Learner-directed Assessment in Esl

Glayol V. Ekbatani, Herbert D. Pierson, Glayol V. Ekbatani, Herbert D. Pierson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• Print ISBN: 9780805830682
• eBook ISBN: 9781135675516
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

This text integrates the theory and practice of learner-based assessment. Written in response to two recent movements in language teaching--learner-centered teaching and a renewed interest in authenticity in language testing--it examines the relationship between the language learner and language assessment processes, and promotes approaches to assessment that involve the learner in the testing process. Particular attention is given to issues of reliability and validity. Grounded in current pedagogical applications of authentic assessment measures, this volume is intended for and eminently accessible to classroom teachers and program directors looking for ways to include their students in the evaluation process, graduate students, and professional language testers seeking authenticity in assessment and desiring to create more interactive evaluation tools.

Chapter 1
Moving Toward Learner-Directed Assessment

Glayol Ekbatani
St. John’s University

As the implementation of the learner-centered English as a Second Language (ESL) curriculum remains a primary goal for the majority of ESL training institutions and in the ESL classroom itself (Nunan, 1988), many practitioners and assessment specialists have, in recent years, sought ways to encourage the active involvement of learners in the process of language assessment. Nunan (1988) argued that “in a learner-centered curriculum model both teachers and learners need to be involved in evaluation” (p. 116). Dickinson (1987) reported on the importance of the student’s involvement in assessment in a student-centered curriculum. Presenting a detailed chart on various phases of self-instruction, he illustrated how successful learner-centered instruction entails learners undertaking responsibility for their learning, and how achievement of responsibility for learning entails learners’ involvement in assessment. Le Blanc and Painchaud (1985) stated that “being part of the completed learning cycle should imply being involved in the assessment process, since evaluation is now recognized as a component in the educational process” (p. 73). Similar in scope to the leaner-centered curriculum, learner-directed assessment (a) provides the learner with the necessary tools and guidance for self-assessment, (b) investigates the strategies test-takers use in responding to test questions, and most importantly, (c) relies on a process-oriented approach to assessment rather than a single testing instrument.

Nevertheless, despite the considerable emphasis placed on student inclusion in the process of assessment, test development in most educational fields is still, to some extent, the domain of teachers and testing organizations with little or no input from the learner. Heron (1981) observed that the prevailing model for assessing student work in higher education is an authoritarian one. Staff exercise unilateral intellectual authority. Students do not significantly participate in decision making about their learning objectives or learning programs, or in setting criteria and applying them in assessment procedures. As revealed in the studies reported in this volume, such exclusion of language learners in the crucial process of test development has led to significant discrepancies in the respondents’ test scores and their actual communicative abilities. Thus, our limited knowledge of the learners’ test-taking strategies has raised major questions about the validity of standardized norm-referenced tests as solid predictors of language skills. Moreover, there have been few books or monographs offering tangible and concrete guidance for practitioners who strive to empower their students in becoming active partners in the overall evaluation process.

This volume was written to meet some of these challenges. An important theme that emerges from the chapters in this book is that the active inclusion of the language learner in the testing process is a necessary step in moving toward autonomy in language acquisition, gaining more insight to improve the reliability and validity of testing instruments, heightening learner awareness of personal strengths and challenges, and stressing the pedagogical nature of language assessment. This volume looks at the relationship between the learner and actual language-assessment processes.

SELF-ASSESSMENT

Self-assessment, which is presented here by North (chap. 2) and Strong-Krause (chap. 3), has been investigated by a number of researchers as a powerful learner-directed assessment tool that heightens learner awareness of personal strengths and weaknesses, and promotes language acquisition. As already mentioned, Nunan (1988) argued that learner self-assessment can be an important supplement to teacher assessment and that self-assessment provides one of the most effective means of developing both critical self-awareness of what it is to be a learner and skills to learn how to learn. In stating his reasons for recommending self-assessment, Dickinson (1987) suggested the following: (a) assessment leading toward evaluation is an important objective in its own right and training learners in this is beneficial to learning; (b) assessment is a necessary part of self-direction; and (c) in self-instructional programs involving many students, the assessment demands made by the students are very heavy, and self-assessment is one way of alleviating the teacher’s assessment burden.

