Assessment and Learning Issue 2

The Assessment as Learning (AaL) Framework for

Teaching and Learning – The AaL Wheel

Rita Berry
Hong Kong Institute of Education

Introduction

Currently, there is an increasing need in society for individuals with the

ability to deal with dynamic challenges, to be able to constantly learn and to
produce effective and innovative solutions through critical thinking, which is
one important aspect of Learning How To Learn (LHTL) (Crick, 2007). The
LHTL theory maintains that, essentially, there is an overriding need for the
individual to develop not only knowledge-based understandings of materials in
the classroom, but more importantly, metacognitive skills which help them
manage their learning. Learners need skills which they can apply to other
challenges in life, for example, the ability to observe, analyze and learn, what
Black et al. (2006) refers to as ‘lifelong learning’ and what Garrett (2011)
argues as elements in widening students’ capability in learning. LHTL depicts a
learning process during which students learn how to tackle learning course
materials in addition, all the while developing metacognitive skills and
knowledge applicable to other challenges beyond the classroom, from the
workplace to everyday life (James et al., 2007). The last half a century saw a
number of education reforms that took LHTL as a main overarching educational
goal on the reform agenda. The agenda highlights the significance of helping
students take charge of their learning. The assessment policies stipulated in
these reforms suggest the use of self- and peer-assessment to increase learners’
metacognitive abilities (Berry, 2011b). The assessment practices in many
classrooms, however, are still very much less effective than others in promoting
the kinds of learning outcomes that are needed by students today and in the
future (James, 2006).

51
評估與學習 第2期

The pedagogies used by the teacher could impact significantly on the

quality of student learning (Bronkhorst et al., 2011). Education constantly looks
for innovations that bring about improvement in teaching with the express
purpose of improving student learning. What is quite noticeable in all this
transformation is that those in the midst of it need catalysts such as frameworks,
models, advice, and other guidance. Frameworks are very useful to effect
improvement as they provide a useful way to examine possibilities (Bonk &
Dennen 2007; Eun, 2011). They help focus attention on the characteristics of
teaching and learning that are salient to each individual theory. They provide
systematic, well delineated ways of describing and explaining the
teaching/learning process, often with the support of a distinct vocabulary
representative of underlying epistemological and ontological perspectives
(Young, 2008). Marsh (2009) stresses that a well-developed framework should
provide strong links between theory and practice and that it should be inspiring
to teachers. Developing a framework demands strategic alertness (Entwistle and
Walker, 2000). Strategic alertness requires a shift of attention to previously
unattended-to factors through the use of a selected frame of reference. The
framework designed will thus help refocus attention and provide a fresh way of
conceptualizing teaching and learning. The Assessment as Learning (AaL)
Framework proposed intends to look at teaching and learning from a new
perspective – the perspective of assessment in respect to students taking an
active role of their learning.

Teachers’ and Students’ Roles in Assessment as Learning

There are three widely recognized assessment approaches in current

literature, namely, Assessment of Learning (AoL), Assessment for Learning
(AfL) and Assessment as Learning (AaL) which reflect three different focuses
of learning conceptions. AoL represents the assessment conception of
measurement. Judgments of performances are taken at the end of learning.
Assessment practices in many educational contexts are often inclined to link
teaching and learning with this kind of assessment. Both AfL and AaL take the
learning process as being significant and emphasise the roles of assessment in

52
 Assessment and Learning Issue 2

supporting learning. What makes AaL different from AfL is that AaL places
special attention on the role of the learner and promotes active engagement of
learners while AfL places stronger emphasis on the role the teacher plays in
promoting learning. AaL could be said to be an “assessment as learning to learn
paradigm” while AfL an “assessment in support of learning paradigm” (Berry,
2008a).

Earl (2003) says that AfL can go a long way in enhancing student learning.
By introducing the notion of AaL, the intention is to extend the role of AfL by
emphasising the role of the student, not only as a contributor to the assessment
and learning process, but also as the critical connector between them. The
student is thus the link between teaching and learning. Being an active, engaged
and critical assessor, the student makes sense of information, relates it to prior
knowledge, and deliberates the strategies and skills involved in taking their
learning forward. S/he self-analyses, self-references, self-evaluates and
self-corrects in the learning process. These and other metacognitive strategies
help him/her raise their awareness of what s/he is doing so that s/he can plan
what s/he needs to do to move learning forward (Berry & Adamson, 2011).
Students’ roles may also include working out what their teachers expect of them
and doing it well. Brookhart (2001) calls this knowing the art of ‘studenting’.

