Purposeful Language Assessment:
Selecting the Right Alternative Marks.
Foreign language teachers are often
faced with the responsibility of selecting or developing language tests for their
classrooms and programs. However, deciding which testing alternatives are the
most appropriate for a particular language education context can be
daunting, especially given the increasing variety of instruments,
procedures, and practices available for language testing. Language tests are
simply instruments or procedures for gathering particular kinds of
information, typically information having to do with students’ language
abili-
ties. Tests may
have a variety of formats, lengths, item types, scoring criteria, and
media. We may differentiate among language test types according to
such characteristics and the information provided by each. For example, a
20-item
cloze test, which
asks the examinee to write single-word re-sponses to complete a reading
passage, provides a very dif-ferent kind of information than does a 20-item
multiple choice reading comprehension test, in which the examinee has only to
choose the correct responses.But deciding which of these test types is better
or more appropriate is not easy. Knowing that each uses a unique format to
provide different kinds of information does not bring us much closer to
selecting one or the other alternative. Indeed, attempting to select
the most appropriate
among available
testing alternatives on the basis of their characteristics alone would
be like trying to choose between a hammer, a shovel, or a screwdriver
based entirely on what these tools look like. We cannot distinguish between
good or bad, appropriate or inappropriate, reliable or not reliable, valid or
not valid tests based solely on characteristics of the test instruments
and procedures. Rather, we must focus instead on language assessment.Language
assessment, then, is much more than simply giving a language test; it is the
entire process of test use. Indeed, the ultimate goal of language assessment is
to use tests to better inform us on the decisions we make and the actions we
take in language education.
Who are the test
users?
An important
starting point for specifying intended test use is to clarify who uses the
test-based information. In many language programs, teachers are the primary
users of such information, because they are typically faced with making
decisions and taking actions within the classroom on a daily basis. However, it
is important not to overlook others who may use tests to make decisions or
take
actions.
This list may include students, students’ families, school
administrators, curriculum planners, funding agencies, future employers, and
university admissions ofcers.Each of these potential users will naturally have
par-
ticular reasons
for looking at the information provided by tests, and they may require very
different kinds of infor-mation from a test. Who uses test-based information
will also determine how this information should be reported, as
different test
users may look for and understand different aspects of test score reports.
Finally, different users will also attach varying degrees of importance to the
outcomes of the language assessment process.
What is the impact
of the test?
As test users go
about gathering information and making interpretations, which then lead
to decisions and actions, the use of language tests obviously affects a
variety of individuals and the language classrooms and programs themselves. We
should therefore specify what consequences, both positive and negative, are
likely to occur as a result of the intended use of language testing tools.
Individuals who
might be affected
by using language tests include students, parents and other family
members, teachers, employers, and others involved in the assessment process.
Teachers who
assess ELLs must ask themselves a number of basic questions such as these: Who am I
going to assess? How am I going to assess them? Why am I going to assess them?
Whatspecific aspects of literacy am I going to assess?
When am I going to
administer the assessment?
Can I evaluate my
students in my own classroom?
In order to answer
these questions, teachers should investigate their students’ prior
schooling before
assessment.
Teachers of ELLs
should conduct multiple forms of evaluation, using a variety of
authentic assessment tools (e.g., anecdotal records, checklists, rating
scales, portfolios) to fairly assess the placement and
progress of their students and to plan
instruction.
Authentic assessment tools will provide direct insights on
the students’ literacy developmentand showcase students’ progress and
accomplishments. Assessments also serve as mechanisms that reveal
what instruction needs to be modified to help the
students reach the necessary standards and goals.
Self-assessments
convey the message that students are in control of their own learning and theassessment
of that learning. As students engage inself-assessment practices, they learn
how their pastlearning is shaping their new learning. This type
of assessment
practice helps students understand that they can direct their
learning, which paves the way to teaching students to become
independent
readers
and
learners.As
teachers use self-assessment with ELLs,they should keep in mind that ELLs
vary in their
linguistic
ability and, by definition, are in the process of learning
a language. Thus, teachers should be aware that ELLs might
experience difficulties at first with self-assessments. In order to assist
ELLs, teachers should provide them with support through
substantial scaffolding activities. Teachers should model responses to
self-assessment
tasks
and then provide students with group, peer, and
finally independent practice.
In summary,
purposeful language assessment in-volves the cyclical process of focusing on
the jobs to be accomplished by language assessment, specifying the intended
uses of language tests in accomplishing these jobs, selecting the appropriate
language testing tools and designating how they are to be used, and evaluating
the extent to which the jobs of language assessment are being accom-
plished with the
help of language tests. Thus, to choose and use the language testing
alternatives most appropriate for their language education contexts, language
teachers need to keep in mind the purposeful nature of language
assessment.
References
Abedi, J. (2004).
The No Child Left Behind Act and Englishlanguage learners: Assessment and
accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 33, 4–14.
Baker, C. (2001).
Foundations of bilingual education andbilingualism (3rd ed.). Buffalo, NY:
Multilingual Matters.Brisk, M. (2002). Literacy and bilingualism. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
Brown, D.H.
(2004). Language assessment: Principles andclassroom practices. White Plains,
NY: Pearson/Longman.Burns, A. (2003). Reading practices: From outside to insidethe
classroom. TESOL Journal, 12(3), 18–23
Brown, J. 1995.
The elements of language curriculum: A system-
atic approach to
program development. Boston: Heinle and
Heinle. 1997.
Computers in language testing: Present re-
search and some
future directions. Language Learning
and Technology, 1,
1, pp. 44–59. http//polyglot.cal.msu
.edu/llt/vol1num11998.
New ways of classroom assessment. Blooming-
ton, IL: TESOL.
Cohen, A. 1994.
Assessing language ability in the classroom.
2nd ed. New York:
Heinle and Heinle.
Dunkel, P. 1999.
Considerations in developing or using sec-
ond/foreign
language pro———. 1998. New ways of classroom assessment. Blooming-
ton, IL:
TESOL.Cohen, A. 1994. Assessing language ability in the classroom.
2nd ed. New York:
Heinle and Heinle.
Dunkel, P. 1999.
Considerations in developing or using sec-
ond/foreign
language.
