Professional Documents
Culture Documents
at classroom-based language
assessment
Stephen Stoynoff
523
Lookingbackward
524
Stephen Stoynoff
525
526
Stephen Stoynoff
It is clear not only from the Upshur and Turner article but also from
what was reported in other journals at the time that assessment
practices were beginning to change. New approaches to language
assessmentincluding the interaction-ability, task-based performance
assessment, and interactional approacheswere affecting both what
was assessed and how it was assessed. Test developers and classroom
teachers were employing a broader range of assessment procedures
and relying less on objectively scored selected response item types
epitomized by the multiple-choice test. In the years leading up to and
following publication of Prodromous article, task-based assessment
was increasingly perceived as a more authentic and direct assessment
procedure and an appropriate approach to assessing the knowledge and
skills needed to use language for communicative purposes. At the same
time, language teaching curricula and pedagogy increasingly focused
on developing learners capacity to perform relevant communicative
tasks in both in-class and out-of-classcontexts and teachers classroom
assessment procedures routinely required learners to construct oral and
written responses to tasks.
What endings
have occurred?
What transitions
are underway?
527
Stephen Stoynoff
single activity that both diagnoses and develops the learners ability
by providing a key form of support (mediation) whereby the learner
is made aware of problems and assisted in overcoming them. DA is
based on the notion of Vygotskys Zone of Proximal Development and
the belief that important cognitive functions are mediated through
social interactions and physical and symbolic artefacts (Poehner 2009).
Purpura (2009) argues teachers need to use frameworks that are
based on both theoretical and empirical research in second language
acquisition (SLA) and language testing; his learning-oriented model of
language assessment represents such a framework. Each of the above
examples addresses the issue of formative assessment and embeds
classroom assessment in the learning process.
529
Stephen Stoynoff
Implications for
language teachers
531
532
Stephen Stoynoff
References
Bachman, L. 2007. What is the construct? the
dialectic of abilities and contexts in defining
constructs in language assessment in J. Fox,
M. Wesche, D. Bayliss, L. Cheng, C. Turner, and
C. Doe (eds.). Language Testing Reconsidered.
Ottawa, Canada: University of Ottawa Press.
Davison, C. and C.Leung. 2009. Current issues
in English language teacher-based assessment.
TESOL Quarterly 43/3: 393415.
Fox, J. 2008. Alternative assessment in
E. Shohamy and N. Hornberger (eds.).
Encyclopedia of Language and Education Volume 7
Language Testing and Assessment. New York, NY:
Springer.
Llosa, L. 2011. Standards-based classroom
assessments of English proficiency: a review
of issues, current developments, and future
directions for research. Language Testing 28/3:
36782.
McKay, P. 2006. Assessing Young Language
Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Morrow, K. 2012. Communicative language
testing in C. Coombe, P. Davidson, B. OSullivan,
and S. Stoynoff (eds.). The Cambridge Guide
to Second Language Assessment. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Poehner, M. 2009. Group dynamic assessment:
mediation for the L2 classroom. TESOL Quarterly
43/3: 47191.
Prodromou, L. 1995. The backwash effect: from
testing to teaching. ELT Journal 49/1: 1325.
Purpura, J. 2009. The impact of large-scale
and classroom-based language assessments on
the individual in L. Taylor and C. Weir (eds.).