UA

There is no one or right way to

assess learning of a language. It is
the hard task of the teacher to
choose an option for the
assessment of their students
which suits the particular
circumstance that the teaching
and learning operates in.
Evaluation: involves looking at all the factors that
influence the learning process, e.g. syllabus
objectives, course design, materials,
methodology, teacher performance and
assessment.
Assessment: involves measuring the performance
of our students and the progress they are
making. It helps us to be able to diagnose the
problems they have and to provide them with
useful feedback.
Testing: is synonymous with formal assessment.

Profiling is an example of qualitative
evaluation.
The students' profiles provide an
alternative form of assessment to
school reports, which have
traditionally focused on performance
in particular subjects.
This type of assessment describes a
wide range of pupils' qualities,
attitudes and behavior, so that a more
complete pictures of each student may
be given.
1. formative, process, or ongoing:
focused on the process.
2. Summative, external, or cumulative:
centered on the product or on final
outcomes.
3. Quantitative: presents results
numerically.
4. Qualitative, observational, or
ethnographic: describes the
phenomena observed.
When profiling, the
emphasis is not put on
marks but on the learner's
global performance with
language, described in a
qualitative manner (see
Rea-Dikins and Germanine
1992), as shown in the
example below adapted
from Barrs et al. (1988: 51):
If assessment is "any means of checking what students can do with
language" (Wingard 81:171), how do we start making distinctions
between types of assessment? Asking the following questions about an
assessment will give us more detail about the nature of the assessment:
When?
Before, during or after a language course.
Who?
Teacher assesses, student assesses or examining board
assesses ... a student, various students, or a class.
What?
Language form or language use.
Specified range of language or broad range.
How?
Formal or informal assessment.
Objective or subjective marking.
Criterion or norm-based.
Why?
To assess previous learning, or diagnostic (forward-looking).

This initial distinction is based on the
purpose or end to which the information
gathered is employed and on the kinds of
decisions made in each case.
Formative, process, continuous or ongoing
evaluation monitors performance
throughout the course of the development
of teaching-learning programmes. The
information obtained is taken as the basis
for subsequent decision-making, whose
aim is the improvement of the teaching-
learning process.

Summative or achievement testing is carried
out sit the end of a specific period of
instruction -be it a single or several units-
which has extended over the course of a week,
month, term, or even year. It is used to
measure the degree of success attained at the
end of each period and to scrutinize the results
obtained.
When summative evaluation includes contents
covered in previous courses and is applied at
the outset of the school year with a diagnostic
purpose, that is, to establish the students'
level, it is also called initial evaluation.
If it is implemented to assess the level of
attainment at the end of the school year, it is
final evaluation.
Informal assessment
Harris summarises:
Informal assessment is a way of collecting
information about our students' performance in
normal classroom conditions. This is done without
establishing test conditions such as in the case of
formal assessment. Informal assessment is
sometimes referred to as continuous assessment
as it is done over a period of time like a term or an
academic year. However, formal assessment can
also be done continuously.
When we are in the classroom with our students we
intuitively assess their performance when speaking,
writing, reading or listening.
In order to carry out this type of evaluation, a variety
of techniques are recommended:

- Systematic observation of the students and their
work.
- Analysis of their work, performance and academic
activities.
- Creation of situations which foster the deployment
of the students' knowledge, originality, and
creativity:
- Comprehension and expression quizzes and tests
(listening, speaking, reading and writing).
- Tests, dialogues, conversations.

It is important to notice that formative evaluation
places greater emphasis on facilitating, guiding,
and regulating the students' learning than on
measuring how much has been learned. So the
information thus gained can be of great value for
subsequent decision-making, as Stufflebeam et
al. (1971) point out.

For a long time, this type of evaluation
has been accorded a prominent role in
the field (Tyler 1949; Metfessel and
Michael 1967, Scriven 1967) and,
despite having been criticised by
advocates of qualitative evaluation
(Stufflebeam 1971, Eisner 1985), its
place in our educational system is now
firmly established.

Another external, easily quantifiable, and highly
objective mode of evaluation involves tests. These
are normally used to measure certain capacities,
abilities, or skills; conceptual aspects; or the
learners' attitudes and values, although this last
component, as will be seen, is notably more
difficult - if not impossible - to measure
objectively.

According to Carroll (1968:46), a test is ... a
procedure designed to elicit certain behavior from
which one can make inferences about certain
characteristics of an individual Tests, then,
evaluate and measure. In other words, a test is a
measuring device designed to provide data
(information) about an individual's mastery of
certain competences. What therefore differentiates
tests from other types of measures is the fact that
they are designed to gather specific samples of
certain competences.


