1

We have tried AFL and it didnt work (DofE). But thats because they didnt try the
AFL that does work. (Wiliam as cited in Stewart, 2012)

We have tried AFL and it didnt work (DofE). But thats because they didnt
try the AFL that does work. (Wiliam as cited in Stewart, 2012)
Reflecting on the potential of Assessment for Learning (AfL) to improve
substantially the quality of learning in schools is an aspect of assessment that
requires further investigation. AfL has been in place throughout UK schools since
2008 and has not delivered on its initial promise. As a result, people are currently
questioning its worth and continued use. Reference to the implementation of AfL and
how certain choices are made in regards to both the implementation and other
education policies which have influenced the success of AfL are, therefore, important
avenues of interest.
There are many variations on the definition of AfL, and it is important to make a clear
distinction, before discussing of the history of AfL, and the factors and players
leading to its implementation 6 years ago. The issues of implementation are also of
interest regarding the conflict between the increased importance of summative
assessment and the successfully implement AfL practices into schools. This conflict
between the two means that formative assessment (AfL practices), have struggled
to gain a foothold in schools where it should have been able to reassure all its users
of its worth. The dichotomy between the two theories of knowledge related to this,
include, the current high stakes summative assessment education system the
consequences of high stakes assessment also impacts upon the curriculum and
student motivation, and one which is more closely related to AfL principles.

2

Professor Paul Black, a leading figure in education and advocate of AfL, blames the
lack of success in English schools on the government for emphasising the
measurement of pupil progress (as cited in Stewart, 2012). Considering this and how
the government has altered the AfL message and failed to include some of the most
basic ideas that we had been advocating (Wiliam as cited in Stewart, 2012), helps
to put some perspective on the whole issue.
The implementation of AfL by the Government, and the consequences of a process
of highly bureaucratised and ossified way of turning AfL into some kind of weird
amalgam of formative and summative assessment where everything had to be
recorded to the nth degree (Bangs, 2012) is also a consideration.
From here we can look more into the integration of AfL practices in to every day
classroom and school activities. Professor Bangs is also quoted stating that the
government strategy lacked a proper strategy for teachers professional development
in relation to AfL (as cited in Stewart, 2012). Following this the roles of schools
senior leaders and communities are considered as they are important in enabling AfL
to flourish.
The two prior points will led to the next issue regarding use of AfL techniques in
schools. Termed letter vs. spirit, this refers to educators implementing classroom
activities in the true spirit of AfL or merely following the letter of AfL, relegating it to
token gestures and a tick box activities. I will write about the consequences of this.
Finally, an attempt to make a recommendation to Rt Hon Mrs Nicky Morgan,
Secretary of State for Education for UK, addressing the implementation issues
outlined and how the next steps in AfLs journey should be made, has been included.

3


The definition published by the Assessment for learning strategy document in
2008, Assessment for Learning is the process of seeking and interpreting evidence
for use by learners and their teachers to decide where learners are in their learning,
where they need to go and how best to get there (Assessment for learning Strategy,
2008, pp. 3). There are many other valid definitions of AfL; this definition is originally
from the Assessment reform group (ARG), which was a driving force behind AfL
implementation in the UK. For the purposes of this essay formative assessment and
AfL are thought as the same thing. The term Formative assessment has been
around for a long time. The term was first used in 1967s by Scriven and Sadler
(1989) whos definition was widely used and accepted as a basis for good practice
(McDowell, Sambell, & Davison, 2009). It was Black and Wiliam, however, who
conducted a review across all areas of education and refined the definition of
formative assessment which led to AfL. One important distinction is that AfL is
related to improving learning in the now or the very near future (Swaffield, 2011, pp.
442), whereas formative assessment does not have a limited time frame. AfL,
therefore, limits only what can be called formative; summative test results, used to
change government policy years later, is not authentic AfL. Willis writes that in AfL,
the focus is on the learner; improving students understanding and motivation to
improve their own learning performances (2007 as cited in Hill, 2011).
The minister of state for schools and 14-19 learners at the time, Rt Hon J im Knight,
introduced AfL to all maintained schools in 2008. The government invested 150
million over three years with the aim of a world-class education system for all.
Personalised teaching and learning were at the heart of making this happen. Whilst
maths and English were the initial focus of AfL implementation, with support and

