Introduction

To evaluate is a verb that indicates an action. In the school reality, this verb carries the burden of assigning grades, determining what is enough or not, good or not. These functions can limit the possibilities of the evaluative act, therefore, the evaluation of learning.

In the school context, evaluating can cause discomfort, strangeness, and different types of reactions in the students, depending on how it is conducted. Once it is usually associated with the students’ approval or not, which presents an intimidating nature. It is understood that the students’ feelings of anguish and fear in face of the evaluation process come from a lack of missing clarity and understanding of the meaning of the assessment process in school life, which goes far beyond assigning grades. This burden to perform assessments indicates a dichotomy between teaching, assessing and learning as if one is not intrinsically related to the other (^{ROLDÃO; FERRO, 2015}).

In the context of remote teaching, and later blended teaching, because of the covid-19 pandemic, the evaluation of learning was the object of many inquiries in the teaching practice, since many evaluation practices widely used in face-to-face teaching were not adequate to the new situation of social isolation that teachers and students started to experience. In these models, besides the fact that teaching had to be adapted to the needs of the institutions and of the students, assessment also had to be adapted, to consider, in fact, all the stages of the students' learning process, monitored remotely.

The Blended Learning is not new, according to ^{Bacich, Tanzi e Trevisani (2015}), if considered that Education has always been hybrid, in the sense of “mixed”, combining many spaces, times, activities, methodologies, peoples. Besides, it is blended because it takes place in a complex, multicultural and imperfect society, in which it is always necessary to change, mix, and redirect the routes to adapt to the different moments of Education. Therefore, blended learning, although always emphasizes the use of technologies, is also a way to understand Education beyond the classroom and the professor, considering multiple learning spaces and the different ways each student learns.

This article aims to present a proposal of assessment of learning in History, for the final years of Middle School, associated with the Project-Based Learning (PjBL) methodology, which can be used both in the blended learning and remote teaching or in person.

The article, in addiction to this introduction and the conclusion, is structured in three sections. The first addresses the formative and summative assessment for an assessment of learning; the assessment of learning⁴ constitutes the second section; and the third section deals with the assessment of learning in History and the Project-Based Learning (PjBL).

Formative Assessment and Summative Assessment: for a learning assessment

The concepts of Formative Assessment and Summative Assessment were created in 1967, by Michael Scriven, a renowned researcher in the field of the Education Evaluation. In his book Methodology of Evaluation (1967), the author criticizes the current evaluation model, deeply focused on the measurement and achievement of goals, the most common evaluation practice used at that time.

According to the author, although the Evaluation of Education serves several functions, its general purpose is to determinate the value or merit of what is evaluated, for example, evaluation of policies and programs, the curriculum, the institutions, the students learning, the teachers practice etc.

The concepts of formative and summative assessment, created by ^{Scriven (1967}), were originated because of research about curriculum and curriculum reforms in the United States, and have become almost universally accepted in the field of educational assessment, particularly in the assessment of student learning.

According to ^{Scriven (1967}), the summative assessment should be performed in the end of a program, discipline, curricular unit, with emphasis on the results achieved, whereas the formative assessment should be performed during the process, purposing to gather information and improving the educational process. In this sense,

The Formative Assessment is an assessment that looks for the reason of things, privileging process over product; method over content; quality over quantity; participation over authoritarianism. It is essentially contextual, involving a multiplicity and complexity of personal, didactic, institutional, cultural, social, ethical, and political determinants (^{BRANDALISE, 2020a}, p. 135).

The difficulty in differentiating Formative Assessment from Summative Assessment is not in the origin of the concepts, but it is because both are used in the practice of the assignment process, becoming fragile their limits and definitions. Recently, the concepts of Assessment of learning (AOL) and Assessment for learning (AFL) have been used to explain the differentiation of these concepts and, at the same time, to highlight the possibilities of articulating them in the evaluative practices. In this way, the assessment of and for learning occur together, resulting in the usage of the denomination assessment of learnings. In the words of Domingos Fernandes:

Black and Wiliam (2018), when discussing the inferential nature of assessments, that is, considering that assessment is a process through which inferences are made about what students know and are capable of doing, mentioned that the difference between AOL and AFL is related to the type of inferences one decides to make about each assessment. In these conditions, if the inferences are to define where the students are in relation to one or more domains of the curriculum, we are facing a summative use of assessment. If, however, such inferences are about what guidelines should be given to the students to organize their learning efforts, then we are dealing with a formative use of the assessment carried out. (^{FERNANDES, 2019}, p. 153).

