The Concise Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Carol A. Chapelle
Читать онлайн книгу.
with an expanded role for teachers and students in designing, implementing, and interpreting assessment. A similar perspective on classroom assessment is appearing in discussions of language learning as researchers examine the relationship among assessment, feedback, and learning (Davison & Leung, 2009).
Approaches of Classroom Assessment
The confluence of constructivist learning principles, sociocultural views of assessment, and task‐based communicative approaches in language teaching has resulted in the use of multiple approaches to language assessment that extend the repertoire of tools and resources of teachers to support classroom learning. These tools go beyond paper‐and‐pencil or online tests at the end of a unit of learning. The language and greater educational communities have embraced a broad range of performance‐based curricular projects or products as expressions of learning. These encompass student models, exhibitions, and multimedia presentations, coupled with accompanying rubrics or performance criteria. Additionally, portfolio assessment focuses on the collection of an integrated set of language and content tasks that are embedded within instructional activities.
This expansion of what is acceptable as evidence extends to include an array of assessment approaches useful in the language classroom to meet an array of purposes and student characteristics during teaching and learning. The terms assessment as, for, and of learning (reframed from formative and summative assessment) represent this growth of assessment approaches that moves toward elevating the status of those which are instructionally focused and learner driven (Gottlieb, 2016). In addition, recently coined student‐centered assessment or learner‐oriented assessment are also more inclusive of the role of students in the assessment process (Carless, 2015; Jones & Saville, 2016; Turner & Purpura, 2016).
Figure 2 presents a table (based on an adaptation of Sigman & Mancuso, 2017) that displays a continuum of assessment purposes; it forms an integrated assessment system for language and content based on a time frame. Starting from minute to minute and continuing throughout the academic year, the continuum illustrates how assessment information is integral to the functioning of a classroom and beyond. These multiple assessment approaches highlight a shift in emphasis from ones that have been externally produced for accountability purposes to those which are teacher directed and internal to the classroom, reflective of the local context and individual students.
The classroom assessment literature describes various ways for teachers to collect and judge student performance as part of planned assessment activities within instruction (e.g., Coombe, Folse, & Hubley, 2007; Gottlieb, 2016). A sociocultural view of classroom assessment indicates that assessment also takes place throughout instruction as teachers engage with students, guide student‐to‐student communication, and monitor small group activities. It is the proximity of classroom assessment to instruction that reaps academic benefits for the students, especially for those learners who are actively engaged and receive or give specific timely feedback (Moss & Brookhart, 2009; Heritage, 2010; Wiliam, 2011).
In addition to changing how assessment data are collected, emerging practices in classroom assessment have sharpened the focus on what is assessed, by aligning assessment more closely to learning. When teachers align assessment to instructional objectives or learning targets and then tie them to success criteria, there is greater coherence and more valid inferences for informing decision making about teaching and learning. Thus, when assessment tasks, such as a debate or a dramatization, are designed in light of specific learning targets, such as features of argumentative or persuasive speech, the information collected provides evidence of student progress toward meeting those learning targets. The following section explores classroom assessment approaches more in depth and the usefulness of the information gleaned from each.
Figure 2 A continuum of assessment purposes, uses of data, and examples based on a time frame
Assessment for Summative Purposes or Assessment of Learning
Classroom assessment that focuses on what students have accomplished at the culmination of a period of instruction, such as a unit of learning, have been characterized as summative uses of assessment or assessment of learning since they document accumulated student performance. Said another way, as a consequence of collecting information from assessment, there are classroom‐based decisions that are summative in nature, such as whether students are prepared to benefit from more advanced instruction or if students should be certified for having obtained a specified language level (Bachman & Damböck, 2017).
For assessment of learning in classrooms, teachers often work in teams to co‐design common measures, such as a series of open‐ended questions or writing prompts for a grade level, department, or course. Alternately, teachers might craft extended projects that are directly tied to the curriculum. Accompanying the design of the tools, teachers co‐construct rubrics to interpret student work and often engage in professional learning to establish high levels of inter‐rater agreement on anchor samples. This approach to assessment of learning that is internal to the functioning of classrooms is not to be confused with summative testing that is externally imposed upon teachers from commercial sources, as in the case of high‐stakes tests. As these tests are generally outside the control of teachers, these are distal to and bear little resemblance to everyday classroom practices.
Assessment for Formative Purposes or Assessment for Learning
A complementary approach focuses on formative uses of assessment (Assessment Reform Group, 2002) or assessment for learning. This approach suggests that assessment can be a means to promote learning, not only to describe, monitor or audit it. It is important to distinguish between the terms “summative” and “formative” assessment, not as types of assessment (e.g., a multiple choice test versus a portfolio), but rather between the purposes of their use (Davison & Leung, 2009), the data that are generated, the stakeholders who are involved, and the decisions that are made.
Research suggests that assessment used for formative purposes, or assessment for learning, can improve student attainment (Black & Wiliam, 1998) if two conditions are met: (a) the learner perceives a distance between the present and the desired state of knowledge, understanding, or skill; and (b) the learner takes action to meet the targeted level. Assessment tasks that address these two conditions support learner achievement. Heritage (2010, pp. 9–13) describes a multistep process of formative assessment in the classroom, centered on a continuous feedback loop, that is in line with these conditions:
1 Identify learning goal(s) for a lesson or series of lessons
2 Determine the criteria for success
3 Elicit evidence as to how student learning is moving toward the goal(s)
4 Interpret the evidence to identify the “gap”
5 Provide students feedback in relation to the goal(s)
6 Adapt or respond to individual student needs
7 Scaffold instruction within the student's zone of proximal development
8 Close the “gap.”
In a study addressing how formative assessment is operationalized in language classrooms, Rea‐Dickins (2006) examines teacher feedback and student responses. She points out that “feedback is only formative if it brings about a change of some kind for the learner” (p. 168). Her analyses of classroom interactions suggest that both formative and summative purposes for assessment can be interwoven within instruction to provide a balance of assessment approaches, but for learners to understand how to participate effectively in each, teachers must make their intentions and expectations explicit.
In learner‐centered classrooms, both teachers