4

guidance given, it was hoped that effective AfL would benefit all subjects and be
used throughout the schools. In keeping with the AfL ideal of knowing where the
learner is, in order to decide where they need to go and how best to get there,
Assessing Pupils Progress (APP) was introduced to assist teachers in making
concise judgments about a learners progress in relation to the National curriculum
(NC) levels and sub-levels. The government also distributed a self-evaluation tool to
help schools identify areas in need of improvement, and they hoped to have an
assessment specialist in every school to help run in-school moderation, induct new
staff into assessment routines or develop a robust assessment policy for the school.
(AfL Strategy, 2008, pp.10)

From here, the success of AfL can be related to the implementation strategies
used. The first includes the increased importance of summative assessment, while
trying to implement AfL.
The use and importance of high stakes summative testing has been steadily
increasing, and the uses of the results of these assessments are used for more and
more purposes. It is this increasing importance that is the first barrier to AfL success.
High stakes summative assessment promotes a behaviourist type of classroom, one
in which the pupil exhibits a particular type of behaviour and is rewarded for it.
Behaviourist classrooms tend to have a transmission style of teaching where
students are passive recipients (Harlen, 2005, pp.209). This type of view of
education does not promote nor reward learner autonomy; a desired outcome of AfL
(Willis, 2011, pp.399). This is in direct contrast to an AfL type classroom where
opportunities to assess learners include activities such as class discussions,

5

collaboration and peer and self-assessment. An AfL classroom is more closely
related to Vygotsky and Deweys view of socially constructed nature of learning and
the desire to promote autonomy (Marshall & Drummond, 2006, pp.135). Shepard
writes that a paradigm shift is needed from social efficacy, behaviourism and
scientific measurement to theories based on social constructivism and sociocultural
theories of teaching and learning (as cited in Lysaght & OLeary, 2013). Social
constructivism entails that all knowledge is created by interacting with out
surroundings. For example, in a classroom setting, learning would take place best
during collaborative tasks, discussions and self and peer assessment. Passing
summative tests by memorising dates and facts will not be enough to ensure
success in adulthood. Schools must provide skills, understanding and a desire for
lifelong learning (The role of teachers in the assessment for learning, pp. 8). This
social constructionist view of knowledge is more closely related to how adults
operate within the world today, and is therefore, clearly more relevant to the learners
of today. This conflict between these two mutually exclusive models of knowledge
and the consequences on education is one of the reasons that AfL has not realised
its true potential in English schools. High stakes summative and AfL formative
assessment can exist together and in an ideal world they would, however, with high
stakes summative testing firmly entrenched and increasingly given more importance,
it is hard for AfL practices to gain a footing. When testing is influencing what goes
on in the classroom, little use is made of formative assessment to help learning
(Harlen, 2005, pp. 210).
Summative testing and the goal of high stakes testing and exams is to be able
to generalise over a diverse range of students with unique backgrounds. To do this
the tests must be objective and fair. A consequence of this is a narrowing of the

6

curriculum. Tests tend to cover topics that are easily tested and questions that are
readily marked are usually favoured. This encourages teachers to teach only what is
being tested and do repeated practice tests. The AfL 10 principles diagram is a guide
to classroom practice that states that to enhance all learners opportunities to learn in
all areas of educational activity (ARG, 2002, pp.3), hence, AfL is not about restricting
the curriculum. An AfL classroom should enable a variety of learning opportunities
and activities so that wide range of topics and skills can be assessed. This conflict is
restricting the use of AfL practices by teachers and has thus impacted on the
success of AfL. Of note here is that use of AfL can help pupils perform better on
summative assessments. (Wiliam, 1998)
In students, high-stakes testing promotes a strong extrinsic orientation towards
grades and social status (Harlen, 2005, pp. 211). Kelly writes that one of the things
that characterises education, is that it is concerned with activities undertaken for their
own sake or intrinsically, otherwise it is not education, it is training or instruction. She
relates this view of education for the sake of grades and external rewards as
precluding characteristics essential to education and not allowing education
provision in the full sense (Kelly, 2004). The effects of high stakes testing on learner
motivation is not a positive one. High stakes testing has the largest negative effect
on the learners who need the most help (Harlen, 2005, pp. 210, Swaffield 2011, pp.
445). Converse to this, AfL has been shown to be particularly effective with low
achievers (Stiggins, 2005, pp.2).
This type of attitude detracts from the true purpose of education; a journey of
progression. AfL supports this view, the other involves collaboration, peer and self-
assessment which can only lead to a better view on knowledge and education.