Therefore, the assessment of learning is characterized by the summative conception of assessment, which aims to describe the student’s performance, ascertain what he or she learned, certifying them according to their results, which generally occurs at the end of a process (^{FERNANDES, 2019}). This model of assessment is configured as a summary, a balance of the process, indicating the effectiveness - or not - of the teaching practice and the student learning. It can also be accomplished throughout the development, at any time of the teaching and learning processes, serving to formative objectives or decision making (^{BRANDALISE, 2020a}; FERNANDES, 2019).

^{Black (2009}) points that in summative tests there is the necessity of only one total result, with uniformity and reliability standards, not necessarily required in a formative process. This occurs, for example, because the intention of the formative assessment is not to be a punctual or uniform assessment for all, but to identify the learning needs of each student.

In contrast, assessment for learning is not a novelty in relation to the formative assessment. However, as the concept of assessment has evolved a lot since its creation by ^{Scriven (1967}), it can be considered as a more actively and dialogic alternative than its initial format, once it focuses on the teaching and learning processes through feedback, an essential aspect of the assessment for learning (^{TARAS, 2010}). In the formative assessment, the students are evaluated continuously and participate intentionally and actively in their own educational process, in dialogue with the teacher.

As specified by ^{Fernandes (2006}), a conceptual clarification about the assessment is necessary to change the educational systems, because only with a clear framework of epistemological, ontological and methodological foundations it is possible to think of more dialogic and actively assessments practices. The author says that "changing and improving formative assessment practices implies that their meaning is clear to the teachers, especially because their relations with the teaching and learning processes are very strong and complex" (^{FERNANDES, 2006}, p. 22).

In this way, it is not possible to disassociate teaching-assessment-learning as different parts of the educational action, rather reaffirm it with students that the formers are inseparable and equally important for their formation (^{ROLDÃO; FERRO, 2015}).

In order to be formative, an assessment needs students to become aware of the differences between their current state of knowledge and the one they intend to achieve, outlining strategies on how to reduce or eliminate existing difficulties evidenced in the assessments. Therefore, the formative assessment facilitates the understanding of knowledges - plural -, attitudes, skills, and stages of development of students; the data or results observed, in addition to the former topics, are essential to indicate which actions will need to be reformulated or planned to enable advances in learning (^{FERNANDES, 2009}).

It is noteworthy that, despite the need for students to take a leading role, it is up to the teacher to undertake a series of actions to carry out the formative assessment. Among these functions, some of them can be mentioned: the clarity of the object of assessment and the teaching objectives; the selection of tasks; the sharing of assessment criteria; the definition of strategies for the involvement and participation of students; the use of different approaches, techniques, instruments for the gathering of information needed for qualified feedback (^{FERNANDES, 2009}; ^{ROLDÃO; FERRO, 2015}).

^{Black (2009}) emphasizes the importance of translating the curriculum objectives into an appropriate language so that students can understand and relate them to the daily life of the classes. Another concept highlighted by ^{Fernandes (2009}) is the triangulation, which would be the usage of different methods in favor of greater validity and reliability of the processes: strategies, techniques, instruments, actors, spaces, and times.

One of the most important concepts in the Formative Assessment is the feedback, a response to a given request or event. In the case of the assessment, it is an answer that students need to find for themselves in their learning process and redirect their actions based on verification of their progress and difficulties (^{FERNANDES, 2009}).

In the perspective of ^{Gipps (1999}), there are two models of feedback: the evaluative and the descriptive; the first issues judgments or the merit of a certain activity; the second follows the students' learning, contemplating the regulation. According to ^{Fernandes (2009}), in a constructivist perspective, the feedback enables the teacher to share the responsibility for evaluating with students, jointly analyzing the possibilities for the development of their learning (^{FERNANDES, 2009}).

^{Brandalise (2020b}) points out that the feedback can be achieved by different ways and still be effective: orally (in daily dialogue with the students); written (when there is an individual necessity that students need to evidence); individually or in a group, depending on the objectives and criteria adopted by each teacher. It is a challenging activity that needs to be conscious, aiming the learning development and the self-regulation as a consequence of the practice.