For the teachers, this entails a major change of their roles, from a presenter
of content to a practitioner of more productive pedagogy, involving shared
responsibility for learning by student and teacher (Klenowski, 2007).
Vygotsky’s conception of the Zone of Proximal Development (1978) suggests
that the aim of teaching is to encourage the learner to be ever more independent
from the teacher. AaL may involve the teacher aligning to a set of procedures
that allow the learner to move forward independently in the required learning.
During the learning process, students are helped to use assessment information
to set goals, make learning decisions related to their own improvement, develop
an understanding of what quality work looks like. They self-assess, seek
feedback from their peers and teachers, and reflect on how these take them to
the next step of learning (Chappuis and Stiggins, 2002). Although AaL concepts
have been in discussion for quite some time, there is little information on how
53
評估與學習 第2期

the concepts can be transferred into actions. The AaL Framework for teaching
and learning, or the AaL Wheel, is subsequently proposed with an aim of
bridging the gap between theory and practice.

The Basic Structure of the Assessment as Learning Framework

Weaver and Farrell (1997, p.45) identify four essential elements in

developing paradigms, models or framework – assumptions/beliefs, values,
vocabulary, and behaviors/activities.
 Assumptions/Beliefs: one’s perceptions about what is real or true; the
foundation for the behaviors and activities that are chosen by him or her.
 Values: one’s views of what are important to him or her; these become the
basis for setting priorities and making choices of what goals to pursue and
how problems are to be solved.
 Vocabulary: the words that are used to communicate, for example, about
how problems are posed and solutions described.
 Behaviors/Activities: are those worked out approaches and solutions that
display the world view as a coherent whole.

The framework proposed in this article is built upon the above mentioned
concepts, using the terminology of Contextual, Societal, Communication, and
Action Domains. The term Contextual Domain is chosen based on the
understanding that no matter how widely recognized some education
conceptions may be, political, economic and cultural contexts should play a part
in policy development and implementation in individual educational settings. In
the AaL Framework, the contextual domain represents the assumptions and
beliefs of the government, often expressed explicitly in official documents and
hence become the policies to direct and govern the activities to be designed by
the personnel working in different education sectors in the society. The term
Societal Domain is selected to acknowledge the influence that society may exert
on educational policies. This domain describes the values, including shared
perceptions and expectations, across one or more groups in the society. The
domain covers the beliefs and philosophies of these groups. Whether in-line
54
 Assessment and Learning Issue 2

with the vision stipulated in the government policies or not, these perceptions
would consequently govern the stakeholders’ decisions and the actions to take in
delivering the government directives. The term Communication Domain is used
for its self-explanatory function – expressions and negotiations of social
meaning. This domain contains the vocabulary or the words that are used to
communicate, for example, about how problems are posed and solutions
described. It is the language, including common terminology and
understandings through which the beliefs are conferred and understood. Action
Domain is picked as the term implies change and progression (Angyal’s System
Dimensional Model (Angyal, 1941)). Linking theory to practice is often
regarded as a challenge (Berry, 2008b; Munns, 2005; Rose, 2002). Actions are
the catalysts to link conceptions into classroom practice. The Action Domain of
the AaL Framework describes the behaviors or activities happening at the
implementation frontline. The activities can consist of simple, singular tasks
that are carried out on a daily or regular basis.

The Contextual Domain is core to the framework. The stored information

in the context is retrieved by the other three domains for deliberation,
interaction, and delivery of actions. The context domain, in turn, draws
observations from the societal, communication and action domains in order to
update the information stored within itself, acting as a dynamic archive. For
example, if the framework was the clothing industry, before a skirt is designed
and manufactured (Action Domain), the factory draws upon existing knowledge
of information from the Contextual Domain, which can be the policies and
regulations set by the government and respective organizations. To determine
what designs and manufacturing processes would be more successful and what
costs would result, the factory will need to refer to the Societal Domain to check
what views the society has on skirts. The views may include public opinion on
the appropriateness of, fashion trends about, and gender implications towards
skirts. At the same time, the factory will need to be sure that the terminology
used, such as the term ‘skirt’ and other messages, including problems and
solutions, in relation to the design and production are established and can be
communicated with relevant parties (the Communication Domain). The Action

