The objective of this study is to develop knowledge on teachers’ perceptions of assessment in practical-aesthetic subjects (PAS) in light of the transition to outcomes-based education, with particular focus on teachers’ values, motives and interests for these subjects.

Internationally, the discourse of assessment has developed a strong focus on performance measurement and accountability, with emphasis on teachers’ assessment practices as a major factor for students’ learning (Stobart, 2008). In this climate, the PAS, which are traditionally perceived as having lower status than theoretical subjects (Goodson, Mangan, & Anstead, 1998; Hardman, 2008; Stables & Wikeley, 1997), seem particularly vulnerable. Although these subjects are not unique in having a combination of the inherent types of knowledge displayed in craftsmanship and the metacognitive knowledge entailed in verbalized reflection, they do hold particular challenges. These are related to the complexity of many of the activities that are to be assessed (Sadler, 1989), exacerbated by frame factors such as the need for dealing with specific practical materials and equipment for the subjects. In addition, lists of criteria cannot ultimately enable accuracy or fairness for assessment of creative and aesthetic activities or products which are often nonverbal and not predictable a priori (Costantino & Bresler, 2010). To assess competence in PAS, one might therefore be more dependent on teachers’ personal discernment than on objective tests (Prøitz & Borgen, 2010).

As an example of a country where the emerging impact of outcomes-based education is well-documented, the case of PAS in Norway reveals some interesting tendencies. In Norway, the PAS are not regulated by public examination, and they are among the non-core subjects receiving highest grades in lower secondary schools (Opheim, Grøgaard, Næss, & STEP, 2010; Prøitz & Borgen, 2010), yet there are more complaints on the final grade in these subjects than in any others (M&R, 2014). The number of complaints that are upheld, resulting in a higher grade, is significant (ibid.). There might be several reasons for this tendency. Teachers’ choices of activities may be influenced by the suitability of the activity for giving a reliable assessment, and thus creative tasks of a more open-ended nature are avoided, again reflecting the difficulties of formulating and assessing such goals (Vinge, 2014). In addition, the fact that teachers grade less stringently in PAS than in other subjects may reflect perceived low status (Prøitz, 2013) or lack of skills.

Various studies evidence complex challenges for PAS in Norway (Bamford, 2012; Espeland, Allern, Carlsen, & Kalsnes, 2011; Holthe, Hallås, Styve, & Vindenes, 2013; Prøitz, 2013; Prøitz & Borgen, 2010), and two recent studies have focused on assessment in a specific subject at lower secondary level (Lutnæs, 2011; Vinge, 2014). But there is a need for research on assessment practices in these subjects as a group, particularly when facing recent reports on grading and complaints. The research question guiding this study is therefore: How do teachers perceive the allocation of high grades in PAS and the high incidence of upheld complaints on grades in these subjects?

Bamford, A. (2012). Arts and Cultural Education in Norway 2010/2011. http://www.kunstkultursenteret.no/sites/k/kunstkultursenteret.no/files/1f0ba571783fe8dc31a13ac76d5f196a.pdf Bazeley, P., & Kemp, L. (2012). Mosaics, Triangles, and DNA: Metaphors for Integrated Analysis in Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(1), 55-72. doi: 10.1177/1558689811419514 Costantino, T., & Bresler, L. (2010). Assessment in Schools - Creative Subjects. P. Peterson, E. Baker & B. McGaw (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (3rd ed., pp. 262-267). Amsterdam: Academic Press. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Los Angeles: Sage. Espeland, M., Allern, T.-H., Carlsen, K., & Kalsnes, S. (2011). Praktiske og estetiske fag og lærerutdanning: En utredning. http://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/152128/Rapport.pdf?sequence=1 Goodson, I. F., Mangan, J. M., & Anstead, C. J. (1998). Subject knowledge: readings for the study of school subjects. London: Falmer Press. Hardman, K. (2008). Physical Education in Schools: A Global Perspective. Kinesiology, 40(1), 5-28. Holthe, A., Hallås, O., Styve, E. T., & Vindenes, N. (2013). Rammefaktorenes betydning for opplæringen i de praktisk-estetiske fagene. Acta Didactica Norge, 7(1). Libarkin, J. C., Anderson, S. W., Dahl, J., Beilfuss, M., Boone, W., & Kurdziel, J. (2005). Qualitative analysis of college students’ ideas about the Earth: Interviews and open-ended questionnaires. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(1), 17-26. Lutnæs, E. (2011). Standpunktvurdering i grunnskolefaget Kunst og håndverk. (PhD), Arkitektur- og designhøgskolen i Oslo, Oslo. M&R, C. G. (2014). Om statistikk for 2013, fastsetting og klage på standpunktkarakter. Opheim, V., Grøgaard, J. B., Næss, T., & STEP, N. (2010). De gamle er eldst: betydning av skoleressurser, undervisningsformer og læringsmiljø for elevenes prestasjoner: NIFU STEP. Prøitz, T. S. (2013). Variations in grading practice - subjects matter. Education Inquiry, 4(3), 555-575. Prøitz, T. S., & Borgen, J. S. (2010). Rettferdig standpunktvurdering - det (u)muliges kunst?: læreres setting av standpunktkarakter i fem fag i grunnopplæringen. Oslo: NIFU STEP. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119-144. Stables, A., & Wikeley, F. (1997). Changes in preference for and perceptions of relative importance of subjects during a period of educational reform. Educational Studies, 23(3), 393-403. Stobart, G. (2008). Testing times: the uses and abuses of assessment. London: Routledge. Vinge, J. (2014). Vurdering i musikkfag: en deskriptiv, analytisk studie av musikklæreres vurderingspraksis i ungdomsskolen (PhD). Oslo: Norges musikkhøgskole.