Conference Agenda

Formative assessment (FA), often termed 'assessment for learning', represents a dynamic and systematic process designed to gather evidence of student learning during the instructional process (Heritage et al., 2009). These practices are underpinned by three fundamental processes: establishing where the learner is going, identifying where they are right now, and determining how to get them there (Black & Wiliam, 2009). Key strategies within this framework include clarifying and sharing learning intentions, engineering effective classroom discussions to elicit evidence of understanding, providing feedback that moves learning forward, and adapting instruction in response (Lee et al., 2020).

FA has been identified as one of the evidence-based teaching strategies that “really works in special and inclusive education” (Mitchell & Sutherland, 2020). As an inclusive strategy, FA is particularly beneficial for traditionally low-achieving students, holding the potential to narrow the achievement gap between students from different socioeconomic and cognitive strata (Yan et al., 2021). Moreover, Gersten et al.’s (2009) meta‑synthesis of instructional components demonstrated that students with learning disabilities show markedly improved mathematical performance when they receive explicit instruction accompanied by continuous feedback. FA facilitates inclusion through pedagogical differentiation, where teachers adapt their instruction and provide personalised feedback based on the specific learning needs identified through ongoing evidence collection (Andersson & Palm, 2017).

The relationship between FA and student autonomy is defined by a fundamental shift in the learner's role, transforming them from a passive recipient of information into an active agent and owner of their own learning (Andersson & Palm, 2017). However, this transformation depends on whether a teacher implements merely the ‘letter’ or the ‘spirit’ of FA (Marshall & Drummond, 2006). The ‘letter’ refers to mechanically applying techniques, such as “hands down” questioning or extended “wait time”, which can become ritualistic and fail to engage deeper thinking. In contrast, the ‘spirit’ reflects a principled approach that emphasises internalising standards of quality and transferring regulatory control from the teacher to the student (Marshall & Drummond, 2006).

If we understand inclusive education as ensuring students’ presence in mainstream schools, enhancing their participation and achievements, and fostering their sense of belonging (Ainscow et al., 2006), then the inclusive dimension of FA supports equitable access to learning achievements through responsive teaching. At the same time, supporting autonomy enables students to engage more fully in classroom learning situations. The 'spirit' of FA is truly captured when teachers move beyond mechanistic procedures to implement high-level organisation based on ideas that promote student independence (Marshall & Drummond, 2006). Ultimately, effective FA may function as a coherent pedagogical orientation that, through the timely elicitation and use of evidence, builds both the inclusive structures and the individual agency required for all students to succeed (Yan et al., 2021).

Research questions and objectives

This paper draws on a subset of data from a larger study. It analyses interviews with teachers from three Czech primary schools who were identified as actively enacting formative assessment, along with principals, special educators, and teaching assistants from the same schools. It also incorporates group discussions with students in Grades 4 to 9 to capture their perspectives on these practices. The study is guided by the following three research questions:

1. How do teachers in the three schools describe the ways in which they enact FA practices?

2. In what ways do teachers and other adult school stakeholders perceive these FA practices as supporting or limiting student autonomy and inclusion, especially in relation to reducing achievement gaps among diverse learners?

3. How do students in the three schools experience and make sense of teachers’ FA practices in relation to their autonomy, participation, and sense of inclusion?

Inclusive education (IE) refers to identifying and removing barriers that hinder participation and learning of all students within mainstream classrooms (Ainscow, Slee, and Best 2019). In recent decades, the philosophy and policies of IE have evolved from focusing solely on students with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) to embracing the needs of all learners, recognising that every student matters regardless of gender, background, ability, ethnicity, language, or belief (UNESCO 2020). However, putting these inclusive ideals into practice remains complex and often contested, particularly in diverse educational contexts with rapidly changing policies, such as those in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) (Emam and Al-Mahdy 2022; Massouti, Al-Rashaida, and Alhosani 2024). The UAE, known for its culturally and linguistically diverse society, has implemented initiatives to promote equal educational opportunities for all students, including those identified with SEND (Ghaleb, Dababneh, and Al-Zboon 2021). These developments provide a policy foundation for inclusion, yet how schools interpret and operationalise these frameworks remains under-researched. The current study aims to investigate how IE is put into practice in Sharjah Private Schools in the UAE, focusing on how SEND students are identified, assessed, and supported. To guide this inquiry, the study addresses the following research questions:

1.How do case study schools identify, assess, and intervene in support of students with SEND?

2.What challenges and opportunities arise in the implementation of IE?

3.To what extent do these practices reflect the principles embedded in international IE frameworks?

The IE paradigm provides a critical framework for exploring both the challenges and opportunities in implementing inclusion policies, and how these affect SEND students (Deroncele-Acosta and Ellis 2024). To translate inclusion policies into effective classroom practice, education systems worldwide have increasingly adopted structured frameworks to guide inclusion. Among the most widely used are multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) and the Graduated Approach, both of which provide practical models for addressing persistent gaps in provision. MTSS is a proactive, school-wide framework that delivers tiered, evidence- based interventions aligned with IE principles (Castillo et al. 2022). At its foundation, MTSS integrates academic and behavioural supports across three levels: Tier 1 (Universal), Tier 2 (Targeted), and Tier 3 (Individualized). While MTSS provides a broad, school-wide framework, the Graduated Approach – widely implemented in the UK and increasingly referenced in international contexts – offers a more individualised, cyclical process of continuous support and review. It follows the ‘Assess, Plan, Do, Review’ model, which emphasises collaboration between teachers, specialists, and parents to tailor interventions to each student’s evolving needs (Castillo et al. 2022).