7

The Assessing Pupil Progress (APP) initiative was implemented to assist
teachers with a core part of AfL, assessing what the learner is capable of, in order to
guide their future progress. The APP documents consist of a list of skills and tasks
linked to the NC levels, so curriculum targets can be set and levels of attainment
reported to parents. Also, subject leaders would be able to make judgements about
progress and if necessary change schemes of work, teaching and pupil groups.
While this appears to be in keeping with AfL principles, Sue Swaffield writes that
APP is about summative assessment (2011, pp.444), AfL is more broad, not
restricted to the NC. Summative assessment in the guise of formative is a reason
why AfL has not been successful in English schools; it is not authentic AfL. Teachers
who are concerned that they will be held accountable for APP levels will be tempted
to be more generous with judgments and less objective, hence defeating the
purpose. Accountability discourages thoughtful AfL classroom practices (Shepard,
2000 as cited in Carless, 2005, pp.42).
This is an example of the principles or intentions of AfL being altered by government
messages. The next obstacle that prevented the successful implementation of AfL
practises was the altering of definitions. Sue Swafield points out that in the AfL
strategy document, that the 10 principles of AfL need to be combined, like the three
by three jigsaw puzzle she presents, This diagram firstly ranks the principles, with
the centre piece taking the number one spot and coloured bright red to indicate that
it recognises all educational achievement, (Swaffield, 2011, pp. 445) and secondly
combining two to fit one jigsaw piece. Swaffield also writes about how the
government implemented and provided support in two subjects, Maths and English.
Two core subjects and arguably the two subjects that all other subjects are built
upon. However, it does seem that they are only dipping their toe in and perhaps AfL

8

practices would have had more success had they been implemented throughout all
the subjects. This would have enabled more opportunities for teacher collaboration,
peer assessment and school wide immersion of AfL principles. They also re-define
what the key features are whereas the ARGs 10 principles describe what AfL should
be like. In the jigsaw diagram, the principles have become benefits of AfL, so they
have gone from what guides your actions (input), to what is the result of your actions
(output). This confusing message from the Government has made it harder for
schools to implement effective and authentic AfL.
Change from what might be viewed as traditional roles of teacher and student are at
the heart of the principles and practices of AfL. (Swaffield, 2011, pp. 441)
Its about good teaching (Afl Strategy, 2008, p. 3) and this is a valid statement
supported by Wiliam (as cited by Stewart, 2012). However there is an element of
mistrust of teachers and schools which has led to increased accountability in English
schools. Increased high stakes assessment shows a mistrust of teachers (Gardner,
2007).
Accountability is becoming more and more important in modern society and
this is also true in education and English schools. AfL was equated to good teaching;
Ofsted inspectors wanted to define good teaching and so looked for AfL techniques
being used to classify a lesson as good or outstanding. Head teachers and other
senior leaders also began to look for AfL as evidence of good teaching (McDowell,
2009, pp.56). This band wagon effect meant that teachers need only exhibit a token
gesture of AfL, for example, putting learning objectives on the board is enough to
observers that you are doing AfL. Student and peer assessment is not students
marking their own or others work, this is summative assessment. A formative use

9

may entail learners marking each others work and then considering what they have
done well and what they could improve on. Implementing AfL in Spirit versus to the
Letter refers to implementing AfL to the letter, where a teacher might be employing
AfL techniques without fully embracing the Spirit of AfL. One study showed that only
20% of classes observed participating in AfL techniques appeared to capture the
spirit of AfL (Marshall & Drummond, 2006, pp. 137). This demonstrates the difficulty
teachers have had in implementing AfL strategies due to a lack of understanding of
AfL and this leads into the next topic, teacher training.
With the introduction of AfL into schools, already very busy teachers were expected
to change their teaching to prepare lessons that featured AfL. Not enough has been
done to give adequate training of teachers, so that they could make use of AfL in the
correct sense. Three features of successful AfL teaching requires that teachers need
not only an expansive knowledge of their subject and a deep pedagogical
knowledge, they must also embrace the spirit of AfL (Lysaght & OLeary, 2013, pp.
219). Teachers needed to change their perceptions, as AfL entails a shift of teaching
style. Black and Wiliam, note that a teachers beliefs about learning will influence
interpretations of their students learning and hence the quality of their formative
assessment (2006, as cited in Lysaght & OLeary, 2013). A degree of congruence
between their views of teaching and learning and AfL principles is essential (Carless,
2005, pp. 51, Hill, 2011, pp. 348). Senior leaders can address this by making sure
teachers have a good understanding of AfL and its principles. It has been shown that
teachers are not motivated by mandated change, but making a difference for their
students (Day 1999 as cited in Carless, 2005, pp. 40), and if teachers can see that
AfL is the best option with regards to the learners progress and giving them the best
platform to continue their education or begin employment, then they will start to

