The project intends to conduct a comparative approach to better understand the culture of assessment in higher education institutions. Starting with a well developed, frequently applied and validated English-language 14-item survey instrument, measuring the ‘culture of assessment’ in higher education, the project addresses two core challenges. First, the field of evaluation and assessment contains a diverse set of concepts, and these concepts often do not translate easily from one language to another. We had to address the language challenge because one knows that language mirrors a nation’s culture, that is, “… language fixes concepts” (Le Metais, 2001, p.201).
Second, while the concept ‘culture of assessment’ is a well-established concept and approach in American education, in Europe the concept of ‘culture of assessment’ is used less frequently or is interpreted and applied in distinct ways. For instance, in Norway a ‘vurderingskultur’ is strongly related to learning approaches. This conceptualization started with the Norwegian educational policy initiative in 2010 and following (Directory of Education, 2010, 2011a,b, 2012, 2014, 2015). One core objective of these whitepapers is to stress the aspect of ‘assessment for learning’ by feedback. Moreover, the concepts of ‘evaluation and “reporting found in the Norwegian language reflect some important aspects of assessment that are not necessarily addressed by ‘assessment’.
The quotations below represent the Norwegian understanding of the concept assessment culture:
” … begrep som nettopp dekker både vurdering av hver enkelt elev og samtidig skolens samlede evne og ønske om å vurdere” (Engh, Dobson & Høihilder, 2007, p. 69). [… actually, the concept comprises both the assessment of the individual student and an institution’s joint ability and wish to conduct program assessment].
” … som ledelsens og personalets syn på vurdering” (Engh, 2011, p. 171) and ” … måten disse ressursene blir brukt på, skal forstås som en del av denne” (Engh, 2011, p. 171). [… the staff’s and the leadership’s attitude on assessment and evaluation and “… the way these resources and the knowledge can be applied is a part of the assessment culture as well.]
To establish a positive culture of assessment, one needs to invest in several topics as ” … kompetanseheving, kunnskapsdeling, tolkningsfellesskap, ledelse, samarbeid, utprøving og erfaringsdeling” (Engh, 2011, p. 178). [ “… competence improvement, knowledge sharing, reifications of concepts, leadership, cooperation, application and sharing of experiences.”]
On the other hand, the concept is sometimes connotated normatively, and related with institutionalizing or centralizing (‘Bewertungskultur’ sensu Bertemes, 2007) approaches. It is also seen as restrictive and controlling (Kvalitetssikringssystemer sensu Gjøsæter, 2011; Rossmann, 1995) in terms of neoliberal education policies (Uljens & Ylimaki, 2017, p.5).
Coming back to Norway, one can realize the concept and approach of ‘assessment culture’ is rather used for comprehensive schools than it addresses higher education institutions one can find in a typical American definition.
“The fifteen elements needed to achieve a culture of assessment are the following: clear general education goals, common use of assessment-related terms, faculty ownership of assessment programs, ongoing professional development, administrative encouragement of assessment, practical assessment plans, systematic assessment, the setting of student learning outcomes for all courses and programs, comprehensive program review, assessment of co-curricular activities, assessment of overall institutional effectiveness, informational forums about assessment, inclusion of assessment in plans and budgets, celebration of successes, and, finally, responsiveness to proposals for new endeavors related to assessment.” (Weiner, 2009, n.p.)
One keypoint for our research endeavor is based in the fact that assessment is seen as a crucial part of learning or, as Autio sees it, the reintegration of the meaning of assessment and evaluation as natural part of pedagogic processes and teachers work (see Autio, 2017, p. 264; Ndoye & Parker, 2010).