55
評估與學習 第2期

Domain represents the actions, for example, sewing a hem on a skirt in a

garment factory. Methodologies in this domain are a combination of many ‘do’s,
for example, how to run a factory or, even the garment industry as a whole, such
that there is a tangible product. After production of the skirt, the information
stored in the Contextual Domain would be updated with the observations that
were made across the board – how successful the production process was
(Action Domain), whether the manufacturing process caused any public
disturbances or damage (Societal Domain), if the language of the industry had
changed over time (Communication Domain), etc., allowing for the
development of all four domains. Figure 1 below presents the basic structure of
the four domains in the AaL Framework.

Figure 1. The basic structure of the Assessment as Learning (AaL) Framework

56
 Assessment and Learning Issue 2

The Assessment as Learning Framework for Teaching and

Learning

Though the structure of a framework can be varied, in constructing a new

framework, it is deemed important to know the reality of the situation and the
parameters of the expectations. According to Stansfield (2001), the approach
towards constructing a new framework should begin with the definition of the
desire (expectations) – what one believes to be the truth. This is followed by
observing what the reality is in this particular domain, and a comparison
between the two.

The Contextual Domain

In the contextual domain of the AaL Framework, a desirable situation is

that government policies embed the development of “Learning how to learn” in
students, with a vision on making assessment an agent for activating student
learning. There will be emphasis on taking assessment as a process of
metacognition for students. Assessment policies will revolve around learning
process, taking student-centeredness as core. Official documents may contain a
section with detailed guidelines on how teachers’ roles can be de-centered to
students in the purpose of making students take more responsibility for their
own learning. Drawing on the government assessment policies, the assessment
policies for different education sectors can focus on developing students’ ability
to learn, for example, enhancing their critical thinking, analyzing and general
skills. More directions can be given to create opportunities for students, either in
groups, pairs or individually, to reflect and analyze their own performance and
subsequently work on the next steps for learning. Assessment is seen as a
partnership between students and teachers, where the former is not only active
but also responsible for their own learning and assessment while the latter acts
as a facilitator, providing opportunities for learning and self development and
guidance when necessary. Teachers are to be supported to use assessment to
promote LHTL. The government may provide funding for teacher training and
offer additional resources to reduce teacher-student ratio to enable more
classroom interactions between the teacher and the students. Through an agora

57
評估與學習 第2期

between the government and the personnel from different educational sectors
and contexts, the development of LHTL in connection with assessment may be
established.

In many education contexts, assessment policies at government level are

more focused on giving detailed descriptions of rules and regulations of
examinations, mechanisms for marking and moderation of scores, avoiding
plagiarism and cheating, etc. There is typically little or no discussion on how
assessment can contribute to learning, in particularly how it may help students
to become active learners (Boud, 2007). Many countries, particularly in recent
years, embarked on educational reforms with LHTL highlighted as the way
forward for the overarching educational aim. In their official documents, these
countries provide the overarching policy to link assessment with learning but
generally miss concrete ideas on how to make assessment a useful tool to
promote active learning in parts or all of their policies and guidelines. At
schools, similarly, assessment policies are usually presented as a form of official
document which may not contain a section with detailed guidance on how, and
on what bases, judgments about the quality of student performance should be
raised through increasing learners’ self awareness of their learning. Assessment
policies revolve around processes like examinations, grading, as well as quality
assurance, with less emphasis on linking assessment with learning (Saddler,
2005; Berry, 2011b).

The Societal Domain

Regarding the Societal Domain, one would like to see that society
perceives assessment as a tool to help develop potentials and abilities in dealing
with challenges in life. Employers would be more aware of the fact that grades
and numbers shown on the qualification documents can only depict some of the
qualities of their staff. Parents would come to understand that assessment is not
simply a tool for measuring their children’s performance and abilities or
checking the return on their financial and emotional investments, but also a tool
to help their children develop metacognitive skills for their future. They will
recognize that assessment is both a responsibility of the teacher and the student,