Based on these theoretical foundations, some questions are necessary in face of the Brazilian reality: in fact, is it possible to perform only formative assessments, without the attribution of grades or concepts? How will the school, the teachers and the students receive this assessment process?

Furthermore, besides the difficulty of application in the classroom context, how can we think about the assessment of/for learning in the blended context that presents itself as a challenge to schools and teachers at the same time? With this in mind, we share the perspective of ^{Fernandes (2008}) who considers that formative and summative assessment are different dimensions of the same construct of learning assessment, representing the multiplicity of knowledge and skills developed by subjects in the learning process. His ideas are based on the concept of Formative Assessment, which, for this author, "[...] is an assessment aimed at improving and regulating systematically and deliberately teaching and learning"⁵ (^{FERNANDES, 2009}, p. 29).

In this sense, the option of denominating learning assessment is justified, in this article, assessment of/for the learning, since they are inextricable when thinking about the teaching-assessment-learning.

Therefore, it is important to distinguish the two denominations in relation to their objectives, functions, methods, processes and products, but also to share the common aspects, such as: the gathering of information to analyze what students know and what they are able to do, the formulation of judgments about their learning, the use of common references or the need to make decisions as a consequence of the information obtained (^{FERNANDES, 2008}).

Thereby, the assessment of learning can be understood as the “heart” of the assessment in Education. It involves not only the assessment within the classroom, but also the curriculum, teachers, schools, programs, projects, and publics policies, in a way that exists a continuous and proactive dynamic in all steps and of all those involved in the assessment process (^{BRANDALISE, 2020a}).

Given the above, the next section explains the aspects related to the learning assessment of the discipline of History, considering the curriculum defined by Base Nacional Comum Curricular (BNCC) to the final years of the Middle School.⁶

Assessment of learning in History

One of the biggest challenges involving the assessment of learning in History is founded, firstly, in the initial teacher training, since there is still a restricted space for pedagogical subjects in relation to the specific knowledge in the area, as happens in other Bachelor’s Degrees.

Also, the subjects related to the History teaching in undergraduate degree courses and the approach of the assessment of learning, for the study of its elements and concepts as deeply as the teacher training needs is not enough, as the centrality of the discussions generally turns to the didactics of History teaching, involving curricular guidelines, teacher planning, teaching methodologies, pedagogical practices, textbooks, and others. In general, the theoretical foundations of the assessment of learning are discussed when there are changes in the curriculum or when different teaching methodologies have been practiced, which integrate the assessment practices.

In this way, the study of the assessment of learning does not seem to take a prominent place in the History teaching discussions in the undergraduate courses (^{TURINI, 1997}).

In the debates about the Teaching of History, mainly by historians themselves, who gather in several groups dedicated to research around the country, there is a consensus that teaching History does not aim at the reproduction of knowledge, the "repeating" of information, "memorizing" events and dates from the past.

However, this point of view remains in many discourses about the subject, even if it exists a movement for the development of a historical critical consciousness, and the history as a guide for the present actions, aiming at a change in the future (RÜSEN, 2011; CERRI, 2010; ^{CAINELLI, 2006}). Although, even in this more critical concept of History teaching, what is predominant in assessments practices is the traditional approach of assignments, focused on measuring results and classifying students, which are usually carried out by tests and evaluations⁷, even though there are others assessment instruments (^{DEPRESBITERIS, TAVARES, 2009}).

The curriculum guidelines for the subject of History in Brazil are currently anchored in the Base Nacional Comum Curricular (BNCC) for History - Middle School, approved in 2017.

To approach the assessment of learning in History, it is necessary to look at the competencies and skills disposed in the BNCC and how these are or should be considered in the teacher planning. The History teaching in the BNCC is based on five processes for a critical reading of the historic facts by students: the identification, comparison, contextualization, interpretation and analysis, progressing to different levels of teaching. In addition, three procedures are essential to deal with the development of the expected competences and skills:

These proceedings are inherent to the teacher practice since the organization of their teaching planning. ^{Noda (2005}) states that one of the challenges when thinking about the assessment in History is the clarity that the teacher needs to have about his/her philosophical and pedagogical conceptions, as these will guide the development of objectives, the methodologies used, and, consequently, the assessment of learning, corroborating with what ^{Fernandes (2009}) argues about the need for conceptual clarity on formative assessment. Thus, the teacher must be aware of the perspective of teaching and assessment in favor of the development of the student learning.

