Assessment for learning

According to OECD (2013), there is increased policy attention to formative assessment (assessment for learning) while summative assessment (assessment of learning) and reporting remain important at key stages of education. Also, Psifidou (2014, pp. 144-145) points to a stronger emphasis on ‘formative assessment in the context of learner-centred approaches and active learning’ (e.g.

in the Netherlands, Romania, Slovenia, and the UK-Scotland) and the use of assessment as a tool to inform and enhance students’ learning is expected to be even more strongly emphasised in the future (European Commission, 2020a).

(³⁵) FINEEC (2021). Piloting the evaluation system in the vocational qualifications in logistics and social and health care and the further vocational qualification in the transport sector.

(³⁶) Last versions of the amendment of the law of vocational training in 2017 and in 2019 included provisions to bring the VET system closer to the needs of the State's economic development. One of these provisions related to the introduction of the quality assurance system of VET providers; these were obliged to implement internal quality assurance systems in order to conduct an annual self-assessment and publish the results of the assessment. An external institutional review must be carried out every 5 years.

(³⁷) Cedefop; ReferNet Lithuania (2020). Lithuania: setting up a system for external assessment of VET providers in formal IVET and CVET.

Moreover, the 2021 position paper of the Lifelong Learning Platform states that in

‘the European landscape, the most prominent forms of assessment tend to be summative, formative and to a lesser extent diagnostic assessments’ (Lifelong Learning Platform, 2021, p. 12) (³⁸).

Increasing emphasis on formative assessment in vocational education has been observed by Ecclestone et al. (2010) for the UK for the period 1980-2010, while other authors (Carter and Bathmaker, 2017, p. 462) trace this trend back to the 1960s. During the past 25 years, formative assessment also gained increasing prominence in other countries, such as Finland (Räisänen and Räkköläinen, 2014) and Norway (Tveit, 2014). In Finnish VET, strong emphasis on the formative assessment approach can be observed during the period studied (starting in 1995) and there is a traditional focus on combining formative and summative assessment of VET (Stenström and Laine, 2006a). In Malta and Croatia, relatively recent reform processes for strengthening formative assessment can be identified; these examples are presented in the following boxes.

Box 3. My journey: achieving through different paths: example from Malta

In Malta, the secondary school reform My journey: achieving through different paths was introduced in the school year 2019/20 to move from a one size fits all system to a more inclusive and comprehensive equitable quality system (Ministry of Education and Employment of Malta (MEDE), 2016, p. 12).

It provides students at lower secondary level with the opportunity to select options/subjects (general/academic, vocational and applied) alongside their compulsory lessons. Nine vocational subjects are offered, leading to MQF/EQF Level 3, and are designed to support the educational engagement of learners who struggle with more academic subjects and are at risk of dropping out of school.

This is further strengthened by the focus on formative assessment: ‘The progress of learners in the vocational subjects is not assessed through formal examinations but through ongoing assessment by the subject teacher, verified internally by a second subject teacher, and evaluated by an external verifier from the national assessment board’. Thus, the focus should no longer be on high-stakes, standardised and summative examination but different modes of assessment should be used with a balanced approach towards assessment of, for and as learning (Ministry of Education and Employment of Malta (MEDE), 2016, p. 12).

Source: Ministry of Education and Employment of Malta (MEDE) (2016).

(³⁸) Strengthening of the latter can, for example be observed in France, as since 2019, some VET levels require students to undergo a positioning test in French and mathematics at the beginning of the year to tailor the support needed by students.

Box 4. Assessment guidelines strengthening formative assessment in VET:

example from Croatia

In Croatia, the Guidelines for the evaluation of learning processes and achievement of outcomes in primary and secondary education, including VET were published in 2020 as one of the results of the ESF-funded project Support for the implementation of comprehensive curricular reform. The document defines important terms and describes different approaches to the assessment of students’ learning processes and the achievement of learning outcomes. The guidelines advocate for complementarity and balanced use of evaluation of what has been learned with approaches aimed at systematic monitoring and assessing the learning achievements. They focus on encouraging and providing insight into learning, identifying strengths and weaknesses in learning, and planning for future learning and teaching. These approaches do not lead to the assignment of student grades but focus on providing feedback and sharing experiences about learning processes and the acquisition of knowledge and skills related to the predefined educational outcomes set out in the curricula (Croatia. Ministry of Science and Education, 2020a).

The guidelines clearly describe three different approaches to assessment:

(a) assessment for learning;

(b) assessment as learning;

(c) assessment of learning/acquired knowledge.

The first two approaches are used for improving learning and teaching methods.

Assessment of acquired knowledge is used to assess and report on achievements and progress at the end of a specific training period (e.g. completed teaching topic; teaching unit; study semester; study year) in relation to the learning outcomes set out in the curricula.

Source: Pavkov (2022).

While formative assessment is emphasised in many recent policy documents, it is not always clear to what extent this is put into practice. A publication of the Educational Council from the Netherlands (Netherlands. Onderwijsraad, 2018), for example, points to an imbalance between formative and summative assessment, as current practice insufficiently allows formative assessment (Broek, 2022). In the Austrian school-based VET system it has also been observed that summative assessment is still the dominant form while more formative performance diagnoses seem to be in the minority (Lachmayr and Proinger, 2020, p. 33). An increase in formative assessment was triggered, however, by the introduction of the compulsory work practice for all school-based IVET types. With this development, the assessment of work practice was also made compulsory: it is assessed through portfolios, which are otherwise used only sporadically (Lachmayr and Proinger, 2020, p. 30). The new quality management system (QMS), introduced in 2021 and to be rolled out completely by 2024 for all Austrian schools (general education and VET), also more strongly emphasises formative forms of assessment. The QMS, contrary to the former quality system for VET, now includes more elaborate details

for (formative and summative) assessment, which are described in Box 5. It remains to be seen how these principles will translate into teaching and assessment practice.

Box 5. Quality guidelines for assessment in Austrian schools

The quality management system (QMS) for Austrian schools lays down the following principles regarding determining and assessing performance: performance

assessment and criteria for performance assessment are known, comprehensible and correspond to the legal basis.

Teachers:

• agree on criteria for assessment of performance based on the curricula and the Leistungsbeurteilungsverordnung (assessment regulation);

• use various methods of learning-accompanying performance assessment and thus record the acquisition of competences and the learning progress of the learners;

• regularly communicate the expected performance and the criteria for performance assessment to learners and legal guardians, thus ensuring transparency;

• use the assessment criteria as a basis for a transparent and competence-oriented assessment of learners' performance;

• continuously document the level of performance and learning progress of the learners and thus enable systematic, individual learning development advice in cooperation with the learners;

• regularly inform the learners and their legal guardians and – in case of vocational schools for apprentices – also authorised trainers about the level of performance and the learning progress and thus ensure transparency;

• justify their performance assessments to the learners and legal guardians;

• use the results of the internal performance assessment and external performance measurements as an opportunity to review and further develop the teaching design.

School administrations:

• ensure suitable framework conditions and structures so that the teachers can agree on criteria for the performance assessment based on the curricula and the assessment regulation;

• ask teachers based on the results of the internal performance assessment and external performance measurements to review and further develop their teaching design;

• demand transparent and comprehensible performance assessment from the teachers;

• support inquiries from legal guardians regarding the performance assessment and help to clarify;

• clearly communicate performance expectations and continuous feedback on the learning process, essential for a beneficial learning culture.

Source: QMS (2022); own translation.