58
 Assessment and Learning Issue 2

with an emphasis on the latter, and hence help with the psychological and
mental preparation of their children towards dealing with self-assessment while
the child is under their care. Teachers, similarly, are to see assessment as not
only their responsibility, but also that of the students. As such, assessment
requires teachers not only to allow, but to encourage and facilitate student
participation in monitoring and critiquing their own work and progress, and by
association, their own learning. They would see their role in assessment as
facilitators, helping students, for example, understand the criteria to assess
themselves, self reflect their performance and make educated decisions on what
to do next in enhancing their learning. Students will realize that assessment
procedures are opportunities for them to develop LHTL. They would learn that
assessment is a tool to help them monitor learning and understand what learning
stage they are at. With the updated information, they will direct efforts towards
improving their work. They will acknowledge the importance of the internal
processes of assessment in their own learning process and uses external
assessment as a necessary but relatively auxiliary form of support.

In recent years, there has been an increased advocacy across education

sectors on having students become more active players in assessment as part of
the process of learning (Berry, 2006; Craddock & Mathias, 2009). Accordingly,
assessment can be used as a tool to help develop individuals into people who are
more able to deal with different challenges. Although this view of assessment is
gradually gaining more recognition, the larger public still places the values of
assessment strongly in certifications, qualifications and accountability (Berry,
2011a; Knight, 2003; Murphy, 2006). Employers often make decisions based on
the grade and marks achievements of the candidates. Many parents see
assessment as a measurement of the return on their financial investment in their
offspring (Race, 1999). Teachers are under pressure to feed their students with a
certain amount of academic and community needs information and the simplest
way to do it is to adopt the old and traditional approaches to teaching.
Assessment methods are not tailored to student needs and students are rarely, if
ever, given an active role in their own assessment (Carless, 2006; Gibbs &
Simpson, 2004). Teachers come to see teaching and students’ learning as

59
評估與學習 第2期

something done to them rather than something teachers and students can be in
control of (Watkins et al., 2007). Students are very used to taking assessment as
the teacher’s responsibility. This is particularly likely to happen if their teachers
also believe that this is all they are capable of doing (Kember, 2004).

The Communication Domain

The Communication Domain of the AaL Framework would like to see in

the society an increased consensus of the function of activating learning in
assessment. Assessment is communicated across different parties as a tool
which students and teachers can use to enhance learning and develop students’
metacognitive abilities. Both teachers and students can be involved in the
assessment and learning process. Teachers are the supporter in students’
learning process, guiding and helping them to develop the right mentality to
learn. Through various kinds of dialogues between teachers and students,
students are helped to understand quality of work. Students are given
opportunity to establish the ability to check their progress against standards, and
make plans to improve when the standards have not been met (Assessment
Reform Group, 2006; Expert Group on Assessment, 2009).

The society, however, may not see assessment in the same way. Nicol &
Macfarlane-Dick (2006) point out that students, more often than not, take on a
passive role in the assessment process. Klenowski (2009) says that there are
often variations in interpretation and terminology of assessment. For example,
assessment might be treated as an equivalent of tests and examinations.
Assessment may be interpreted as merely a tool to generate grades/marks at the
end of the learning process. Teachers could be understood as judges to the final
product of learning. Formative Assessment (FA), usually used interchangeably
with Assessment for Learning (AfL), may be misinterpreted as testing students
continuously with a keen focus on checking learning outcomes at the end of
numerous teaching intervals. AfL advocators would prefer FA or AfL interpreted
as assessing students continuously to understand how students learn so that
timely support can be given to them. The interpretation of grades and marks is
another example. Grades and marks are often treated as a direct conversion of

60
 Assessment and Learning Issue 2

feedback. Grades or marks are better understood as one form of feedback,

which when used alone, are judgmental of performances and do not give
directions for improvement.

The Action Domain

In the Action Domain, when applied to day-to-day teaching, teachers can

use multi-faceted and various types of assessment to provide students with
different kinds of learning experiences. Teachers select, develop, or adapt
assessment methods for use based on students’ learning needs and different
learning styles. They provide self-assessment opportunities for students and
help them develop good quality self-assessment. Teachers can try using smaller
tasks to make timely feedback possible. Feedback, informal or formal, should
be constructive which aims at, in addition to acknowledging students
achievements, helping students understand what has been achieved and how to
advance from there. Through dialogues or written forms of communication,
teachers help students identify the types of strategies which are useful for their
learning. For students, the actions will entail a greater involvement in their own
learning. There will be opportunities for students to practice assessing skills.
They will be supported to understand different standards, for example, the
standards required by the teacher and what ‘higher standards’ entail. Students
set their learning goals for assignments and choose strategies to complete the
assignments. They record the progress and make notes of the issues that worth
attention. They may then work out how they could improve their work.

