The complexities of change: formative assessment in Scotland

Abstract

Plans for curriculum or pedagogical innovation often lead to little change in practice. Many innovations successful in their early stages fail later, with little post‐innovation analysis to understand why. In Scotland, in 2001, the Scottish Executive Education Department initiated the Assessment is for Learning (AifL) programme. Recognising problems in previous national attempts to improve assessment in Scotland, AifL attempted to explore ways in which an integrated and coherent system of assessment might be developed, with learning and learners at its centre. Two evaluations of the first phase of AifL indicated that the programme was having some impact. Changes in teachers' assessment practices were perceived to have been taking place, but questions remained about why practices were changing and what implications there might be for AifL as it was scaled up. This article offers an interpretative commentary on a study that sought to explore in greater depth issues raised in the two earlier evaluative studies of the AifL programme. While there is widespread recognition that meaningful change is a complex process, the article interrogates ideas of complexity. Finally, the article uses understandings of complexity to challenge simplistic ideas of scaling up projects and concludes that learning how to live with complexity is a necessary feature of designing models for change in classrooms, in schools and in wider educational systems.

Balancing Trust and Accountability? The Assessment for Learning Programme in Norway

“…These concerns have been confirmed by other studies on the topic, which see testing as one of the main threats to the feasibility of the approach (Condie et al, 2005;Dori, 2003;Hayward and Spencer, 2010;Kirton et al, 2007;Gipps et al, 2005;Kellaghan, 2004). The pressures that such systems pose on schools motivate teaching to the test and a rhythm of work that is mostly centred on check-listing of test content.…”

“…This concern about a superficial understanding of the approach leading to a mechanical or equivocal use of AfL in practice is supported by other authors like Hayward and Spencer (2010), Tapan (2001), Webb andJones (2009), Ofsted (2008) and Azúa and Bick (2009). It is also found in the work of Harlen (2007), who describes how formative assessment can have both positive and negative impacts: On the one hand, formative assessment can have a positive impact on teaching and learning, on the other hand, a negative effect of formative assessment can be seen if teachers are following procedures mechanically without understanding the purpose of the assessment (ibid., p.20).…”

“…As discussed in Chapter 3, creating a culture of assessment is necessary to generate change throughout an entire school. School leaders are seen as a crucial figure in AfL initiatives (Hayward and Spencer, 2010;Willis, 2008;Gipps et al, 2005;Webb and Jones, 2009;Kellard et al, 2008, among others), and for them the challenge seems to be how to get all teachers involved, and how to build collaboration within the school. School 9 is an example of a school that was able to build such a whole-of-school approach.…”

“…There seems to be a research consensus regarding the positive effects of Assessment for Learning as perceived by participants (see for example Ofsted, 2008;DfES, 2007;Condie et al, 2005;Hayward and Spencer, 2010;Kirton et al, 2007;Webb and Jones, 2009;Kellard et al, 2008). However, although the programme has been researched, piloted and/or implemented in a wide variety of contexts (Australia, New Zealand, the US, Canada, Hong Kong, Chile, Singapore, Rwanda, Cameroon, The Netherlands, to mention just a few), a series of caveats and difficulties have been found in relation to the feasibility of the implementation of Assessment for Learning system-wide.…”

“…In contrast, the respondents from schools in Municipality C uniformly reported evidence of AfL practice, while again the picture is more mixed in Municipality D. One key variable is the length of time in the programme. Several authors see the implementation of AfL as a slow and complex process that requires time (see for example MacPhail and Halbert, 2010;Hayward and Spencer, 2010;Willis, 2008). While this might explain some of the responses from students, it does not tell the whole story: at the time the interviews were conducted, schools 3, 7, 8, and 9 had all been participating in the AfL programme for less than a year (see Table 1.1 for the length of time in the programme), and yet their responses vary substantially.…”