The focus on social, emotional and other non-academic skills and competences for academic achievement has given a broader perspective on educational research (Pellegrino & Hilton, 2012; OECD, 2015). In Norway, this is reflected in a ministerial white paper on future schooling (NOU 2015:8), and in the parliamentary report on the renewal of the national curriculum (Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2016).

The ministerial white paper suggested that non-academic skills and competences had to be included in the competence aims for curriculum subjects, reflecting a wide understanding of competence:

Social and emotional competences include among others engagement in and attitudes towards curriculum subjects. In addition, the individual’s learning ability, perseverance, self-efficacy, communication, interaction with others, realisation of the learning processes in the respective subject are of importance. If these dimensions of the pupils' learning are given priority in school, they must be part of the competence aims (NOU 2015:8)

This view was rejected in the parliamentary report on the renewal of the national curriculum (Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2016), stating that these non-academic skills or competences are not suitable as assessment criteria. This is interesting because effort has been part of the recommended assessment practice in physical education (PE) in Norway since 1987 (Grunnskolerådet, 1987:65).

Internationally, OECD (2015:99) found that PE had ambitions to promote social and emotional dimensions, but when it came to assessment they stated that: “Assessment of students’ social and emotional skills is generally not designed for student promotion or certification”.

Effort, as part of a formal dimension in student assessment is unique for PE in the Norwegian school and can be considered a rare phenomenon in PE, and maybe schools, internationally.

But the fact that physical education teachers (PET) consider effort to determine grades is found in numerous international studies (Annerstedt & Larsson, 2010; Borghouts et al., 2017; Hensley et al., 1987; Svennberg et al., 2014; Young, 2011). All studies report that the PET emphasizes effort in assessment, even though effort is not an official assessment criterion. This corresponds to the students’ perception of the basis for the grading (Redelius & Hay, 2012). Since effort is not part of the assessment basis, this represents a validity problem in the assessment practice in PE (Annerstedt & Larsson, 2010; Hay & Macdonald, 2008; Hay & Penney, 2013; López-Pastor et al., 2013).

Based on two surveys, this paper examines whether the high stakes effort-based assessment in Norwegian PE can be considered a sound practice or a validity problem.

Results show that many teachers emphasize dimensions that are not part of the understanding of effort in the guidelines. Similar misconceptions are found among students. Close to a quarter of the PETs have not used effort as an assessment criterion and only one third of the students say that their PETs have clarified for them such a criterion.  

Half of the teachers report that effort counts for between 21-40% of the PE grade, a quarter reports between 41-60%, which is somewhat lower then what the guidelines call for. Moreover, with around one fifth of the teacher either below 20 or above 60%, the interpretations of the PETs are too diverse. Students on average report that they believe effort counts for close to 60%, but the standard deviation is as high as 1,99.

An overwhelming majority of the teachers, 95,1%, and students, 85,3%, are positive to effort as a part of the PE grade. Students report that their motivation for PE increases due to the effort-based assessment. A medium to strong correlation has been found between the level of joy the students experience in PE and how much the students believe effort counts in their teachers’ grading.

In this paper we take advantage of survey data from two separate projects that both investigate assessment in PE. One with a teacher perspective, the other with a student perspective. None of them were designed specifically to address validity questions related to assessment of effort in PE, and they do not cover all dimensions of validity or sound practice. However, both of them provide adequate data for a discussion of this topic in PE and in schools in general. Survey 1 This survey is a part of a larger project with ambitions of contributing to a more research-based knowledge about assessment in PE. It was designed to look into the PETs’ interpretations of and attitudes towards the revised PE curriculum of 2012, and especially the changes relating effort-based assessment. Recruited from teachers from lower and upper secondary schools attending in-service PE training in in three different counties, a convenience-based sample of 184 PET agreed to participate in the cross-sectional self-report survey. 60 % of them being male and 40% female, this mirrors the male dominance in the profession. The sample is shrewd because they are both above average educated and interested since they attend in-service training. Survey 2 This study explores Norwegian PE students’, age 15-16, achievement emotions in PE classes and PE assessment practices. It is a cross-sectional self-report survey that includes a translated and culturally adapted version of The Achievement Emotion Questionnaire (Pekrun et al., 2002, 2005); The Achievement Emotion Questionnaire for Norwegian Physical Education and Adolescents (AEQ-NPE). The translation and adaption was inspired by the cross-cultural adaptation process (Gjersing et al., 2010). The AEQ-NPE showed overall good statistical characteristics. Several single items related to assessment and effort was also included in the survey conducted in the spring of 2018. The sample was N=233 (112 girls, 119 boys, 2 missing). The sample was drawn from 18 classes in seven lower secondary schools in one county and included both rural and city schools as well as city schools with students of different social and cultural background. The study required student and parental agreement; the latter may have resulted in some shrewdness in the sample. Analysis was conducted with SPSS version 24. Both surveys follow recognized ethical guidelines for research and both are reported to the Norwegian Center for Research Data (NSD).