Shipman, Aloi and Jones (2003) point out that, in many classrooms,
students are given a minimal or non-existent role in assessment. Formative
assessment and feedback are still largely controlled by and seen as the
responsibility of teachers and feedback is still generally conceptualized as a
transmission process (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006; Hargreaves, 2011).
Syllabuses are often provided to students with minimal or insufficient
explanation of assessment criteria. There is very little communication of
assignment requirements between the teacher and students. Feedback is
frequently given in the form of grades with very little communication to
students what the grades imply and how students can move on to the next level
of learning. The common phenomenon in this kind of classroom is that students
61
評估與學習 第2期

are not able and/or not willing to take control of their learning. This could have
resulted from being treated incessantly as passive participants throughout their
major time of education, when assessment used is largely traditional,
number-based, with specific purposes such as grading, selection, certifications,
and qualifications. This kind of assessment usually associates with standardized
summative assessments frequently in the form of MC, short answers, etc (Berry,
2010). The learning mode adopted by students usually reflects their mentality of
learning. Provided with a passive learning environment, students tend to rote
learn. They may perceive that this is what their teachers and their course expect
them to do, or that it is what the assessment requires. Students are unaware of
what active learning is and how assessment can be of help in making learning
active. To meet academic requirements, they normally streamline their study
methods and study for the tests, often causing surface learning (Gibbs, 1999).
The following table (Table 1) summarizes the ways on how the current
situations could be made better.
Table 1. Assessment as Learning (AaL) Framework for Teaching and
Learning –The Targets

AaL The Targets

Domains
Contextual: Policies by the government:
- Embed the policy in the development of “Learning how to learn” in
students, with a vision on making assessment an agent for
activating student learning;
- Share the vision with the personnel in different education sectors;
- Provide resources and concrete ideas for teacher training and
allocate greater funding to reduce teacher-student ratio so as to
facilitate AaL development.
Policies at the educational frontline:
- Take developing students’ abilities to learn how to learn as one
main focus of assessment;
- Specify in the policies that assessment is also a process of
metacognition development in students;
- Encourage partnership between students and teachers, where the
former is not only active but also responsible for their own learning
and assessment while the latter acts as a facilitator, providing
opportunities for learning and self development and guidance when
necessary.

62
 Assessment and Learning Issue 2

Societal: Views of the society:

- Sees assessment as a tool to help develop potentials and abilities to
deal with challenges in life.
Views of the teacher:
- Sees assessment as an agent for enhancing student learning, in
addition to its other functions such as certification;
- Sees assessment a shared responsibility between the teacher and the
student;
- Sees assessment a dialogue between the student and the teacher
regarding student learning;
- Sees the teacher’s role in assessment as facilitator, helping the
student learn, for example, what standards to meet, how to
self-assess, and what kinds of strategies to take to move learning
forwards.
Views of the student:
- Sees assessment as an opportunity to take responsibility and action
in learning;
- Sees the teacher a supporter of their learning but understand the
support will decrease over time;
- See assessment as a tool to help monitor learning and understand
what learning stage s/he is at. With the updated information, the
student will direct efforts towards improving his/her work.
Views of the parent:
- Sees assessment, in addition to its many other functions, as a tool to
help their children develop metacognitive skills for their future;
- Sees assessment as both a responsibility of the teacher and the
student, with an emphasis on the latter.
Views of the employer:
- Understands that the assessment results shown on qualification
documents can only tell part of the abilities of his/her staff.

Communi- Learning as: a process that allows students to take control of their
learning. Students can set their own learning goals, check their
cation: progress against standards, and make plans to improve when the
standards have not been met.
Assessment as: a tool through which students and teachers can use to
enhance learning and develop students’ metacognitive abilities.
Both teachers and students can be involved in the assessment and
learning process.
Teachers as: facilitators in the learning and assessment process,
guiding and helping students to develop the right mentality and
skills to learn and assess.
Students as: active participants in the process of assessment and
stewards of their own learning. They are able to set their own
learning goals and select the strategies which are helpful for their
learning. They know how to self and peer assess and understand the
purpose of self- and peer-assessment.