As Bachman and Palmer (1996:7) remark:
The same test cannot be expected to be
suitable or applicable to all teaching-
learning situations.
We cannot expect more from tests than
they can offer us: they simply provide
some information about the aspects
that we test.
Nor should we have a blind faith in
rating scales or in their sophisticated
arithmetic.

Firstly, we need to work out what we
are going to assess, as it is obviously
impossible to assess all students'
performance all the time.
Then we must establish clear criteria
for assessing the students and not
only rely on rough impressions.
Finally, it is important to link the
informal assessment we do with our
formal assessment (tests) and with
self-assessment done by the students
themselves.

Self-assessment
Dickinson (1987) overviews the use of self-
assessment in language teaching, showing
that it is particularly appropriate:
as a complement to self-instruction, for
example for students following a self-
access course.
for initial assessment.
to build autonomous and self-directed
language learners, an objective which
Dickinson says is an important educational
objective in itself .
to alleviate the assessment burden on a
teacher (jajajajaja)correccin de exmenes.
Evito corregir y revisin.(jajajaja)


This includes the type of language test
commonly administered in class by the
teacher, in order to assess learning. These
tests are a type of hybrid, not so formal as
the carefully constructed and validated
language examinations of external bodies,
nor so informal as teacher observation of
progress on everyday classroom tasks.
They do not need to satisfy such strict
demands for validity and reliability, since
their scope of action is limited to the
context in hand.
Formal assessment
Language aptitude tests
These are designed to predict who
will be a successful language
learner, and are based on the
factors which are thought to
determine an individual's ability to
acquire a second or foreign
language.
Placement tests
Students are often put into
homogenous groups for language
study according to their present
language ability, language use needs,
professional specialisation etc. The
tests that are used to make decisions
regarding their placement into
appropriate groups are called
placement tests.
Diagnostic tests
Diagnostic tests are used to
determine students' areas of
strength and weakness in
order to determine
appropriate types and levels of
teaching and learning
activities.
Progress tests
Feedback on the effectiveness of
student learning can be gathered
through progress tests. This feedback
forms part of the formative evaluation
of the courses, that is, for providing
continuous feedback to both the
teacher and the learner for deciding
on appropriate modifications to the
programme.
Achievement tests
A distinction can be drawn between
progress tests, with their relatively
short time reference, and achievement
tests, which are those which come at
the end of a relatively long period of
learning, and whose content derives
from the syllabus that has been taught
over that period of time. Such tests
may be internal, set by a school, or
external, set by an examining body.
(KET, PET, TOEFL,
...)
Selectividad
Septiembre???
The proficiency test does not look
back to learning (like progress and
achievement tests) rather it looks
forward to a future language using
situation. They are often related to
specific academic or professional
situations where English is needed.
Testing techniques used are expected
to cover all the relevant language
skills in as an authentic way as
possible and therefore reflect the
requirements of the target situation.
Test de 1 generacin: muy subjetivos, dependan
del examinador y estaban relacionados con la
puntuacin, el writing, etc.
Test de 2 generacin: muy objetivos, tipo test
para asegurar la objetividad, si se quiere no ser tan
objetivo se introduce un reading o un writing.
Test de 3 generacin:communicative language
testing tasks may be an authentic reading with
some transfer of information such as correcting
some notes taken from it, or writing a note with
instructions about some aspect of household
organisation, or listening to an airport
announcement to find the arrival time of a plane,
or giving someone spoken instructions for how to
get to a house.
To compare the third generation tests
against the strengths and weaknesses
of the previous two: the tasks set aim
to be authentic in third generation
tests, all third generation techniques
are contextualised by their very nature
as authentic. Candidates are asked to
do tasks which have clear reference in
reality. Third generation tests assess
integrative language.
Desirable test characteristics

Utility
A test with high utility will give a lot of
feedback to assist in the planning of the
rest of a course or future courses. The more
detailed this feedback is, the more useful it
is as a tool for the future. If we only know
that everyone did badly on the test
(represented by a low percentage mark) this
does not help us identify the specific areas
for remedial work.


No para discriminar
alumnos, los resultados
los utilizamos para saber
que conceptos han sido
asimilados o no.
Reliability.
Fiable, debe darme una nota que
refleje la situacin real del alumno
dentro de un curriculum. qu
sabe?dnde falla?cmo arreglarlo?
Validity. Interpretacin de los
resultados, muy ligado a Reliability
Harris continues:
When we are in the classroom with our
students we intuitively assess their
performance when speaking, writing,
reading or listening. We can see which
students are performing well and which
students are having difficulties. We are also
aware of students attitudes, how much
effort they are making and how much they
are participating in classroom activities.
However, to carry out effective informal
assessment we need to carry out systematic
observation.

Firstly we need to work out what we are
going to assess, as it is obviously
impossible to assess all students'
performance all the time.
Then we must establish clear criteria for
assessing the students and not only rely on
rough impressions.
Finally, it is important to link the informal
assessment we do with our formal
assessment (tests) and with self-
assessment done by the students
themselves.

Harris and McCann (1994) offer a very
simple band scale for speaking:
5 - speaks fluently - almost no errors
4 - speaks quite fluently - some
errors
3 - some difficulty in speaking - many
errors
2 - difficulty in speaking - almost
incomprehensible
1 - unable to use language -
incomprehensible

Holistic (or global) scales:
These give overall descriptions of ability. Students
performance is matched to one of the bands. For
example:
9
Expert speaker. Speaks with authority on a variety of
topics. Can initiate, expand and develop a theme.
8
Very good non-native speaker. Maintains effectively his
own part of a discussion. Initiates, maintains and
elaborates as necessary. Reveals humour where needed
and responds to attitudinal tones.
7
Good speaker. Presents case clearly and logically and
can develop the dialogue coherently and constructively.
Rather less flexible and fluent than Band 8 performer
but can respond to main changes of tone or topic. Some
hesitation and repetition due to a measure of language
restriction but interacts effectively.

6
Competent speaker: Is able to maintain theme of dialogue, to
follow topic switches and to use and appreciate main attitude
markers. Stumbles and hesitates at times but is reasonably
fluent otherwise. Some errors and inappropriate language but
these will not impede exchange of views. Shows some
independence in discussion with ability to iniciate.
5
Modest speaker. Although gist of dialogue is relevant and can
be basically understood, there are noticeable deficiencies in
mastery of language patterns and style. Needs to ask for
repetition or clarification and similarly to be asked for them.
Lacks flexibility and iniciative. The interviewer often has to
speak rather deliberately. Copes but not with great style or
interest.

4
Marginal speaker. Can maintain dialogue
but in a rather passive manner, rarely
taking iniciative or guiding the discussion.
Has difficulty in following English at normal
speed; lacks fluency and probably accuracy
in speaking. The dialogue is therefore
neither easy nor flowing. Nevertheless,
gives the impression that he is in touch with
the gist of the dialogue even if not wholly
master of it. Marked L1 accent.

3
Extremely limited speaker. Dialogue is a drawn-out
affair punctuated with hesitations and
misunderstandings. Only catches part of normal speed
and unable to produce continuous and accurate
discourse. Basic ment is just hanging on to discussion
gist, without making major contribution to it.
2
Intermitent speaker. No working facility; occasional,
sporadic communication.
1/0
Non-speaker. Not able to understand and/or speak.

Analytic scales:
These separate out aspects of language performance
into individual scales, giving a profile of performance.
For example:
Criteria of assessment
Appropriateness
0 Unable to function in the spoken language.
1 Able to operate only in a very limited capacity:
responses characterised by sociocultural
inappropriateness.
2 Signs of developing attempts at response to role,
setting, etc., but misunderstandings may occasionally
arise through inappropriateness, particularly of
sociocultural convention.
3 Almost no errors in the sociocultural conventions of
language; errors not significant enough to be likely to
cause social misunderstandings.
Intelligibility
0 Severe and constant rhythm, intonation and
pronunciation problems cause almost complete
unintelligibility.
1 Strong interference from L1 in rhythm, intonation
and pronunciation; understanding is difficult, and
achieved often only after frequent repetition.
2 Rhythm, intonation and pronunciation require
concentrated listening, but only occasional
misunderstanding is caused or repetition required.
3 Articulationis reasonably comprehensible to
native speakers; there may be a marked 'foreign
accent' but almost no misunderstanding is caused
and repetition required only infrequently.

Harris and McCann emphasise the need to
prepare the ground for self-assessment, for it to
become part of the classroom routines. In order
to do so, learners must have the opportunity to:
think about their language learning;
understand the processes involved in language
use and learning (learner training);
diagnose their problem areas in language;
set objectives for themselves;
assess their learning style;
write a learner diary; and
assess their progress.