Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.

(TESOL)

Current Issues in English Language Teacher-Based Assessment

Author(s): CHRIS DAVISON and CONSTANT LEUNG
Source: TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 43, No. 3, TEACHER BASED ASSESSMENT: AN
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON THEORY AND PRACTICE (September 2009), pp. 393-415
Published by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27785027
Accessed: 05-02-2018 23:16 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) is collaborating with

JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TESOL Quarterly

This content downloaded from 200.3.149.5 on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 23:16:11 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Current Issues in English Language
Teacher-Based Assessment
CHRIS DAVISON
University of New South Wales
Sydney, Australia
CONSTANT LEUNG
Kings College London
London, England

Teacher-based assessment (TBA) is increasingly being promoted in

educational policies internationally, with English language teachers
being called on to plan and/or implement appropriate assessment pro
cedures to monitor and evaluate student progress in their own class
rooms. However, there has been a lack of theorization of TBA in the
English language teaching field, with researchers pointing to much
variability, a lack of systematic principles and procedures, and a reliance
on traditional, but now outdated, psychometric assumptions. This arti
cle provides an overview of some of the current issues in TBA, includ
ing its definition and key characteristics, and the complex but significant
questions which its implementation pose for our understandings of lan
guage, learning, and assessment.

Teacher-based assessment
number of educational (TBA) is policy-supported
systems internationally, including Australia, practice in a
New Zealand,1 Canada, and the United Kingdom (e.g., Cumming &
Maxwell, 2004; Learning and Teaching Scotland, 20062; Queensland
Studies Authority, 2009b; Saskatchewan Learning, 1993; Spencer, 2005).
It is increasingly being adopted as national educational policy in Asia

1 In Queensland where school-based assessment (SBA) was introduced in the 1970s (Sadler,
1989) teacher-based assessment is used for all assessment in the secondary school, even
for high-stakes purposes (see Queensland Studies Authority, 2009a). The Australian
Capital Territory (ACT) also uses only teacher-based assessment for senior secondary
level (Department of Education and Training, Education Policy and Planning Section
[Australia], n.d.). Other states such as New South Wales and Victoria have incorporated
large scale teacher-based assessment into their public examinations (see, e.g., New South
Wales Government, n.d.). New Zealand also has a long history of school-based assessment
in the senior secondary school (see New Zealand Qualifications Authority, n.d.), and has
developed a wide variety of teacher support material and associated research studies,
(Ministry of Education [New Zealand], 2009).
2 In Scotland much interesting work in TBA is being conducted by the Scottish Assessment
Is for Learning (AifL) group (Learning and Teaching Scotland, 2006) supported by the
Ministry of Education in Scotland and involving many classrooms.

TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 43, No. 3, September 2009 393

This content downloaded from 200.3.149.5 on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 23:16:11 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 (Butler, this issue; Curriculum Development Institute [Hong Kong],
2002; Ministry of Education [Singapore], 2008; Xu 8c Liu, this issue) as
well as in some developing countries, including South Africa, Ghana, and
Zambia (Pryor & Akwesi, 1998; Pryor 8c Lubisi, 2002). It is also actively
promoted in the United States (e.g., Popham, 2008a, 2008b; Stiggins,
2008; Stiggins, Arter, Chappuis, & Chappuis, 2007), although always over
shadowed by national testing programs. At the same time, English lan
guage teachers are increasingly being called on to plan and implement
their own assessment instruments and procedures to monitor and evalu
ate student progress in their classrooms, and new curriculum documents
and professional teaching standards increasingly demand English
language teachers be knowledgeable and skilled in TBA (see, e.g.,
TESOL, 2005).
However, despite this widespread embrace of various forms of TBA in
school and adult education, there has been comparatively little specific
research into the TBA of English as a second or additional language. TBA
has been neglected by researchers partly because of the uncertain status
of TESOL as a discrete curriculum area in schools and tertiary institu
tions, partly because of the traditional dominance of the field by large
scale English language tests such as the Test of English as a Foreign
Language (TOEFL) and the International English Language Testing
System (IELTS) and their research priorities and needs, and partly
because of the ongoing critique of notions of standard English and mod
els of correctness as well as debates over native versus nonnative speaking
teachers and the implications for assessment.
What TBA research that has been done in TESOL reveals much vari
ability, a lack of systematic principles and procedures, and a dearth of
information as to the impact of TBA on learning and teaching. In
Australia, several studies of the use of large scale criterion-referenced
English as second language (ESL) assessment frameworks in schools
(Breen et al., 1997; Davison 8c Williams, 2002) have revealed a great diver
sity in teachers' approaches to assessment, influenced by the teachers'
prior experiences and professional development, the assessment frame
works and scales they used, and the reporting requirements placed on
them by schools and systems. Concerns have also been raised about, on
the one hand, the ad-hoc or impressionistic nature of many teacher judg
ments (Leung, 1999; Leung 8c Teasdale, 1997) and, on the other hand,
mechanistic criterion-based approaches to TBA, which are often imple
mented in such a way that they undermine rather than support teachers'
classroom-embedded assessment processes (Arkoudis 8c O'Loughlin,
2004; Black 8c Wiliam 1998; Carless, 2005; Davison, 2004; Leung, 2004a,
2004b).
Research into TBA in TESOL is further complicated by the consider
able uncertainty and disagreement around the concept of TBA itself and

394 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 200.3.149.5 on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 23:16:11 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
by its intrinsically co-constructed and context-dependent nature (Black &
Wiliam, 1998; Brookhart, 2003; McMillan, 2003; McNamara, 2001;
Stiggins, 2001 ). When the principles and procedures underlying TBA are
not clear, the basis for research and development is even muddier, hence
the need for more public and mainstream discussion of the issues. This
review article aims, first, to define more clearly the concept of TBA in
English language teaching and second to explore some of the key con
ceptual issues and challenges for the field, as well as the implications for
practice. The article concludes with a summary of some of the areas in
which more research into TBA is needed.

DEFINING TBA
There is no widely accepted common definition of teacher-based assess
ment in the English language teaching field, with many terms used
interchangeably to refer to the same practices and procedures, includ
ing terms such as alternative assessment, classroom and/or school-based
assessment, formative assessment, and more recently, assessment for learning.
Such terms highlight different aspects of the assessment process, but
all tend to be used to signify a more teacher-mediated, context-based,
classroom-embedded assessment practice, explicitly or implicitly
defined in opposition to traditional externally set and assessed large
scale formal examinations used primarily for selection and/or account
ability purposes. Thus, for the purposes of this article we take TBA to
mean much more than just who is doing the assessing; TBA also has
implications for the what, where, how and most importantly, the why of
assessment.
TBA has a number of important characteristics which distinguish it
from other forms of assessment:

It involves the teacher from the beginning to the end: from planning
the assessment programme, through to identifying and/or develop
ing appropriate assessment tasks right through to making the assess
ment judgments.
It allows for the collection of a number of samples of student work
over a period of time, using a variety of different tasks and
activities.
It can be adapted and modified by the teacher to match the teaching
and learning goals of the particular class and students being
assessed.
It is carried out in ordinary classrooms, not in a specialist assessment
centre or examination hall.
It is conducted by the students' own teacher, not a stranger.