63
評估與學習 第2期

Action: For teachers:

Learning opportunities, for example:
- Use multi-faceted and various types of assessment to provide
students with different kinds of learning experiences;
- Select, develop, or adapt assessment methods based on students’
learning needs, for example, different learning styles;
- Provide self-assessment opportunities for students and help them
develop good quality self-assessment.
Feedback and support, for example:
- Try using smaller tasks to make timely feedback possible.
Feedback can be informal or formal;
- Give constructive feedback that helps students understand what and
how to advance;
- Through dialogue, help facilitate students planning of strategies to
improve learning;
- Acknowledge students’ achievements.
For students:
Self involvement, for example:
- Understand different standards including the standards required by
the teacher; find out what ‘higher standards’ entail;
- Establish own goals for assignments;
- Choose strategies deemed appropriate to tackle the assignment;
- Record entire progress, making note of any issues arising and have
been resolved;
- Write self reflections;
- Write peer reviews;
- Prepare questions based on self, peer and tutor evaluations prior to
communication;
- Communicate with the teacher directly or through self reflections
after the completion of the exercise;
- Modify learning strategies appropriately.
Student development, for example:
- Seize opportunities to practise assessment skills;
- Learn how to set appropriate learning goals and reflect or report on
own progress against the goals;
- Involve in group work and practise peer assessment.

How Students Can Be Helped to Become Active in Learning

The four domains of the AaL Framework for teaching and learning are
engaged in a dynamic relationship, with constantly evolving definitions,
understanding of social perceptions and plans of actions in various contexts,
aiming at helping learners take an active role in their learning. The Context
Domain, represents the policies that convey the beliefs and assumptions of AaL
64
 Assessment and Learning Issue 2

in documents, provides the three other domains with AaL information through
policies, directives and guidelines but is constantly updated with observations
from three other domains to make AaL understandable in the society and
implementable at the education frontline. The Communication Domain
establishes the definition of AaL terminologies within the framework, such as
that of assessment and active learning, setting the language through which the
framework will be communicated. Overarching social attitudes, including the
perceptions and attitudes of educators, administrators, teachers and students,
parents and employers, are contained within the Societal Domain. The change in
framework language (e.g. definitions) may cause a change in social values in
assessment. Learning concepts which highlight student-centredness relates
assessment as the activities used by students for gathering information,
analyzing and interpreting it, drawing inferences, making wise decisions, and
taking appropriate actions in the service of one’s learning. Through different
channels, this interpretation of assessment is communicated, which may
gradually make an impact on how the society sees assessment. A change in the
perception of assessment can change assessment practices, reflected in the
Action Domain. The Action Domain represents the responsibilities, roles and
characteristics of the student and the teacher. These include the strategies and
implementation of AaL practised by the teacher. Students are helped to become
active participants in the process of assessment and stewards of their own
learning, setting their own goals and developing the skills necessary to achieve
them through self- and peer- assessment as well as teacher assessment. Students
are allowed to take control of their learning and are helped to set realistic and
useful learning goals. When using the new action strategies in the classroom,
teachers have a direct understanding of the kind of impact of their actions on
students, which may in turn make a change in their perceptions of assessment or
even redefine the assessment language in itself for communication with their
counterparts. The context domain, as mentioned previously will draw the
information from the three domains and update the policies, directives and
guidelines which suit the needs of the education community. The figure (Figure
2) below, which builds on the basic structure of the AaL Framework (Figure 1),
presents the key features of how students can be helped to become active in
learning.

65
評估與學習 第2期

The AaL Wheel

Change in the language

for assessment, Change in
including common perceptions in
·Society: sees the and
terminology and linkage between
·Learning as: a process expectations of
understandings that students are allowed assessment and LHTL
through which to take control of their ·Teachers: see themselves assessment
facilitators in helping
the beliefs and learning.
students develop LHTL
perceptions are ·Assessment as: a tool to through assessment
promote development of
conferred and ·Students: see
cognitive skills and an
understood assessment as an
ability to learn.
opportunity for them
·Teachers as: to take charge of their
facilitators in the own learning
learning and ·Parents: see
·Policies:Contextual
convey the beliefs and
assessment process. assessment a tool to
assumptions of AaL in documents
Domain help their children
·Students as: active and disseminate the message
develop soft skills for
participants in the to the society
their future and realize
process of assessment ·Implementation: provides
the active role their
and stewards of their concrete ideas &
children can play in
own learning resources
assessment
·Employers: interpret
academic results
cautiously

·Teachers: provide students with an environment where students are

facilitated to take control of their learning through assessment
·Students: great involvement in the learning and
assessment activities.