10

incorporate this into their teaching. This represents a shift to a more learner centred
classroom, something that is not always present in a classroom directed towards
high stakes assessment success. This leads to the next point that relates to the
implementation of AfL and the insufficient guidance and time that has been given to
schools to fully grasp authentic AfL and implement it across all subjects.
During the course of roll-out, the principles (of AfL) got reduced to a shopping list of
things to do (Boyle as cited by Ward, 2008)
There have been efforts to assist teachers in developing AfL practices with Walt and
Wilf acronyms (what are learning to and What Im looking for) but these have
had limited success. Teachers all have a unique style that reflects their own personal
values and beliefs. It is important that students are exposed to teachers who are
different, as a valuable social lesson. This teaching style or approach will vary to
between year and ability groups. Therefore pre-packaged resources will not always
have the same success for different teachers and classes. Pre-packaged resources
are a good starting point for teachers, but time must be given for teachers to
evaluate and reflect on the effectiveness and then make the necessary changes to
suit their own style of teaching. Schools that have incorporated AfL features into
their communities and professional practise have had some success with AfL
implementation (Hill, 2011, pp.350). They are now trying to bring Head Teachers on
board to assist with support and continued growth of AfL within schools. Schools are
now seeing that they need to embrace the AfL principles and through collaboration
and self and peer assessment, their own ability and knowledge and subsequent
implementation of AfL improves. Issues such as school culture, classroom
conditions, resourcing and the degree of encouragement or recognition for

11

implementing teachers (Careless, 2005, pp. 51) need to be acknowledged when
implementing AfL into schools.
Conclusion on issues that have prevented successful implementation of AfL.
In conclusion, the areas of the AfL implementation that have been discussed
highlight what has prevented it reaching its full potential. Considered points were
that of increasing importance to high stakes summative testing and the effect this
has on the view of knowledge and the consequences of this on teaching, learning
and the participants. The distortion of interpretation of authentic AfL in between the
academics, government and schools has also been considered, along with the need
for time and support for teachers, who need it to develop understanding of AfL and
how schools need to change in order to immerse themselves in AfL practices.
Recommendation
There has been a lot of change recently in regards to the educational reforms.
Rt Hon Michael Gove; former education minister, hoping to lift results and standards
in an attempt to be more competitive with the top performers in the global
educational tests such as PISA, and counties such as J apan or Hong Kong where
examination-orientated culture is common (Carless, 2005, pp.39), wanted to
implement a knowledge based curriculum in order to compete with them on this
platform. The issue here is that the improvement he is wanting is only improvement
shown via high stakes summative testing, whos flaws I have already outlined. There
needs to be a shift to learner and learning centred classrooms. The raising of
education standards is important, yet only through summative testing. There is no
incentive for educators to implement AfL practices.

12

Considering implementation throughout the world is a valuable resource that we
could capitalise on. Queensland, Australia, New Zealand and Canada have
implemented formative assessment in schools and we could learn from shared
experiences. I suggest a closer look at a high performer in the global testing,
Finland. Hendrickson (2012) writes about how Finland has very little high stakes
testing and does not rank students or schools. Teachers are well rewarded and
highly educated and have a lot of freedom in the classroom. There is no formal
policy of formative assessment like the AfL strategy, however, there are many
similarities between their education system and the principles of AfL. The Finnish NC
discourages competition, but encourages freedom in the classroom and
collaboration. Critics of Finland put their success down to small homogeneous
population, in which their AfL strategies have better results which cannot be
transferred into ideals to the same degree of success in multicultural, diverse
communities. I believe it this is a localised version of AfL, one that works for them,
but that cannot be exactly replicated elsewhere with the same success.
We need to overcome the desire for a quick fix in education and think longer term.
Governments and policies will change the direction of education but quality teaching
is a constant. Better teaching (Wiliam as cited by Stewart, 2012) is a huge part of AfL
and what we should focus on. Quality teaching with regards to the traditional sense
of education has teaching and testing reaching an apex. Teachers are better than
ever at preparing teaching students to do well in tests. These tests largely depend
upon recall and low level cognitive skills. We have reached the top of the
behaviourism pyramid and the next step along from this is socially constructed
knowledge. A behaviourism approach is no longer valid in the twenty first century
schools. Todays learners need to have the ability to use creative solutions to