CURRENT ISSUES IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER-BASED ASSESSMENT 395

This content downloaded from 200.3.149.5 on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 23:16:11 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 It involves students more actively in the assessment process, especially
if self and peer assessment is used in conjunction with teacher
assessment.
It opens up the possibility for teachers to support learner-led
enquiry.
It allows the teacher to give immediate and constructive feedback to
students.
It stimulates continuous evaluation and adjustment of the teaching
and learning programme.
It complements other forms of assessment, including external
examinations.
The key steps involved in such teacher-based assessment are captured
in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1
A Framework for Teacher-Based Assessment (Davison, 2008)

PLAN
RECORD RECORD
integrate assessment with teaching and learning
identify long-term and short-term goals
establish standards and criteria
select appropriate assessment methods/

maximize student involvement

PROVIDE APPROPRIATE COLLECT INFORMATION

FEEDBACK OR ADVICE ABOUT STUDENTS"
LEARNING
decide on what to do with
judgments ensure multiple s&yjsfiS of
provide appropriate information
feedback, if necessary e.g.students, peers, teachers
e.g. to students, parents ensure multiple sampJss of
make clear recommendati performance
as necessary i.e. not one-off
e.g. for student ensure multiple methods, of
improvement, for curriculum information
chonae e.g. observation. Inquiry,
reflection, test

MAKE PROFESSIONAL
JUDGEMENTS
analyze aH assessment information RECORD
RECORD look for overall patterns
assess performance against learning goals/
criteria
check trustworthiness
formulate judgment

Questions to ask af each key stage:

Why? Who? What? How? m When? Where?

396 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 200.3.149.5 on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 23:16:11 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Defined in this sense, TBA shares many of the characteristics of assess
ment for learning (AfL), a concept first used in the United Kingdom in
the late 1980s, and widely promoted through the work of the Assessment
Reform Group (Assessment Reform Group, 1999, 2001; Black & Wiliam,
1998). The term was introduced to ensure "a clear distinction be made
between assessment of learning for the purposes of grading and report
ing, which has its own well-established procedures, and assessment for
learning, which calls for different priorities, new procedures and a new
commitment" (Assessment Reform Group, 1999, p. 2). The Assessment
Reform Group (1999, p. 7) has described AfL's defining characteristics
as follows:

embedded in a view of teaching and learning of which it is an essen

tial part
learning goals are shared with pupils
aims to help pupils know and recognise the standards they are aim
ing for
pupils are involved in self-assessment
provides feedback which helps pupils recognise their next steps and
how to take them
underpinned by confidence that every student can improve
both teacher and pupils review and reflect on assessment data
In TBA, the term assessment for learning is often used synonymously with
the term formative assessment, so comprehensively documented by Black
and Wiliam (1998), but more recently many researchers have been call
ing for a sharper distinction between the two terms (Kennedy, Chan,
Yu, & Fok, 2006; Roos 8c Hamilton, 2005; Stiggins, 2002; Taras, 2005).
Traditionally, formative assessment is seen as informal and fairly frequent,
involving the gathering of information about students and their language
learning needs while they are still learning. Formative assessment is usu
ally contrasted with summative assessment, generally defined as those
more formal planned assessments at the end of a unit, term, or year
which are used to evaluate student progress and/or grade students. In an
assessment o/learning culture, formative and summative assessment are
seen as distinctly different in both form and function, with teacher and
assessor roles clearly demarcated, but in an assessment for learning cul
ture, it is argued that even summative assessments of the students' lan
guage skills can and should also be used formatively to give constructive
student feedback and improve learning (see, e.g., Biggs, 1998; Carless,
2008; Davison, 2007, Davison 8c Hamp-Lyons, 2009; Hamp-Lyons, 2007;
Harlen, 2005; Kennedy et al., 2006; Taras, 2005). These researchers argue
that provided summative assessment is undertaken while students are still
learning (and teachers are still teaching), such assessments can and

CURRENT ISSUES IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER-BASED ASSESSMENT 397

This content downloaded from 200.3.149.5 on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 23:16:11 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
should also be used for formative purposes, that is, to improve learning
and teaching, thus building a more coherent and stronger assessment for
learning culture. Kennedy et al. propose that in this more inclusive model
of assessment:

1. All assessment needs to be conceptualized as assessment for learning.

2. Feedback needs to be seen as a key function for all forms of
assessment.
3. Teachers need to be seen as playing an important role not only in
relation to formative assessment but in all forms of summative assess
ment as well?both internal and external.
4. Decisions about assessment need to be viewed in a social context
because in the end they need to be acceptable to the community.
Kennedy concludes that "the continuing bifurcation between formative
and summative assessment is no longer useful, despite the fact that such
a distinction has resulted in some excellent research and development
work on formative assessment" (p. 14). He joins Harlen (2005), Carless
(2008), and others in calling for more research to be conducted into
summative assessment, and as Carless puts it, tests as "productive learning
opportunities" (p. 8). However, Kennedy challenges Roos and Hamilton's
(2005) view that summative assessment as a procedure is too deeply
entrenched, in Roos and Hamilton's words, to become "a valid activating
mechanism for goal-directed educational activities" (p. 7). Biggs (1996,
1998) also argues that an exclusive focus on formative assessment may
leave many negative summative assessment practices uncontested. He
points out that this is deeply problematic given summative assessment's
significant influence on student learning, often negative backwash under
mining any of the positive impacts of formative assessment. In fact, as has
been well-documented in systems such as Hong Kong and Singapore
(e.g., Cheah, 1998; Hamp-Lyons, 2007), it is extremely difficult to sustain
any significant teacher-based formative assessment practices in most tra
ditional examination-dominated cultures.3
The traditional concept of formative assessment also needs to be prob
lematized. In AfL, formative assessment is seen as having two key func
tions: informing and forming. That is, formative assessment not only
shapes the decisions about what to do next, by helping the teacher to
select what to teach in the next lesson, or even in the next moment in the

3 In Hong Kong studies of the implementation of teacher-based assessment innovations such

as the Target-Oriented Curriculum in primary schools (e.g. Cheung & Ng 2000; Carless
2004; Adamson & Davison 2003) and the Teacher Assessment Scheme in senior secondary
science (Yung, 2006) found that any change in teacher assessment practice was difficult,
severely constrained by traditional school culture and by teacher, parent, and student
expectations.

