Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

Language assessment for lifelong learning, Cardiff, 11 November 2005

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The European Language Portfolio: where pedagogy and testing meet


David Little
Trinity College Dublin
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Introduction talking and thinking about what we are doing


• The Common European Framework (Council of • is essential for planning, monitoring and
Europe 2001) defines L2 proficiency (i) at six evaluating anything
levels (A1, A2; B1, B2; C1, C2), (ii) in relation to • is a social-interactive as well as an individual-
five skills (listening, reading, spoken interaction, cognitive phenomenon: the development of our
spoken production, writing), (iii) in the form of capacity for internal (monologic) reflection is
“can do” statements stimulated by our involvement in the dialogic
• The definition of L2 proficiency in behavioural processes of group discussion
terms means that the same descriptors can be • exploits learners’ metacognitive and
used as a basic reference in metalinguistic capacities to make their autonomy
– defining learning goals explicit to them
– selecting/developing learning materials and • Classroom procedures that move from group to
activities individual reflection recall Vygotsky’s (1986)
– judging the success or otherwise of learning notion that higher cognitive functions are
• The behavioural definition of proficiency is internalized from social, through egocentric to inner
accessible to learners of all ages. This has speech
profound implications for the relation between • Whole-class discussion introduced and shaped by
pedagogy and assessment. Those implications are the teacher (social speech) leads into learner-
made concrete in the European Language managed group work (social [egocentric] speech)
Portfolio which is captured in learners’ individual diaries
(egocentric [inner] speech)
Achieving success in language teaching and • Writing things down is fundamental to effective
learning reflection: only when we capture what we think in
Learner involvement writing can we “objectify” our plans, judgements
• entails exploiting learners’ intrinsic motivation, and evaluations
getting them to share responsibility for the Target language use
learning process, engaging them in • The ability to use language to think and
– planning learning: identifying learning goals, communicate depends on a complex of
selecting and/or devising learning activities procedural skills
and materials • We can only develop procedural skills through
– monitoring learning: being individually and performance: walking, driving a car, playing the
collectively aware of how learning is piano; but also understanding speech, reading,
progressing, what works and what doesn’t speaking, writing
work • If learners are to develop a full communicative
– evaluating learning outcomes: determining repertoire, they must have the opportunity to
how successful or otherwise a phase of engage in a wide range of discourse roles, which
learning has been, what was good/bad about brings us back to learner involvement: autonomy
activities, materials, etc., what comes next on in language learning and autonomy in language
the learning agenda use are two sides of the same coin
• addresses the issue of learner motivation by • Failure to give target language use a central role is
seeking to take care of the affective dimension of the biggest single reason for failure in language
learning teaching
• is a response to the basic human need to feel in • Appropriate target language use involves a great
control of one’s actions and Is essential for the deal more than the teacher speaking to her
development of learner autonomy – Deci and learners in the target language
Ryan 1985, p.154: “When autonomy-oriented, – She must give priority to getting them to use
people use available information to make choices the target language
and to regulate themselves in pursuit of self- – She must scaffold their attempts to speak, but
selected goals. Whether intrinsically motivated or also create an interactive dynamic in which
extrinsically motivated, behavior based on choice they learn to scaffold one another
is self-determined and emanates from the – She must find ways of using writing to
integrated sense of self that underlies the support speaking and vice versa
autonomy orientation.” • Planning, monitoring and evaluating should be
Learner reflection done in the target language
• is a direct consequence of learner involvement: we Learner autonomy is not a fantasy
can’t share responsibility for anything without • Leni Dam’s (1995) account of her evolving

© David Little 2005


Language assessment for lifelong learning, Cardiff, 11 November 2005
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