In the last few decades, the education system of Kazakhstan has been undergoing two significant reforms. The first one involves the implementation of inclusive education, which has been a core principle of the country's state policy in education since signing the "Dakar Framework of Actions" in 2000 (UNESCO, 2007). The second reform relates to the updated curriculum, which was prompted by a research study on secondary education conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 2014. As a result of these findings, the OECD team concluded that “It would be desirable for Kazakhstan to undertake a major review of the current curriculum” (OECD, 2014, p 95). As a response to this recommendation, in 2016, an updated curriculum was implemented across all mainstream schools in Kazakhstan (Turganalina, 2020). This reform was significant as it covered modifications in curriculum, assessment, and instruction. The reform was introduced in five phases, gradually incorporating all grade levels, and by 2020-2021, this implementation process was finished. Thus, alongside with the updated curriculum, the traditional normative assessment, which was also found ineffective, was replaced with criteria-based assessment. Kenzhetaeva et al. (2020) highlight that changing the assessment system for students' achievements in Kazakhstan was important due to current educational goals and the need to improve education quality in line with global standards. So, both inclusive education and CBA are relatively new in the Kazakhstani education system, subsequently, there is a scarcity of research on their effectiveness. Only a few preliminary studies have examined the use of CBA in the context of inclusive education, and currently, there is no empirical research on the topic.

Given this, it becomes crucial to examine the effectiveness of CBA in meeting the needs of students with SEND. Assessing students with SEND can pose unique challenges, making it important to explore effective assessment strategies. Hence, throughout the study, in addition to the main research question, "How effective is CBA in meeting the needs of students with special educational needs in mainstream schools in Kazakhstan?", the following research questions are investigated:

1. Is CBA an appropriate approach for meeting the needs of students with SEND?

2. To what extent are teachers prepared to implement criteria-based assessment for students with SEND?

3. What are the benefits and challenges experienced by teachers who use CBA with students with SEND?

The literature review is structured into three main subsections. Firstly, it is delved into the concept of CBA, exploring its fundamental principles and its applications in educational settings. Secondly, the research focuses on the implementation of inclusive education in Kazakhstan, shedding light on the country's efforts, policies, and progress in promoting inclusive practices. Finally, the study examines the implementation of CBA within the framework of inclusive education in Kazakhstan.

The methodology employed in this study is a qualitative research design, which involves conducting interviews with Kazakhstani mainstream schoolteachers who have experience in teaching students with SEN. The interviews primarily focus on understanding the teachers' knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to CBA in inclusive classroom settings. Additionally, the interviews aim to explore the perceived effectiveness and challenges associated with implementing CBA for students with SEND and support they get from schools on this way.

Thematic analysis is used to analyze the interview data, facilitating the identification of key themes and patterns. The findings from the interviews are then discussed in relation to the literature explored. This process enhances the comprehensiveness of the study and provides a deeper understanding of the effectiveness of CBA in meeting the needs of students with SEN in mainstream schools in Kazakhstan.

In recent years, there have been big changes in the governance of national assessment in Europe, which is also seen in the Compulsory School for Students with Intellectual Disabilities (CSSID) in Sweden. To support teachers in interpreting the new curriculum goals and ideology, mandatory assessment of students' knowledge was introduced CSSID in Sweden in June 2024 (Swedish National Agency for Education (2019). This proposal presents and discusses the outcome from a project that followed and studied the implementation of this during 2025 in one school.

Schools have a mission to support students with disabilities to reach their potential. At the same time, teachers face difficulties in monitoring and evaluating students' learning, and there is limited knowledge about how the teachers’ work is conditioned and governed (Baxter et al., 2002). Research reports both the potential and the significant practical challenges associated with alternate assessment systems for students with severe cognitive disabilities globally (Kleinert et al., 1999; Lazarus et al., 2011). Earlier educational approaches emphasised functional everyday skills as central to participation in society, such as communication, mobility, and social interaction. Over time, however, schooling has increasingly focused on theoretical knowledge (Browder et al., 2003). Research, therefore, highlights the need for assessment and instruction that allow everyday skills to be made visible, for example, by linking theoretical knowledge to everyday activities such as cooking or managing money (Browder et al., 2003).

Policy developments have significantly influenced the evolution of assessment practices for students with ID. Insights from Lebeer et al. (2011) and Horrocks and Morgan (2011) highlight that assessment practices often remain constrained by static, deficit-oriented tools and insufficient teacher preparation, thereby limiting support to learning. Efforts to promote equitable assessment and grading in the CSSID are marked by tensions inherent in national assessment systems. National tests are designed to ensure reliability and validity, which often prioritise theoretical knowledge. At the same time, international research points to the risk that national assessments may exclude students with intellectual disabilities, thereby challenging the principle of an equitable school system (Andersson et al., 2024).

Consequently, the implementation of mandatory testing needs to be studied. This study aims to investigate how the shift in governance toward mandatory national assessment in CSSID influences teachers' understanding and interpretation of students, their knowledge, and the assessment process itself. This has been studied from an interest in understanding teachers’ policy enactment (Ball et al., 2012) and with assessment understood as a practice that is governed by and governs the social epistemology simultaneously (Bagger et. al., submitted; Hacking, 1999; Popkewitz, 2014).