitudes and knowledge about DFA. Secondary outcomes analyzed include school heads’ awareness, attitudes and intention to support DFA practices; teachers’ actual use of DFA; students’ attitudes toward DFA, learning experience, motivation and self-perceived performance. Outcome data are collected through online surveys administered at baseline and at follow-up (May – June 2022).

The trial has been pre-registered in the AEA-RCT registry: Azzolini, Davide et al. 2022. "Assess@Learning." AEA RCT Registry. April 28. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.9314

Assessment represents, since ever, a leading force in education. At the cornerstone of national educational policies, (the use of) assessment for instructional guidance offers one of the most powerful ways to improve schooling. Indeed, the emphasis on assessment to raise the academic proficiencies of students is among the hottest topics in educational research, policy, and practice. In the context of today’s demand for school systems that are globally innovative (especially after the Covid-19 pandemic), the attempts to improve school quality and student learning nationwide have led school personnel (first of all, teachers and school principals) to face with different assessment practices, data, and methods. Teachers, in this perspective, are expected to differentiate their strategies and instruments to assess students’ learning and to embed classroom assessment practice with teaching and learning activities (Moon et al., 2020). However, despite substantial research on how to use assessment results and processes to support and foster student learning, teachers seem to not effectively use assessment results and feedback as teaching resources and instruments (Black & Wiliam, 2010). At the same time, research on classroom assessment practices (especially grading practices) have pointed that teachers introduce implicit biases about non-cognitive factors (effort, participation, behaviour) into their evaluation of student work, constantly confronting students with hegemonic expectations on behaviour and achievement (Breidenstein & Thompson, 2014).

Encompassing the theoretical and practical plans of educational research, educational policy, and teacher education, the present chapter proposal discusses assessment as a social practice constructing differences of academic achievement within classroom contexts (“doing difference”; Machold & Wienand, 2021), this way framing social orders.

We intend to scrutiny, within a complexity theory framework, under what conditions, why, and how classroom assessment and equity interact. More specifically, we examine the influence of educational aims and learning contexts (e.g., classroom environment, sociocultural differences, student ability and achievement, subject matter, grade level) on teacher assessment and inclusion practices (McMillan, 2017).

Current policy efforts offer an ideal opportunity to critically review if, and to what extent, assessment practice have been (or not) consistent with equity. Furthermore, investigate how assessment and equity interact, and the consequences of that interaction for school, classroom context, and, ultimately, for student learning outcomes is fundamental to develop differential and inclusive assessment practices.