Traditional tests for large-scale assessment of mathematics learning have been criticized for several reasons, such as their mismatch between the vision of mathematical competence and the content covered by the test, and their failure to provide relevant information for guiding further learning and instruction. To achieve that large-scale assessments can function as tools for monitoring and improving learning and teaching, one has to move away from the rationale, the constraints, and the practices of traditional tests. As an illustration this paper presents an alternative approach to largescale assessment of elementary school mathematics developed in Flanders, Belgium Using models of item response theory, 14 measurement scales were constructed, each representing a cluster of curriculum standards and covering as a whole the mathematics curriculum relating to numbers, measurement and geometry. A representative sample of 5,763 sixth-graders (12-year-olds) belonging to 184 schools participated in the study. Based on expert judgments a cut-off score was set that determines the minimum level that students must achieve on each scale to master the standards. Overall, the more innovative curriculum standards were mastered less well than the more traditional ones. Few gender differences in performance were observed. The advantages of this approach and its further development are discussed.

Traditional tests for large-scale assessment of mathematics learning have been criticized for several reasons, such as their mismatch between the vision of mathematical competence and the content covered by the test, and their failure to provide relevant information for guiding further learning and instruction. To achieve that large-scale assessments can function as tools for monitoring and improving learning and teaching, one has to move away from the rationale, the constraints, and the practices of traditional tests. As an illustration this paper presents an alternative approach to largescale assessment of elementary school mathematics developed in Flanders, Belgium Using models of item response theory, 14 measurement scales were constructed, each representing a cluster of curriculum standards and covering as a whole the mathematics curriculum relating to numbers, measurement and geometry. A representative sample of 5,763 sixth-graders (12-year-olds) belonging to 184 schools participated in the study. Based on expert judgments a cut-off score was set that determines the minimum level that students must achieve on each scale to master the standards. Overall, the more innovative curriculum standards were mastered less well than the more traditional ones. Few gender differences in performance were observed. The advantages of this approach and its further development are discussed.

This study explored the associations of students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation towards high-stake tests in Physical education. The study collected data with questionnaires from 81 Swedish compulsory school students. The questionnaires in this study were based on the Academic Motivation Scale. Furthermore, this study was based on Self-Determination Theory. In congruence with previous research, this study found that females received a significantly higher grade than male students. The results also suggest that there was no significant difference between the different test-groups actual performance. The results of the study concluded that there are no correlations between motivation [towards high-stake tests] and the actual performance of students. Moreover, students were more motivated by external regulation (receiving higher grades) than intrinsic motivation to know (to learn a skill for life). Students perceived higher test anxiety if they were to perform in front of their classmates. However, the test-groups did not perform statistically differently which then leads to the question on the necessities of using these forms of high-stake test since it does not increase performance but is perceived to be more stressful for students. Further research is necessary to draw any generalizable conclusions if there is any correlation between motivation, high-stake tests, and perceived test anxiety.