18
This article was downloaded by: [The Aga Khan University] On: 18 October 2014, At: 00:46 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK International Journal of Inclusive Education Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tied20 Delving deeper into the black box: formative assessment, inclusion and learners on the autism spectrum Jackie Ravet a a School of Education , University of Aberdeen , MacRobert Building, King's College, Aberdeen , Ab24 5UA , UK Published online: 31 Aug 2012. To cite this article: Jackie Ravet (2013) Delving deeper into the black box: formative assessment, inclusion and learners on the autism spectrum, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17:9, 948-964, DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2012.719552 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2012.719552 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions

Delving deeper into the black box: formative assessment, inclusion and learners on the autism spectrum

  • Upload
    jackie

  • View
    216

  • Download
    2

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

This article was downloaded by: [The Aga Khan University]On: 18 October 2014, At: 00:46Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of InclusiveEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tied20

Delving deeper into the black box:formative assessment, inclusion andlearners on the autism spectrumJackie Ravet aa School of Education , University of Aberdeen , MacRobertBuilding, King's College, Aberdeen , Ab24 5UA , UKPublished online: 31 Aug 2012.

To cite this article: Jackie Ravet (2013) Delving deeper into the black box: formative assessment,inclusion and learners on the autism spectrum, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17:9,948-964, DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2012.719552

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2012.719552

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Delving deeper into the black box: formative assessment, inclusionand learners on the autism spectrum

Jackie Ravet∗

School of Education, University of Aberdeen, MacRobert Building, King’s College,Aberdeen Ab24 5UA, UK

(Received 10 May 2012; final version received 1 August 2012)

This paper explores the implementation of formative assessment through the‘autism lens’ in order to analyse why the process can be exclusionary for somelearners on the autism spectrum. The central thesis of the paper is that, whereteachers have no understanding of the autism learning style, they are likely torevert to a normative, ‘majoritarian’ construction of learning. Two problems mayflow from this. First, majoritarian assumptions about learning could dominate theinferential process that is the foundation stone of formative assessment. Thiscould lead teachers to mis-read what is going on inside the heads of learners onthe autism spectrum, and cause them to make partial and inaccurate inferencesabout their learning. Second, majoritarian assumptions may also inform theinteractive process that underpins formative assessment. Social interaction can bechallenging for learners on the autism spectrum and can limit or exclude theirparticipation unless sensitive modifications are made to the social andcommunication environment. The case is, therefore, made for teacher awarenessof a ‘minoritarian’ perspective that foregrounds knowledge and understanding ofthe autism learning style. Arguably, this knowledge and understanding couldenable teachers to adapt the formative assessment process so that it is moreeffective and inclusive for this group of learners.

Keywords: formative assessment; autism; inclusion; inferential process;communication

Introduction

Research papers that inspire, transform and endure are rare. However, ‘Inside the BlackBox’ (Black and Wiliam 1998a) is one such paper whose message about the fundamen-tal role and importance of formative assessment continues, years later, to stimulatedebate, sharpen policy and motivate classroom action. The approach set out in thispaper, and the exposition of it explored in subsequent work (Black et al. 2002, 2003,2006; Black 2007; Black and Wiliam 2009) has been widely welcomed and should con-tribute, in theory at least, to the emergence of a more holistic, learner-centred andresponsive process of assessment for learning across UK schools. Since the overarchingpurpose of formative assessment is to raise standards of learning, this should be goodnews for all pupils, parents and teachers.

However, since the publication of Black and Wiliam’s seminal paper, it has beensubject to extensive critique. Questions have focused on issues of definition and

# 2013 Taylor & Francis

∗Email: [email protected]

International Journal of Inclusive Education, 2013Vol. 17, No. 9, 948–964, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2012.719552

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

46 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

interpretation, conceptual unity, contextualisation, evidence base and impact (Perre-noud 1998; Smith and Gorrard 2005; James 2008; Wiliam and Thompson 2007;Bennett 2009, 2011; Swaffield 2011). It has, therefore, become clear that, whilst thecentral ideas contained within the black box paper, and those that followed, are richwith potential, much has yet to be done to elucidate key ideas and concepts and toachieve effective and ‘authentic’ implementation (Swaffield 2011).

This paper is positioned within the broad area of concern about links between for-mative assessment and inclusion that have arisen from research into effectiveness for alllearners (Martiniello 2008; EADSNE 2009; Bennett 2011; Hollenweger 2011).However, the specific focus is formative assessment and learners on the autism spec-trum (Wilkinson and Twist 2010). The central aim of the paper is to analyse why, incertain contexts, the implementation of formative assessment can effectively excludethis group of learners, and to make a contribution to the development of more effectiveand inclusive practice in this area. This is an analytic paper that presents the author’sviews and provides a conceptual framework underpinned by the author’s classroomexperience, theoretical work and research with practitioners supporting individualson the autism spectrum.

To set the context for the analysis at the heart of the paper, we must first turn to theseminal work of Black and Wiliam. The influence of the inclusive environment on theimplementation of formative assessment will then be examined. The application ofBlack and Wiliam’s framework to learners with autism, the difficulties this raisesand how they might be addressed, constitutes the remainder of the paper. Anadapted framework is then tentatively proposed. It should be noted that the term‘learner on the autism spectrum’ is used throughout this paper to refer to learnerswith a diagnosis of autism, Asperger’s syndrome (AS) and high functioning autism(HFA) taught in mainstream classrooms.

Background: the work of Black and Wiliam

Black and Wiliam (1998a) make the claim that formative assessment is ‘at the heart ofeffective teaching’ and fundamental to raising standards of learning in the classroom.Their focus is on the quality of what happens inside the ‘black box’ – their metaphorfor the classroom where, traditionally, teachers have been expected to raise standard’sof children’s learning by enacting policy whilst negotiating a wide, complex, variedand, often, highly unpredictable range of pupil needs. Their main concern is that tea-chers are somehow expected to succeed in this endeavour without ‘any direct helpwith this task’ (Black and Wiliam 1998a, 1). Their proposition is that formative assess-ment is the process whereby teachers can effectively modify their practice in responseto pupil learning, transforming what is happening inside the black box.