13

problems that we cannot even imagine. If we could somehow put knowledge,
education and testing on a continuum, then the next step would be more closely
related to AfL practices. We need learners whom are able to work independently,
monitor their progress and take ownership.
The government should continue to encourage implementation of AfL practices in all
schools. Swaffield writes that she believes the 150 million invested in implementing
AfL would have been better spent on researching AfL. (2011, pp.447). I believe that
with large scale multi-site, research should be undertaken. This should clarify
questions and make for a clearer definition of AfL. The term AfL is often used in an
unclear, ill-defined way by different authors and in various contexts (McDowell,
Wakelin, Montgomery, & King, 2011, pp. 749). This research would look at
implementation of AfL in schools as a whole, and include steps to assist the adoption
of teachers and the classroom techniques. Methods of training for teachers so they
could use AfL in the true spirit, while still maintaining their own teaching styles. It is
clear that the best commentators for AfL would be those students who have
experienced it, so a longitudinal study would yield interesting results.
What happens in the classroom is usually a closed activity. In schools that have had
success in implementing AfL practices, a community of discussion and sharing have
occurred between teachers. This could relieve the apparent mistrust of teachers and
reduce the need for summative testing. Teacher summative assessment would show
that the government trust teachers.
In the statement We have tried AFL and it didnt work (DofE). But thats because
they didnt try the AFL that does work (Wiliam as cited in Stewart, 2012). What is the
AfL that works? We have the principles to guide us in clarifying this, but still have

14

much ground to cover. The principles of AfL are pointing in the right direction, an
advancement in education for the children.


References
Assessment Reform Group, (No date). The role of teachers in the assessment for
learning. Nuffield Foundation. Retrieved from
http://www.aaia.org.uk/afl/assessment-reform-group/

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through
classroom assessment. Granada Learning.

Carless, D. (2005). Prospects for the implementation of assessment for learning.
Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 12(1), 39-54.

Harlen, W. (2005). Teachers' summative practices and assessment for learning
tensions and synergies. Curriculum Journal, 16(2), 207-223.

Hendrickson, K. A. (2012). Assessment in Finland: A Scholarly Reflection on One
Country's Use of Formative, Summative, and Evaluative Practices. Mid-
Western Educational Researcher, Volume 25, Issues 1/2, 33- 43

15

Hill, M. F. (2011). Getting traction: enablers and barriers to implementing
Assessment for Learning in secondary schools. Assessment in Education:
Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(4), 347-364.

Kelly, A. V. (2004). 6
th
Ed. The Curriculum. Theory and Practice. SAGE Publications
(UK).

Lysaght, Z., & O'Leary, M. (2013). An instrument to audit teachers' use of
assessment for learning. Irish Educational Studies, 32(2), 217-232.

Marshall, B., & J ane Drummond, M. (2006). How teachers engage with assessment
for learning: Lessons from the classroom. Research papers in education,
21(02), 133-149.

McDowell, L., Sambell, K., & Davison, G. (2009). Assessment for learning: a brief
history and review of terminology. Improving student learning through the
curriculum, 56-64.

McDowell, L., Wakelin, D., Montgomery, C., & King, S. (2011). Does assessment for
learning make a difference? The development of a questionnaire to explore
the student response. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(7),
749-765.


16

Stewart, W. (2012, J uly). Assessment for Learning creators claim too many missed
the point. TESS. Retrieved from
http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6263329.
Stiggins, R. J . (2005). Assessment for learning defined. Retrieved June, 15, 2009.

Swaffield, S. (2011). Getting to the heart of authentic assessment for learning.
Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(4), 433-449.

Ward, H. (2008, Oct), TES Newspaper, Assessment for Learning has fallen prey to
gimmicks, says critic. Retrieved from
http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6003863