Therefore, to develop the assessment of learning in History, teachers must exercise the functions, previously cited in the paper (^{FERNANDES, 2009}; ^{ROLDÃO; FERRO, 2015}). First, it must be clear to the teacher what he or she is teaching, what the teaching objectives are, and what the students should know about a given content to advance in their studies. Understanding this, "[...] it is possible to move towards the construction of historical knowledge in a systemic way, with a solid base, as all construction should be, in order to represent reflection, creating space for the creativity and interests of the students" (^{NODA, 2005}, p. 145). The perspective of collective construction and space for creativity and interest is aligned with the fundamentals of formative assessment, which considers, especially, the participation of students in the learning process itself.

To give meaning to the assessment of learnings in History it is necessary to go beyond merely descriptive questions such as “What was it” “Name it”, without a discussion or reflection about the issue. In this way, when thinking about the assessment in History it is crucial to keep in mind: the possible responses to this question will allow me to comprehend if my student has, in fact, learned this content? Can the questions that are being asked deal with the comprehension of how the students interpretate the sources, the reflection about the meanings of certain contexts and the recognizing of different versions of the same event, according to BNCC? How will these words contribute to rethinking the teaching-assessment-learning and developing the student learning?

The reflections on the assessment of learning in History raise some important questions and considerations about the coherence of the teaching objectives and the way they have been assessed. Imagine a house that has been remodeled on the outside, but inside remains the same; when people enter in, they realize that, in fact, it is still need a renovation. This is how history teaching can be thought of, reviewing the teaching methodologies and the use of the textbook, but not reviewing the processes of learning assessments.

According to Bordignon and Botomé, based on studies of behavior analysis, the role of the teacher when teaching "[...] can be understood as the process in which someone's behavior (in the role of student) is modified from contingencies, conditions or circumstances managed by another person" (^{BORDIGNON; BOTOMÉ, 2017}, p. 331). In other words, there is no effective teaching-assessment-learning without the relationship of the individuals and the rethinking of the educational processes. Thereby, the assessment is configured in an important pedagogical act for the development of students and teaching practice.

Based on these reflections, the assessment in History can be understood from the perspective of the Assessment of Learnings, and needs: theoretical evidence about history as a science and discipline, so that there is coherence between the objectives of the discipline and the conceptions of the assessment that are consistent with these foundations; showing to students what is being assessed and how assessment affects the educational process; valuing the role of students in the development of learning; constitution of a process of reflection transformed into action, based on the data obtained with the tests or other instruments used and that enables thinking about the construction of historical knowledge and the development of history classes.

Project-Based Learning (PjBL) and the Assessment of Learnings

The Project-Based Learning (PjBL) consists in an active methodology that proposes the use of projects related to the reality of daily situations. It can be based on a question, task, or problem that is motivating and engaging, in order to teach academic content to students in the context of cooperative work to solve problems (^{BENDER, 2014}).

The PjBL is an important teaching methodology for the current context of Blended Learning, precisely because it instigates students and enables research both at school and at home, also involving family members, neighbors, friends, depending on which problem is defined to develop it.

Some terms are significant to understand the PjBL proposal, such as: anchor, artifacts, authentic performance, brainstorming, driving question, expeditionary learning, student voice and choice, and web. All these concepts should be part of the PjBL action plan.

In the first place, both teachers and students must be consciousness about what is collaborative work and that it requires an action plan, with objectives, tasks, resolutions, and deadlines to reach. The PjBL project can be focused on a single discipline, be interdisciplinary, or involve the entire school community.

By highlighting the components of the PjBL tasks, the author characterizes three important aspects that underlie the possible activities that students will have to perform: students must perceive the PjBL project as personally meaningful to them; authentic and innovative questions that are focused on their real world; students must work together on solving problems, forwarding possible solutions, and publicizing the results (^{BENDER, 2014}).

Some of the main possible tasks are:

According to the assumptions of formative assessment, the PjBL focus on two important aspects: the voice and choice of students, which are defining of all phases of the project; and the feedback from the teacher, acting as a mediator of the PjBL. Therefore, before planning with students the execution of the steps, the ideal is to establish which steps will be carried out, the content involved, the project objectives, the resources that will be available, and how they will be evaluated. This step can be called pre-planning, precisely because the planning itself will take place in the active listening and dialogue with students, so it is not possible to predict how all stages of the project will result, being specific to the theme that will be worked on, the reality of the students and the teacher, and the data collected during the project.

