Today, assessment for learning (AfL) is marketed as thekey to an improved goal attainment in any subject and an evidence based educational approach ‘that works’, all across Europe (see Wiliam & Leahy, 2015). However, the concept is ‘tight but loose’, which means that teachers are free to invent their own assessment techniques within the five key strategies, which are: 1. Clarifying and sharing learning intentions with the students, 2. Engineering effective classroom discussions, tasks and activities that elicit evidence of learning, 3. Providing feedback that moves the learner forward, 4. Activating students as learning resources for one another, 5. Activating students as owners of their own learning (Wiliam, 2011; Wiliam & Leahy, 2015).

Thus, AfL can be performed in various ways, which might lead to different consequences. Even though formative assessment is widely regarded as an effective tool in the promotion of student learning, the objective of this study is to scrutinize its possible implications.

The purpose of this study is to investigate how assessment for learning (AfL) is performed and what is produced in the formative assessment practice of physical education (PE).

More specifically, the research question focuses on what teachers, students and subject content that are constituted, depending on how AfL is performed in PE.

The assessment mission in PE is widely regarded as difficult. Penney et al. (2009) argue that assessment is either product-oriented, focusing on health effects, or de-contextualised, emphasizing isolated physical skills. A common problem is that PE teachers tend to take students’ behaviour and attitudes - such as attendance and willingness to exert themselves - into account, rather than their knowledge, abilities and learning in the subject (Svennberg et al., 2014). In the debate on assessment, AfL appears to be a solution to the problem (Penney et al., 2009; MacPhail & Halbert, 2010; Hay & Penney, 2012; López-Pastor et al., 2013; Ní Chróinín & Cosgrave, 2013).

According to Wiliam (2011) assessment for learning is supposed to be integrated into the teaching and learning process in order to adapt the teaching to the needs of the students. The first priority of AfL is to serve the purpose of promoting student learning (Black et al., 2002). It clearly differs from assessment designed primarily to serve the purposes of accountability, ranking or grading, even though formative assessment – perhaps even preferably – might be intertwined with the summative assessment process (Hay & Penney, 2012; Tolgfors & Öhman, 2015).

The three basic questions posed by AfL – Where is the learner going? Where is the learner right now? How does the learner get there? – metaphorically indicate that teachers are expected to direct students in line with the learning intentions (Wiliam, 2011; Wiliam & Leahy, 2015). AfL can thus be understood as a guiding tool. This motivates the choice of theoretical framework, which is a combination of a governmentality (Foucault, 1994) and a performativity (Ball, 2000, 2003) perspective. A main concern in governmentality research is to clarify the relationship between freedom and control; between autonomy and empowerment on one hand and regulatory boundaries and normalisation on the other (Rose, 1999). PE teachers’ various ways of working with AfL are viewed as actions that guide the students toward goal attainment. However, the current dominant educational policy, the curriculum and the students’ actions also determine the teachers’ possible action spectrum. In line with Ball (2000, 2003), I thus argue that different teacher and student subjects and characteristics of the subject content are produced in the cultural pattern (i.e. the social fabric) of the formative assessment practice. 

Ball, S. J. (2000) Performativities and fabrications in the education economy: Towards the performative society?. The Australian Educational Researcher, 27(2), 1-23. Ball, S. J. (2003) The teacher's soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of education policy, 18(2), 215-228. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B. & Wiliam D. (2002) Working inside the black box. Assessment for learning in the classroom, London: GL Assessment. Ennis, C.E. & Chen, S. (2012) Interviews and focus groups, in Armour, K. & Macdonald, D. (Eds.) Research Methods in Physical Education and Youth Sport. London and New York: Routledge. Evans, J., Rich, E., Davies, B. & Allwood, R. (2008) Education, disordered eating and obesity discourse: Fat fabrications. Routledge. Foucault, M. (1994) Power. New York: The New Press. Rose, N. (1999) Powers of Freedom. Reframing political thought. Cambridge University press. Wetherell, M. (1998) Positioning and Interpretative Repertoires: Conversation Analysis and Post-Structuralism in Dialogue. Discourse & Society, 9(3), 387-412. López-Pastor, V. M., Kirk, D., Lorente-Catalán, E., MacPhail, A. & Macdonald, D. (2013) ‘Alternative assessment in physical education: a review of international literature’, Sport, Education and Society, 18(1), 57-76. Routledge. MacPhail, A. & Halbert, J. (2010) ‘We had to do intelligent thinking during recent PE’: students’ and teachers’ experiences of assessment for learning in post‐primary physical education. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17(1), 23-39. Ní Chróinín, D. & Cosgrave, C. (2013) Implementing formative assessment in primary physical education: teacher perspectives and experiences. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 18(2), 219-233. Patton, M. Q. (2002) Qualitative evaluation and research methods. SAGE Publications, inc. Penney, D., Brooker, R., Hay, P. & Gillespie, L. (2009) ‘Curriculum, pedagogy and assessment: three message systems of schooling and dimensions of quality physical education’, Sport, Education and Society, 14(4), 421-442. Routledge. Svennberg, L., Meckbach, J., & Redelius, K. (2014) ‘Exploring PE teachers’‘gut feelings’: An attempt to verbalise and discuss teachers’ internalised grading criteria’, European Physical Education Review, 20(2), 199-214. Tolgfors, B., & Öhman, M. (2015) The implications of assessment for learning in physical education and health. European Physical Education Review, 1356336X15595006. Wiliam, D. (2011) ‘What is assessment for learning?’, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37, 3-14. Elsevier. Wiliam, D. & Leahy, S. (2015) Embedding Formative Assessment: Practical Techniques for K–12 Classrooms. Learning Sciences International. Öhman, M. (2010) Analysing the Direction of Socialisation from a Power Perspective. Sport, Education & Society, 15(4), 393–409.