This paper examines social studies teachers’ assessment practices and assessment literacy in compulsory school (Years 7–9) and upper secondary school in Sweden. It explores how assessment is understood, enacted and negotiated within the subject-specific context of social studies. As a school subject, social studies constitutes a particularly complex assessment domain: it integrates knowledge from several academic disciplines—such as political science, economics and sociology—and carries a dual educational mission of fostering both subject knowledge about society and democratic citizenship (Sandahl et al., 2011; Sandahl, 2018). These dual aims generate inherent tensions in assessment, as teachers are expected to evaluate not only factual knowledge but also analytical reasoning, perspective-taking, argumentation and value-laden judgements (Brookhart, 2013; Xu & Brown, 2016).

Previous research demonstrates that assessment practices are shaped by subject traditions, grading systems and interpretations of curricular goals (Birenbaum, 2014; Lundahl, 2014). In Sweden, these conditions differ in important ways between compulsory and upper secondary education, particularly with regard to grading practices and expectations of progression (Lundahl et al., 2015; Lundahl et al., 2019). At the same time, research on assessment has largely been dominated by general or technical perspectives, with limited attention to subject-specific contexts and teachers’ situated assessment work (Xu & Brown, 2016; Torrance, 2012). Empirical research on assessment practices and assessment literacy in social studies remains relatively scarce, especially studies that span multiple educational levels (Berg & Persson, 2020). This paper addresses this gap by examining assessment literacy as it is enacted in social studies teaching.

The paper forms part of a larger research project that aims to contribute knowledge about social studies teachers’ assessment practices and assessment literacy by identifying, discussing and problematising what assessment literacy entails in this subject. The specific research question guiding this paper is: What assessment practices characterise social studies teaching in compulsory and upper secondary school?

The study is situated within a broader European assessment policy context, where assessment and grading have become increasingly central to teachers’ professional work (Lundahl, 2014; Lundahl et al., 2019). Assessment is frequently described as one of the most powerful pedagogical tools in schooling, shaping teaching practices, students’ learning strategies and educational trajectories (Lundahl, 2014). At the same time, assessment is closely linked to accountability, transparency and measurability, creating tensions between formative ambitions and summative requirements (Torrance, 2012; Birenbaum, 2014). Teachers are expected to support students’ learning through assessment while simultaneously producing documentation that justifies grades, ensures comparability and meets external demands—placing significant demands on teachers’ professional assessment literacy (Lundahl et al., 2015; Mickwitz, 2021).

The theoretical framework combines research on assessment culture, assessment literacy and practice theory. Assessment culture is understood as a communicative and institutional context in which different traditions, norms and expectations regarding assessment coexist and compete (Birenbaum, 2014). Drawing on distinctions between measurement-oriented and interpretation-oriented traditions, assessment culture is conceptualised as shaping both assessment practices and what forms of assessment literacy are considered legitimate (Torrance, 2012). Assessment literacy is approached as a multidimensional construct encompassing conceptual, praxeological and socio-emotional dimensions (Pastore & Andrade, 2019; Pastore, 2023). To analyse how assessment literacy is enacted in practice, the paper draws on practice theory – specifically the concept of practice architectures – to examine how assessment practices are shaped by cultural-discursive, material-economic and social-political arrangements (Kemmis et al., 2014).Together, these perspectives enable a subject-sensitive analysis of how contemporary assessment cultures are translated into teachers’ everyday assessment work in social studies.

The paper is based on a qualitative research design using twelve focus group interviews with 42 practising upper secondary social studies teachers in Sweden. Focus groups were chosen to capture collective reflections, shared norms and tensions, and to explore how assessment practices and assessment literacy are negotiated within professional communities. Furthermore, the research design also reveals variations in teachers' reasoning about their assessment work and assessment practices. All participants teach social studies and were recruited from five compulsory schools (years 7-9) and seven upper secondary schools with variation in school size, organisational context and student composition. Each focus group session involved two to seven teachers and lasted about an hour. The focus groups were organised to encourage interaction and dialogue among participants, rather than individual accounts alone (Wibeck, 2010). A semi-structured interview guide was used, covering themes such as purposes of assessment, alignment between teaching and assessment, formative and summative practices, subject-specific assessment challenges and experiences of institutional and policy-related constraints. Teachers were also invited to discuss possibilities with their assessment work, collaborations between colleagues, concrete assessment situations and examples from their teaching practice (Wibeck, 2010). The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Ethical approval was obtained from the Swedish Review Ethical Authority, and informed consent, confidentiality and voluntary participation were ensured. The analytical process followed a theory-informed thematic analysis. Transcripts were analysed iteratively, moving between empirical material and theoretical concepts (Braun & Clarke, 2021). Practice architecture theory guided the analysis of how assessment practices are shaped by cultural-discursive arrangements (e.g. dominant assessment discourses), material-economic arrangements (e.g. time, tools, documentation requirements), and social-political arrangements (e.g. grading regulations, accountability structures). Assessment literacy was analysed as an enacted capacity within practice, focusing on how conceptual understandings, practical strategies and socio-emotional dimensions interact in assessment-related situations. Analytical attention was given to teachers’ sayings, doings and relatings in relation to assessment within teaching practices.