A proposal of PjBL to the assessment in History in the final years of the Middle School (EFAF)

As discussed, firstly, it is important to establish a pre-planning, thinking about the project's objectives, the deadlines for execution, and the contents that will be involved. In this proposal, the general theme of the project was defined as “The work’s world and the environment”.

The theme raises discussions related to the History, Science, Philosophy and Geography subjects, mainly, but emphasizing the object of knowledge of the BNCC of History for the 8th grade in Brazil, "Industrial Revolution and its impacts on the production and circulation of people, products and cultures" (BRASIL, 2017), specifically in the skill 3, "(EF08HI03) Analyzing the impacts of the Industrial Revolution on the production and circulation of people, products and cultures" (BRASIL, 2017). The proposal should be done in groups of up to five people, in which each one must have a role defined by the team itself, but each assignment should contribute to the research that will be presented in class, as well as to the final work. The project can be designed according to the availability of the teacher and the engagement of the students.

Considering that the proposal fits both face-to-face and blended or remote teaching, in the latter the possibilities of group work may be limited, so it is necessary to think of strategies in which the individual work of each student, discussed and articulated together in class, becomes collaborative as expected. Moreover, although technology is a key aspect in the composition of the PjBL, it can also be replaced by printed scripts, for example, which can be sent to the students in advance and received again for discussion in class with the others⁸. Evidently, the project becomes more enriching with the use of technology but considering the Brazilian educational reality, it is necessary to think beyond technology and provide access to quality knowledge, without losing the characteristics of the active methodology.

The first step is the Anchor, a problematization of the theme, generating a driving question which will guide the planning phases of the students. The anchor could be, for example, the article "Residents complain about pollution caused by iron foundry industry, in Ponta Grossa," from April 05, 2019 (RPC PONTA GROSSA, 2019).

The second step is to elaborate the driving question, based on the reflections made with the students, moving in the following direction: "In what way does the world of work impact on social relations and on nature, and what can be done to make this relationship wiser and more prudent?" This question will generate others, from the third step.

The third step is to conduct a brainstorming session with the students, in which all ideas, even if later discarded, should be listed, and considered. Possible answers to these questions will be noted, and how may steps can be taken to answer this problem, generating a work, an achievement, a product that will help to solve the driving question.

The fourth step is to establish the stages of the project and what the students will have to present, defining the artifacts that will be used to result in the product. These artifacts can use technology, in the format of videos, podcasts, social network posts, etc., thinking from a web perspective, using the various possibilities that the internet can provide in the creation of a product. However, they can also be posters, flyers, articles, or a product that can be shared in order to contribute to the awareness of other students in the school and community.

After performing the four steps, it is important that both students and teachers produce a diary to record all the stages of the process, the decisions, changes, and next steps. In addition, it is up to the teacher to provide continuous feedback and review, because only then it is possible to evaluate the process in which students perceive that the teacher is acting as a tutor, even though they have autonomy. In this record will be descripted all stages of the project and the results that were obtained from the students' research - which can be presented orally or in writing - contributing to an assessment both during and at the end of the project.

Assessment is a fundamental part of the PjBL and can be used for the teacher’s evaluation, group evaluation, and students' own self-evaluation of their work.

In a formative assessment conception, the PjBL should not be associated to an evaluation used only as the attribution of grades or punitive, on the contrary, it should be performed throughout the process and based on continuous feedback from the teacher. However, it is possible to combine a reflective and responsible evaluation with the assigning of grades, configuring it as an assessment of/for learning. To achieve this, it is necessary to establish the objectives, criteria and instruments that will be used.

One of the options to assess in the PjBL is the rubric, because it is pertinent to establish a scoring guide, which determines specific criteria and assesses the performance of students from different levels of the skills demonstrated during the project. They can be from the simplest to the most complex, depending on how the teacher observes the class should be evaluated (^{BENDER, 2014}).

Nevertheless, there is also: the reflective self-evaluation, when students themselves evaluate their work, and the teacher has the opportunity to teach and prepare them for certain forms of evaluation in the world of work in the 21st century; the reflective evaluation, carried out by peers - a co-assessment -, which in the reality of the EFAF becomes complex, since the students have to assess the other teams, give consistent feedback to the team's performance and all the work done and presented; and the portfolio assessment, from the research results that were built throughout the project with the research undertaken and the data mapped and taken to the classroom (^{BENDER, 2014}).

