In Sweden, grades are used for selection to upper-secondary school and higher education, even though agreement in teachers’ grading is low and the selection therefore potentially unfair. Furthermore, measures taken to increase the agreement have not been successful. This study has explored how to increase agreement in teachers’grading by comparing analytic and holistic grading. Teachers (n = 74) have been randomly assigned to two different conditions (i.e. analytic or holistic grading) in either English as a foreign language (EFL) or mathematics. Findings suggest that analytic grading is preferable to holistic grading in terms of agreement among teachers. The effect was stronger and statistically significant in EFL, but could be observed in mathematics as well. However, teachers in the holistic conditions provided more references tocriteria in their justifications, whereas teachers in the analytic conditions to a much larger extent made references to grade levels without specifying criteria.

This study reports on a large-scale implementation of Assessment for Learning (AfL) in a Swedish municipality. The implementation was founded on two principles: (1) teaching should be informed by educational research; (2) to be successful teachers’ professional development needs to be based in everyday classroom practice. From these principles, AfL was chosen as a strand of educational research to inform teaching and ‘Teacher Learning Communities’ were chosen as a vehicle for professional development and for implementing AfL practices. Findings indicate that the project has been successful in bringing about a change in how teachers talk about teaching and learning and in changing teachers’ pedagogical practice towards AfL. Findings also suggest that AfL practices are mostly teacher-centred, which means that the teachers still take most of the responsibility for the assessment. This leads to high workload for the teachers and may also hinder students from taking responsibility for their learning.