International studies have found that PETs’ use effort to determine grades and that this is a validity problem because effort is not one of the criteria in their assessment practice. In Norway this is not the problem since effort is defined as a criteria which is embedded in the competence aims in PE. Based on two separate surveys, this paper explores if the high stakes effort-based assessment in Norwegian PE can be considered a sound practice or a validity problem. How effort is to be understood in PE assessment is presented in the guidelines (Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2012) It states that with effort students can have the opportunity to achieve a good grade despite low competence and lack of abilities (Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2012). This represents a wide understanding that needs clarification for students. But first the PETs need to find a more common and safe ground in their own interpretations. Too many are clearly in violation of the general assessment regulations for all subjects. To obtain a sound practice a more shared understanding of the criteria of different grades amongst PETs and students is needed. These criteria must be elaborated by PETs and shared with their students. This is in many cases not in place and it clearly represents validity challenges. PETs and students both agree to use effort in assessment. This common understanding together with increased motivation and joy can be considered factors indicating a sound pedagogical practice. In future, in-service training, work based development and PETE must address the validity challenges in the high stakes effort-based assessment in PE in order to become a sound pedagogical practice. In any case, experiences from this try-out of assessing effort in curriculum subjects is highly relevant to today’s educational debate around the role of non-academic competences.

Annerstedt, C. & Larsson, S. (2010). ‘I have my own picture of what the demands are…’ Grading in Swedish PEH – problems of validity, comparability and fairness. European Physical Education Review 16, 97-115. Borghouts, L.B., Slingerland, M. & Haerens, L. (2017). Assessment Quality and Practices in Secondary PE in the Netherlands. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 22(5), 473-489 Gjersing, L., Caplehorn, J.R. & Clausen, T, (2010). Cross-cultural adaptation of research instruments: language, setting, time and statistical considerations. BMC Medical Research Methodology 10, 13. Grunnskolerådet (1987). Tilpasset opplæring i kroppsøving for elever med særlige behov: veiledning til Mønsterplanen for grunnskolen 1987. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Hay, P. & Macdonald, D. (2008). (Mis)appropriations of criteria and standardsreferenced assessment in a performance-based subject. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 15(2), 153–168. Hay, P. & Penney, D. (2013). Assessment in physical education. A sociocultural perspective. New York, Oxon: Routledge. Hensley, L.D., Lambert, L.T., Baumgartner, T.A. & Stillwell, J.L. (1987). Is evaluation worth the effort? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance 58(6), 59-62. Kunnskapsdepartementet. (2016). Fag–Fordypning–Forståelse — En fornyelse av Kunnskapsløftet (Meld. St. 28 (2015–2016). Retrieved from https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/meld.-st.-28-20152016/id2483955/ 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, 57-76. Læreplanverket for Kunnskapsløftet. (2006). Læreplan i kroppsøving (LK06). Retrieved from https://www.udir.no/kl06/KRO1-04 NOU 2015:8 .(2015). Fremtidens skole. Fornyelse av fag og kompetanser. Oslo: Kunnskapsdepartementet. Retrieved from https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/nou-2015-8/id2417001/ Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W. & Perry, R.P. (2002). Academic emotions in students' self-regulated learning and achievement: a program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 91–105. Pekrun, R., Goetz, T. & Perry, R.P. (2005). Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ) - User's Manual. Version 2005. Redelius, K. & Hay, P. (2012). Student views on criterion-referenced assessment and grading in Swedish physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 17, 211-225. Svennberg, L., J. 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. Utdanningsdirektoratet. (2012). Endringer i faget kroppsøving. Retrieved from https://www.udir.no/regelverkstolkninger/opplaring/Innhold-i-opplaringen/Udir-8-2012 Young, S. (2011). A survey of student assessment practice in physical education. Strategies: A Journal for Physical and Sport Educators, 24(6), 24–26.