Change in
assessment practices

Figure 2. The Assessment as Learning Framework - The AaL Wheel for

teaching and learning

Conclusion

Despite the frequent changes and development of school-level curricula

and teaching methodologies with an increasing focus on the need for greater
student participation in the assessment process and a formative approach to
learning, developments with regard to assessment and instruction leaves
something to be desired. Many current assessment and instruction practices
encourage students to demonstrate current knowledge and to play a passive role
in the assessment process, rather than developing critical thinking abilities and
being active in their own learning. The Assessment as Learning Framework
places strong emphasis on the role of the learner and highlights the use of
assessment to increase learners’ ability to take control of their own learning.
This framework is built upon the combination and integration of the four

66
 Assessment and Learning Issue 2

domains: Contextual, Societal, Communication and Action Domains. In the

Assessment as Learning Framework, the four domains are engaged in a
dynamic relationship, with constantly evolving definitions, plans of actions and
understanding of social perceptions in various contexts, aiming at helping
learners take an active role in their learning so that students can be more able to
tackle their challenges in and beyond the classroom.

References
Angyal, A. (1941). Foundations for a Science of Personality. Cambridge, MA: Harvaard
University Press.

Assessment Reform Group (2006). The Role of Teachers in the Assessment of Learning.
London: University Institute of Education.

Berry, R. (2011a). Assessment Trends in Hong Kong: seeking to establish formative

assessment in an examination culture. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy &
Practice, 18(2), 199-211.

Berry, R. (2011b). Assessment reforms around the world. In R. Berry, & B. Adamson (Eds.),
Assessment Reform in Education: Policy and Practice (pp.89-102). Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Springer.

Berry, R. (2010). Teachers' orientations towards selecting assessment strategies. New

Horizons in Education, 58(1), 96-107.

Berry, R. (2008a). Assessment for Learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Berry, R. (2008b). From theory to practice: Curriculum for autonomous learning. In M. F.

Hui, & D. Grossman (Eds.), Improving Teacher Education through Action Research
(pp.117-136). New York, USA: Routledge

Berry, R. (2006). Activating learners using the learner autonomy approach: An action
research on the relevance of teaching to classroom practice. Curriculum Perspectives, 26
(3), 34-43.

Berry, R. & Adamson, B. (2011). Assessment reform past, present and future. In R. Berry, &
B. Adamson (Eds.), Assessment Reform in Education: Policy and Practice (pp.3-14).
Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer

Black, P., McCormick, James, M. & Pedder, D. (2006). Learning how to learn and assessment
for learning: A theoretical inquiry. Research Papers in Education, 21(2), 119-132.

67
評估與學習 第2期

Bonk, C. J., & Dennen, V. (2007). Frameworks for design and instruction. In M. G. Moore
(Ed.), Handbook of Distance Education (2nd Ed.) (pp. 233-246). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Boud, D. (2007). Reframing Assessment. In D. Boud & N. Falchikov, Rethinking Assessment

in Higher Education (pp. 14-25). New York, NY: Routledge.

Bronkhorst, L. H., Meijer, P. C., Koster, B. & Vermunt, J. D. (2011). Fostering

meaning-oriented learning and deliberate practice in teacher education. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 27(7), 1120-1130

Brookhart, S. (2001). Successful students’ formative and summative uses of assessment

information. Assessment in Education, 8(2), 153-169.

Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process, Studies in Higher

Education, 31(2), 219-233.

Chappuis, S. and Stiggins, R. (2002). Classroom assessment for learning. Educational

Leadership, 60(1), 40-43.

Craddock, D. & Mathias, H. (2009). Assessment options in higher education. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(2), 127-140.

Crick, R. D. (2007). Learning how to learn: the dynamic assessment of learning power. The
Curriculum Journal, 18(2), 135-153.

Earl, L. M. (2003). Assessment as Learning: Using Classroom Assessment to Maximize

Student Learning. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press.

Entwistle, N., & Walker, P. (2000). Strategic awareness within sophisticated conceptions of
teaching. Instructional Science, 28(5-6), 335-361.

Expert Group on Assessment (2009). The Report of the Expert Group on Assessment.
Retrieved on 29 August 2011 from:
http://publications.dcsf.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/Expert-Group-Report.pdf

Eun, B. (2011). From learning to development: a sociocultural approach to instruction.

Cambridge Journal of Education, 40(4), 401-418.

Garratt, D. (2011). Reflections on learning: widening capability and the student experience.
Cambridge Journal of Education, 41(2), 211-225.

Gibbs, G. (1999). Using assessment strategically to change the way students learn. In S.
Brown and A. Glasner (Eds.), Assessment matters in higher education: Choosing and
using diverse approaches (pp. 41-54). Buckingham: Open University Press.

Gibbs, G. & Simpson, C. (2004) Conditions under which assessment supports students’
learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1(1), 3-26.

68
 Assessment and Learning Issue 2

Hargreaves, E. (2011). Teachers' feedback to pupils: 'Like so many bottles thrown out to sea'?
In R. Berry, & B. Adamson (Eds.), Assessment Reform in Education: Policy and Practice
(pp.121-133). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

James, M. (2006). Assessment, teaching and theories of learning. In J. Gardner, Assessment

and Learning (pp. 47.-60). London: Sage.

James, M., Black, P., McCormick, R. & Pedder, D. (2007). Promoting learning how to learn
through assessment for learning. In M. James, and R. McCormick et al. (Eds.), Improving
Learning How to Learn: Classroom, Schools, and Networks (pp.1-29). NY: Routledge.

Klenowski, V. (2009). Assessment for learning revisited: an Asia-Pacific perspective.

Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 16(3), 263-268.

Klenowski, V. (2007). Book Review: Assessment and learning. Assessment in Education:

Principles, Policy & Practice, 14(2), 269-274.

Kember, D. (2004). Misconceptions about the learning approaches, motivation and study
practices of Asian students, In M. Tight, The Routlegefalmer Reader in Higher Education
(pp.37-52). London: RoutlegeFalmer.

Knight, P. T. (2003). Summative assessment in higher education: Practices in disarray. Studies

in Higher Education, 27(3), 275-287.

Marsh, C. (2009). Key Concepts for Understanding Curriculum (3rd Ed.). London & New
York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Munns, G. (2005). School as a cubbyhouse: tension between intent and practice in classroom
curriculum. Curriculum Perspectives, 25(1), 1-12.
Murphy, R. (2006). Evaluating new priorities for assessment in higher education. In
Innovative Assessment in Higher Education (pp. 37-47). New York, NY: Routledge.

Nicol, D. J. & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning:

A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education,
31(2), 199-218.

Race, P. (1999). Why assess innovatively? In S. Brown & A. Glasner, Assessment Matters in
Higher Education (pp. 57-70). Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

Rose, R. (2002). Teaching as a “research-based profession”: Encouraging practitioner

research in special education. British Journal of Special Education 29(1), 44-48.

Saddler, D. R. (2005). Interpretations of criteria-based assessment and grading in higher

education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(2),175-194

Shipman, D., Aloi, S. L. & Jones, E. A. (2003). Addressing key challenges in higher
education assessment. Journal of General Education, 52(4), 335-346.

69
評估與學習 第2期

Stansfield, M. (2001). Introduction to Paradigms: Overview, Definitions, Categories, Basics,

Optimizing Paradigms & Paradigm Engines. Victoria, B.C: Trafford.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and Society: the Development of Higher Psychological

Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Watkins, C., Carnell, E. and Lodge, C. (2007). Effective Learning in Classrooms. London:
Paul Chapman.

Weaver, R. G., & Farrell, J. D. (1997). Managers as Facilitators: A Practical Guide to

Getting Work Done in a Challenging Workplace. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler
Publishers.

Young, S. (2008). Theoretical frameworks and models of learning: tools for developing
conceptions of teaching and learning. International Journal for Academic Development,
13(1), 41-49.

Author’s e-mail: [email protected]

70