Although few people dispute the value of self-assessment as one of the cornerstones of autonomous learning, concerns have been expressed on the validity of self-assessment techniques used as a basis for making decisions such as selection, grading, and certification. According to Dickinson (1992), self-assessment may not be an adequate tool when evaluation is undertaken for the purpose of awarding recognition of achievement or withholding that recognition from a candidate. Concerns have been raised about learners’ objectivity and capacity to view their attainments. However, Dickinson (1992) reported that there is considerable scope for self-assessment when tests designed for assessing proficiency are used as a learner-teacher feedback device. He stated:

Much assessment that goes on in the classroom is primarily concerned with the learning process, indicating to learners the degree to which they have achieved a standard of performance which is adequate for a particular situation. This is formative assessment and it is with formative assessment that self-assessment largely belongs. (p. 33)

To broaden the scope of formative assessment, Le Blanc and Painchaud (1985) included placement among the functions of self-assessment. Their study convincingly demonstrated that guided self-assessment could be considered a valuable tool for placement. Furthermore, it has been noted that given adequate knowledge of the purpose of placement exams and their role in determining the level of instruction, language learners see no advantage in falsifying a self-estimated report on their abilities. They are often as concerned as the examiners about receiving accurate placements. In this volume, Strong-Krause examines the use of self-assessment as a placement instrument.

Le Blanc and Painchaud (1985) also identified two additional factors that contribute to the effective implementation of self-assessment, namely, creating (a) concrete linguistic situations where the learners can self-assess their communicative ability, and (b) good descriptors that will in turn produce good predictive items. North’s chapter focuses on these factors, the development of concrete task-based descriptors, a major breakthrough in the current study of self-assessment.

North first considers the current research he has undertaken in Switzerland to develop empirically verifiable proficiency scales that define different aspects of language use at different levels, and how these scales and descriptors can serve as valuable tools for ESL professionals, especially curriculum planners. North’s data analysis has so far produced a defined 10-band scale of language proficiency and a bank of classified, calibrated descriptors covering a relatively large number of categories. In addition, he reports on his progress in developing prototype self-assessment and teacher-assessment instruments as a means to produce individual language portfolios that record the learner’s achievement in relation to a common scale of language proficiency.

North was originally motivated to undertake this project because of the growing concern raised among practitioners about the validity and reliability of existing proficiency scales, many of which are produced mainly by single authors or small committees. The scales of language proficiency and the bank of calibrated descriptors mentioned in this chapter are based on a descriptive scheme that draws on models of competence and proficiency (Canale & Swaine, 1980), and the Rasch Item Response Theory measurement model (Jones, 1993), using a variant that takes account of assessor subjectivity to judge learner proficiency. Additionally, North draws extensively on feedback from a linguistic checklist prepared by teachers of English and other languages.

The contribution to assessment research reported in North’s chapter is twofold. First, he enhances the reliability and validity of authentic assessment instruments, such as tests of spoken production, through empirically developed proficiency scales and the creation of brief, clear, and independent descriptors. Second, he engages the learner in self-assessment tasks, while using these clear and defined descriptors. In addition, North demonstrates how his research aims at involving the learner in developing a language portfolio containing a personalized self-assessment checklist that describes what they think they can or cannot do as well as a report on their exam results and language-learning achievements. The personalized language portfolio that is the product of this effort can be submitted to authorities for the purpose of seeking employment or admission to an academic institution. Thus, not only are learners empowered to assess their language proficiency, but they are also able to show and display their real language-learning achievements.

He also studies the use of self-assessment ratings as part of the placement procedure. Although reports on the degree of correlation of self-assessment and traditional tests are varied, there seems to be a general consensus that more specific self-assessment tasks have shown a higher correlation with objective measures of testing language proficiency.

In her chapter, Strong-Krause examines the degree of specificity of the self-assessment tasks that are needed to obtain accurate results. She also examines the types of tasks that best predict placement in ESL programs, presenting three categories of self-assessment—global, specific context, and actual. After a thorough statistical analysis of the data using stepwise regression analy sis, Strong-Krause concludes that the task that best correlates with the traditional placement test is when respondents rate themselves on a detailed description of a given task. She also found that of the four skill areas surveyed, learner assessment of speaking ability was the best predictor, accounting for almost half of the variance in placement test scores.

