Conference Agenda

Assessment feedback is widely recognised as central to learning (Black and Wiliam, 1998; Nicol and Macfarlane‐Dick, 2006; Hattie and Timperley, 2007; Shute, 2008). Yet students do not always engage with feedback (Dawson, Carless, and Lee, 2020) or take action on it (Evans, 2013; Postmes et al., 2024; Winstone et al., 2017), rendering teachers’ time investment obsolete. Consequently, a key challenge in feedback research concerns not only what feedback says, but how dialogic feedback moments are intentionally designed to support meaningful engagement.

Traditionally, assessment research has conceptualised feedback as information transmitted from teacher to student, an intervention some describe as monological and transactional (Winstone and Boud, 2019). Popularised by Hattie and Timperley (2007), this framing positions feedback as a message whose effectiveness depends on how it is crafted. With the advent of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI), feedback risks becoming further reduced to an input-output model, reinforcing transmission logics in which feedback is treated as data assumed to produce learning gains when consumed (Corbin, Tai and Flenady, 2025; Flenady and Sparrow, 2025).

More recently, feedback has been reconceptualised as a process (Winstone and Carless, 2020), informed by humanist epistemologies and focused on students’ perspectives, self-regulation, and feedback recipience. This shift has foregrounded the design of dialogic feedback moments and led to practical recommendations around feedback literacy for students and teachers (Sutton, 2012; Carless and Boud, 2018; Molloy, Boud and Henderson, 2019). However, this approach has also been critiqued for following a logic of equipment (Biesta, 2007; 2010; 2016), reinforcing individualism (Nieminen and Carless, 2022; Gravett and Carless, 2023), and insufficiently accounting for context (Biesta, 2007).

As Carless (2020) notes, feedback remains “a contested terrain” (p. 426). Despite their differences, both feedback-as-information and feedback-as-process risk reinforcing performative notions of learning focused on outcomes, often at the expense of broader educational purposes such as socialisation and subjectification (Biesta, 2020; 2022). Within these paradigms, feedback is rarely questioned; disengagement or rejection is framed as maladaptive (Boud and Molloy, 2013), reinforcing measurement cultures and the entanglement of feedback with grades (Winstone and Boud, 2022).

While feedback can be transformative, engaging with it is neither neutral nor context-free. Drawing on the stories of eight first-year students, my doctoral research shows that feedback inter- and intra-actions (Barad, 2003) are woven into surrounding assessment cultures and must be understood as socially and materially situated (Gravett, 2022). One guiding research question was: “How do assessment cultures influence students’ engagement with feedback?” This study examines how interrelated layers of assessment culture (from macro and chrono levels to micro and nano levels) shape students’ lived experiences of feedback.

Using a sociomaterial lens, the study connects everyday student-teacher interactions with the broader forces that configure what feedback is, how it is enacted, and how it is received. Sociomateriality reframes educational practices as relational encounters shaped by human and non-human actors, including time, space, artefacts, power, and personal ecologies (Fenwick, Edwards and Sawchuk, 2011). In this view, feedback engagement unfolds within assemblages rather than residing solely within individual students (Gourlay, 2015).

The findings illustrate how assessment cultures shift attention away from individualised explanations of disengagement and toward the conditions under which feedback encounters occur. Students’ engagement is shaped by access to resources such as time, by competing responsibilities, and by whether feedback is experienced as supportive or identity-threatening. Understanding feedback as sociomaterial and culturally situated offers a richer account of how students navigate feedback within complex assessment environments, and why disengagement may sometimes be a rational, situated response rather than a deficit.

Assessment plays a significant role in contemporary life, permeating all aspects of society. Peter Dahler-Larsen (2012) charactetizes this ubiquity by describing modern society as an ”evaluation society”. This increasing prominence of assessment is evident across various policy domains, including education. Within the field of education, this trend is exemplified by the rise of standardized assessments, which are widely regarded as key indicators of educational effectiveness and quality (Camphuijsen, Møller & Skedsmo, 2021; Verger, Parcerisa & Fontdevila, 2019). The growing emphasis on assessment also extends to Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) influencing both national and global policies and affecting the experiences of individual children and educators (Siippainen & Pitkänen, 2024).

In Finnish ECEC assessment has traditionally emphasized play rather than children’s educational performance and formal assessment (Karila, 2012). However, recent studies have identified the increasingly prominent role of learning-oriented assessment in Finnish ECEC (Keski-Panula & Niemelä, 2022; Siippainen, Toivonen & Paakkari, 2023). While the emergence of learning-oriented assessment has been acknowledged, its underlying drivers have not been thoroughly examined. To be able to understand the changes the earlier research (e.g. Paananen, Länsmans & Räikkönen, 2025; Paananen & Siippainen, 2025) has identified in the assessment of Finnish ECEC, this study integrates the fields of childhood studies and policy research.