398 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 200.3.149.5 on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 23:16:11 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 lesson; the student also has to understand what they have learned and
what they need to learn next (Black, 2001; Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall, &
Wiliam, 2003a, 2003b; Black & Wiliam, 1998). The learner's role is cru
cial because it is the learner who does the learning. This point seems
obvious, even trite, but it is central to the ML philosophy and, if treated
seriously, clearly highlights where formative assessment can go wrong. As
Torrance (1993) argued some years ago, many teachers are at risk of
assuming formative assessment is at best "fairly mechanical and behav
iouristic ... in the graded test tradition"; at worst summative, "taking
snapshots of where the children have 'got to', rather than where they
might be going next" (p. 340).
Teachers coming from more traditional assessment cultures make two
common misinterpretations of formative assessment. First, there is a
widespread assumption that any continuous assessment is by definition
formative, but this is not necessarily the case?a series of weekly tests are
continuous, but they are not formative if they are not used by students to
improve their learning:

The term 'formative' itself is open to a variety of interpretations and

often means no more than that assessment is carried out frequently and
is planned at the same time as teaching. Such assessment does not neces
sarily have all the characteristics just identified as helping learning. It may
be formative in helping the teacher to identify areas where more explana
tion or practice is needed. But for the pupils, the marks or remarks on
their work may tell them about their success or failure but not about how
to make progress towards further learning. (Assessment Reform Group,
1999, p. 7)

Second, there is a common misconception that a so-called alternative

form of the assessment automatically makes it formative; that is, assess
ments like portfolios and oral presentations are by definition formative.
However, such assessments can be and sometimes are components of
large-scale externally set and assessed examinations, for example, the
ubiquitous external oral examinations of many Asian educational systems
which are not used at all for formative purposes.
To summarize, then, in an AfL culture, TBA needs to be continuous
and embedded naturally into every stage of the teaching-learning cycle,
not just at the end (see Ministry of Education [Singapore], 2008, for an
example of this in a K-12 curriculum). All assessments (even those for
accountability purposes) need to be designed and implemented with
the overriding aim of improving student learning, with AfL as the domi
nant educational ethos. In such a classroom or institution, teachers
would be continually engaged in various forms of formative assessment,
even at the end of the course. In this model of TBA, outlined in Table 1,

CURRENT ISSUES IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER-BASED ASSESSMENT 399

This content downloaded from 200.3.149.5 on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 23:16:11 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 followed by formative self and peer
set at beginning of unit of learning evaluation and extensive teacher

on the product of learning, and

to system-level norms; focus mainly
Prescribed summative assessments, Predetermined, relatively formal and
of a unit of learning and teaching by teacher, but preceded and/or
Criterion referenced, but in relation Report in profiles, levels, and marks
but results also used formatively to

what student needs to do next

videotaped presentations
guide future teaching/learning
Formal moderated mapping of

students performance on
A distinctive stage at the end Formal portfolio/project/
system-wide published

standards/scales Formal tests, exams

and teaching

feedback

NA

More formal mock or trial assessments

modeled on summative assessments
A time for taking stock, assessing student progress and gap between
how individuals are performing Criterion referenced, but in relation
to system-level norms; focus on structured student self and peer
compared with whole group
to thealsodemands of external
to needs of students but
student work/presentation

grades, but stillscales/

extensive
but used for formative purposes Usually predesigned, sensitive
may indicate profiles or
Teacher-student conferencing;

reflections/learning logs
language samples using

profi les/ rubrics

what should be and is
Direct qualitative feedback, Systematic observation of
student involvement
Portfolios/collections of

More formal tests

requirements

Assessment for Learning in the Classroom: A Typology of Possibilities (Davison, 2008)

TABLE 1

checklists/self
and teaching cycle, i.e., part
during the course of the year
andreflections/learning
peer evaluations
relation to learner's starting process and student progress
tests, student-developed tests

point; focusvaried anecdotal

on thesources
learning records/observation
teacher observation using
An integral part of the learning individual students and class may involve multiple and

e.g., self,
An informal planned process tailored to the needs of the Peer conferencing; informal
More structured self, peer and Informal quizzes, diagnostic
planning for the future Analysis of drafts/video and
of effective teaching and
logs
Criterion referenced, but in Direct qualitative feedback,

peers, teacher, etc.

audioselfsamples
student and peer of work

In-class contingent formative More planned integrated

assessment-while-teaching formative assessment

elicit/check understanding;
informal part ofteacher's
every daily practice
opportunity for student
in student language use

Informal analysis of patterns

focus on the learning Focused open questions to

and contingent when

feedback, or direct,
students and teacher of learner behavior/
Informal observation
the need arises coconstructed by
An integral but very Learner referenced;
Often spontaneous language use

process

Indirect or implied self-reflections

NA

Types of assessments:

preplanning
Observe
Typical kinds Analysis
Definition Test
of feedback
Degree of

Focus
Inquiry

?o PiOr s

This content downloaded from 200.3.149.5 on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 23:16:11 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
assessment includes not only the formal planned moments when stu
dents undertake an assessment task but also the far more informal, even
spontaneous moments when teachers are monitoring student group
work and notice one student speaking more confidently or another fail
ing to take an offered turn. Because the goal of TBA is to improve stu
dent learning, self and peer assessment are an integral component of all
assessment activity. Feedback is also a defining element, with opportuni
ties for constructive and specific feedback related to specific assessment
criteria and curriculum goals and content regularly reviewed by students
and teachers.
Such an integrated approach to assessment underpinned the recent
development of a school-based assessment (SBA) component in the
Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination (HKCEE) in English
Language (Davison, 2007; Davison & Hamp-Lyons, 2009). The stated
purpose of the SBA component was to provide a more comprehensive
appraisal of Forms 4-5 (Grades 9-10) learners' achievement by assess
ing learning objectives which could not be easily assessed in public
examinations while at the same time enhancing teaching and learning.
The initiative marked a shift from traditional norm-referenced exter
nally set and assessed examinations toward a more student-centered
TBA system that drew its philosophical basis from the assessment for
learning movement discussed earlier. Teachers are involved at all stages
of the assessment cycle, from planning the assessment programme to
identifying and developing appropriate formative and summative
assessment activities right through to making the final judgments.
In-class formal and informal performance assessment of students'
authentic oral language skills using a range of tasks and guiding ques
tions and the use of teacher judgments of student performance using
common assessment criteria are innovative aspects of the new SBA, as
is the insistence that students play an active role in the assessment pro
cess and the vigorous promotion of self and/or peer assessment and
feedback (for a fuller discussion, see Davison, 2007; Davison & Hamp
Lyons, 2009).
Such TBA is assumed to have a number of advantages over external
examinations, especially in assessing language, because effective lan
guage development requires not just knowledge but skill and application
in a wide range of situations and modes of communication. Hence, like
other performance-based subjects such as music, art, drama, and various
vocational subjects, it is often argued that languages are better assessed
through more authentic-like, performance-based assessments. Table 2
summarizes some of the common advantages attributed to TBA com
pared with external examinations.
However, a number of these claims made for the efficacy, or even supe
riority, of TBA over traditional assessments, especially those relating to

CURRENT ISSUES IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER-BASED ASSESSMENT 401

