ERIC Identifier: ED376695
Publication Date: 1994-07-00
Author: Hancock, Charles R.
Source: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Languages and Linguistics Washington DC.
Alternative Assessment and Second Language Study: What and Why?
Alternative assessment, authentic assessment, portfolio assessment,
self-assessment, self-monitoring, and the list goes on. Clearly, assessment is a
popular topic these days. Frequently encountered in professional publications,
workshops, inservice training, and college courses, assessment meets the
criteria for being a cutting-edge topic. Why is there such an emphasis on
assessment in the 1990's? What does an emphasis on assessment mean for language
teachers, researchers, and students? This Digest looks at these questions and
discusses some of the practical implications of assessing language students
differently than we currently do.
ASSESSMENT AND TESTING CONTRASTED
One useful way to think
about assessment is to contrast it with testing, an ever-present factor that
confronts teachers and students in all disciplines. Tests have come to be an
accepted component of instructional programs throughout the world. Sometimes
tests are justified on the basis of accountability: are students learning what
they are supposed to be learning? Decision-makers need this type of evidence in
order to make judgments about how to spend resources, for example. Sometimes,
tests are viewed as feedback for language students concerning their progress.
Oller (1979, p. 401) stated that "the purpose of tests is to measure variance in
performances of various sorts." In this sense, testing--typically achievement
testing--serves as a monitoring device for learning. Tests are given at a
particular point in time to "sample" student learning. Most of us are familiar
with "paper and pencil" tests even if they take on a computerized format.
Ordinarily, after the test is given, some type of reporting takes place, often
in the form of a single score or grade. Sometimes, decisions are made based on
test results (e.g., retake the test, pass the course, go on to the next unit of
instruction, etc.). A final important aspect of testing is that the test is
usually kept hidden from the students until it is administered, indicating a
degree of secrecy in order to assure confidentiality.
Let's assume that this simple characterization of tests and testing is
correct. Assessment then can be shown to be very different. Some important
differences between testing and assessment become obvious. In an instructional
program, assessment is usually an ongoing strategy through which student
learning is not only monitored--a trait shared with testing--but by which
students are involved in making decisions about the degree to which their
performance matches their ability. Spolsky (1992, p. 38) rightly argues that
diagnostic or formative assessment is typically curriculum-driven. This type of
assessment shadows the curriculum and provides feedback to student and teachers.
He wisely argues, too, for a multilevel system that combines testing and
assessment. A paraphrase of this model (p. 37) would go something like this:
* Students are provided opportunities before and after units of instruction
to assess their own performance (self-assessment).
* Teachers periodically assess students' performance and both discuss their
respective assessments (tests and measurements).
* Occasionally, some external monitor assesses the student's (and perhaps the
teacher's) performance and discusses it with the teacher.
Assessment, then, should be viewed as an interactive process that engages
both teacher and student in monitoring the student's performance.
Criterion-referenced testing is clearly based on this way of relating
teaching-testing-assessment for congruence. Interested readers will find the
1994 Northeast Conference Report (Hancock, 1994) a valuable resource on this
WHAT IS ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENT AND WHY IS IT NEEDED?
of the reigning theoretical assumptions on which contemporary testing and
assessment rely are based on behaviorist views of cognition and development. In
the 1990's, we have come to realize that new, alternative ways of thinking about
learning and assessing learning are needed. Gardner (1993) argues that there is
a resurgence of interest in the idea of multiplicity of intelligences. He and
other researchers claim the existence of mental modules (i.e., fast-operating,
reflexlike, information processing devices). Fodor (1983) espoused the view that
there are separate analytic devices involved in tasks like syntactic parsing,
tonal recognition, and facial perception. Others (Sternberg, 1988, Perkins,
1981, Gruber, 1985) have investigated the concept of creativity. Their studies
have shown that creative individuals do not have unique mental modules, but they
use what they have in more efficient and flexible ways. Such individuals are
extremely reflective about their activities, their use of time, and the quality
of their products (Gardner, 1993).
So, while the operative is "alternative," we must ask alternative to what? A
case can be made in second languages for an alternative to conventional ways of
monitoring students' language progress and performance. Alternative assessment
is an ongoing process involving the student and teacher in making judgments
about the student's progress in language using non-conventional strategies.
A new assessment initiative in foreign and second language study should
acknowledge the effect of context on performance and provide the most
appropriate contexts in which to assess competence, including ones that involve
the individual in making self-assessments. Brecht and Walton (1993, p. 2) define
competence as "the capacity to perform a range of occupationally or
professionally relevant communicative tasks with members of another cultural and
linguistic community using the language of that community, whether that
community is domestic or abroad." They also call for a field-specific language
learning framework designed to guide the defining of competencies and "how these
competencies are best acquired so as to focus scarce resources in the most
efficient manner possible on curricular design, the development of instructional
materials, the application of new teaching methodologies, teacher training and
assessment, and research related to language acquisition" (pp. 8-9).
AND WHAT ABOUT AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT?
Wiggins (1994) has
identified a set of criteria by which to distinguish authentic forms of testing.
