1. The concepts involved in Assessment for Learning

Assessment for Learning - beneficiaries and timing, reproduced from
Swaffield, 2011
Swaffield (2011) interprets AfL as a form of assessment that has an immediate impact on pupils’ learning. The more deferred the impact and/or the further from the pupil it is, the less for learning the assessment becomes. This suggests conceptualising AfL as a continuum and resonates with Black and Wiliam’s (2009) definition of formative assessment, which suggests that formative practice is not a nominal category but that classroom practice can be formative to a certain extent: Practice in a classroom is formative to the extent that evidence about student achievement is elicited, interpreted, and used by teachers, learners, or their peers, to make decisions about the next steps in instruction that are likely to be better, or better founded, than the decisions they would have taken in the absence of the evidence that was elicited. (Black & Wiliam 2009, p. 10) (my emphasis)
This definition highlights the need for assessment-derived evidence to be used to inform
decisions about the next steps in learning. As in the case of previously quoted definitions, ‘the next steps’ are open to various interpretations and contextual factors. Interestingly, Black and Wiliam (2009) do not use the term assessment in their definition but replace it with practice. This is a welcome development in publications about FA and AfL as it seems to better describe the nature of this form of ‘assessment’. As previously discussed (2.3.2.1), the terms seem to have been simplistically interpreted in some educational contexts, which has resulted in their formative function being compromised. The lack of a commonly accepted theoretical framework and terminology associated with AfL and FA has been referred to as a definitional issue (Bennett, 2011) and was addressed by the Third International Conference on Assessment for Learning in Dunedin, New Zealand in March 2009. A definition was agreed during the event according to which AfL is understood to be:
part of everyday practice by students, teachers and peers that seeks, reflects upon and responds to information from dialogue, demonstration and observation in ways that enhance on-going learning (Klenowski, 2009, p. 2).
This conceptualisation emphasizes the importance of enhancing on-going learning as the primary purpose of assessment. Unlike the previously quoted definitions, it provides examples of AfL methods. This seems to partially address the problem of misinterpretation while attempting to implement AfL.

The discussion of the theoretical framework of AfL has so far indicated that participants and purposes of using assessment are the main criteria for distinguishing between FA and AfL. Firstly, all the above definitions acknowledge students’ (and sometimes their peers’) and teachers’ agency in the assessment process. Secondly, the purpose of AfL seems to be to advance the learning of learners involved in the learning situation at hand, while FA seems to have a broader sense, in that it can benefit other participants of the learning process (shown by the y axis in Fig.2.1) or have deferred results (shown by the x axis in Fig. 2.1, except for ‘never’). Following from Swaffield (2011), AfL in the current study is understood as assessment practice that benefits the learning during which it occurs and engages teachers, learners and/or their peers. This definition of AfL is not dissimilar to Black and Wiliam’s (2009) definition of formative practice as quoted above. It is also important to note that the use of the term assessment in AfL has been critiqued as AfL is related predominantly to feedback and learning.

The theoretical framework for AfL adopted in the current study is consistent with the notion of informal formative assessment (IFA) proposed by Ruiz-Primo (2011). IFA consists of ‘small-scale, frequent opportunities teachers have for collecting information about their students’ progress towards the learning goals they have in mind’ (p. 16). RuizPrimo (ibid.) argues convincingly that such assessment occurs predominantly through assessment conversations, i.e. ‘dialogues that embed assessment into an activity already occurring in the classroom’ (p. 17). The primary aim of assessment conversations is to provide evidence of what the learners are thinking in order to enable the teacher to move the learning forward. Ruiz-Primo (ibid.) proposes that informal formative assessment can be effective in facilitating learning if ‘assessment conversations are learning goal-guided’ (p. 17); and ‘dialogic and interactive in nature’ (p. 18); and are used for instructional scaffolding and enculturation: i.e. ‘to immerse students into the language, culture, and artefacts of the academic discipline’ (p. 18). This view seems to be rooted in the shift towards conceptualising classes as well as teaching and learning processes from a sociocultural perspective (2.2.2). The conceptualisation proposed by Ruiz-Primo (ibid.) suggests that it is important to examine the interactions that happen during the use of AfL in order to better understand how AfL may impact on learning in the TEYL classroom. Hence, it provides a rationale for the choice to focus on interaction as the feature of a class that can offer insights into the impact of AfL in TEYL classrooms (RQ3).