On the backdrop of the recent educational data movement (Marsh et al., 2015; Schildkamp et al., 2019), teachers are expected to use different kind of data to inform their instructional decision-making. However, different studies have already demonstrated that teachers are reluctant to change their assessment practices (and conceptions), especially when new practices are framed within the rationale of institutional reforms (Boardman & Woodruf, 2004; Brown, 2004; Klieger, 2016; Remesal, 2007), or in new scenarios such as those that emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the recognition of the importance of assessment, some studies (Hopfenbeck, 2015; Looney et al., 2018) have also identified the lack of modernisation and have indicated that assessment has not changed materially. Rcent studies on the use of assessment data for decision-making and teaching practice have showed that although teachers recognise the importance of using data gathered through assessment, sometimes, they are not able to manage several sources of information including data from LSAs (Farrell & Marsh, 2016; Mandinach & Gummer, 2016; Schildkamp et al., 2014).

While LSAs have been progressively recognised as relevant components of educational accountability systems, teachers’ negative attitudes towards LSA programmes and the lack of assessment literacy have been highlighted (Fullan et al., 2018; Klinger & Rogers, 2011). In this perspective, research evidence (Hopster-den-Ottera et al., 2017; Monterio et al., 2021; Schildkamp et al., 2019) suggests that the identification of practical assessment challenges for teachers, as well as the understanding of teachers’ conceptions of assessment are of paramount importance in order to ensure teacher assessment literacy, teacher professionalism, and effective school improvement.

The present paper, with a focus on the Italian school system, tries to offer new insights for this debate. Despite the increasing interest in researching teachers’ assessment conceptions and in understanding how these conceptions affect the assessment literacy development, in Italy these research topics, unfortunately, are still neglected. Therefore, given the current lack of empirical studies on teachers’ LSA conceptions an exploratory qualitative study has been realized (Creswell, 2014; Strauss & Corbin, 2007).

In Italy, between 2007 and the time of writing this study (2022), only one LSA programme was adopted. This programme is administrated by the Italian National Institute for School Evaluation and Assessment of Learning (INVALSI) which is subject to the Minister of Education. The LSA programme, aligned with the national curriculum, comprises a census-based administration of cognitive tests (2°, 5°, 8°, 10°, and 13° grades) in the subjects of Italian, Mathematics, and English. INVALSI reports examine the quality of the national school system and support the school improvement. Since its introduction, the national LSA programme, however, caused different problems: teachers have attacked and boycotted the LSA programme. Still nowadays, they continue to perceive the INVALSI programme as a means of control for schools, teachers, and students.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, schools and teachers shifted to remote instructional activities and experienced difficulties in navigating new (and old) mechanisms within the extant assessment practice (e.g., marking and grading student work on-line or sharing feedback on assignments). In the school year 2019-2020, the INVALSI programme was not administrated. The teachers’ (and students’) positive reactions at the cancellation of the yearly INVALSI programme contrast with the need for an assessment that should be embedded within the school system and aligned with the aim of improving the school quality (Wiliam, 2013).

The study sought to better understand how Italian teachers conceptualise the LSA and how they use its results, addressing the following research questions:

1. What do teachers think of the INVALSI programme?
2. How do teachers use the INVALSI results for their instructional practice and decision-making (at classroom and school level)?

The present study was guided by the grounded theory interpretative method (Strauss & Corbin, 2007). A total of 70 teachers from 5 schools in the district of XXXX (details removed to avoid identification) were selected to participate in the study. These schools have the same organization and jointly include grades 1°-5° (primary) and grades 6°-8° (middle). Only teachers of Italian and Mathematics were considered because the INVALSI tests pertain these two content domains. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews by the author. Drawing on relevant theoretical and empirical literature to design questions about teachers’ conceptions of the LSA programme, teachers’ experience with INVALSI data, and their instructional responses to data, the semi-structured interview track comprised 10 questions divided in two main sections: 1. Assessment conceptions: Questions in this section sought information on the teachers’ conceptions of LSA, its aims, and values; and 2. Data usage: This section aimed to analyse if, and how, teachers use large-scale data in their instructional practice and decision-making. Moreover, during the interview, information on attended teacher education paths on educational assessment, and data on socio-demographic variables (e.g., gender, age, years of service) were gathered. The data analysis followed a three steps process: open coding, axial coding, and selective coding. The data set for this study is large and so what is presented here is only a selection of main inquiry categories: 1. There are no substantial differences in teachers’ conceptions of assessment: gender, age, and subject matter do not affect answers. The slight differences found in the conceptions of interviewed teachers are related only to the variable of their years of service. 2. Even though participants were prompted to reflect on their answers, the data demonstrate their simplistic conceptions of assessment. 3. Teachers are not able to provide a definition of assessment that goes beyond the mere dimension of measure of student learning. They appear very worried about large-scale assessment. They don’t see the real value of this kind of assessment and are scared about the idea that students’ results can be used for teachers’ performance appraisal and selection. For this reason, most of them admit teaching to the test and cheating, although they recognize these are malpractices. 4. Data relating to the fourth section of the interview reveal a composite scenario. The classroom assessment is frequently performed in a formal way. Teachers tend to not use large-scale-results to review and/or change their instructional practices.

