Purpose:

Although student perspectives are crucial for understanding their experiences of assessments, they have not been investigated to the same extent as other stakeholders’. In particular, the views of low-achieving students are seldom examined. Therefore, this study aimed to enhance knowledge regarding low-achieving students’ assessment experiences. 

Design/Approach/Methods:

A total of 646 peer-reviewed studies were identified through searches in the ERIC, ERC, and Web of Science databases. The PRISMA 2020 statement guided the study. Nine studies were included. A descriptive analysis was conducted, followed by an analysis of the studies found at three grade levels. Prominent factors for understanding low-achieving students’ perspectives were identified using thematic analysis. 

Findings:

There is a gap in research on how low-achieving students experience assessment. Several factors were found: higher levels of anxiety, enhancing the assessment situations, and designing assessments to better support low-achieving students’ in exhibiting their knowledge. Students’ involvement in designing assessments and strategies to cope with stress can enhance their outcomes. 

Originality/Value:

This study conducted a focused literature review of studies on low-achieving students’ perspectives of educational assessments, a topic that has been under-investigated. Understanding low-achieving students’ perspectives of assessments can be used in the design, implementation, and evaluation of assessments.

Purpose: This dissertation aims to study how different artefacts used to assess students’ knowledge are perceived by students and teachers. A particular focus is directed towards assessment from a special educational perspective. Two research questions were posed: 1. What are students’ perceptions and experiences of different assessment practices in the classroom? 2. What are teachers' perceptions and experiences of different assessment practices in the classroom?

Sub-studies: The dissertation provides a qualitative synthesis of 5 studies. Study I is a systematic research review with the aim to enhance knowledge regarding low-achieving students’ assessment experiences. Study II, directed at classroom assessment to provide information on how primary school students in Grades 2 and 5 experience classroom assessment in Swedish. Study III A aimed to contribute knowledge about teachers' perceptions of an external assessment assignment. This was, without deepening the alignment between assessment results and teaching, which Study III B aimed to focus on. Study III B is a reanalysis of part of Study III A. In Study IV, the content’s context was communication in mathematics teaching. The results revealed teachers'assessment expressions.

Theory: The theoretical starting point is sociocultural theory. The choice is based on Gipps who highlights the relationship between teaching, learning and assessment, where assessment is perceived to take place in a social context. To understand the different assessment practices that emerge in the thesis, three categories of assessment: inherent, discursive, and documentary, are used. Mediation is used as an analytical tool.

Method: The methodological approach is an interpretive perspective. All five sub-studies are qualitative. The dissertation provides a qualitative synthesis.

Results: The results reveal a difference in the perceptions and experiences about documented assessment attributed to whether, and what consequences a low score may mean for students and teachers. Discursive assessment emerges as part of teaching. Inherent assessment does not really appear in any of the substudies.

Conclusion: It is not the design of the assessment that matters for students'experience, but its contextualisation, how the meaning is mediated by the teachers rather than the assessment design. Students with special educational needs are more concerned about assessment.

Limitation: This thesis can only describe the talk of assessment but does not study the assessment itself.

Purpose - This study examined participating teachers' expressions about teaching and learning when implementing lesson study (LS) about communication as a special didactic tool in mathematics; it also investigated their experience with LS. The initializing phase was characterized by letting the teachers become familiar with LS as a model for their professional development (PD). It also provided an opportunity for the participants to acquire common understanding of their starting point. Design/methodology/approach - An adapted version of LS was used as a model for teachers' PD. The methods for data collection were a semi-structured interview and discussions with the teachers. From a teaching team in school year 1, two class teachers participated. The data obtained were qualitative and subjected to a thematic analysis. The teachers participated together in the different discussions during the study. All the discussions were audio-recorded. Findings - During the discussions, the teachers raised some critical points: how to gain students' attention during lesson reviews; how to make follow-ups of the students' understanding of lesson content; how to plan and factors that could have been changed in education that could assist in all students' progress. Originality/value - Both the initializing phase and the concept of special didactics have not received full attention in research. This study highlights the importance of capturing the teachers' attained competence toward understanding what is needed for future competence concerning communication as a special didactic tool in mathematics.

The present study aims to study how external assessments are used by teachers, transforming summative test results into a formative approach for teaching, with a special focus on students with SEN. The data material consists of documents and interviews with teachers. The documents were the schools’ compilations of assessment results, including proposals for measures and action programs for individual students. The students’ action programs constitute data material for analysis of their needs regarding the outcomes of the DLS tests. Eight ordinary and six SEN teachers participated in follow-up interviews to express their understanding of the test results and their decisions regarding what adaptations and support the students needed. The results show the teachers’ expressions and understanding of aligning the results to better support the identified SEN students in education. The emerging results indicate that the primary purpose of the assessment was to identify students with SEN and to plan teaching for these students. SEN was identified by test results on or below stanine 3. The planned support was mainly directed toward special education conducted by SEN teachers. Within the same community, different interpretations of the assignment are possible. This may affect how the results are analyzed and implemented into teaching.