Teaching and assessing students seem to be linked together inevitably. Since Parsons (1959) we are told that school has to sort out pupils according to their performance and at the same time has to make pupils accept their assigned position. With Luhmann (2002) we shall assume that teaching itself cannot do without the distinction between “better” and “worse”. But – beyond these general assumptions – how is teaching attached to assessment practices in concrete lessons and in everyday routines? Ethnographic observations suggest, that assessing students develops as a practice of its own sake and renders at least partly independent from the quoted functionality as far as German teaching culture is concerned (Breidenstein 2006): Assessing practices are omnipresent and the meaning of the resulting marks is very much negotiated within these practices themselves. This is the starting point for a research project which analyses classroom discourse to figure out the situated meaning of assessment in everyday teaching practices. The paper will point to central findings of this ethnographic project, which was financed by the German Research Foundation (DFG) and conducted at the University of Halle (Germany) from 2005 to 2009. The theoretical approach is that of a theory of social practices (Schatzki 1996, Schatzki et.al. 2001) which goes beyond structuralism and agency and points to social practice as an object of inquiry in itself. A social practice can be understood as a “nexus of doings and sayings” (Schatzki 1996, 89) and is to be analysed as a local and situated accomplishment. From this point of view the immanent logic of assessment practices within school lessons comes into the focus of analysis.

The analysis relies on ethnographic fieldwork in two contrasting schools: a well established Gymnasium (grammar school) and a Sekundarschule which is the lowest school in the local school system. Participant observation was conducted in six phases each lasting several weeks from grade five (11 years old) to grade seven (13 years) in two particular classes. All together the data include field notes from about 40 weeks of participant observation, interviews with teachers and students and transcribed audio-recording of classroom discourse. The research design followed the principles of theoretical sampling insofar the contrasting case studies proved the generalizability of the findings while the ongoing analysis helped to focus the observations in every new part of fieldwork. The analysis consisted of coding in the way of Grounded Theory and of turn-by-turn analysis of selected sequences of classroom discourse.

The Paper shows how the classroom practice of assessing students has to struggle with practical demands which result from the execution of the practice itself. Assessing students e.g. has to adhere to the idea of objectivity of the assessment independent from personal circumstances while at the same time marks have to be subjectified when handed out to the students: One specific mark might mean something very different for different students. Within pedagogical comments on marks the personal “capability” of each student is constructed (Breidenstein/Meier/Zaborowski 2008). Especially disappointing results require explanations. These “explanations” always blame the student – it is never the teacher´s fault or due to the lessons. Together with commenting on marks the personalized “capacities” of students are constructed as certain `characters´ which help to structure the teaching: When the “slowest pupil” has finished the task the time is over; a question the “smartest pupil” cannot answer can´t be solved by anybody. – In combining teaching and assessing practises this way the assigned “capabilities” are at the same time used and reinforced.