approach in which target language use is driven • Make sense to teachers


by learner involvement and shaped by learner • Be presented in a form that encourages and
reflection and self-assessment facilitates frequent use
• Hanne Thomsen’s (2003) account of a vocabulary • Support a communicative pedagogy and the
learning project in which her students (in their development of communicative teaching
third year of learning English) use the target materials
language to classify, define and exemplify the use • The CEF was an obvious model and source for
of English words developing English Language Proficiency
• David Little’s (to appear) account of the role Benchmarks
played by learner autonomy (goal-setting, Why we had to adapt the CEF
reflection and self-assessment) in the learning of • The CEF’s descriptors imply mostly adult
English by adult immigrants communicative behaviour based on an adult
range of experience
The European Language Portfolio, reflective • The CEF focuses mostly on language use outside
learning and self-assessment educational contexts, whereas our ESL curriculum
Three obligatory components must focus on the communicative use of English
• Language Passport – Summarizes the owner’s as the medium of primary education
linguistic identity and language learning and • Note that because the purpose of our curriculum
intercultural experience; records the owner’s self- is to bring pupils to the threshold of full
assessment against the self-assessment grid participation in the mainstream, we need only the
• Language Biography – Provides a reflective first three common reference levels (B1 =
accompaniment to the ongoing processes of Threshold)
learning and using second languages and How we adapted the CEF
engaging with the cultures associated with them; • We observed a number of Irish primary
checklists of communicative tasks arranged by classrooms and drew up a checklist of typical
CEF level and activity/skill are used for planning modes of classroom communication
and self-assessment • We familiarized ourselves with the multi-volume
• Dossier – Collects evidence of L2 proficiency and primary curriculum and identified 13 recurrent
intercultural experience themes
The checklists and learner autonomy • We wrote 13 “units of work” in the form of “can
• Checklist descriptors always need to be do” statements at three levels
interpreted: “How would I show that I can do • We rewrote the first three levels of the CEF’s self-
this? Where, when, with whom, under what assessment grid to make them age-appropriate
situational constraints” and domain-specific
• When they are available in the learners’ target • We added scales of underlying linguistic
language, they provide a metacognitive/ competence: grammar, vocabulary, phonology,
metalinguistic focus and a resource for talking orthography
about learning in the target language Basic pedagogical considerations
• Work on the checklists develops metacognitive/ • In any immersion context language learning is
metalinguistic awareness but also provides a basis driven by language use, so supports for teaching
for periodically updating the summary and learning must focus above all on the
description of proficiency in the language development of the pupils’ communicative
passport repertoire
Self-assessment in the ELP • Given the limited nature of ESL support (on
• Not simply a matter of judging one’s proficiency average one lesson per day) it is essential to
or performance after the event develop pupils’ metacognitive and metalinguistic
• Essential to awareness and skills (self-assessment)
– Planning learning: What can I do already? • It is important to capture each pupil’s ESL
How well can I do it? What other things do I development in such a way that it can easily be
want/need to be able to do? How are they reported and demonstrated to class teacher,
related to what I can do already? Etc. school principal, parents, school inspectors
– Monitoring learning: Am I finding this part of • The ELP as a key tool for learning and teaching
my learning easy or difficult? Why? What Why do we need tests in this sector?
could I do to improve my performance? Etc. • To measure the English language proficiency (if
• Self-assessment is key to the exercise and any) of newly arrived pupils
development of learner autonomy • To provide a formal check on the record of
learning provided by the ELP
Example 1: English as a second language in Irish • To enable teachers to report on pupils’ developing
primary schools linguistic competence and to identify aspects that
A primary ESL curriculum must may need special attention
• Reflect the purpose of ESL support: to give ESL • To measure learning achievement at the end of
pupils access to mainstream education the first and second years of language support
• Describe progression in learning • If necessary, to support a case for granting some

© David Little 2005


Language assessment for lifelong learning, Cardiff, 11 November 2005
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