His list includes the important notion of making the criteria and standards
clear--de-mystifying them--so that accurate self-assessment and self-adjustment
by the student can be fostered. Yap (1993) reported the results of a research
project involving thirty-five adult basic (ABE) and English as a second language
(ESL) programs. Writing assessment, portfolio assessment, and classroom
assessment were shown to be valid approaches to the type of authentic assessment
called for within the profession. Pierce, Swain, and Hart (1993) reported on a
study of 500 eighth-grade students, suggesting that self-assessment was a valid
and reliable measure of language proficiency. Pavis (1988) reported similar
results for college students learning French based on a journal writing project
in which students monitored their own learning and identified problems
encountered as well as accomplishments over the course of the term. Allwright
(1988) has argued that greater quality of learning can be ensured by putting the
control over learning in the place where the learning is occurring, namely in
the mind of the learner. According to studies such as these, alternative
assessment that involves the learner in self-assessment is recommended, despite
possible claims of subjectivity as a negative factor in their use. Heilenmann
(1990) and Blanche (1990), in separate research projects, reported results
involving students in self-assessment.
WHAT IS PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT?
Portfolio assessment is an
ongoing process involving the student and teacher in selecting samples of
student work for inclusion in a collection, the main purpose of which is to show
the student's progress. The use of this procedure is increasing in the language
field, particularly with respect to the writing skill. It makes intuitive sense
to involve students in decisions about which pieces of their work to assess, and
to assure that feedback is provided. Both teacher and peer reviews are
important. Perhaps the greatest overall benefit of using portfolio assessment is
that the students are taught by example to become independent thinkers, and the
development of their autonomy as learners is facilitated.
WHAT GOES INTO A PORTFOLIO?
It is important to remember
that a portfolio is much more than a simple folder of student work. A wide
variety of portfolios exists: working portfolio, performance portfolio,
assessment portfolio, group portfolio, application (e.g., for college admission)
portfolio, and so forth. Depending on the purpose, one is likely to find any of
these items: samples of creative work; tests; quizzes; homework; projects and
assignments; audiotapes of oral work; student diary entries; log of work on a
particular assignment; self-assessments; comments from peers; and comments from
WHAT ARE SOME IMPLICATIONS OF INCORPORATING ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENT IN FOREIGN AND SECOND LANGUAGE PROGRAMS?
Even young students
know that some of them simply do not do well on tests, often not because of a
failure on their part to study or prepare. Because language performance depends
so heavily on the purposes for which students are using the language and the
context in which it is done, the importance of opportunity for flexible and
frequent practice on the part of the students can not be overestimated. In the
real world, most of us have more than one opportunity to demonstrate that we can
complete tasks successfully, whether at work or in social settings. So, it makes
sense to provide similar opportunities for students in instruction.
The call for increased use of meaningful
(authentic) assessments that involve language students in selecting and
reflecting on their learning means that language teachers will have a wider
range of evidence on which to judge whether students are becoming competent,
purposeful language users. It also means that language programs will become more
responsive to the differing learning styles of students and value diversity
therein. Finally, language programs that focus on alternative assessment are
likely to instill in students lifelong skills related to critical thinking that
build a basis for future learning, and enable them to evaluate what they learn
both in and outside of the language class.
Allwright, R. (1988). Autonomy and individuation
in whole class instruction. In Brooks, A. & Grundy, P., (Eds.),
"Individuation and autonomy in language learning," p35-44. British Council.
Blanche, P. (1990). Using standardized achievement and oral proficiency tests
for self-assessment purposes: The DLIFLC study. "Language Testing," 7, p202-229.
Brecht, R., & Walton, R. (1993). "National strategic planning in the less
commonly taught languages. Occasional papers." Washington, DC: National Foreign
Fodor, J. (1983). "The modularity of the mind." Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gardner, H. (1993). "Multiple Intelligences: The theory in practice." New
York: Basic Books.
Gruber, H. (1985). Giftedness and moral responsibility: Creative thinking and
human survival. In Horowitz, F., & O'Brien, M., (Eds.), "The gifted and the
talented: Developmental perspectives." Washington, DC: American Psychological
Hancock, C.R. (Ed.). (1994). "Teaching, testing, and assessing: Making the
connection. Northeast Conference Reports." Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook
Heilenmann, K.L. (1990). Self-assessment of second language ability: The role
of response effects. "Language Testing," 7, p174-201.
Oller, J.W., Jr. (1979). "Language tests at school." London: Longman.
Pavis, J. (1988). Le carnet de bord (The ship's log). "Le Francais dans le
Monde," 218, p54-57.
Peirce, B.N., Swain, M., & Hart, D. (1993). Self-assessment in two French
immersion programs. "Applied Linguistics," 14, p25-42.
Perkins, D. (1981). "The mind's best work." Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Spolsky, B. (1992). Diagnostic testing revisited. In Shohamy, E., &
Walton, R.A., (Eds.), "Language assessment and feedback: Testing and other
strategies" (p29-39). National Foreign Language Center. Dubuque, IA:
Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co.
Sternberg, R. (Ed.). "The nature of creativity." New York: Cambridge
Wiggins, G. (1994). Toward more authentic assessment of language
performances. In Hancock, C. R. (Ed.), "Teaching, testing, and assessment:
Making the connection. Northeast conference reports." Lincolnwood, IL: National
Yap, K.O. (1993). "Integrating assessment with instruction in ABE/ESL
programs." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association. (ED 359 210)