From a policy research perspective, this study will first focus on the Multiple Streams approach (MSA). MSA primarily seeks to identify the conditions that allow a policy idea, such as the use of child assessment, to emerge at the right moment, however, over the past two decades, this approach has been modified and applied in a variety of contexts (Moulton & Silverwood, 2018; Santos & Kauko, 2022). The policy-making process consists of three streams: problems, policies and politics, and when these three streams converge, a policy window opens allowing for change (Moulton & Silverwood, 2018). This study aims to understand how the three streams (problems, politics and policies) of MSA have converged to create a policy window for changes in assessment policies and practices within Finnish ECEC.

The second part of this study employs the doppelganger approach, a methodological tool for understanding assessment and datause in educational contexts (Pierlejewski, 2024). Earlier research points out that data production is often prioritized over other teaching responsibilities, reshaping professional priorities and contributing to the emergence of data-driven subjectivities among both children and educators (Pierlejewski, 2024). It alters pedagogy by shifting attention from engaging with children to collecting data (Bradbury, 2021). This approach considers child assessment practices as technologies of power that alter subjectivity and change pedagogy. It directs the focus on ”data doubles”, the images of children produced in data, and their performative force, the way in which these partial images of children change ECEC practices.

The first research question is based on multiple streams approach with three sub-questions. The second and third questions are informed by doppelganger approach. The research questions are as follows:

1. Which factors influence the adoption of learning-oriented assessment practices?

1A What kinds of constructions of challenges or deficiencies have been used for justifying the need for learning-oriented assessment?

1B What kinds of epistemic authorities shape the development of learning-oriented assessment practices?

1C How have political dynamics and institutional agendas influenced the adoption of learning-oriented assessment policies?

2. What kinds of “data doubles” emerge in current local child assessment practices in early childhood education?

3. To what extend and how does the “data double” function as a technology of power that shapes subjectivity and transforms pedagogy?

Over the past decades, countries across the world including Asia have undergone profound social and political transformations. Education systems have been central to these transitions, with large-scale curriculum reforms aiming to redefine "official knowledge" and align schooling with national development (Apple, 2014; Gopinathan, 2007). While traditionally top-down, contemporary reforms increasingly emphasize inclusive stakeholder engagement and teachers' pivotal role in enacting change (Gouëdard et al., 2020).

Within this context, curriculum reform has been a persistent feature of Indonesia’s education system. However, student learning outcomes remain a challenge. PISA results consistently place Indonesia below the OECD average (ranking 70/78 in 2018 and 69/80 in 2022). International reports indicate these issues extend beyond curriculum design, pointing to systemic weaknesses in instruction, teacher development, and support for inclusive learning (UNESCO, 2022; World Bank, 2020).

In a significant departure, Indonesia has implemented Kurikulum 2013 (K13) and Kurikulum Merdeka (KM) in parallel between 2021 and 2025. K13 emphasizes structured competency development, while KM promotes flexibility, learner agency, and character education through the Pancasila Student Profile Strengthening Project. Empirical evidence comparing their effects on core learning outcomes remains critically limited. Drawing on theories of educational change that frame reform as a multi-level process (Fullan, 2007), this study analyses Indonesia's reform through the phases of initiation, implementation, and institutionalization.

Initiation

Reform was initiated through Ministry-led policy reviews under the 2020–2024 Education Strategic Plan (Kemdikbud [MoEC], 2020). Evaluations of K13 revealed persistent challenges: declining PISA performance, an overly dense curriculum, rigid sequencing, and limited instructional flexibility (BSKAP Kemdikbudristek [MoECRT], 2024). Teachers often equated mastery with content completion over conceptual understanding. Notably, the Emergency Curriculum used during the COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizing essential learning, yielded better literacy and numeracy outcomes (numeracy: 517; literacy: 570) than K13 (numeracy: 482; literacy: 532). This success provided a strong rationale for KM, launched in 2021 to simplify the learning load and center on the six dimensions of the Pancasila Student Profile.

Implementation (2021–2025)

Consistent with Fullan and Park's (1981) conception of change as shifts in materials, methods, and beliefs, KM differs substantially from K13. While K13 was centrally prescribed, content-heavy, and assessed through high-stakes national examinations to determine the entrance to the higher level of education, KM emphasizes flexible, student-centered learning, project-based pedagogy, differentiated instruction, and low-stakes system-level assessment through the National Assessment (AN) for diagnostic and formative purposes. Administratively, K13 relied on a highly centralized, top-down structure in which schools acted mainly as curriculum implementers. In contrast, KM adopted a more decentralized support model through pilot schools, teacher coaches, and digital infrastructure via the Merdeka Mengajar digital Platform, enabling greater instructional support and flexibility at the school level.