pupils more than two years of language support • Preparation for work (Level 3)
How are we proceeding? • Computer literacy (Level 3)
• Test tasks and themes based on the benchmarks: • Living in a diverse society (Level 3)
closely integrated with the ELP and with day-to- • Communications (Level 3)
day classroom activities • Career information (Level 3)
• Productive skills tested directly (teachers rate • English as a second language (Levels 3 and 4)
pupil performance using rating scales based on Features of ELP-based learning
the Global scales of underlying linguistic competence) • Target setting is a regular procedure
• Receptive skills tested indirectly (scoring is an • Self-assessment drives learning
integral part of test design) • Checklists are used to plan and monitor learning
• The judgements made via the tests are closely • A personal learning plan develops
related to the judgements made by learners and • Regular reflection is central to ELP use
their teachers on the basis of the self-assessment • The learner is responsible for building a personal
function of the ELP dossier
• Testing supports self-assessment and pedagogy FETAC requirements
(for further details see Little 2005) • Targets must be recorded
• Self-assessment is part of the assessment process
Example 2: Adult immigrants learning English • Checklists are kept with proofs for each module
as a second language in Ireland • A personal learning plan is required
Integrate Ireland Language and Training • Reflections, plans and decisions must be recorded
• ESL courses for adult immigrants with refugee in a diary
status • The learner is responsible for ensuring that all
– All levels from beginner to advanced proofs are kept for assessment – in ELP dossier
– Delivered entirely in the target language The role of the target language
– Multilingual/multi-ethnic classes of 15 • The medium through which learners engage with
learners different learning and assessment tasks
– 20 contact hours per week, 3 terms per year, • It allows for the expression of ‘life skills’ and
17 weeks per term previous knowledge
– 4-week cycles of learning • It is essential for the presentation of ‘evidence’
– 5th week used for reflection, self-assessment, • Its demands are limited to the particular
teacher assessment, target setting, appraisal requirements of a specific learning outcome
interviews etc.
• Principal goal: to enable learners to operate as Features of the assessment process
autonomous agents in an English-speaking • The stakes are high but the question of cutting
society scores does not apply
• Pedagogical approach: emphasis on collaborative • The test takers have a high level of control
planning, monitoring and evaluation • Self-assessment is key to the test taker’s ultimate
• Principal tool: the Milestone ELP success
• There is an obvious connection to learners’ daily
IILT’s pedagogical approach is designed to support concerns
learners in • Assessment demands (SLOs) are consistent due to
• developing awareness of themselves in relation to their specificity
the challenges posed by a new life • Language knowledge is not a discriminatory
• gaining control over the range of skills that they factor
need but do not yet possess • Providing proofs is a positive activity
• identifying and articulating personal (short-term)
targets and (long-term) objectives Conclusion
• using these targets and objectives to plot (and
adjust as necessary) a personal ‘pathway’ that Working with the ELP …
leads to ‘the future’ Primary learners of English as a second language
• learn to assess themselves in behavioural terms:
What about external assessment? what they can do in their target language
• FETAC (Further Education and Training Awards • develop essential metacognitive/metalinguistic
Council) offers an alternative route through skills
education • come to understand their curriculum in terms of
• Credits may be gained over shorter or longer goals, processes and outcomes
periods • are learning close to the task-based tests that are
• Candidates must have the necessary proficiency used as an external measure of their language
in language (including specialized vocabulary) in development
order to carry out any ‘specific learning outcome’ Adult migrant learners of ESL
(SLO) • set their own (short-term) learning targets, which
• Inherent in many modules is the identification reflect their (long-term) learning objectives, which
and use of transferable ‘life skills’ in turn reflect their life goals
FETAC modules offered by IILT in 2005-6 • through goal setting and self-assessment, develop
• Personal effectiveness (Level 3) essential metacognitive/metalinguistic skills

© David Little 2005


Language assessment for lifelong learning, Cardiff, 11 November 2005
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

• come to understand language learning References


– in terms of goals, processes and outcomes Council of Europe, 2001: Common European Framework
– not as an end in itself but as a means to an end of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching,
• manage their own learning in such a way that it assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University
leads directly into the portfolio-based assessment Press.
procedures of FETAC Dam, L., 1995: Learner autonomy 3: From theory to
The European Language Portfolio classroom practice. Dublin: Authentik.
• challenges language pedagogy to respond to the Deci, E. and R. M. Ryan, 1985: Intrinsic motivation and
self-assessment that is fundamental to its effective self-determination in human behavior. New York:
use by developing a new assessment culture that Plenum.
grows out of rather than constrains pedagogy Little, D., 2005: The Common European Framework
• challenges language testing and the European Language Portfolio: involving
– to find ways of accommodating self- learners and their judgements in the assessment
assessment within larger frameworks of process. Language Testing 22.3, pp.321–36.
assessment/reporting Little, D., to appear: Learner autonomy, the European
– to consider how far its techniques and Language Portfolio, and teacher development. In
practices are harmonious with and explicitly proceedings of the conference Autonomy and
foster the reflective approaches to language language learning: maintaining control, Hong Kong
teaching and learning required by the ELP and Hangzhou, June 2004
Thomsen, H., 2003: Scaffolding target language use.
Three web addresses In D. Little, J. Ridley and E. Ushioda (eds), Learner
• www.coe.int/portfolio autonomy in the foreign language classroom: teacher,
(For all key documents related to the CEF and learner, curriculum and assessment, pp.29–46.
ELP) Dublin: Authentik.
• www.iilt.ie Vygotsky, L., 1986: Thought and language. Cambridge,
(For general information about Integrate MA: MIT Press.
Ireland Language and Training and
downloadable versions of IILT documents,
including English Language Proficiency
Benchmarks and ELPs)
• www.tcd.ie/clcs
(Select “PROJECTS” on home page for
information about Irish ELP projects and an
extensive overview of CLCS’s post-primary
ELP project, with examples of pupils’ work)

© David Little 2005

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi