Editorial

In the special issue on ‘Educational Assessment in Latin America’ the guest editors, Swaffield and Thomas (2016), comment upon Chile as the first country in Latin America to introduce national testing, which eventually led to the establishment of ‘Sistema de Medición de la Calidad de la Educación’, or SIMCE (Gysling, 2015).

Our introductory article in this regular issue, written by Helman, Delbridge, Parker, Arnal and Mödinger (2016) Measuring Spanish orthographic development in private, public and subsidised schools in Chile, describes the current testing situation in Chile, where pupils are evaluated and tested in years two, four, six and eight, by sitting the standardised national assessment, SIMCE.

Pupils are tested in different subjects depending upon their year, but all students are tested in reading comprehension. Helman, Delbridge, Parker, Arnal, and Mödinger (2016) designed a study investigating the reliability of a tool for assessing orthographic development in Spanish, and they further investigated differences in pupils’ performances across different school types in Chile.

With reference to the achievement gaps between low and high SES groups in Chile the authors focus on what they call ‘a significant and persistent problem’ in the education system, where the average scores in low SES schools are ‘dangerously close to the inadequate range’. In their article, they report on a study involving 340 students from grades one to five, from (a) public, (b) subsidised and (c) private schools. Pupils were given a spelling test of 25 dictated words, and the test results were scored and analysed according to protocols. The authors present results demonstrating variation in individual pupils’ access to education, which they claim is unequal and problematic. Using both quantitative results and six case studies of pupils, the authors show how disparities in progress between students at under-resourced and well-resourced school types in Chile continue to be a challenge. If equal opportunity for all is the goal, there is a need to investigate further how the current school system prevents some children from reaching their full potential.

The next three articles in this issue focus on formative assessment from different theoretical and empirical perspectives. Hopfenbeck and Stobart (2015) addressed the challenges of implementing assessment for learning (AfL) on a large scale, based upon work involving empirical studies in eight different countries. It documented that such challenges are related to several factors which hinder better learning for students: teacher resistance to peer- and self-assessment practices; changes in teacher and student roles; a lack of commitment from senior staff; shortcomings in teachers’ disciplinary knowledge and assessment skills; superficial understanding of AfL; a lack of understanding in how to put AfL into practice in a busy classroom (Hopfenbeck, Tolo, Florez, & El Masri, 2013). It is further well documented that high-stakes testing systems put pressure on teachers to cover what is expected to come up in tests (Box, Skoog, & Dabbs, 2015), while a recent review of the implementation of AfL stressed the importance of ‘a school-wide culture that facilitates collaboration and encourages teacher autonomy’ to enhance successful implementation (Heitink, Van der Kleij, Veldkamp, & Schildkamp, 2016). The three articles on AfL and formative assessment in this issue further explore some of these challenges.

In their article, Implementing curriculum-embedded formative assessment in primary school science classrooms, Hondrich, Hertel, Adl-Amini, and Klieme (2016) report on a study in Germany where primary teachers implemented formative assessment practices in science classes. They focus on implementation fidelity, which refers to ‘the extent to which teachers’ enacted classroom practice reflects an intended treatment’. This is an important aspect, as many studies of implementation of AfL practices are built on teachers’ self-reports, and do not include process data from the classroom (Hopfenbeck, Tolo, & Florez, 2015). In the present study, a total of 28 primary teachers from 18 schools with N = 519 pupils participated, of which 17 teachers participated with 319 students using formative assessment conditions, and 11 teachers participated with 200 students in the control condition. All teachers participated in five professional development workshops, designed to give participants time and opportunity to discuss and share ideas, much in line with other successful intervention programmes (Wiliam, Lee, Harrison, & Black, 2004). The findings suggest that teachers are able to implement formative assessment practices when supported with developed materials specific to the topic covered in the workshops, but struggle when trying to transfer that knowledge to a different topic. The researchers suggest that teachers either need a large database of suitable material for use in classroom, or time and support to develop their own material. As found in previous research, the study shows that teachers’ lack of knowledge on how to put AfL into practice is hindering new learning.

In their article Assessment for Learning in Norway and Portugal: the case of primary school mathematics teaching, Nortvedt, Santos and Pinto (2016) analyse policy documents and research reports in Norway and Portugal to understand the driving forces of AfL in primary schools. In both countries, AfL is national policy but the countries differ when it comes to national testing. Norway has no testing in mathematics in years one to four, and therefore primary teachers have much autonomy. In Portugal, on the other hand, teachers have less autonomy as they are pressured under the national examination from early years. Nortvedt et al. discuss the similarities and differences between Norway and Portugal, emphasising the importance of being more subject specific when implementing AfL (in this case, in mathematics) as well as recognising how a country’s assessment culture will influence the degree of implementation of AfL practices.

The third article on formative assessment takes a philosophical approach to AfL. Ruth Dann (2016) explores the notion of pupil feedback and the possible ways in which it can be understood and developed using Jürgen Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Action. Dann reminds us of research showing that the way in which feedback is understood and interpreted by pupils is not always as teachers believe it to be. Using Habermas’ theory she draws attention to the power dynamic between teachers and pupils and to what extent pupils are able to participate in the feedback dialogues needed to enhance learning. With reference to Dweck (2012) and Carr and Claxton (2002), she also stresses that certain pupils might benefit from more specific communication with their teachers in order to become active learners and understand their own agency.

This regular issue ends with a book review by Borsboom of Newton and Shaw’s Validity in Educational and Psychological Assessment. Borsboom, in his review entitled Zen and the art of validity theory, recommends the book, but points out it is a history of ideas rather than people. He argues it would have been helpful with more example applications of the arguments and that the book does not comment upon the kind of field that validity theory is. For such a practical field as assessment, the striking thing is that many of these criticisms could be levelled at whole areas of assessment research as the protagonists and their motives are rarely foregrounded in research. Borsboom was one of the contributors to the Special Issue on Validity (Borsboom & Wijsen, 2016), guest edited by Newton and Baird (2016).

Editorial board

We are pleased to welcome back Professor Pauline Rea-Dickins as Executive Editor. She has returned to England after serving as Director of the Aga Khan University Institute for Educational Development in Tanzania, and is currently working at Oxford University Centre for Educational Assessment on the project Assessment for Learning in Africa. Professor Rea-Dickins brings a wealth of experience in the area of language testing.

Therese N. Hopfenbeck