This content downloaded from 200.3.149.5 on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 23:16:11 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 TABLE 2
Advantages of TBA Compared With External Examinations for Oral Language Assessment
(Adapted From SBA Consultancy Team, 2005)
Characteristics of
classroom-based TBA
Scope Extends the range and
diversity of assessment
collection opportunities,
task types, and assessors
Authenticity Assesses work being done within
the classroom; less possibility of
cheating as teacher knows
student capabilities; assessments
more likely to be realistic
Validity Improves validity through
assessing factors that
cannot be included in
public exam settings
Reliability Improves reliability by having
more than one assessment
by a teacher who is familiar
with the student; allows for
multiple opportunities for
assessor reflection/
standardization
Fairness Fairness is achieved by following
commonly agreed processes,
outcomes and standards; teacher
assumptions about students
and their oral language levels
are made explicit through
collaborative sharing and
discussion with other teachers
Feedback Students can receive
constructive feedback
immediately after the
assessment has finished,
hence improving learning
Positive washback Ongoing assessment
{beneficial encourages students to
influence on work consistently; provides
teaching and important data for
learning) evaluation of teaching
and assessment practices
in general
Teacher and Teachers and students
student become part of the
empowerment assessment process;
collaboration and sharing
of expertise takes place
within and across schools
402
This content downloaded from 200.3.149.5 on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 23:16:11 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Characteristics of exams
Much narrower range of
assessment opportunities: less
diverse assessment; one exam
per year
Removes assessment entirely
from teaching and learning;
stressful conditions may lead to
students not demonstrating
real capacities
Limits validity by limiting scope
of assessment, e.g., difficult to
assess interaction skills in exam
environment
Even with double marking,
examiners'judgments can be
affected by various factors (task
difficulty, topic, interest level,
tiredness, etc.), but little
opportunity for assessor
reflection/review
Fairness can only be achieved by
treating everyone the same, i.e.,
setting the same task at the
same time for all students
The only feedback is usually a
grade at the end of the exam;
generally no opportunities for
interaction with assessor; no
chance to ask how to improve
Examinations by their nature
can only be purely summadve,
and do not serve any teaching
related purpose; effects on
teaching and learning may
even be negative; may
encourage teaching to the test
and a focus on exam tech
nique, rather than outcomes
Teachers play little to no role in
assessment of their students
and have no opportunity to
share their expertise or
knowledge of their students;
students treated as numbers
(Continued)
TESOL QUARTERLY
 TABLE 2 (Continued)

Characteristics of
classroom-based TBA Characteristics of exams

Professional Builds teacher assessment skills, Teachers have no opportunity to

development which can be transferred to
other areas of the curriculum
Practicality Once teachers are trained, TBA
and cost is much cheaper as integrated
into normal curriculum;
undertaken by class teacher as
part of everyday teaching;
avoids wasting valuable
teaching time on practice tests
build their assessment skills;
get little or no feedback on
how to improve as teachers
Language assessment as currently
practiced is very expensive in
terms of task development
(especially as multiple stimulus
material is often needed to
avoid cheating), assessor
training and moderation and
teaching/learning time

validity and reliability, need to be explored further because they raise

important theoretical issues that go to the heart of TBA and when applied
to the English language teaching field.

CONCEPTUAL ISSUES AND CHALLENGES IN TBA IN

ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING
There are obviously many issues and challenges confronting English
language education in its movement toward greater use of high-quality
TBA, ranging from the very practical concerns associated with any sig
nificant change in classroom practice, including the need to develop
confidence to overcome the inevitable implementation dip through to
the more technical problems associated with learning how to construct
explicit assessment criteria and tasks appropriate for range of individ
ual student needs (e.g., Fox, 2008), through to the significant chal
lenge of changing deeply entrenched sociocultural attitudes and
expectations (for a fuller discussion, see Brindley, 1995; Davison, 2007,
Rea-Dickins, 2008). However, in this article we are more concerned
with conceptual issues, in which questions of validity and reliability are
central.
As others have pointed out (e.g., Rea-Dickins, 2007), in TBA there is
much debate over evaluation criteria with researchers such as Leung
(2004a, 2004b) and Teasdale and Leung (2000), on one hand, arguing
that the evaluation criteria traditionally associated with psychometric
testing such as reliability and validity need to be reinterpreted in TBA,
particularly in relation to in-class contingent assessment in interaction,
but testers such as Clapham (2000) insisting that traditional test criteria
do apply to alternative TBA:

CURRENT ISSUES IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER-BASED ASSESSMENT 403

This content downloaded from 200.3.149.5 on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 23:16:11 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A problem with methods of alternative assessment, however, lies with
their validity and reliability: Tasks are often not tried out to see whether
they produce the desired linguistic information; marking criteria are not
investigated to see whether they 'work*; and raters are often not trained to
give consistent marks, (p, 152)

However, these points represent two quite different levels of concern.

Clapham's arguments are primarily to do with the quality of assessment
practice, whereas Leung's problematize the underlying assessment
theory.4 Even when TBA is "best" practice, many theoretical issues remain
unresolved; in fact, we would argue they are even more obvious.
As an example, take the development of the SBA system in Hong Kong
(SBA Consultancy Team, 2005), outlined earlier, involving more than
1,800 teachers in more than 650 schools and institutions. Conducted
over 2 years of schooling, and contributing 15% toward each student's
final English score, it consists of the assessment of English oral language
skills based on topics and texts drawn from a program of independent
reading or viewing ("texts" encompass print, video, film, fiction, and non
fiction material). The spoken language tasks are of two broad kinds:
group interaction and individual presentation. Students choose at least
three texts to read or view over the course of 2 years, keeping a logbook
or brief notes, and undertaking a number of activities in and out of class
to develop their independent reading, speaking, and thinking skills. For
assessment they participate in several interactions with classmates on a
particular aspect of the text they have read or viewed, leading up to mak
ing an individual presentation or group interaction on a specific text and
responding to questions from their audience (for a full description of the
assessment requirements, see SBA Consultancy Team, 2005).
A range of assessment tasks has been provided that teachers can choose
from and adapt, including teacher-made tasks adapted from those used
by teachers who took part in the initial development of the assessment
initiative. Assessment tasks can vary in length and complexity, enabling
teachers to provide students with appropriate, multiple, and varied oppor
tunities to demonstrate their oral language abilities individually tailored
to their language levels and interests. At the same time, however, the
teacher and the school need to be sure that the oral language produced
is the student's own work, not the result of memorization without under
standing. Hence, there are some important requirements or conditions
that teachers and students must follow, including the assessment being
conducted by the usual English teacher, in the presence of one or more

4 See Chapelle (1999), for a more detailed discussion of current debates over validity in lan
guage testing.

404 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 200.3.149.5 on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 23:16:11 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
classmate (s). Students are assessed according to a set of assessment crite
ria consisting of a set of descriptors at each of six levels across four
domains: (a) pronunciation and delivery, (b) communication strategies,
(c) vocabulary and language patterns, and (d) ideas and organization.
Teachers are encouraged to video or audio record a range of student
assessments to assist with standardization and feedback, involving the stu
dents as much as possible. During the class assessments, which might
span a number of weeks, individual teachers at the same level are encour
aged to meet informally to compare their assessments and make adjust
ments to their own scores as necessary. Such informal interactions give
teachers the opportunity to share opinions on how to score performances
and interpret the assessment criteria.
Near the end of the school year, all the English teachers at each level
hold a formal meeting, chaired by a coordinator in each school, to review
performance samples and standardize scores. Such meetings are critical
for developing consistency in and between teacher-assessors, for public
accountability, and for professional collaboration and support. At the end
of each year, a district-level meeting is held for professional sharing and
further standardization. Each coordinator is encouraged to share a range
of typical and atypical individual assessment records (along with the video
or audio recordings) and the class records. Once any necessary changes
are made, the performance samples are archived and the scores are sub
mitted to the HKEAA for review. Maintaining notes of all standardization
meetings and any follow up action is also encouraged so schools can show
parents and the public that it has applied the assessment procedures con
sistently and fairly. The HKEAA then undertakes a process of statistical
moderation5 to ensure the comparability of scores across the whole Hong
Kong school system. This TBA system is supported by a comprehensive
teacher training package (SBA Consultancy Team, 2005) which includes
an introductory DVD and booklet, and two training CD-ROMs contain
ing a range of student samples for benchmarking purposes. In addition,
39 district-level group coordinators, mostly serving teachers, were used to
coordinate training and standardization sessions with school coordina
tors and with the teachers involved within each school. A 12-hour supple
mentary professional development program with comprehensive course
and video notes on DVD (SBA Consultancy Team, 2007) was also devel
oped, and all teachers are encouraged to complete the program in their
first year of such assessment. Careful monitoring of the assessment pro
cess shows that teachers are able to reliably mark students' work with high

It is difficult to justify statistical moder ation from a theoretical perspective, given SBA and
the external examination are measuring different things under very different conditions,
but it is considered essential to ensure public confidence in the examination system is
maintained, while allowing the HKEAA to be more innovative in its assessment practices.

CURRENT ISSUES IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER-BASED ASSESSMENT 405

This content downloaded from 200.3.149.5 on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 23:16:11 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
levels of interrater reliability and that a higher correlation exists between
SBA and other components of the external exam than between the exter
nal oral exam and other components.
This TBA system aims to ensure, to paraphrase Clapham (2000), that
tasks are tried out, marking criteria do work, and raters are trained; how
ever, theoretical problems to do with the nature of what is assessed and
how it is assessed in English language education still arise and are, in fact,
foregrounded by TBA in ways which challenge the English language
teaching field. In the interests of brevity, we will look at three key sets of
issues arising from TBA which problematize our theorization of language,
language learning, and assessment.

Implications of TBA for the Theorization of Language

All language use implicates meaning making (and meaning taking).

In English language classes, almost all language is taught (and learned)
through carrier content, for example, the language use one might engage
in when arriving at an airport, or reviewing and discussing a film.6 Thus,
TBA, whether we are talking about assessment embedded in in-class con
tingent interaction or more formal assessment at the end of the teaching
and learning cycle, is inextricably connected to meaning making with ref
erence to content meaning in context. If we look at what is assessed in the
example from Hong Kong outlined earlier, we see language use being
embedded into other forms of social and cognitive activity, then being
"pulled out" for separate assessment in ways which raise real issues of
validity: Are we assessing speaking? Are we assessing cognition? Are we
assessing reading? Are we assessing cultural knowledge? Are we assessing
interactive style or personality? Such concerns about validity are some
what ironic given that the direct assessment and real-world (even if simu
lated) nature of TBA tasks is supposed to be one of the key advantages
TBA has over external exams.
Thus, somewhat paradoxically, TBA raises two problems to do with the
nature of language assessment that are relatively invisible in traditional
testing. First, TBA, in its emphasis on language use in context, calls into
action a multifaceted combination of linguistic, pragmatic, and cultural
resources. Models of second language competence (e.g., Bachman, 1990;
Canale & Swain 1980) have set out components such as grammatical com
petence, sociocultural competence, and strategic competence. These
components have been used to inform model building for proficiency lev
els and assessment (e.g., Council of Europe, 2001; Griffin & McKay, 1992).

It is rare in these communicative language teaching days for language use to be solely con
cerned with a display of linguistic knowledge (as in grammar drill exercises).

406 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 200.3.149.5 on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 23:16:11 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
However, as Widdowson (2001) noted, there is as yet no clear under
standing of how these different components relate to one another, par
ticularly in specific contexts. One consequence of this lack of
understanding is that assessment has a built-in arbitrariness; for example,
should pragmatic competence be regarded as being more important
than linguistic competence in classroom discussions? Do we need a
model(s) of language that would articulate the different component
competences in different contexts?
Second, insofar as language use almost always involves some content
meaning (even in formal language learning activities), then assessing
language means inevitably assessing content to some degree. This is par
ticularly the case for the TBA of English that takes place in a subject
learning contexts, for example, English language learners in mainstream
English-medium school and university classrooms (e.g., in North America,
Australia, and the United Kingdom as well as in English-medium institu
tions around the world), and in content-language integrated learning
programmes (increasingly popular in Europe where the teaching and
learning of English as a foreign language is carried out through a school
subject such as science). But assessing English in subject learning con
texts raises certain questions: Do teacher-assessors need a framework for
language assessment as well as a separate framework for content? Or can
they adopt a content-language integrated view, as argued by Mohan,
Leung, and Slater (in press), that proceeds on the assumption that there
is no separation between meaning and wording? These are critical ques
tions to do with validity highlighted by TBA, but they have widespread
significance in the English language teaching field.

Implications of TBA for the Theorization of

Language Learning
The second key set of problems highlighted in TBA relate to the theo
rization of language learning. TBA, particularly for formative purposes,
has generally put a high premium on teacher-student dialogue involving
appropriate use of questioning and feedback, either as part of live con
tingent interaction or in the form of written comments. This practice
generally, and mainly implicitly, assumes that language learning takes
place through interaction between the teacher and the student with
the guidance and advice given by the teacher advancing the student's
knowledge and skills. Until recently, such formative assessment appears
to have been much more interested in practice than theory. Lantolf
and Pohener (2004), Poehner and Lantolf (2005), and Poehner (2007,
2008) argue that formative TBA has been atheoretical and overly task ori
ented, without paying sufficient attention to a learner's overall cognitive

CURRENT ISSUES IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER-BASED ASSESSMENT 407

This content downloaded from 200.3.149.5 on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 23:16:11 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
development; furthermore, such formative assessment seems to rely on
teacher intuition rather than any systematic theory of learning. In con
trast to most forms of teacher-based formative assessment, their preferred
model of assessment, dynamic assessment, works explicitly within a
Vygotskyan sociocultural paradigm, using the twin constructs of teacher
mediated assistance and the zone of proximal development to theorize
the process of learning through assessment. A similar approach grounded
in sociocultural theory, called interactive assessment (see SBA Consultancy
Team, 2008, for a fuller explanation), is also being promoted in the Hong
Kong assessment initiative. Teachers are given a framework of guiding
questions which make increasing cognitive and linguistic demands on
the learner, and their teacher-assessors are encouraged to interact indi
vidually with a student at any time, asking specific question (s) to clarify
and encourage the student to extend ideas, help prompt and scaffold the
students' oral interaction, probe the range and depth of their oral lan
guage skills, and verify the student's understanding of what he or she is
saying. The questions are meant to be used flexibly to ensure that stu
dents have the opportunity to show the full range of their responses,
hence achieving the most valid "true" judgment of students' ability.
However, such approaches raise key questions not only about the nature
of second language learning and its stages of development, but also about
the role of assessment criteria and the teacher-assessor. Where learners of
English need support to understand and express meaning, elements of
teaching and scaffolding of the medium of communication may be built
into formative guidance. How should this aspect of teacher-student inter
action be considered in any theorizing of TBA? How does a teacher decide
what to foreground in any set of assessment criteria and what to downplay
or even ignore? Do we need to adopt an explicit theory of interaction and
its relationship with learning? Is there something unique about TBA of
language that requires special and additional attention?
In a discussion on the development of a theory of formative assess
ment in general, Black and Wiliam (2009) suggest that theory building
"must bring into relationship ... three spheres, the teacher's agenda, the
internal world of each student, and the inter-subjective" (p. 26). TBA in
English language teaching highlights the complexity of these relation
ships and problematizes the teacher-assessor's own beliefs and construc
tions of their discipline (for a further discussion, see Leung, 2007) in
ways which challenge all in English language teaching.

Implications of TBA for the Theorization of Assessment

The series of questions raised in the discussion so far are implicated in

the third?and final?set of issues to be addressed in this article, that is,

408 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 200.3.149.5 on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 23:16:11 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
the theorization of assessment. It is a fundamental paradox of TBA that
its inherent strengths are viewed by many psychometricians as its great
est weaknesses. In many ways TBA is the opposite to traditional forms
of examination and testing in which context is regarded as an extrane
ous variable that must be controlled and neutralized and the assessor
as someone who must remain objective and uninvolved throughout the
whole assessment process (Davison, 2007). TBA, in contrast, derives a
major part of its validity and reliability from its location in the actual class
room where assessment activities are embedded in the regular curricu
lum and assessed by a teacher who is familiar with the student's work and
presumably has a stake in their improvement. To work effectively, how
ever, TBA needs a theory of assessment which is aligned with and which
exploits these inherent features. Thus, in the TBA initiative in Hong
Kong, schools and teachers were granted a large degree of trust and
autonomy in the design, implementation, and specific timing of assess
ment tasks. The criteria for evaluating reliability shifted from a focus on
input to a focus on output; that is, no assessment tasks are the same across
all schools; rather a standard set of expectations of students' language
use (i.e., assessment standards or criteria) were developed based on the
curriculum goals, past performances, and the teachers own judgments,
and are now used by all teachers?and more importantly, students?
to generate tasks appropriate to the students' language level, context,
and needs (SBA Consultancy team, 2005). All students are given suffi
cient time and support to demonstrate their best?to show what they
can do?and for the assessor to be able to confidently assess their out
put, but even more importantly, validate their informal judgments of
students' language levels and achievements. In other words, the more
formal assessment tasks are designed to encourage the teacher to stand
back and reflect on their implicit or explicit assumptions about individ
ual students' capacities, compare those assumptions with careful analy
sis of examples of students' actual performance, and then subject their
judgments to explicit scrutiny and challenge or confirmation by others.
This TBA initiative does not assume that the class teacher is objective
or has no preconceived ideas or assumptions about a student's level. To
the contrary, it seeks to make such assumptions explicit and open to dis
cussion with fellow teachers. Thus, it is not necessary to have complete
consensus; that is, teachers do not need to agree to give identical marks;
some variation within the range is to be expected. As Davison (2004)
argues, in TBA trustworthiness comes more from the process of express^
ing disagreements, justifying opinions, and so on than from absolute
agreement.
This theorization of assessment is obviously very different from that
associated with large-scale testing, one that has as core criteria for eval
uation not just learning outcomes, but the explicit enhancement of

CURRENT ISSUES IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER-BASED ASSESSMENT 409

This content downloaded from 200.3.149.5 on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 23:16:11 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
learning and teaching. As such, the traditional conceptions of validity
and reliability associated with the still-dominant psychometric tradition
of testing are themselves a potential threat to the development of the
necessarily highly contextualized and dialogic practices of TBA (Rea
Dickins, 2007). Given that TBA spans from in-class contingent formative
assessment as part of teaching to prescribed relative formal summa
tive assessment, the following questions need to be asked: How can we
develop a view of validity and reliability in terms of learning (not solely
in terms of learning outcomes)? Is there a place for differentiated cri
teria of validity and reliability for different kinds of TBA? How can we
further strengthen TBA and its nexus with learning and teaching while
at the same time enhancing community confidence in our assessment
systems? How can we better align traditional theorizations of assessment
with those needed for TBA and vice versa? Is such alignment theoretically
possible?

CONCLUSION
There are obviously areas of TBA other than those explored in this
article in which further research and conceptualization is needed. In par
ticular, more thinking is needed around ethics, trustworthiness, and fair
ness (e.g., see Lynch, 2001; Lynch & Shaw, 2005), and the relationship
between assessment, feedback, and learning. More research is also
needed into the effects of system-level change, including the impact on
teachers and learners of the adoption, implementation, or evaluation of
school-based TBA systems; the effect of importation of assessment
approaches from other cultures; comparative perspectives on assessment
policies and programs; and the impact of standards-based assessment on
teachers and students. More research into teacher training and profes
sional development in assessment is also necessary: what this kind of
teacher development comprises and how it is perceived, the quality and
progress indicators of TBA, and different approaches to teacher develop
ment in assessment.
However, TBA, in all its incarnations, has been around English lan
guage teaching long enough to demonstrate its powerful potential to
improve learning and teaching in a range of different contexts. What it
has lacked until recently has been sufficient engagement with theory and
a sense of a research agenda. Perhaps more tellingly, the highly contex
tualized and variable nature of TBA has meant it lacks the capacity to be
reduced to an off the shelf for-profit product and thus has always been
relegated to the status of the Other. However, as this special issue dem
onstrates, TBA appears to be gaining enough critical mass and common
interest to generate a new level of discussion about core concepts. This is

410 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 200.3.149.5 on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 23:16:11 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
to be applauded because many of the key questions and issues raised by
TBA are of central interest to the English language teaching world.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors acknowledge the important contribution of discussions with their col
leagues at King's College, London, and the University of Hong Kong to the ideas
expressed in this article.