According to their definition, assessment:

refers to all those activities undertaken by teachers, and by their students in assessingthemselves, which provide information to be used as feedback to modify the teachingand learning activities in which they are engaged. Such assessment becomes ‘formativeassessment’ when the evidence is actually used to adapt the teaching work to meet theneeds. (p. 2)

They go on to propose a set of principles to achieve deep and effective formativeassessment that emphasises the importance of opportunities for pupil interaction,

International Journal of Inclusive Education 949

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

46 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

teacher/pupil dialogue, high quality feedback to pupils and pupil self and peer assess-ment (Black and Wiliam 1998a). In a later paper, Black and Wiliam suggest that theseprinciples can be pursued using five key strategies and five activities (see Table 1) thatenable teachers to identify ‘where learners are in their learning’, ‘where they are going’and ‘what needs to be done to get them there’ (Black and Wiliam 2009, 7). Teachersare, therefore, the chief architects of the learning environment within this framework.However, pupils are clearly viewed as active partners with direct responsibility fortheir own learning, participation in learning discourse and support for the learning ofpeers. A powerful evidence base is rallied in defence of this model (Black andWiliam 1998b), much of it developed in close collaboration with teachers in theirown classrooms (Black and Wiliam 2009).

Few demur with Black and Wiliam’s central thesis. Indeed, over the past decadeformative assessment has been widely implemented internationally (Scottish Govern-ment 2005; OECD 2005a; DCSF 2008). It is almost inconceivable that there couldbe teachers in the UK who have not heard of it. As Bennett (2011) states formativeassessment is very much ‘in vogue’.

However, there are fundamental concerns about the way that formative assess-ment has been implemented (James 2008; Swaffield 2011). It is not within thelimits of this paper to explore these concerns in detail. Briefly put, they centreupon the narrow focus of formative assessment, in some UK contexts, on perform-ance, attainment and assessment of learning, whilst placing less emphasis on the par-ticipatory elements of assessment as learning and for learning that are integral toBlack and Wiliam’s original vision (Swaffield 2011). This may, in part, be linkedto the lack of congruence between formative assessment and the theories of learningthat underpin more traditional classrooms (James 2008) highlighting the fact that theimplementation of the formative assessment process is deeply enmeshed in, andshaped by, the cultures of schools and the teaching and learning environment ofindividual classrooms.

Of more direct relevance to this paper, however, are concerns about the lack of con-gruence between formative assessment and the inclusive environment (Hollenweger2011). International requirements for inclusive education (UNESCO 2009) placedemands on schools to teach for diversity and therefore for formative assessment pro-cesses to address a wide range of needs (UNESCO 2009). Research from Europe and

Table 1. The five key strategies and activities of formative assessment (Black and Wiliam2009).

Five key strategies Five key activities

† Clarifying and sharing learning intentions and successcriteria

† Sharing classroom successcriteria with learners

† Engineering effective classroom discussions and otherlearning tasks that elicit evidence of studentunderstanding

† Classroom questioning

† Providing feedback that moves students forward † Comment-only marking

† Activating students as instructional resources for oneanother

† Peer and self-assessment

† Activating students as the owners of their own learning † Formative use of summativetests

950 J. Ravet

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

46 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

the UK suggests that this requirement presents a powerful challenge to teachers (OECD2005a, 2005b). There is also growing evidence that formative assessment can be pro-blematic for children with additional support needs (Hollenweger 2011). Thoughresearch specific to learners on the autism spectrum is relatively scant, there is evidencethat, for this group, formative assessment is not necessarily an inclusive process(Watkins 2007; EADSNE 2009; Wilkinson and Twist 2010). The next section exploresthis and attempts to explain it.

Formative assessment, inclusion and autism

There is significant variability in perceptions of inclusive practice amongst teachers(Ravet 2011). For example, in some contexts, there is little differentiation of learningfor children on the autism spectrum, and confusion over who is responsible for theirlearning and participation – classteachers or specialist support teachers (Humphreyand Lewis 2008a). Classrooms like this are likely to be problematic for learners withautism spectrum disorders, for it means that formative assessment may not be modifiedto meet their needs (Watkins 2007).

However, teachers adopting a more subtle and nuanced understanding of inclusivepractice aim to take the uniqueness of all learners into account (Florian and Black-Hawkins 2011). Florian and Black-Hawkins (2011), for example, set out a frameworkfor ‘inclusive pedagogy’ based on extending ‘what is ordinarily available to all lear-ners’ (p. 3) so that everyone is included; rejecting deterministic beliefs about abilitybased on the idea that some learners have a fixed capacity for learning; and avoidinga deficit view of learning by putting the onus on classteachers to find new ways ofteaching all children (Florian and Black Hawkins 2011). Thus, theoretically at least,the formative assessment process is likely to be more participatory and inclusivewithin this framework.

However, much depends on teachers’ understanding of autism. Research indicatesthat many teachers still have insufficient autism awareness to effectively support learn-ing and participation (Batten and Daly 2006; HMIE 2006; Humphrey and Lewis2008a). Thus, even among teachers committed to a more responsive inclusive peda-gogy, formative assessment may not be fully adapted to accommodate learners onthe autism spectrum. Some clarification of the learning style associated with autismmay be helpful at this point.

Key features of autism

It is well-established that autism is characterised by qualitative differences in func-tioning in three specific areas: communication, social understanding and flexibilityof thought and behaviour (Frith 2003; Jordon 2005; Powell and Jordan 2012).There is a growing consensus that sensory integration is also highly significant(Powell and Jordan 2012). The interaction of these functional differences is associatedwith a wide range of behavioural characteristics, some of which are listed in Table 2.Not all learners on the autism spectrum necessarily show all characteristics, or experi-ence them to the same degree, but individuals with a diagnosis must show somecharacteristics in all three areas. This accounts for the multifaceted and highly indi-vidualised presentation of autism, and explains why it is referred to as a ‘spectrum’disorder.