The data presented in this chapter is of special value to Intensive English Program (IEP) directors, especially when self-assessment is used in conjunction with traditional placement exams. First, it adds to the validity of the objective multiple choice exams because it has direct representation from the learner. Second, it addresses one of the major problems that many program directors face in reviewing overseas applicants whose level of English proficiency can only be determined after they arrive. A lack of knowledge of the language ability of prospective students makes almost impossible the already difficult task of advance planning. This problem affects small programs that may not be able to offer all the levels on a regular basis unless there are adequate numbers in each level. Currently, the only indicator of the overseas applicants’ language proficiency are scores on standardized tests, yet the high cost and the long turn around period of such tests might discourage students from choosing the programs that require such scores. Thus, self-assessment could serve a viable source of information in such cases. In the final section of her chapter, Strong-Krause presents guidelines for the development of self-assessment instruments. The self-assessment questionnaires developed in her study and included in the appendix could be easily implemented in most IEP programs.

SELF-REPAIR

In the previous section, the role of self-assessment as a necessary part of self-directed learning and assessment was discussed. Self-repair, in chapter 4 written by Erna Van Hest, is yet another area where self-assessment has a major place. Self-assessment directed toward self-repair allows language learners to judge their performance in short stretches of discourse and make changes on their own initiative when they find deviations from the standard norms.

Under appropriate guidance, self-repair can be an effective communication strategy that leads learners to more proficiency. Moreover, the self-repair behavior of learners or what gets repaired at different stages can be used as a measure of L2 (second-language) proficiency. This chapter presents self-repair in its role as an alternative to language assessment.

In her chapter, Van Hest demonstrates how the examination of spontaneous learner self-corrections can be helpful input for classroom language assessment. With great detail, she introduces the phenomenon of self-repair by discussing the task of self-repair identification and classification and by presenting examples of self-repair data. These she categorizes as phonological, morphological, lexical, syntactic, and level of appropriateness.

Van Hest describes self-repair as the corrections learners make on their own initiative. Self-repair behavior indicates the workings of the speech monitor. To illustrate this, Van Hest presents a model of how self-repair data is identified and classified. In this model, she calls the original utterance the reparandum. This is followed immediately by an editing process where the original utterance is interrupted and corrected. The corrected result is called the reparatum.

Van Hest shows how self-assessment is related to language assessment by reporting the results of her 4-year research project on the L1 (first-language) and L2 self-repair behavior of Dutch learners of English. In this study she addresses two basic research questions: (a) Are there any differences between L1 and L2 self-repair? and (b) Does L2 self-repair behavior reflect stages of L2 development? The results of this study are clearly laid out in her chapter.

In considering the pedagogical implications of self-repair data, Van Hest argues for the existence of two aspects of self-repair behavior that should be of special interest to language teachers: (a) distribution of self-repair data, and (b) the use of editing terms. Her results suggest that self-repair behavior reflects speakers’ ability to assess the correctness and the appropriateness of the language they produce. What gets repaired at different stages appears to be linked to those aspects language learners have already mastered or are on the verge of mastering. This means that self-repair behavior can provide language teachers with useful information about their learners’ level of language competence and about the stage of language acquisition those learners have attained.

Her results also indicate that a high percentage of L1 editing terms exists in the speech of beginning L2 speakers. This percentage drops with the increase of language skills. A possible explanation for this phenomenon is that beginning learners are so preoccupied with the production process that they can pay little attention to such aspects as the fluency of their speech or the correct use of editing terms.

Van Hest concludes that the self-repair data that learners produce may be of consequence to assessment specialists as well as language teachers insofar as they provide a linguistic basis for proficiency tests to be geared to the learner’s current state of development. In this way, self-repair data can be especially useful in formulating descriptors with respect to interaction, oral production, and spoken fluency, all areas where se...

Table of contents

• Contents
• Foreword
• Preface
• Chapter 1 Moving Toward Learner-Directed Assessment
• Chapter 2 Defining a Flexible Common Measurement Scale: Descriptors for Self and Teacher Assessment
• Chapter 3 Exploring the Effectiveness of Self-Assessment Strategies in ESL Placement
• Chapter 4 Analyzing Self-Repair: An Alternative Way of Language Assessment
• Chapter 5 Portfolio Practices in Elementary and Secondary Schools: Toward Learner-Directed Assessment
• Chapter 6 Portfolios: Vehicles for Authentic Self-Assessment
• Chapter 7 Exploring Strategies in Test-Taking: Fine-Tuning Verbal Reports From Respondents
• Chapter 8 Epilogue: Promoting Learner-Directed Assessment
• References
• Author Index
• Subject Index
• Contributors