The focus of this study is on assessment for learning (AfL) as they emerge within three different secondary assessment cultrues in Iceland. Afl has been defined as a “part of everyday practice by students, teachers and peers that reflects upon and responds to information from dialogue, demonstration, and observation in ways that enhance ongoing learning” (AFL, 2009). Most studies in the field of assessment culture have focused on the implementation of Afl (Hopfenbeck & Stobart, 2015). Birenbaum (2014) defines assessment culture  as “the school’s culture which, when examined through an assessment lens, varies from a grading oriented, testing culture to a learning-oriented, assessment culture” (Birenbaum, 2014, p. 286). In recent years, students´ reception of feedback in different assessment cultures has been given growing attention (Birenbaum, 2014, p. 286; Harrison et al., 2016; Popham, 2017).

The theoretical framework of the study is based on a social-cultural and constructive paradigm on how learners construct their understanding in relation to others (Bakhtin, 1986). Feedback plays an essential role in knowledge construction through proficient guidance by peers or adults and as an internal process which is part of a metacognitive mode of learning (Butler & Winne, 1995; Vygotsky, 1978). Student involvement in the feedback and assessment process is important so they are not seen only as passive recipients of the work of others (Boud & Falchikov, 2006) . To consider students as active agents in the feedback process calls upon a different linguistic behavior (Rorty, 1989) than the traditional perspective in which the teachers bear the burden of communicating information to inactive students. Lave and Wenger (1991, p. 37) use the concept “peripherality when it is enabled, suggests an opening, a way of gaining access to sources for understanding through growing involvement.” Involving students more in the discourse would mean that we have to “change the way we talk, and therefore by changing what we want to do what we think we are”(Rorty, 1989, p. 20) As Lave and Wenger (1991) point out, learning “implies becoming a full participant, a member, a kind of person.”(p. 36).

The findings from the survey document a substantial gap in how teachers and students experience feedback and assessment (Jónsson, Smith, & Geirsdóttir, 2018). This gap seems to be related to schools´ different assessment cultures. Preliminary findings from the focus groups show that students in schools with strong AfL culture report active teacher – student dialogue and learning oriented assessment practices.

The aim of this study is to explore how different assessment cultures have impacted students experience in schools that have either implemented Afl or have no experience of implementing Afl.  The research question posed is how does different assessment culture in three upper secondary schools in Iceland impacts students[g1] ´ perception of practices?

The current study should shed light on the perceived feedback and assessment practices in three Icelandic upper secondary schools and is the first study of its kind in Iceland. In addition, the findings cast light on how prevailing assessment cultures impacts students learning, which could provide a baseline for further discussion in Iceland and elsewhere about implementing policy of AfL.

 [g1]

The design is composed of two layers. The first is a quantitative study designed to assess teachers’ and students’ perceptions toward feedback and assessment. The second layer is a follow-up study of the survey, which consists of six focus groups of teachers and students (3 groups of each). The aim with the focus groups is to explore the findings from the questionnaire and reflect on different assessment cultures. This research is based on mixed methods, where qualitative and quantitative approaches are combined “for the broad purposes of breadth and depth of understanding and corroboration” (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007). By applying a mixed method, the weakness of one method is compensated by other approaches. In this project, the quantitative approach provides a general pattern on how students and teachers perceive feedback and assessment in the three schools (Harris & Brown, 2010). Gill et al. claim that “qualitative methods, such as interviews, are believed to provide a ‘deeper’ understanding of social phenomena than would be obtained from purely quantitative methods, such as questionnaires. ” (2008, p. 291). Three secondary schools with different emphasis on assessment were purposefully chosen. Six focus groups from three school were conducted (two at each school) to reflect the perceptions of students and teachers on feedback and assessment practices. The number of participants in the groups was between seven and nine (Bullough & Pinnegar, 2001, p. 15). The criteria for the participants were as follows: an equal mix of gender, age, experience of teaching (for teachers)/studying (students), and diversity with regard to academic subjects. The interviews were audiotaped and transcribed. To make meaning out of the interviews, the data will be read and re-read. The transcription will be analyzed by using content analysis to identify themes and sub-themes.

Prior findings from the first part of this project, document a substantial gap in how teachers and students experience feedback and assessment (Jónsson et al., 2018). This gap seems to be related to schools´ different assessment cultures. In the preliminary findings from the focus groups, three two-dimensional themes were identified. The themes are - Learning from feedback vs grade and test-driven culture - Culture of active vs weak dialogue - Teacher controlled vs student involvement The themes represent the contrasting culture of assessment. Findings show that students in schools with strong AfL culture report active teacher – student dialogue, trust between teachers and students and learning oriented assessment practices. Two of the schools that have implemented Afl seem to emphasize trust, equality and dialogue in students-teacher relationship. Students experience that their teachers are approachable and open for informal discussions around feedback and assessment. Students in one of the school that has not implemented Afl policy tell a different story. They report a lack of teacher student dialogue and disrespect for individual students need. Culture around grades and tests is strong and seemed to influence students perception of assessment and instruction.

AFL. (2009). Position paper on assessment for learning,. Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Assessment for Learning. http://www.fairtest.org/sites/default/files/Assess-for-Learning-position-paper.pdf Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press. Birenbaum, M. (2014). Conceptualizing Assessment Culture in School. In C. Wyatt-Smith, V. Klenowski, & P. Colbert (Eds.), Designing Assessment for Quality Learning (Vol. 1, pp. 285-302): Springer, Dordrecht. Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long‐term learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 399-413. doi:10.1080/02602930600679050 Bullough, R. V., & Pinnegar, S. (2001). Guidelines for Quality in Autobiographical Forms of Self-Study Research. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 13-21. doi:10.3102/0013189x030003013 Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and Self-Regulated Learning - a Theoretical Synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245-281. doi:Doi 10.2307/1170684 Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E., & Chadwick, B. (2008). Methods of data collection in qualitative research: interviews and focus groups. Br Dent J, 204(6), 291-295. doi:10.1038/bdj.2008.192 Harris, L. R., & Brown, G. L. T. (2010). Mixing interview and questionnaire methods: Practical problems in aligning data Mixing interview and questionnaire methods: Practical problems in aligning data, 15(1-19). Harrison, C. J., Konings, K. D., Dannefer, E. F., Schuwirth, L. W., Wass, V., & van der Vleuten, C. P. (2016). Factors influencing students' receptivity to formative feedback emerging from different assessment cultures. Perspect Med Educ, 5(5), 276-284. doi:10.1007/s40037-016-0297-x Hopfenbeck, T. N., & Stobart, G. (2015). Large-scale implementation of Assessment for Learning. Assessment for Learning, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22(1), 1-2. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2014.1001566 Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133. doi:10.1177/1558689806298224 Jónsson, Í. R., Smith, K., & Geirsdóttir, G. (2018). Shared language of feedback and assessment. Perception of teachers and students in three Icelandic secondary schools. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 56, 52-58. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.11.003 Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Popham, W. J. (2017). Looking at Assessment Through Learning-Colored Lenses. In C. Wyatt-Smith, V. Klenowski, & P. Colbert (Eds.), Designing Assessment for Quality Learning (Vol. 1, pp. 183-194): Springer Heidelberg. Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. United States: Cambridge University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.