International Journal of Inclusive Education 951

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

46 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Table 2. Some common characteristics of autism.

Communication Social understandingFlexibility of thought

and behaviourSensory issues/other features

† Restricted speech/elective mutism/echolalia/ fluentspeech withidiosyncratic style

† Difficultiesunderstanding rulesand conventions

† Rigid thinking andrepetitive,ritualistic, self-stimulatingbehaviours(stereotypies), e.g.hand flapping,rocking and pacing

† Hyper/hyposensitivityin one or moresenses

† Narrow andobsessive range oftopics ofconversation

† Lack of ‘theory ofmind’, i.e. insightinto the views,intentions andfeelings of others

† Weak ‘centralcoherence’, i.e.tendency to focuson details ratherthan wholes

† Fears andanxieties leadingto challengingbehaviour

† Problems withreceptivecommunication –especially longinstructions

† Problems withrelationshipformation

† Strong preferencefor ‘sameness’ anddislike of change

† Problemsinterpreting facialexpression and bodylanguage

† Problems workingin groups, turn-taking, listening toand learning fromothers

† Difficulties stoppingand starting,transferring andgeneralising

† Problems expressingfeelings, personalinformation andmaking choices

† Little concern forsocial greetings and‘niceties’

† Problems separatingfact and fiction

† Problems withmetaphorical andidiomatic language

† Little engagementwith imaginativeplay/restrictedimaginativethinking

† Difficultiesgeneralising andtransferringknowledge

† Difficulties initiatingand sustainingconversation

† Difficulties withimitation andlearning throughobservation

† Problems withabstract concepts/preference forconcrete, black andwhite thinking

† Unusual eye gaze † Weak jointattention

† Can lack curiosityand motivation(except in areas ofspecial interest)

Strengths

† Can be highly knowledgeable in areas of special interest

† Strong visual acuity

† Can be dispassionate and objective

(Continued)

952 J. Ravet

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

46 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

According to Jordon (2005), the interaction of these characteristics across the threediagnostic areas results in a ‘distinct’ learning style. Powell and Jordan (2012) suggestthat this style is distinguished by four fundamental and interconnected elements; adifferent way of perceiving information; a different way of experiencing the world, adifferent way of coding, storing and retrieving in memory; and a different role of theemotions in processing these elements. It seems clear that, whether or not there is agree-ment that this learning style is wholly ‘distinct’, it must be taken into account for teach-ing and learning to be inclusive.

Certain features of this style, such as excellent rote memory, are highly valued ineducational contexts. However others, such as preference for ‘sameness’, unawarenessof social rules and literal interpretation of words, though not necessarily problematic inthemselves, can become problematic in mainstream school environments whereassumptions are made about learner flexibility and their capacity to deal with thesocial and communication demands of learning (Jordon 2005; Humphrey and Lewis2008a).

In classrooms where inclusive pedagogy is being effectively enacted, teachers arelikely to respond to the needs of learners on the autism spectrum not as problems inthe child, but as challenges for the teacher, and seek out professional development tofind new ways of supporting their learning (Florian and Black Hawkins 2011).However, research indicates that many teachers cannot respond in this way as a resultof limited access to relevant staff development, poor leadership, lack of time, negativeattitudes and/or a narrow interpretation of inclusion and inclusive practice (Battenand Daly 2006; HMIE 2006; Humphrey and Lewis 2008a; Ravet 2011, 2012).

Table 2. Continued.

Communication Social understandingFlexibility of thought

and behaviourSensory issues/other features

† Can enjoy working independently

† Reliable adherence to rules and routines

† Strong focus

† Logical

† Persistent

† May enjoy repetitive tasks

† Eye for detail

† May enjoy categorising

† Excellent rote memory

† Meticulous and accurate

Sources: Based on Dunlop et al. (2009) and Frith (2003).

International Journal of Inclusive Education 953

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

46 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

These constraints mean that teachers will have little understanding of the impact of theautism learning style, and little grasp of how to address it.

As a corollary, formative assessment may be informed largely or solely by whatDeleuze and Guattari (2004) refer to as a ‘majoritarian’ discourse. Here I draw ontheir idea that discourses that privilege culturally dominant assumptions – theexample they provide is those based on a white, middle class, heterosexual, maleview of the world – can become normative and embedded in thinking even thoughexcluded groups, such as females, are statistically more numerous. The word ‘majori-tarian’ does not, therefore, refer to statistical relations but to power relations. The viewsof those excluded from the majoritarian discourse are always disempowered and mar-ginalised. Thus, according to Delueze and Gauttari, they become ‘minoritarian’.

If this idea is transposed to education, it might be argued that some teachers, due tothe variety of constraints mentioned above, tend to presuppose and privilege a norma-tive style of pupil learning – one based on assumptions about typical cognitive devel-opment and common patterns of learning – and marginalise or exclude the autismlearning style. This is not necessarily treated as problematic, as teachers are not necess-arily aware of the exclusion unless professional development, or some other stimulus,highlights the limitations of their assumptions. However, I wish to argue that the mar-ginalisation of the autism learning style is problematic and leads directly to two com-plications within the formative assessment process: the inference problem and thecommunication problem. These are both elaborated below.

The inference problem

In his critique of formative assessment, Bennett (2011) identified a number of proble-matic features. One particular strand is of relevance to the present discussion: how tea-chers make inferences from evidence of pupil learning and the factors that can interferewith the inferential process. I will first set out Bennet’s general thesis and then relatethis to the problem of the inclusion of learners on the autism spectrum.