Institutionalization

The recent administrative restructuring of the Ministry of Education has reinforced implementation continuity, allowing schools flexibility between K13 and KM. Concurrently, it discontinued the pilot school and pilot teacher programs and reconfigured the national assessment. This assessment is now integrated with the Academic Test Ability for grades 6, 9, and 12, with grade 12 results impacting eligibility for high-achiever university tracks.

Research Gap and Questions

Despite this extensive reform process, a critical evidence gap persists. There is no rigorous, national-level analysis comparing the effectiveness of the parallel K13 and KM in achieving literacy and numeracy outcomes. This study directly addresses this gap to inform future policy by answering:

1. What key characteristics distinguish schools implementing K13 from those adopting KM?
2. How effective does the curriculum reform affect students’ literacy and numeracy outcomes over time, after accounting for school-level and time-varying factors?
3. How do stakeholders (policymakers, administrators, teachers) make sense of the effectiveness of the curriculum reform in affecting student learning outcomes?

A major development in Kazakhstani education was the implementation of an updated curriculum for secondary education. This initiative began with a program for gifted students in 2008, leading to the creation of Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools (NIS) in 2009. These schools pioneered modern management to test innovative programs before spreading practices to mainstream schools (Yakavets, 2014). In 2016, the Ministry of Education and Science (MoES) introduced nationwide reforms encompassing curriculum, teaching methods, and assessment. A key component was replacing the traditional five-point grading system with criteria-based assessment (CBA). By the 2021-2022 academic year, the reform affected all grade levels. This research aims to uncover secondary school students’ views on CBA and how it influences their motivation.

The introduction of CBA marks a significant shift from traditional systems. It aimed to modernize practices through a transparent and developmental approach. Despite ambitious goals, implementation has faced challenges. Students transitioned from five-point grades to a system emphasizing specific criteria and continuous feedback. This shift was intended to foster an engaging environment. However, early observations suggest mixed reactions, with some experiencing a decline in motivation due to the lack of conventional grades. There is limited empirical research on how CBA affects student motivation in the Kazakhstani context. This study fills that gap by investigating students' views on CBA's effectiveness. The guiding question is: What are mainstream secondary school students’ perspectives on and experiences with criteria-based assessment?

CBA evaluates students based on specific criteria provided beforehand, allowing for a focused process. Clear criteria move focus from a teacher-led system to a student-centered approach (Otter, 1995). CBA fosters development through constructive feedback (Carlson et al., 2000). Feedback is crucial, helping students improve and assess academic levels. Assessment serves three purposes: for, as, and of learning. Summative assessment (SA) captures knowledge at a point in time. Formative assessment (FA) identifies needs and gaps to adjust teaching. FA is highly effective in raising standards. Key forms include peer and self-assessment, where students judge their work quality using explicit criteria (Andrade et al., 2010).

Motivation is a dynamic process propelling individuals toward action (Pintrich & Schunk, 1996; Dörnyei, 1998a). This study is grounded in Ryan and Deci’s (2000a) Self-Determination Theory (SDT). SDT distinguishes between autonomous (intrinsic) motivation and controlled (extrinsic) motivation. Intrinsic motivation is supported when three basic psychological needs are met: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Autonomy involves feeling in control of decisions. Relatedness involves a sense of belonging (Martens et al., 2004). Competence involves mastering tasks. Motivation exists on a continuum. External regulation occurs when students are driven by rewards or fear. Introjected regulation involves internal pressures like guilt.

FA is a tool for boosting motivation (Cauley & McMillan, 2010). Effective FA helps students internalize mastery goals—focusing on understanding rather than outperforming others. Involving students in goal-setting makes them active participants. Teachers play a key role in choosing assessments that inspire effort and reduce anxiety. FA helps students understand strengths and weaknesses. In Kazakhstan, existing studies focus on theoretical foundations. Little research examines CBA's direct impact on student motivation. Findings indicate students' motivation to prepare has declined. Teachers and parents attribute this to the absence of traditional grades. Some students stopped completing homework without failing grades ("2") or top grades ("5") (Ixanova, 2018). Students also struggled to understand the purpose of FA. Some resorted to dishonest practices for SA, which led teachers to lower scores, often backfiring and diminishing motivation (Turganalina, 2020).