The findings show that social studies teachers articulate formative assessment as a central pedagogical ideal within their teaching. Assessment is described as an integral part of everyday classroom practice, closely connected to dialogue, discussion and continuous interaction with students. Teachers emphasise assessment as a way of supporting students’ analytical reasoning, use of subject-specific concepts and ability to interpret societal issues. From the perspective of assessment literacy, this reflects a strong conceptual and praxeological orientation towards formative purposes, where assessment is understood as a means of making learning visible and supporting progression in social studies. At the same time, teachers’ assessment practices are shaped by prevailing assessment cultures characterised by grading requirements, national tests and expectations of transparency and comparability. These assessment-cultural conditions privilege documentation, explicit criteria and defensible judgements. Teachers describe how such conditions can constrain interpretative openness and shift assessment practices towards what can be clearly justified within summative frameworks. This highlights tensions between different assessment traditions and illustrates how assessment culture shapes both assessment practices and the forms of assessment literacy that are enacted and valued. Teachers’ assessment literacy emerges as situated and relational, developed through continuous negotiation within specific practice architectures. Conceptual literacy is visible in how teachers interpret curricular goals and define what counts as knowledge in social studies. Praxeological literacy is reflected in their ability to design assessment tasks that align with subject aims while responding to institutional demands. Socio-emotional literacy is evident in how teachers manage responsibility, fairness and relationships with students in assessment situations. These dimensions interact within assessment practices that are enabled and constrained by cultural-discursive, material-economic and social-political arrangements. In all, the findings illustrate how knowing and acting in assessment are intertwined, and how teachers navigate contemporary assessment cultures while striving to maintain educationally relevant assessment practices in social studies.

Berg, M., & Persson, A. (2020). Graderande granskning och förklarade glapp: Svensk historie- och samhällskunskapsdidaktisk forskning om lärares bedömningspraktik 2009–2019. Nordidactica – Journal of Humanities and Social Science Education, 2020(1), 18–44. https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-76753 Birenbaum, M. (2014). Conceptualizing assessment culture in school. In C. Wyatt-Smith, V. Klenowski, & P. Colbert (Eds.), Designing assessment for quality learning (pp. 285–302). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5902-2_18 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE Publications. Brookhart, S. M. (2013). The use of teacher judgement for summative assessment in the USA. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 20(1), 69–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2012.703170 Kemmis, S., Wilkinson, J., Edwards-Groves, C., Hardy, I., Grootenboer, P., & Bristol, L. (2014). Researching as a practice-changing practice. In S. Kemmis, J. Wilkinson, C. Edwards-Groves, I. Hardy, P. Grootenboer, & L. Bristol, Changing practices, changing education (pp. 179–204). Springer. Lundahl, C. (2014). Bedömning för lärande (2nd ed.). Studentlitteratur. Lundahl, C., Hultén, M., Klapp, A., & Mickwitz, L. (2015). Betygens geografi: Forskning om betyg och summativa bedömningar i Sverige och internationellt. Vetenskapsrådet. https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-117887 Lundahl, C., Hultén, M., Tveit, S., & Nyman, P. (2019). Betygssystem i internationell belysning. Myndigheten för tillgängliga medier. Mickwitz, L. (2021). Lärarprofessionalism när bedömning är betyg. In Å. Hirsh & C. Lundahl (Eds.), Hållbar bedömning: Bildning, välbefinnande och utveckling i skolans bedömningsarbete (pp. 27–46). Natur & Kultur. https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:su:diva-203517 Pastore, S. (2023). Teacher assessment literacy: A systematic review. Frontiers in Education, 8, Article 1217167. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1217167 Pastore, S., & Andrade, H. L. (2019). Teacher assessment literacy: A three-dimensional model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 84, 128–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.05.003 Sandahl, J. (2018). Vart bör samhällskunskapsdidaktiken gå? Om ett splittrat forskningsfält och vägar framåt. Nordidactica – Journal of Humanities and Social Science Education, 2018(3), 44–64. https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-69736 Sandahl, J., Petterson, L., Kristiansson, M., & Larsson, A. (2011). Att ta sig an världen: Lärare diskuterar innehåll och mål i samhällskunskapsämnet. Karlstads universitet. http://kau.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:418273/FULLTEXT01.pdf Torrance, H. (2012). Formative assessment at the crossroads: Conformative, deformative and transformative assessment. Oxford Review of Education, 38(3), 323–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2012.689693 Wibeck, V. (2010). Fokusgrupper: Om fokuserade gruppintervjuer som undersökningsmetod. Studentlitteratur. Xu, Y., & Brown, G. T. L. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy in practice: A reconceptualization. Teaching and Teacher Education, 58, 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.010