This paper is a contribution to the discussion of what function assessment of students has in everyday practice. What consequences do increased control of students’ knowledge have in teachers choices of teaching contents and methods, and thereby for what students are given the opportunity to learn.

An increasingly test-driven educational culture is now reality in many parts of the world (Broadfoot & Black 2004). There is also an ongoing discussion about the effects of national tests and research show that there are certainly both positive and negative outcomes from these sorts of testing (eg. Cimbricz 2002). Wales has for example abandoned the national testing system that England and Wales were a part of (Collins, Reiss & Stobart 2010). Implementation of national tests is found to have different consequences for teachers teaching and assessment practice and there is a need for investigating and nuance what these consequences are (Boesen 2006, Maier 2009). National tests in biology, physics and chemistry in year 9 in Swedish comprehensive school was introduced in spring 2009. The purpose of these tests are to raise the standards, make more students reach the goals by strengthen the follow-up of student knowledge, serve exemplary for teachers teaching and at the same time create a more equal and fair assessment and grading of students. This is described as necessary since Swedish students’ results are cut back in national assessments and they achieve lower scores relatively to students in other comparable countries (eg. TIMSS).

The aim of the study presented is to investigate if and in which way the introduction of national tests in science education influences teachers’ opinions of what is "good" science education and how this effects the teachers’ instructions and assessment in their teaching practice. This study is part of a bigger project. In one part of the project a survey identifying different teaching traditions among Swedish science education teachers has been performed (Lidar et al, unpublished). From the results of the survey, teachers from four different teaching traditions have been selected for interviews.

The theoretical framework is built foremost from Douglas Robert’s categorisation of science education content into curriculum emphasis (1982). Curriculum emphasis is defined as a coherent set of messages about science rather that within science and those messages are said to accompany the teaching of science subject matter. Roberts in Canada and Leif Östman in Sweden found seven different curriculum emphasis in textbooks, in-service training literature and syllabuses; correct explanation, structure of science, solid foundation, scientific skill development, self as explainer, everyday coping and science, technology and decisions (Roberts & Östman 1998). The results will also be analysed and discussed in relation to scientific literacy, starting in Roberts’ (2007) concepts, vision I and vision II. The most obvious distinction between Vision I and Vision II has to do with how the character of socio-scientific issues and problem is conceptualized and experienced in education.

Boesen, J (2006). Assessing mathematical creativity. Comparing national and teacher-made tests, explaining differences and examining impact. Diss. Department of Mathematics and mathematical statistics, Umeå university. Broadfoot, Patrica & Black, Paul (2004). Redefining assessment? The first ten years of assessment in education. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice. In Assessment in education, 11 (1), pp.7-27. Cimbricz, S. (2002). State-mandeted-testing and teachers’ beliefs and practice. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 10(2). Collins, Sue, Reiss, Michael & Stobart, Gordon (2010). What happens when high-stake testing stops? Teachers’ perceptions of the impact of compulsory national testing in science of 11-year-olds in England and its abolition in Wales. Assessment in education: Principles, Policy & Practice, vol. 17, No.3, 273-286. Kvale, Steinar & Brinkman, Svend (2009). Den kvalitativa forskningsintervjun [The qvalitative research interview]. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Lidar, M., Lundqvist, E. Karlberg, M. & Almqvist, J. (unpublished). Manner of teaching and teaching traditions in Science Education: What do teachers emphasize? Roberts, Douglas A. (1982). Developing the concept of “curriculum emphases” in science education. Science Education 66 (2), 243-260. Roberts, Douglas A. (2007). Scientific literacy/Science literacy. In S.K. Abell & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook on research on science education (pp. 729-780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Roberts, Douglas A.& Östman, Leif (1998). Problems of meaning in science curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press. (pp vii-xii).