In clarifying what he means by inference Bennett states:

Formative Assessment . . . is an inferential process because we cannot know with certaintywhat understanding exists inside a student’s head . . . We can only make conjectures basedon what we observe . . . class work, homework and test performance. (pp. 16–17)

Inferences, then, are conjectures or hypotheses based on teacher interpretations ofwhat is happening in the minds of pupils. These inferences are informed by teachers’deeply held and culturally situated ‘epistemological beliefs’, ‘beliefs about teachingand learning’ and ‘pedagogical beliefs’ developed via teacher training, through practiceand continuing professional development (Hollenweger 2011, 449). According toBlack and Wiliam (2009), inferences must also be informed by evidence from obser-vation, pupil work, learner contributions and responses to questions, so that teacherscan develop specific understandings of individual learner needs and adapt their ideasand teaching accordingly. The inferential process is, therefore, a highly complex under-taking but is a vital first step within the wider formative assessment process. Ostensibly,it helps teachers to establish ‘where learners are in their learning’ (Black and Wiliam2009) and forms the basis for subsequent teacher decision-making and action.

However, Bennett (2011) notes that the inferential process cannot be construed as a‘pure’ process since the teacher’s expertise in making inferences and interpreting

954 J. Ravet

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

46 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

evidence is subject to a range of conscious and subconscious forces that can cause tea-chers to mis-identify a learning problem. He specifically notes, for example, that theprocess can be inadvertently influenced by biases associated with gender, race, ethni-city and disability. These biases arise from underpinning values, beliefs, attitudesand expectations that the teacher may be wholly or partly unaware of, as well asgaps in their knowledge and understanding of learning and pedagogy relating to vulner-able groups (Hollenweger 2011). These biases and gaps may cloud teacher judgement,distort inferences, subvert subsequent teacher feedback and action, and negativelyinfluence pupil learning outcomes (Watkins 2007). The very subtlety of the inferentialprocess compounds this problem, since teachers may be completely unaware of aninitial inferential error, and therefore remain oblivious to its unintended negativeconsequences.

The argument proposed here is that biases will inevitably arise during the inferentialprocess if teachers have a limited understanding of autism, and therefore no effective‘autism lens’ with which to inform the process. This means that they will not be ableto identify and take account of pupil difficulties with communication, social under-standing or flexibility of thought and their impact on children’s learning. This omissionwill immediately narrow and potentially distort the teacher’s analysis of the learner’sdifficulty, causing them to default to majoritarian assumptions about the way that learn-ing is taking place and, thus, disposing them towards normative inferences. Further,they will be unaware that they are doing so. It follows from this that the interventionsthey develop are unlikely to be wholly successful. They may lead, in the short run, topupil disengagement, frustration and stress all round. In the long-run, they can lead tounderachievement, behaviour difficulties and exclusion. These outcomes are particu-larly common amongst children on the autism spectrum compared to other groups,and are well documented in the research (Batten and Daly 2006; Humphrey andLewis 2008a; Parsons et al. 2009; Withers 2009).

To illustrate, let us consider a child on the autism spectrum who is having persistentproblems with reading comprehension tasks. Initially, good teachers will draw on theirknowledge and expertise to make inferences relating to levels of literacy, cognitiveunderstanding, comprehension, motivation, relevance and enjoyment – concerns per-tinent to all learners. However, without autism awareness, the teacher may be ignorantof the strong links between autism and hyperlexia (Nation et al. 2006) and may not con-sider the potential for confusion resulting from a range of autism-specific issues such asdifficulties with the interpretation of metaphorical and idiomatic language; problemswith abstract concepts like time; literal focus on textual details rather than holisticmeaning; weak grasp of character intentions and emotions, difficulty separatingfantasy from reality and problems transferring and integrating knowledge (Nationet al. 2006; Holzhauser-Peters and True 2008). All of these difficulties are commonamongst learners on the autism spectrum.

For example, the pupil’s weak grasp of the underlying intentions and emotions ofkey characters in a work of fiction may be linked to underlying difficulties with com-munication and social understanding that make it difficult for the learner to readbetween the lines of the text and interpret the meaning of a character’s mood, behaviourand reactions (Antonietti, Liverta-Sempio, and Machetti 2006). The current consensusis that learners on the autism spectrum find such interpretations difficult to make in theireveryday lives because of their weak grasp of Theory of Mind and associated difficul-ties reading other people’s minds, body language and facial expression (Baron-Cohen2001). This is partly what makes social interaction so confusing and unpredictable for

International Journal of Inclusive Education 955

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

46 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

this group. Understanding the minds of fictional characters therefore presents a con-siderable challenge.

The example therefore illustrates the limitations of a majoritarian view at the infer-ential level, for it prevents teachers from grasping the point that making inferencesabout learning in reading, maths, or any other subject area, cannot be separated froman understanding of the complex ways that difficulties with cognitive flexibility, com-munication and social understanding impact on learning across the curriculum forpupils on the autism spectrum. As a corollary, the teaching of reading and otheraspects of the curriculum cannot be separated from the teaching of cognitive flexibility,communication and social understanding (Powell and Jordan 2012). The purpose ofthis teaching is not to ‘normalise’ or, indeed, ‘cure’, but to minimise, as far as possible,the disabling effects of these characteristics on the assumption that they are not fullydetermined or fixed. At the same time, there must be acceptance of ‘difference’ anda willingness to modify the environment to accommodate them. These links betweenlearning style, inferencing and teaching may be invisible to teachers with no under-standing of autism.

The communication problem

The formative assessment process asks teachers to engage in questioning and inter-actions, and to provide ongoing evaluative feedback, so that learners know how theyare progressing in their work. They are also required to facilitate learner self-assessmentand peer assessment, so that children can engage in and contribute to learning dialo-gues, and teachers can gather further evidence of learning (Black and Wiliam 1998a,2009). Black and Wiliam recognised these requirements as important as they are essen-tially democratic but also pragmatic; they enable teachers to capture the pupil perspec-tive and take account of this in their decision-making and planning. They also allowpupils to take ownership of their learning and provide opportunities for them to ‘miti-gate’ the impact of teacher misunderstanding (Black and Wiliam 2009, 7). However,despite laudable intentions, teachers with no understanding of autism may encounterdifficulties implementing these strategies and activities with this group, with troublingimplications for learning, inclusion and social justice.

The complication, here, is that the activities recommended are heavily ‘talk’ basedand therefore assume a capacity for effective social interaction and communication onthe part of the child. Most children will not have a problem with this. A minority ofchildren may have difficulties with certain aspects of communication, for example, lear-ners with hearing impairments or those with English as an additional language.However, learners with a diagnosis of autism will, by definition, experience significant,complex difficulties in this area and may, therefore, find it challenging to interact suc-cessfully with others, learn with and from others and communicate their needs (Frith2003). Since learners on the autism spectrum often have problems with receptive com-munication (Frith 2003), they may also struggle to make sense of the teacher feedbackprovided.

Verbal interaction is problematic for this group due to difficulties with turn-takingand reciprocal dialogue, maintenance of focus, interpretation of meaning, and pro-blems, mentioned above, with reading intentions, body language and facial expression(Davies 2012). Motivation to respond to questioning can also be weak since theselearners may have poor executive function (Frith 2003) and difficulty monitoring,organising and reflecting upon their thoughts and selecting an appropriate response

956 J. Ravet

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

46 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

(Frith 2003). Learning to think metacognitively can, therefore, be especially challen-ging (Carruthers 2009). Learners on the autism spectrum may also fail to grasp the sal-ience of a question, may ignore it or answer a different question on a preferred subject(Davies 2012). They may also have difficulty absorbing the subtle and nuanced socialrules that guide participation in question and answer sequences, and may talk repeat-edly out of turn, for others or over others. Alternatively, they may be reluctant tospeak at all (Frith 2003). As a result, they may have difficulty responding appropriatelyin many interactive contexts, especially during cooperative peer activities (Eldar,Talmor, and Wolf-Zukerman 2010), and may not, therefore, furnish teachers withthe evidence of learning that they seek and expect. Indeed, learners on the autism spec-trum may completely misrepresent themselves, either by refusing to contribute or byproviding limited, inaccurate or misleading information.

The self-assessment element of formative assessment may also prove problematicsince our current understanding of autism suggests that it is associated with weaktheory of mind and correspondingly weak sense of self (Hobson 2006), plus problemswith central coherence and executive functioning that result in difficulties with intro-spection and reflexivity (Happe 2003). Thus, children on the autism spectrum mayfind it difficult to communicate the thoughts in their heads unless the learning andlanguage environment are sensitively adapted to support them. Teachers must drawon a knowledge and understanding of autism to make such adaptations. Research high-lights this aspect of formative assessment as an ‘area of concern’ (EADSNE 2009).

Learners with AS or HFA tend to have a more subtle presentation of the difficultiesset out above since they are able, to some degree, to compensate for them (Attwood2007). However, this capacity varies from pupil to pupil and context to context, andfor most pupils in this group learning is still fraught with complexity (Attwood2007). However, since they are often extremely able, and can be exceptionally articu-late, teachers may not anticipate or recognise their underlying difficulties. Learners withAS and HFA may also be highly motivated to conceal them, as they have a strong desireto belong and place a high priority on ‘fitting in’ (Attwood 2007). They, therefore,avoid attracting attention to any ‘differences’ that might make them stand out eitherto teachers or peers. This invisibility strategy, combined with the subtle presentationof their problems, means that they may easily fall under the teacher’s formative assess-ment radar.

If we now put the communication problem and the inference problem together, it isnot difficult to appreciate how deeply distorted the formative assessment process mightbecome, and how potentially damaging the outcomes for pupils on the autism spectrummight be, where a teacher does not draw on knowledge and understanding of autism. Itmeans that these learners are likely to be exposed to a formative assessment processesthat is exclusionary, stressful and generates partial and inaccurate feedback. In suchcases, the formative assessment process itself may become a major barrier to inclusion,causing problems down the line as unreliable inferences and evidence are used,unknowingly, as a basis for the development of future support.

Further, if we agree that ‘formative assessment is assessment, at least in part’(Bennett 2011, 20), i.e. it is a process through which value judgements about pupil per-formance and achievement are formed and communicated, it has profound and worry-ing implications for the ongoing development of pupil identity. Research repeatedlyindicates that learners on the autism spectrum are frequently labelled as having behav-ioural difficulties, that their ability and potential can be significantly underestimated,and that they are excluded from mainstream more than any other group of learners

International Journal of Inclusive Education 957

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

46 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

(Moore 2007; Humphrey and Lewis 2008a, 2008b). Over time, this inevitably has apowerful, negative impact on pupils themselves (Molloy and Vasil 2004; Humphreyand Lewis 2008b). However, the logic of the argument above suggests that pupil diffi-culties with learning, and the behaviour associated with it, may have their roots, at leastin part, in a formative assessment process that lacks effective modification and, there-fore, acts as a barrier to learning. In other words, the problem is about teaching and tea-chers rather than learning and learners. Teachers do not always make this link(Humphrey and Lewis 2008a; Eldar, Talmor, and Wolf-Zukerman 2010). Thisclearly has implications as to how formative assessment is conceptualised andpracticed.

Thus, in the final section, a tentative framework for a more inclusive formativeassessment process is proposed that builds on Black and Wiliam’s work by viewingit through the autism lens. The aim is to foreground and value the reality of the ‘min-oritarian’ perspective relevant to learners on the autism spectrum, thus bringing thisgroup to visibility within the formative assessment process (Watson and Emery 2009).

A model of inclusive assessment

If the logic of the argument above is accepted, it becomes axiomatic that formativeassessment must be informed by an understanding of autism in order to achievegreater inferential accuracy on the part of the teacher and to create a more sensitive,responsive and inclusive communication environment for pupil participation.

A difficulty for mainstream teachers is that the surface behaviours and responses oflearners on the autism spectrum seem, superficially, like the behaviours and responsesof any other learner experiencing difficulties with learning. However, as indicatedabove, they have a different causality. Thus, inferential accuracy can only develop ifteachers have sufficient knowledge and understanding of the condition with which tosee below the surface to the social and communication difficulties beyond. Applyinga knowledge and understanding of autism, therefore, entails the development of theanti-intuitive habit of forestalling the majoritarian discourse and the illusory certaintiesit seems to provide, and making a deliberate effort to view learning through the autismlens (Holzhauser-Peters and True 2008). Specifically, teachers must be able to put theirown sense of the world to one side, and take an imaginative leap into a mind that isworking very differently. The difficulty this presents should not be underestimated.According to the psychological literature, the challenge arises from the fact that theinferential process is fast, intuitive, complex and invisible, and usually occurs belowour level of awareness (Tversky and Kahneman 1974; Kahneman 2011). We will,therefore, default to normative inferencing unless we take command of the processby making a deliberate effort to resist our usual habits of thought (Tversky and Kahne-man 1974; Kahneman 2011). The problem is that there is no ‘warning bell that ringsloudly’ whenever we are about to forget (Kahneman 2011, 417). Thus, the developmentof a new level of awareness takes personal and professional investment, and is likely totake time.

However, pupils on the autism spectrum who are struggling with learning fre-quently sound their own warning bell by acting out, giving up and triggering disruptionin the classroom. This is a warning that teachers should heed. However, once again,much depends on how the warning is interpreted. When confronted with alarming dis-plays of stress and upset, teachers can readily find themselves reacting defensively andlistening to the majoritarian voice inside their heads telling them that the problem is in

958 J. Ravet

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

46 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

the child and that exclusion is the answer. Unfortunately, it takes effort, at least at first,to tune-in to the quieter, more uncertain inner voice raising doubts about teacher infer-ence. The more teachers know about autism, the louder this voice and the easier itbecomes to undertake the slow, deliberate analysis required to modify the inferentialprocess.

Subsequent action must then be modified. Table 3 indicates how the activities pro-posed by Black and Wiliam might be adapted when viewed through the autism lens. Inline with good autism practice, the modifications listed are, essentially, ways of struc-turing the physical, social, language and learning environment so that communicationbarriers are minimised and participation is maximised (Dunlop et al. 2009). However, itought to be noted that this list can only provide broad guidance and cannot assist theteacher in the individualisation process that is necessary to tailor activities to individ-uals needs. Here, a planning tool such as the ‘individual planning matrix’ can beuseful (see AAETC n.d.).

As an example of individualisation, let us return to the learner experiencing readingcomprehension difficulties (p. 8). Let us assume that this learner has AS and is a firstyear pupil in a secondary school. Here, it would ordinarily be quite reasonable forthe teacher simply to discuss characterisation and plot with the learner, ask questionsand hope to draw out their misunderstanding and clarify it verbally. This may notwork effectively with a learner on the autism spectrum as the discussion itself couldraise further confusion and the learners may lose focus after the first few minutes ofinteraction.

We will, therefore, assume that the teacher has drawn on an understanding of autismto make the inference that the pupil may have problems with the character intentionsand emotions that drive the narrative in the book. In order to probe this further withthe learner, the teacher could use a concrete, visual approach such as a drawing activityto explore the characters and scenes from the story. The overall purpose would be toexamine what sense the learner is making of the characters and plot without usingtoo much verbal interaction. If the learner’s visual response reveals evidence of con-fusion regarding character intentions and emotions, the teacher may then proceed bytesting the hypothesis that this may be linked, in part, to difficulties with communi-cation and social understanding. This hypothesis could be checked by observing thelearner in different social contexts, noting any difficulties that arise. If there are specificdifficulties in recognising emotions, for example, the teacher could then plan a series ofinputs for the whole class, embedded in a range of lessons, which enable the issue ofemotions to be explicitly addressed alongside other aspects of learning suitable foreveryone. In this way, the learner needs are addressed without stigma and the learnerwill benefit from peer support providing that the interactive context is well structured,incorporates visual supports and clear, visual rules for participation. If video and videofeedback were incorporated into some sessions, perhaps to explore emotions in theclassroom, this could help to support self-assessment by providing concrete visual feed-back for analysis of learner interaction and emotions. Eventually, reading comprehen-sion could be re-visited to encourage transfer of new knowledge and understanding ofemotions.

Working with this pupil on social and emotional understanding would, be a vitalelement within the teacher’s overall response to the problem in order to address theunderlying issue, and support the pupil in making better sense of emotions in reallife as well as in books. This might not ordinarily occur to a teacher as an appropriatesolution as, by secondary school, the majority of learners can generally identify a range

International Journal of Inclusive Education 959

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

46 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Table 3. Inclusive formative assessment activities for learners on the autism spectrum.

Formative assessment: activities Adaptation for learners on the autism spectrum

Sharing classroom successcriteria with learners

Explain purpose simply and clearlyProvide personal copy of criteria for learnerRefer to criteria frequentlyMust be short, visual and unambiguousMake key ideas explicitEstablish as part of learning routineMake concrete links to learning to reinforce meaning

Classroom questioning Use name to cue attentionQuestions should be short and unambiguousAvoid metaphorical or idiomatic languageIf open questions are difficult, use black and white closed

questionsVisual/concrete supports can clarify focus/support attentionPhotos/video feedback will support reflectionKeep discussions as concrete as possibleMay need visual prompt to ask questions (e.g. hands-up

card)Clarify rules and expectations at start of each sessionProvide visual rulesOne: one rather than whole class questioning/discussion may

support focused attention and participation initiallyKeep dialogic environment very calmChoose quiet, stress-free moment and location

Comment-only marking Explain purposeKeep feedback short and unambiguousComment may require clarificationCheck, do not assume, learner understandingDiscuss learning close to learning event to ensure relevanceMake next steps explicitTo support transfer, make concrete, visual links to learning

(e.g. via mind maps), refer to frequentlyHighlight examples of ‘getting it right’

Peer and self-assessment Will need clear rules for peer assessmentRoles should be clarifiedMay need visual supports/promptsReciprocity and turn-taking may need to be structured, e.g.

using a token or other item to signify ‘my turn to talk’Social rules may need to be explained, e.g. by using visual

social stories or picture sequencesMay need time limit to support attentionKeep dialogic environment calmKeep it short and positiveSelect peer partners carefullySupport self-assessment with examples from work/pictures/

video feedback to aid reflectionKeep discussions concrete and specificIf open questions are difficult, use closed question sequencesUse visual supports to focus attentionKeep it short if attention flags

(Continued)

960 J. Ravet

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

46 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

of emotions in themselves and others and understand their meaning. By and large, theylearn about emotions implicitly and without detailed formal instruction. However, it isnot uncommon for the learner on the autism spectrum to have persistent difficulties inthis area (Frith 2003).

