The portfolio can be a tool and a work context for establishing relationships between these two types of assessment especially in the early years of schooling. Allows you to establish a dialogue between student and teacher about the choices that demonstrate learning while such evidence used to place the student in relation to what he learned and what he intended to learn. The diaálogos about the choices can be a very interesting time of assessment for learning.

Sometimes students choose as evidence of learning productions that have difficulty justifying what they really show in terms of learning. Faced with this difficulty, the teacher (and student) through oral or written feedback may propose tasks that help students overcome their difficulties.

Jorge, you have described the point of good assessment already very clearly. There is an attempt in Australia to combine the purposes of the 3 types of assessment: Assessment of learning, Assessment for learning and assessment as learning. Personally I don't see any separation. Any separation that exists is systemic ie the system in which the teacher works doesn't trust the teacher's judgements and so requires formal assessment of learnIng to validate day to day judgements.

About 10 years ago I redesigned the science course at my high school to try to improve engagement. Part of the redesign was to set up meaningful tasks that constituted the reason for learning, assessment for learning and assessment of learning. As an example, one task is for students to build and report on an air pressure rocket to fly as high as possible.To do this well they learn some physics. While they build I watch and talk to them to find out what they understand and When necessary reteach Concepts. At the end, as they prepare their report I qet further confirmation of what they do or don't Understand and remediate if necessary. The report, along with my observations then becomes assessment of learning. There is no separation. Occasionally the teachers get together to moderate decisions, but only to build shared understanding of standards not to check or control. This way the teachers have developed trust in the system and acceptance of a professional responsibility for good decision making,

MarK from my point of view and as you explain in the example given there is no difference between assessment for learning and assessment as learning . I believe that the assessment for learning is itself a support, a scaffold learning using Brunner´s theory The resolution of the task and the conversations you had with these students were supports that students hold and even after writing the report. What we can also say is that the " issues / research tasks " can also be good examples of coordination between the two ( three types ) assessement.

But from my point of view there is a difference between assessment of learning and for learning . This difference is not necessarily in the instruments or at least some of them, but this is especially the intentionality that ones have in making assessement .Why i assess at that time? and for what I do it? The answer to this question then, leads to different modes of developments of the tasks. Using your example, if your intention would tbe to see if the students knew how to do (and if they masteriedg the concepts) would you have interacted with them in the same way? This is, the feedback that you give them would be similar?

Yes Jorge, you are absolutely correct. The intention is the key to the process. Interestingly you touch on a key point in my specific area of interest ie how we report on learning. If we report in the form A-to E or high distinction, pass etc, then there is a difference and a special timing for the different intentions of assessment, However if the reporting regime matches the learning process then there is no difference, and assessment for learning becomes assessment of learning at the agreed junctures for reporting. I have done this successfully in the past, however the system within which I work now requires me to report in the A to E scale.

what worked for me in the past was this:

l. Describe what learning looks like at djfferent developmental stages for the key concepts of interest in the field.

2. Use these as assessment for learning ie while teaching you recognize that a student has demonstrated understanding at a certain level of development, which informs your teaching to help them move to the next level.

3. At the reporting juncture you use the evidence gathered to report on the student's learning in the form 'the student has reached such and such level of learning' eg level 6

This requires a new paradigm for reporting on learning other than the current 'performance' based reporting.

Yes , you're right . One of the important task for the teacher is to define assessement criteria with students where they can build and clarify the various levels of knowledge especially in the construction of key concepts . Through this work we can identify landmarks in the construction process of these key concepts .

But to continue on this path, in my opinion, you need: An organized curriculum approach key concepts, and not by a listing of knowledge that everyone has (seem to have) the same level of importance; another approach of learning outputs, other than focusing exclusively on the year or cycle terminals. EX. in the second year of scholling in Portuguese language (reading), students should be able to read 400 words per minute.

This leads teachers to focus on this end outcame (which is stupid) and not think about what is necessary to know so that one can get there. This curricular perspective creates a very limited curriculum approach that makes it very difficult to change assessment practices, which remains as assessement of learning

A question of curiosity: how do you define "assessment as learning?"

Assessment as leaning has a few meanings but essentially means having the learner actively involved in their own assessment processes so that they discover what they need to do next in their learning. My feeling is that for this to work well, curriculum is best described by conceptual continua, so that the context for learning can be flexible and the students Can self assess to some extent by matching their performance against the continuum. The attached publication is an example of continua in high school science. I found these useful because Students could engage in a wide variety of contextualised tasks that could all yield valid assessment of these concepts.

Data Science concepts in levels 1 - 6

Dear Jorge,

I agree with your idea on the combination and harmony of  formative and summative assessment procedures since this is the prerequisite condition for the validity and reliability of our evaluational procedures,  any divergence and disharmony between them leads to terrible unfairness , bias,  pychometric aberrations and learners' frustration. Moreover,  inclusion of principles of dynamic assessment like mediation, ZPD, feedback, scaffolding can hugely  enhance the effect of our assessment practices and can be conducive to utilization of testing as a learning and teaching tool .

Good luck with your research

a.

Thank you for your reply. But given that the functions of summative and formative assessment are different do you think that the quality criteria of formative and summative evaluation must be the same? In other words, validity and reliability (criterias for summative) works well in a formative pratice that in focused in individuals?