As pointed out, the PjBL planning depends on the voice and choice of the students, that is why every proposal is limited and can be changed, based on the peculiarities of the class and the teacher who is guiding it. In this proposal is presented a proposition for the Integrated Teaching-Assessment-Learning Planning (Table 1), which contains the learning objectives, the criteria, the rubrics, the instruments, and the feedback. Evidently, it represents one of the stages of the project, but it can be expanded to whatever is defined for each stage.

According to Fernandes, "Criteria [...] help us to identify what are considered to be the characteristics or attributes that students' performance should have when they are working on a given assessment task" (^{FERNANDES, 2021a}, p. 6). The criteria given as an example cover only the final part of the project, but each stage may have its own criteria, depending on how they will be thought and developed by each teacher.

Regarding the rubrics, they help to "articulate the learning with the teaching and the assessment. That is, they can and should be used to help students learn and teachers teach" (^{FERNANDES, 2021b}), because they indicate what is expected to be learned when performing a certain action. The suggested rubrics can be modified according to the stage of the project and to what is expected of the students when performing each stage.

The instruments are the means that will be used to evaluate these criteria and items, ranging according to what is proposed. In the case of the PjBL, considering the need to generate a product, the main instrument would be the product generated, which can be in the format chosen by each group, according to what was researched and agreed among them. But the most important thing is that feedback is given during the development of the project once this ensures that the process is, in fact, formative and contributes to the development of students in those tasks.

All phases of the project are interconnected and cannot be thought separately. However, the goal of assessment in the PjBL should be to shift the tension from the weight of receiving a grade, to the celebration of all the work done, especially considering the final work, using these results to (re)think about the teaching-assessment-learning process, both by the student and by the teacher. If this assessment needs to generate a grade, it is possible to convert the rubrics into grades, as per the final definitions in the teacher's planning, according to the needs of the project and the students.

Conclusion

Reflecting on the assesment of learning requires constant self-evaluation: of one's own initial and continuing training; of the curricular structure; of the teaching objectives; of the plans that are made for the classes; of the educational needs of the students - which many times go beyond the limits of the classroom; of the social and educational context in which the institution is; finally, of the teaching-assessment-learning that guides the whole teaching practice and that must always be (re)defined based on the daily results.

This article sought to raise some discussions around the assessment of learnings in the subject of History. Therefore, it was noticed that there is a challenge in the Brazilian reality in relation to the assessment of and for learning, which is rarely used according to its theoretical and practical foundations. Moreover, the 2020/2021 context urges rethinking and readapting assessment for a blended education system, which often differentiates the possibilities and quality of students' access, as well as their learning.

Some reflections were discussed here regarding the assessment in History Teaching, which still faces some challenges: the initial teacher training, which reserves little space for discussions about the assessment; the incoherence between the theoretical positions of teachers in relation to the history of the evaluation that is prepared to assess what has been taught; the non-consideration of the students’ narratives in the assessments that are formulated; and the lack of articulation between the teaching-assessment-learning with the use of the results to improve the educational process.

To this end, the Project-Based Learning was presented as one of the possibilities of re-signification of the evaluation in the scope of the discipline of History. The basic assumptions of the PjBL are the relations between content and daily situations; motivating problems and tasks to be solved; collaborative work; active listening to students; students’ leadership; and feedback from the teacher.

This proposal emphasized the assessment focused on the student learning, celebrating progress, and overcoming difficulties based on the data obtained in the assessment activities. However, it is understood that there are many possibilities to assess in History based on the PjBL. Therefore, it was not a restricted proposal, on the contrary, it was open, and possible to different realities, depending on the teacher's view and the peculiarities of the classes.

Assessing will always be a process of constant reflection and transformation. Changing the curriculum, for example, can also change the perspectives of what should be taught, learned, and, consequently, evaluated. Moreover, today's societies are in a continuous metamorphosis, challenging the teacher's practice every day, which can be paralyzing or constitutive of daily teaching practice, depending on how these transformations are faced.

The History teacher should reflect on whether the assessment has contributed to the construction of an emancipated and critical student who is able to perceive the construction of historical knowledge as a constitutive factor of his or her own identity. Finally, as a fundamental part of Education, students and teachers must understand the teaching-assessment-learning as integrated processes, connected to the student's entire trajectory and development as a learning subject.