If the needs of learners on the autism spectrum are met using approaches such asthese, the learning environment will become more ‘autism friendly’ and the datayielded by formative assessment is likely to be better focused, reliable and accurate.This will enable teachers to identify authentic priority learning targets and developappropriate interventions that address the specific needs of learners on the autism spec-trum, as well as other learners who, for different reasons, might benefit from a morestructured, visual approach (Ravet 2011). Crucially, it will also enable the pupils them-selves to participate calmly and more successfully in the formative assessment process,and take responsibility for their learning in the way that Black and Wiliam originallyconceived.

Conclusion

Black and Wiliam are rightly applauded for identifying, and attempting to address, theinsidious problem of low standards of learning in schools for some children. Their sol-ution, formative assessment, is not, essentially, in question. What is at issue is themajoritarian discourse that, in some contexts, influences its implementation. In attempt-ing to analyse and explain this majoritarian discourse and the normative inferencesassociated with it, two issues have been highlighted that raise further questions. Thefirst issue is training. The question of whether mainstream classroom teachers requiretraining in autism in order to include children on the autism spectrum continues tobe contentious within the long-running inclusion debate (Ravet 2011). Elsewhere(Ravet 2011), I have made the case that inclusion can be more successful with thisgroup where teachers have a sound understanding of the condition. Above, I havemade the further case that inclusive formative assessment can be more successfulwhere teachers can abstract themselves from the straightjacket of normative thinkingabout learning in order to understand the minds of children who function differently.Black and Wiliam (1998a) stated in their original paper that teachers cannot simplybe left ‘without any direct help’ (p. 1) for complex tasks inside the ‘black box’.More research is, therefore, required to elucidate how teacher inferencing during theformative assessment process works, how it can be applied to learners on the autismspectrum, and what level of knowledge and understanding of autism is necessary tohelp teachers better include learners on the autism spectrum.

The second issue is inclusion. Logically, if we want inclusive classrooms, we needteachers who can grasp the necessary inter-relationship between inclusion for all

Table 3. Continued.

Formative assessment: activities Adaptation for learners on the autism spectrum

Formative use of summativetests

Summative tests should be appropriately modifiedCollaborate with parents, colleagues and other professionals

as performance and achievement can vary from context tocontext

Discrepancies from one context to the next suggest problemsin the learning environment

International Journal of Inclusive Education 961

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

46 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

(Florian and Black-Hawkins 2011) and authentic formative assessment (Swaffield2011). The ‘inclusive pedagogy’ proposed by Florian and Black-Hawkins (2011)holds out the prospect of a form of inclusion that can integrate these elements withits emphasis on ‘everybody’, pupil participation, and, importantly, teacher reflectionupon ‘what (they) need to know’ (p. 827) in order to operationalise effective teachingand learning for all. It is my contention that more teachers need to know more aboutformative assessment, more about inclusive pedagogy and, importantly, more aboutautism, if the notion of inclusive formative assessment is to have any real meaning.Further research is required to clarify and strengthen these links.

Notes on contributorJackie Ravet is a senior lecturer in inclusive practice and director of the masters programme inAutism & Learning at the University of Aberdeen. Her background is in teaching children andyoung people on the autism spectrum in mainstream contexts, and in autism service develop-ment and management within a local education authority. She now researches in autism andinclusion.

ReferencesAAETC (Australian Autism Education and Training Consortium). n.d. Individual planning

matrix. http://www.autismtraining.com.au/public/index.cfm?action=showPublicContent&assetCategoryId=1050 (accessed July 9, 2012).

Antonietti, A., O. Liverta-Sempio, and A. Machetti. 2006. Theory of mind and language indevelopmental contexts. New York: Springer.

Attwood, T. 2007. The complete guide to Asperger Syndrome. London: Jessica Kingsley.Baron-Cohen, S. 2001. Theory of mind in normal development and autism. Prisme 34: 174–83.Batten, A., and J. Daly. 2006. Make school make sense: Autism and education in Scotland: The

reality for families today. London: National Autistic Society.Bennett, R.E. 2009. Formative assessment: Can claims for effectiveness be substantiated?

Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. http://www.iaea.info/documents/paper_4d5260ae.pdf (accessed April 18, 2012).

Bennett, R.E. 2011. Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education:Principles, Policy and Practice 18, no. 1: 5–25.

Black, P. 2007. Full marks for feedback. Make the Grade: Journal of the Institute of EducationalAssessors 2, no. 1: 18–21.

Black, P., C. Harrison, C. Lee, B. Marshall, and D. Wiliam. 2002. Working inside the black box:Assessment for learning in the classroom. London: GL Assessment.

Black, P., C. Harrison, C. Lee, B. Marshall, and D. Wiliam. 2003. Assessment for learning:Putting it into practice. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Black, P., R. McCormick, M. James, and D. Pedder. 2006. Learning how to learn and assess-ment for learning: A theoretical enquiry. Research Papers in Education 21, no. 2: 119–32.

Black, P., and D. Wiliam. 1998a. Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroomassessment. London: King’s College London School of Education.

Black, P., and D. Wiliam. 1998b. Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education:Principles, Policy and Practice 5, no. 1: 7–74.

Black, P., and D. Wiliam. 2009. Developing the theory of formative assessment. EducationalAssesssment, Evaluation & Accountability 21, no. 1: 5–31.

Carruthers, P. 2009. How we know our own minds: The relationship between mindreading andmetacognition. Behavioural & Brain Sciences 32, no. 2: 121–82.

Davies, G. 2012. Communication. In Autism and learning: A guide to good practice, ed. S.Powell and R. Jordan, 113–19. London: David Fulton.

DCSF (Department for Children, Schools and Families). 2008. The assessment for learningstrategy. Nottingham: DCSF Publications.

Deleuze, G., and F. Guattari. 2004. A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia.London: Continuum.

962 J. Ravet

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

46 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Dunlop, A.-W., C. Tait, A. Leask, L. Glashan, A. Robinson, and H. Marwick. 2009. The autismtoolbox. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

EADSNE (European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education). 2009. Assessmentfor learning and pupils with special educational needs. http://www.european-agency.org/publications/flyers/assessment-materials/assessment-for-learning/assessment-for-learning-graphic-en.pdf (accessed April 2, 2012).

Eldar, E., R. Talmor, and T. Wolf-Zukerman. 2010. Successes and difficulties in the individualinclusion of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in the eyes of their coordinators.International Journal of Inclusive Practice 14, no. 1: 97–114.

Florian, L., and K. Black-Hawkins. 2011. Exploring inclusive pedagogy. British EducationalResearch Journal 37, no. 5: 813–28.

Frith, U. 2003. Autism: Explaining the enigma. London: Blackwell.Happe, F. 2003. Theory of mind and self. London: Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College. http://

www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~pineda/COGS175/readings/Happe.pdf (accessed April 18, 2012).HMIE. 2006. Education for children with autism spectrum disorders. Edinburgh: HMIE.Hobson, P. 2006. Foundations of self-awareness: An exploration through autism. Monographs

of the Society for Research in Child Development 71, no. 2: vii–166.Hollenweger, J. 2011. Teacher’s ability to assess students for teaching and supporting learning.

Prospects 41, no. 3: 445–57.Holzhauser-Peters, L., and L. True. 2008. Making sense of children’s thinking and behaviour: A

step-by-step tool for understanding children with NLD, AS, HFA, PDD-NOS and otherneurological disorders. London: Jessica Kingsley.

Humphrey, N., and S. Lewis. 2008a. What does ‘inclusion’ mean for pupils on the autistic spec-trum in mainstream secondary schools? Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs8, no. 3: 132–40.

Humphrey, N., and S. Lewis. 2008b. ‘Make me normal’: The views and experiences of pupils onthe autistic spectrum in mainstream secondary schools. Autism 12, no. 1: 23–46.

James, M. 2008. Assessment and learning. In Unlocking assessment: Understanding for reflec-tion and application, ed. S. Swaffield, 20–35. Abingdon: Routledge.

Jordon, R. 2005. Autistic spectrum disorders. In Special teaching for special children?Pedagogy for special educational needs, ed. B. Norwich, 110–23. Milton Keynes: OpenUniversity Press.

Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking fast and slow. London: Penguin.Martiniello, M. 2008. Language and the performance of English language learners in math word

problems. Harvard Educational Review 78, no. 2: 333–68.Molloy, H., and L. Vasil. 2004. Asperger syndrome, adolescence and identity: Looking beyond

the label. London: Jessica Kingsley.Moore, C. 2007. Speaking as a parent: Thoughts about educational inclusion for autistic chil-

dren. In Included or excluded? The challenge of mainstream for some SEN children, ed.R. Cigman, 34–41. London: Routledge.

Nation, K., P. Clarke, B. Wright, and C. Williams. 2006. Patterns of reading ability in childrenwith autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 36, no. 7:911–19.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). 2005a. Formative assess-ment: Improving learning in secondary classrooms. Paris: OECD.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). 2005b. Teachers matter:Attracting, developing, and retaining effective teachers. Paris: OECD.

Parsons, S., A. Lewis, I. Davison, J. Ellins, and C. Robertson. 2009. Satisfaction with edu-cational provision for children with SEN or disabilities: A national postal survey of theviews of parents in Great Britain. Educational Review 61, no. 1: 19–47.

Perrenoud, P. 1998. From normative evaluation to a controlled regulation of learning processes:Towards a wider conceptual field. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 5,no. 1: 85–102.

Powell, S., and R. Jordan. 2012. Autism and learning: A guide to good practice. 2nd ed. London:Routledge.

Ravet, J. 2011. Inclusion/exclusion? Contradictory perspectives on autism and inclusion: Thecase for an integrative approach. International Journal of Inclusive Education 15, no. 6:667–82.

International Journal of Inclusive Education 963

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

46 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Ravet, J. 2012. From interprofessional education to interprofessional practice: Exploring theimplementation gap. Professional Development in Education 38, no. 1: 49–64.

Scottish Government. 2005. Information on AiFL: Assessment if for learning. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/09/20105413/54156 (accessed April 20, 2012).

Smith, E., and S. Gorrard. 2005. ‘They don’t give us our marks’: The role of formative feedbackin student progress. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 12, no. 1:21–38.

Swaffield, S. 2011. Getting to the heart of authentic assessment for learning. Assessment inEducation: Principles, Policy & Practice 18, no. 4: 433–49.

Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.Science 185, no. 4157: 1124–31.

UNESCO. 2009. Policy guidelines on inclusion in education. Paris: UNESCO.Watkins, A. 2007. Assessment in inclusive settings: Key issues for policy and practice. http://

www.european-agency.org/publications/ereports/assessment-in-inclusive-settings-key-issues-for-policy-and-practice/Assessment-EN.pdf (accessed April 18, 2012).

Watson, D.L., and C. Emery. 2009. From rhetoric to reality: The problematical nature andassessment of children and young people’s social and emotional learning. BritishEducational Research Journal 36, no. 5: 767–86.

Wiliam, D., and M. Thompson. 2007. Integrating assessment with instruction: What will it taketo make it work? In The future of assessment: Shaping teaching and learning, ed. C.A.Dwyer, 53–82. New York: Erlbaum.

Wilkinson, K., and L. Twist. 2010. Autism and educational assessment: UK policy and practice.Berkshire: NFER (National Foundation for Educational Research).

Withers, L. 2009. A snapshot of specialist autism education provision in Wales. http://www.childreninwales.org.uk/policy/documents/researchandreports/11670.html (accessed April 27,2012).

964 J. Ravet

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

46 1

8 O

ctob

er 2

014