The relationships among LSA, the teaching-learning process, and the Italian school system are ambiguous and incoherent. While LSA is perceived as disconnected from school and teaching practice, classroom-based assessments are considered not entirely reliable although they provide more information about student learning processes. However, the teachers in this study admitted their assessment illiteracy with respect to some practical aspects (e.g., how to gather valid and robust data in summative assessment). They said that they were not able to read, interpret, understand, and use the data gathered through the INVALSI programme. The major hindrance is the teachers’ conceptions of the LSA programme that is rarely used to refocus and improve teaching for individual students (Herman, 2016). Even though national LSA programmes have largely spread across different countries (Verger et al., 2019), research evidence points how such assessments are sometimes perceived as a threat to the teachers’ practice and professionalism (Emler et al., 2019). In the Italian school system, there is an urgent need to invest in teachers’ assessment literacy and evaluation culture (Emler et al., 2019; Klinger & Rogers, 2011). The challenge is to allow teachers to reach out with this knowledge and to push the use of assessments forward in a more responsive manner. The teachers’ negative conceptions of LSA and assessment illiteracy can lead to the inappropriate use of INVALSI results over time; it is not surprising that the positive effects of LSA are absent and were not perceived by the interviewed teachers (Cizek, 2001). Despite the recognition of assessment as relevant components of teacher professionalism, assessment literacy paths are not responsive to teacher learning needs in this area. The increased relevance of data represents a challenge for teachers in terms of data use, decision-making, and public reporting.

Boardman, A. G., & Woodruff, A. L. (2004). Teacher change and “high stakes” assessment: What happen to professional development?. Teaching and Teacher Education 20(6): 545-557. Brown, G. T. L. (2004). Teachers’ conceptions of assessment: Implications for policy and professional development. Assessment in Education 11(3): 301-318. doi:10.1080/0969594042000304609. Cizek, G. J. (2001). More unintended consequences of high-stakes testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 20(4): 19-27. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2001.tb00072.x. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2007). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Emler, T. E., Zhao, Y., Deng, Z., Yin, D., & Wang, Y. (2019). Side effects of large-scale assessments in education. Review of Education 2(3): 279-296. doi: 10.1177/2096531119878964. Farrell, C. C., & Marsh, J. A. (2016). Contributing conditions: A qualitative comparative analysis of teachers’ instructional responses to data. Teaching and Teacher Education 60(1): 398-412. Hopster-den Ottera, D., Woolsb, S., Eggena, T. J. H. M., & Veldkamp, B. P. (2017). Formative use of test results: A user’s perspective. Studies in Educational Evaluation 52: 12-23. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.11.002. Klieger, A. (2016). Principals and teachers: Different perceptions of large-scale assessment. International Journal of Educational Research, 75: 143-145. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2015.11.006. Looney, A., Cumming, J., van Der Kleij, F., & Haris, K. (2018). Reconceptualizing the role of teachers as assessors: Teacher assessment identity. Assessment in education: Principle, Policy & Practice 25(5): 442-467. Mandinach, E. B., &. Gummer, E. S. (2016). Data Literacy for Teachers: Making it Count in Teacher Preparation and Practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Marsh, J. A., Bertrand, M., Huguet, A. (2015). Using data to alter instructional practice: The mediating role of coaches and professional learning communities. Teachers College Record 117(4): 1-41. Remesal, A. (2007). Educational reform and primary and secondary teachers’ conceptions of assessment: the Spanish instance. Building upon Black and Wiliam (2015). The Curriculum Journal 18(1): 27-38. doi:10.1080/09585170701292133. Schildkamp, K. (2019). Data-based decision-making for school improvement: Research insights and gaps. Educational Research 61: 257-273. Schildkamp, K., Karbautzki, L., & Vanhoof, J. (2014). Exploring data use practices around Europe: Identifying enablers and barriers. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 42: 15-24.