Assessment is a key feature of education (Black & Wiliam, 1998), and jointly with curriculum and pedagogy constitute the main dimensions of quality Physical Education (PE) (Penney, Brooker, Hay, & Gillespie, 2009). However, these three dimensions are often disconnected, or poorly articulated, narrowing assessment in PE to purposes of grading and accountability, secluded from teaching-learning process, and without any special concern in fostering students learning (MacPhail & Murphy, 2017).

López-Pastor, Kirk, Lorente-Catalán, MacPhail, and Macdonald (2012) refer that assessment in PE is a challenging and worrying issue: there is widespread resistance to accept PE grades for calculation average for university admission; there is discrepancy between scholars recommendations and teachers practices (MacPhail & Murphy, 2017); there is disagreement about the contents, assessment forms and appropriate criteria; there is disapproval about the feasibility of testing fitness and the authenticity of measures of performance on de-contextualized skills (Hensley, 1997); there is reproach of basing assessment on subjective criteria like attitude (Borghouts, Slingerland, & Haerens, 2016) or administrative criteria like attendance (Young, 2011); and finally, there is a steadily problem of alignment between the teaching-learning process and assessment strategies (Penney et al., 2009).

Black and Wiliam (1998) and Natriello (1987) argue that assessment has potential to enhance students’ learning if properly used. For Broadfoot et al. (2002, p. 2), AfL “is the process of seeking and interpreting evidence for use by learners and their teachers to decide where the learners are in their learning, where they need to go and how best to get there”. In light of this, Leirhaug and Annerstedt (2016, p. 618) specify the Afl principles: “(i) sharing learning intentions with students; (ii) sharing criteria for success; (iii) involving students in assessing their own (and other students’) learning and (iv) providing feedback that moves learners forward”.

AfL has been receiving a growing interest from PE researchers (e. g. Chng & Lund, 2018; Leirhaug & Annerstedt, 2016; López-Pastor et al., 2012; Penney et al., 2009). López-Pastor et al. (2012) challenge further research to put forward practical forms of alternative assessments and examine their feasibility and consequences.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the challenges and difficulties PE Preservice teachers experience in implementing AfL principles in their classes, along with the meaning that students ascribe to their involvement in AfL practices.

Two PE preservice teachers were purposefully selected to participate in a pilot study for applying AfL principles in an Acrobatic Gymnastics unit. Each preservice teacher taught one 10^th grade class with approximately 25 students. Data from the participants will be collected through the entire teaching units, taking place in the second trimester of the 2018/19 academic year. Data sources include preservice individual, semi-structured interviews and reflective journals; students focus groups; and two AfL assessment tools (with qualitative and quantitative information), preservice teachers’ peer assessment (Borghouts et al., 2016; Chappuis, 2015; Leirhaug & Annerstedt, 2016); and students’ self-assessment (Chappuis, 2005; Wiliam, 2011). Qualitative data will be analysed and interpreted in light of AfL principles (Leirhaug & Annerstedt, 2016), while quantitative data will measure preservice teachers and students’ perceptions of the pedagogical experience.

An action research study will be used with successive cycles of planning, acting, observing and reflecting (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988) during the acrobatic gymnastic units to meet the purpose of the pilot study. Approval from the School Board, and from the University of Porto Ethics Committee, as well as informed consent from the participants and their legal representatives were obtained. A purposive sample of two preservice teachers from the Master on Teaching PE of the Faculty of Sport, University of Porto enrolled in school placement during the 2018/2019 academic year was recruited to best fulfil the demands of the research questions (Patton, 2002). Key features to select preservice teachers include the high interest with learning in PE, the personal disposition and availability to participate voluntarily in the research project. Individual data from the 10th grade students of the Preservice teachers classes - approximately 25 per class, that participate in the teaching unit, will be collected and used informed consent from students and parents. The school placement arrangement normally comprehends a group of three preservice teachers accompanied by one cooperating teacher from school and one university supervisor. Each preservice teacher is assigned to one class of the cooperating teacher, and is in charge of all the teaching functions (including planning and assessment) during the entire year, and also participate in the teaching of some units in other classes from other grades. Every class belongs to the cooperating teacher, who attends every class and supervise all the process. Preservice teachers have also to participate in school activities. Data will include preservice teachers’ reflective journal; material used or produced in the unit; relevant documents, such as the preservice teachers’ final practicum report; and preservice individual semi-structured interviews, and students focus groups. Complementarily, two AfL peer assessment and self-assessment tools will be employed to capture preservice teachers and students’ perceptions of the teaching-learning process, the students’ learning evolution, and patterns of participation and involvement. Each preservice teacher is going to be observed in every class. Self-assessment instruments will be filled by students in three moments (class sessions 2, 5 and 7). The qualitative data will be analysed and interpreted in light of AfL principles (Leirhaug & Annerstedt, 2016) using procedures of the thematic analysis. The two moments of quantitative data will be compared to analyse differences from on preservice and students’ perceptions at the middle and end of the unit.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the challenges and difficulties PE Preservice teachers experience in implementing AfL principles in their classes, along with the meaning that students ascribe to their involvement in AfL practices. It is expected that pre-service teachers find some difficulties, firstly with the planning of the unit, then with the selection of assessment instrument and later with the class administration because of students’ empowerment and autonomy. On other hand, it is expected that students find themselves lost and/or demotivated at the beginning. Other can find huge problems to team and collaborative work, mainly to help and give feedback to colleagues. It is expected that pre-service teachers’ reflections and log diary answer to the purpose of this paper and to capture a clear picture of the problems faced by pre-service teachers on the use of AfL in PE classes. Interviews can allow authors to get a deep comprehension of pre-service teachers’ understanding and to compare what they think with what they do. It is also expected that AfL instruments recognise pre-service teachers and students’ perceptions of this pedagogical experience on students’ learning. The underlying purpose of this presentation is to bring action researches to AfL field, because as referred by López-Pastor et al. (2012) and Mertler (1998) implementing AfL is difficult.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74. Borghouts, L. B., Slingerland, M., & Haerens, L. (2016). Assessment quality and practices in secondary PE in the Netherlands. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 1-17. doi:10.1080/17408989.2016.1241226 Broadfoot, P., Daugherty, R., Gardner, J., Harlen, W., James, M., & Stobart, G. (2002). Assessment for learning: 10 principles. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge School of Education. Chappuis, J. (2005). Helping Students Understand Assessment. Educational Leadership, 63(3), 39-43. Chappuis, J. (2015). Seven Strategies of Assessment for Learning (2nd Edition ed.): Pearson Assessment Training Institute. Chng, L. S., & Lund, J. (2018). Assessment for Learning in Physical Education: The What, Why and How. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 89(8), 29-34. doi:10.1080/07303084.2018.1503119 Hensley, L. D. (1997). Alternative assessment for physical education. JOPERD, 68(7), 19-24. doi:10.1080/07303084.1997.10604978 Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner (3rd ed.). Geelong: Deakin University Pres. Leirhaug, P. E., & Annerstedt, C. (2016). Assessing with new eyes? Assessment for learning in Norwegian physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 21(6), 616–631. doi:10.1080/17408989.2015.1095871 López-Pastor, V. M., Kirk, D., Lorente-Catalán, E., MacPhail, A., & Macdonald, D. (2012). Alternative assessment in physical education: a review of international literature. Sport, Education & Society, 18(1), 57. MacPhail, A., & Murphy, F. (2017). Too much freedom and autonomy in the enactment of assessment? Assessment in physical education in Ireland. Irish Educational Studies, 36(2), 237-252. doi:10.1080/03323315.2017.1327365 Mertler, C. A. (1998). Classroom assessment practices of ohio teachers. Paper presented at the Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association, Chicago, Illinois. Natriello, G. (1987). The Impact of Evaluation Processes on Students. Educational Psychologist, 22(2), 155-175. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3th ed.). California: Sage Publications. 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. doi:10.1080/13573320903217125 Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Bloomington: Solution Tree Press. Young, S. (2011). A Survey of Student Assessment Practice in Physical Education: Recommendations for grading. Strategies, 24(6), 24-26. doi:10.1080/08924562.2011.10590959