THEAUTHORS
Chris Davison is Professor of Education and Head of the School of Education at the
University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. Before going to Hong Kong, she
worked as a teacher educator for 15 years. She is also actively involved in the research
and development of English as a second language and languages other than English
policy and programs in Australia and the Asia-Pacific area.

Constant Leung is Professor of Educational Linguistics in the Department of

Education and Professional Studies at King's College London. He has written and
published widely on additional and second language education and language assess
ment issues. He is also the director of a master of arts program in English language
teaching and applied linguistics.

REFERENCES

Adanison, B., 8c Davison, C. (2003). Innovation in English language teaching in Hong

Kong primary schools: One step forwards, two steps sideways. Prospect, 18, 27-41.
Arkoudis, S., 8c O'Loughlin, K (2004). Tensions between validity and outcomes:
Teachers' assessment of written work of recently arrived immigrant ESL students.
Language Testing, 20, 284-304.
Assessment Reform Group. (1999). Assessment for learning: Beyond the black box.
Cambridge: University of Cambridge School of Education. Retrieved on 2 October
2007 from http://arg.educ.cam.ac.uk/AssessInsides.pdf.
Assessment Reform Group. (2001). Assessment for learning: 10 principles. Retrieved 2
July 2009 from http://www.assessment-reform-group.org.uk.
Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Biggs, J. (1996). Assessing learning quality: Reconciling institutional, staff, and edu
cational demands. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2, 3-25.
Biggs, J. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning: A role for formative assessment?
Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5, 103-110.
Black, P. (2001). Formative assessment and curriculum consequences. In D. Scott
(Ed.), Curriculum and assessment. Westport, CT: Ablex.
Black, P., Harrison, C, Lee, C, Marshall, B., 8c Wiliam, D. (2003a, April). Formative
and summative assessment: Can they serve learning together? Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Retrieved 1 October 2007 from http://www.kcl.ac.uk/education/papers/
AERA%20ClassAsst.pdf.

CURRENT ISSUES IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER-BASED ASSESSMENT 411

This content downloaded from 200.3.149.5 on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 23:16:11 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Black, P., Harrison, C, Lee, C, Marshall, B., 8c Wiliam, D. (2003b, April). The nature
and value of formative assessment for learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Retrieved on
1 October 2007 from http://www.kcl.ac.uk/education/papers/AERA%20Pres.pdf.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in
Education: Principles, Policy ?f Practice, 5, 7-74.
Black, P., 8c Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment.
Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 5-31.
Breen, M., Barratt-Pugh, C, Derewianka, B., House, H., Hudson, C, Lumley, T., et al.
(1997). Profiling ESL children: How teachers interpret and use national and state assess
ment frameworks. Canberra, Australia: Department of Employment, Education,
Training and Youth Affairs.
Brindley, G. (1995). Assessment and reporting in language learning programmes:
Purposes, problems and pitfalls. In E. Li 8c G.James (Eds.) Testing and evaluation in
second language education (pp. 133-162). Hong Kong SAR, China: Hong Kong
University of Science and Technology.
Brookhart, S. (2003). Developing measurement theory for classroom assessment pur
poses and uses. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22(4), 5-12.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to
second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
Carless, D. (2005). Prospects for the implementation of assessment for learning.
Assessment in Education, 12, 39-54.
Carless, D. (2008) Developing productive synergies between formative and summa
tive assessment processes. In M. F. Hui 8c D. Grossman (Eds.), Improving teacher edu
cation through action research (pp. 9-23). New York: Routledge.
Chapelle, C. (1999). Validity in language assessment. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 19, 254-272.
Cheah, Y. M. (1998). The examination culture and its impact on literacy innovations:
The case of Singapore. Language and Education, 12, 192-209.
Cheung, D., 8c Ng, D. (2000). Teachers' stages of concern about the target-oriented
curriculum. Education fournal, 28, 109-122.
Clapham, C. (2000). Assessment and testing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20,
147-161.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages:
Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cumming, J. J., & Maxwell, G. S. (2004). Assessment in Australian schools: Current
practice and trends. Assessment in Education, 11, 89-108.
Curriculum Development Institute. (2002). School policy on assessment: Changing
assessment practices. Chapter 5 in Basic education curriculum guide: Building on
strength. Hong Kong: Curriculum Development Institute.
Davison, C. (2004). The contradictory culture of classroom-based assessment:
Teacher-based assessment practices in senior secondary English. Language Testing,
21, 304-333.
Davison, C. (2007). Views from the chalkface: School-based assessment in Hong
Kong. Language Assessment Quarterly, 4, 37-68.
Davison, C. (2008, March). Assessment for learning: Building inquiry-oriented assessment
communities. Paper presented at 42nd Annual TESOL Convention and Exhibit,
New York, NY.
Davison, C, 8c Hamp-Lyons, L. (2009) The Hong Kong Certificate of Education:
School-based assessment reform in Hong Kong English language education. In
L.-Y Cheng & A. Curtis (Eds.), English language assessment and the Chinese learner.
New York: Routledge.

412 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 200.3.149.5 on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 23:16:11 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Davison, C, 8c Williams, A. (Eds.). (2002). Learning from each other: Literacy, labels and
limitations. Studies of child English language and literacy development K-12, Volume 2.
Melbourne: Language Australia.
Department of Education and Training, Education Policy and Planning Section
(Australia), (n.d.). School excellence initiative. Teachers: The key to student success. A dis
cussion paper for government schools. Tuggeranong, Australian Capital Territory:
Author. Retrieved 15 September 2009 from http://www.det.act.gov.au/_data/
assets/pdf_file/0009/17964/sei_TeachersKeyToStudentSuccess.pdf
Fox, J. (2008). Alternative assessment. In E. Shohamy 8c N. H. Hornberger (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of language and education. Vol. 7: Language testing and assessment (2nd
ed., pp. 97-108). New York: Springer.
Griffin, P., & McKay, P. (1992). Assessing and reporting in the ESL language and lit
eracy in schools project. In P. McKay (Ed.), ESL development: Language and literacy
in schools project, Vol. 2 (pp. 9-16). Canberra, Australia: Department of Employment,
Education and Training.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (2007). The impact of testing practices on teaching: Ideologies and
alternatives. In J. Cummins 8c C. Davison (Eds.), The international handbook of
English language teaching, Vol. 1 (pp. 487-504). Norwell, MA: Springer.
Harlen, W. (2005). Teachers' summative assessment practices and assessment for
learning: Tensions and synergies. Curriculum Journal, 16, 207-223.
Kennedy, K.J., Chan, K. S. J., Yu, W. M., 8c Fok, P. K. (2006, May). Assessment for produc
tive learning: Forms of assessment and their potential for enhancing learning. Paper pre
sented at the 32nd Annual Conference of the International Association for
Educational Assessment, Singapore.
Lantolf, J. P., 8c Poehner, M. (2004). Dynamic assessment: Bringing the past into the
future. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 49-74.
Learning and Teaching Scotland. (2006). Assessment Is for Learning Programme.
Retrieved 2 October 2007 from http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/assess/about/
index.asp.
Leung, C. (1999). Teachers' response to linguistic diversity. In A. Tosi 8c C. Leung
(Eds.), Rethinking language education: From a monolingual to a multilingual perspective
(pp. 225-240). London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and
Research, the National Centre for Languages.
Leung, C. (2004a). Classroom teacher-based assessment of second language develop
ment: Construct as practice. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second
language learning and teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Leung, C. (2004b). Developing formative teacher-based assessment: Knowledge,
practice, and change. Language Assessment Quarterly, 1, 19-41.
Leung, C. (2007). Dynamic assessment: Assessment as teaching? Language Assessment
Quarterly, 4, 257-278.
Leung, C, 8c Teasdale, A. (1997). Raters' understanding of rating scales as abstracted
concept and as instruments for decision-making. Melbourne Papers in Language
Testing, 6, 45-70.
Lynch, B. (2001). Rethinking assessment from a critical perspective. Language Testing,
18, 351-372.
Lynch, B., 8c Shaw, P. (2005). Portfolios, power, and ethics. TESOL Quarterly, 39,
263-297.
McMillan, J. (2003). Understanding and improving teachers' classroom assessment
decision-making: Implications for theory and practice. Educational Measurement:
Issues and Practice, 22(4), 34-43.
McNamara, T. (2001). Language assessment as social practice: Challenges for
research. Language Testing, 18, 333-349.

CURRENT ISSUES IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER-BASED ASSESSMENT 413

This content downloaded from 200.3.149.5 on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 23:16:11 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Ministry of Education (New Zealand). (2009). Assessment resources banks: English, math
ematics, and science. Retrieved 15 September 2009 from http://arb.nzcer.org.nz/
assessment/
Ministry of Education (Singapore). (2008). 2012 English language syllabus. Singapore:
Government Printer.
Mohan, B., Leung, C., & Slater, T. (In press). Assessing language and content: A
functional perspective. In A. Paran & L. Sercu (Eds.), Testing the untestable in lan
guage and education. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
New South Wales Government, (n.d.). Assessment for learning in the nexv years 7-10 syl
labuses. Retrieved 10 September 2009 from http://arc.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/
go/sc/afl/.
New Zealand Qualifications Authority, (n.d.). Assessment and examination rules and
procedures for secondary schools?2009. Retrieved 10 September 2009 from http:
//www.nzqa.govt.nz/ncea/acrp/secondary/5/5.html
Poehner, M. (2007). Beyond the test: L2 dynamic assessment and the transcendence
of mediated learning. Modern Languagefournal, 91, 323-340.
Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and
promoting L2 development. New York: Springer.
Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf,J. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom.
Language Teaching Research, 9, 233-265.
Popham, W. J. (2008a). Classroom assessment: Wfiat teachers need to know (5th ed.).
Boston: Pearson Allyn 8c Bacon.
Popham, W. J. (2008b). Transformative assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Pryor, J., & Akwesi, A. (1998). Assessment in Ghana and England: Putting reform to
the test of practice. Compare, 28, 263-275.
Pryor, J., 8c Lubisi, C. (2002). Reconceptualizing educational assessment in South
Africa?Testing times for teachers. International fournal of Educational Development,
22, 673-686.
Queensland Studies Authority (Australia). (2009a). PD packages. Retrieved 15
September 2009 from http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/learning/3166.html.
Queensland Studies Authority (Australia). (2009b). Senior assessment general informa
tion [Web site]. Retrieved 24 August 2009 from http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/
assessment/2130.html
Rea-Dickins, P. (2007). Classroom-based assessment: Possibilities and pitfalls. Inj.
Cummins 8c C. Davison (Eds.), The international handbook of English language teach
ing, Vol. 1. (pp. 505-520). Norwell, MA: Springer.
Rea-Dickins, P. (2008). Classroom-based language assessment. In E. Shohamy & N. H.
Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education. Vol. 7: Language testing
and assessment (2nd ed., pp. 257-271). New York: Springer Science + Business.
Roos, B., 8c Hamilton, D. (2005). Formative assessment: A cybernetic viewpoint.
Assessment in Education, 12, 7-20.
Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems.
Instructional Science, 18, 119-144.
Saskatchewan Learning (Canada). (1993). Learning assessment program. Retrieved 24
August 2009 from http://www.education.gov.sk.ca/Assessment-for-Learning.
SBA Consultancy Team. (2005). 2007HKCE English Language Examination: Introduction
to the school-based assessment component (Training Package). Hong Kong SAR, China:
Hong Kong Examination and Assessment Authority/Faculty of Education, The
University of Hong Kong.
SBA Consultancy Team. (2007). Professional development for the school-based assessment
component of the 2007 HKCE English Language Examination. Hong Kong SAR, China:
Hong Kong Examination and Assessment Authority.

414 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 200.3.149.5 on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 23:16:11 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
SBA Consultancy Team. (2008). Aligning assessment with curriculum reform in junior sec
ondary English language teaching. Hong Kong SAR China: Quality Education Fund.
Spencer, E. (2005, February). Assessment in Scotland: Assessment for learning. 'Formative
assessment in a coherent system. PowerPoint presentation at the International
Conference on Improving Learning Through Formative Assessment, Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France. Retrieved on 9
October 2006 from http://www.oecd.Org/dataoecd/40/54/34488069.ppt#7.
Stiggins, R. (2001). The unfulfilled promise of classroom assessment. Educational
Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20(3), 5-15.
Stiggins, R. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment for learning.
Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 758-765.
Stiggins, R. (2008). An introduction to student-involved assessment for learning (5th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
Stiggins, R., Arter, J., Chappuis,J., 8c Chappuis, S. (2007). Classroom assessment for stu
dent learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Educational Testing Service 8c Pearson
Merrill Prentice Hall.
Taras, M. (2005). Assessment?summative and formative: Some theoretical reflec
tions. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53, 466-478.
Teasdale, A., 8c Leung, C. (2000). Teacher-based assessment and psychometric the
ory: A case of paradigm crossing? Language Testing, 17, 163-184.
TESOL. (2005). TESOL/NCATE program standards. Standards for the accreditation of ini
tial programs in P-12ESL teacher education. Alexandria, VA: Author.
Torrance, H. (1993). Formative assessment: Some theoretical problems and empiri
cal questions. Cambridge Journal of Education, 23, 333-343.
Widdowson, H. G. (2001). Communicative language testing: The art of the possible.
In C. Elder, N. Brown, E. Iwashita, E. Grove, K. Hill, T. Lumley et al., (Eds.),
Experimenting with uncertainty: Essays in honour of Alan Davies (pp. 12-21 ). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Yung, B. (2006). Assessment reform in science: Fairness or fear. Nor well MA: Springer.

CURRENT ISSUES IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER-BASED ASSESSMENT 415

This content downloaded from 200.3.149.5 on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 23:16:11 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms