language Assessment, Principles
an
Classr Classroom oom Practices,
Secon Secon
Editi Edition on
Copyright
this perm permis issi sion on
peaJl,~
of!!P..r of!!P..rsp spub ubli lish sher er
CONTI
I G ~ t i € W t o iB iB a n i 1
an Clas Classr sroo oo language Assessment, Principles eam, re rese resent ntin in ed tori torial al pr duct duct n, desi design gn an ma ufac ufac urin uring, g, Seco Second nd Edit Editio io eam, are zi Lise Minovitz, Stei Stei er an Jenn Jennif ifer er Stem Stem
Practices, Ki
Preface ex Credi
ce Te Te
desi design gn en co posi posi on
Te
ar
Do
Wo f, TS raph raphic ic TS raph raphic ic
Chap Chapte te
arti arti et
Asse Asse smen smen Measu Assess
Ubrary of Congress Cataloging-In-Publication Brow Brown, n, H. Doug Dougla las, s,
Data
Inform Formal
1941 1941 as
ad
Norm-l
Abeywickrama.
p.em. ISBN 0-13-814 0-13-8149319311. Lang Langua ua an ac
pe la guag guages es-S -S dy
an each each ng Abeywickrama, Priyanvada.
2. Lang Langua ua TItle.
an
la guag guages es-E -E amin aminat at ons. ons.
P53.4.B762010 418.0076-dc22 2009039195 ISBN-13: ISBN-13: 978-0-13 978-0-13-814 -814931931ISBN-I0: ISBN-I0: 0-13-814 0-13-814931931-
nd Pur] Achiev Diagno Placem Profick Aptitud
Issues inLangu Behavi< Integral Commi
PEAR PEARSO SO
LO
MA
l'
HEWE
offers rs onli online ne Pearsonlongman.com offe reso resour urce ce fo teac teache hers rs an stud studen ents ts Acce Access ss ou Co anio anio We si es ur onli onli atal atalog og
Perfom "H Multiple Traditio Compui OtherC Exercises 22 Fo
is
ou Furt Furtbe be
pearsonlongman.com.
Prac Practi tica cali lity ty 26 Reli Reliab abil ilit it 27 Student-
CHAPTER
AG OBJECTIVES:
principles of language assessment (practicality, reliability validity, th ti ty th essentia subcategorie within reliabilit an validity
ly th importan
iv ia of each principle,
rp in ru
fail
rt
iv
in rume
all
th
ri
-b if
m-
ts
26
P r in c ip le s o f L a ng u ag e A s se ss m en t
CHAPTER
PRACTICAUTY Practicality refers to th lo istical, down-to- arth
ch riteri
is im ra ti al
Consid
th
ollo in
dministr ti
issues in ol ed in
ttri ut
ra ti alit
la
ro ic
it Students evening, ha
te er
in id -o -o hundre te t-takers nd nl andf tu ra fo most classroo situations tical if re ie to th iv test sometime
is vail bl to ac om li ic of examiner
th
it
ta
core ), th will proctor an time constr cality factor
bj ctiv min-
test ic
re
hing on such nitty-gritty practica considerations tr to
An
enroll
It's ea
takes than
in th progra ic iv it ig nd 80 item rammar oc bulary an re in
tu en When th tests, tl exchange, re
tays within udgetary limits be complete th te t-ta within propri te time onstraints as cl ar dire ti ns admini tr ti ppro ri tely utilizes aila le huma resource il ri
te
th
li om re ensi n,
RElJABILITY
AreUable il
result
la ll multiple
is com un
contai day. Sounds simple right?
rong
fa
sibl factor administratioi
lc some ofwhic
Principles of
CHAPTER
ll
se
th st
ts
it
it
in
in id
ictati
th th te ts th
istr to
th
to
le
to sc su je ti
ictati te
7)
le to th
irst
tw
evenin
th
th
te
to
th
io st
ty
avin
th in
lo to
combined dictatio
le
scores an th
th
80-ite
ltiple
ic
multiple-c oice scores
th tw rustrate examiner inally arrive at lace ents or al st dents. It's as to se at en ro re il th list in co re ension section of th test wa ap arentl scor d) th ad inistr to
ig ly ractical (easil administered an very quickl aile to ec th teri ls ea of ti (w ic
will to ti
is
co straints li
is
sc
lassroom-b se sy th
testin
th ti
id
it in
is lmos alwa in th
cr ci
th racti-
REIJABILITY
reliable test is consistent an de enda le st ilar results.
is
tc
onsist
st ts tw if si ig ca sulate th rinciple of reliabilit in th
in it co
itio
across tw
or
sh ld ollowing
dministratio
give clea directions fo scoring/evaluatio as unifor ru rics or scoring/evaluation le ds itself to onsisten ap li atio of thos ontain it
is
s/task
th
that ar
li
lity
ig ou
te
ru rics
th scorer
to th test-t ke
tt
id
nu er of actors that ca contri ut to thei unreliabilit Weloo si le actors re ardi lu tuatio in (a th st de t, (b)
er at ou
os
ad inistratio an (d th test itself (See Bach an 990, J. Brow 005, an Fulcher Davidson 00 fo furt er an more elaborated discussion of relia ility some of whic
extend well
eyon
teac er-mad
classroo
assessments.
28
P r n c p le s
CHAPTER
o f L an gu ag e A ss es sm en t
Student-Related Reliability
noise outsk th stim li
most common leamer-related issu in reliabilit is caused atigue
"bad da ,"an iety an ot er
category
re uc
ct rs
temporar
illness,
sica or sychological actors whic
test-wiseness,
test-t ker'
ma
variations,
or strategies or ef iden
Tes Reliabili to
ro
inistr ti
cont
'r
t. Bu th
ri
to
ce
im
Sometimes
in
te ch rs su ge ts ot
rwis
muluple-ch istic that difficult, dis
miz
student-related unreliability caus
Rater Reliability
th
teacher-mac tica
Huma error, su jectivit
an
rocess Inter-rater
ia ma ente into th scorin
reliability test Failur to chieve intr -r te reli ilit co ld st ro lack re ce to cori crit ri in ri ce in tt ti n, ve reconc iv iases. Lu le (200 rovide some el ul ints on ow to ensure inter-rate reliabilit
ers
an
Fulchet
clas: tors includ th
teac er
tr st scorer
ar involved Intra-rate
uncl
sc ring crit ri
relia ility is
intern
ct r,
co
on
cc r-
ve
th ir test re
Further im
tigu
ia to
rd
rtic la
le
"goo
to
"b te
tu
(f
ly-h
ve
su li in ll -t
th
"e rs
ir
th
test will be different
irst
r"
re tain to
kn th standards
nts,
m,
ma ultimat item an hr
"h rd r"
re
lu
al tests. On solution to such intra-rate unreliabilit
ro
is
it is obvi muddying riti
kill
rate reli
ie
ilit
ro
is
rticul rl
tr ts th
re
rd to ac ieve lt
proficareful specifica-
caus
define.
writin
VALIDITY
intra-rate reliability
D. Brown,
991). By far th
Test Administration Reliabilit nr li
ilit
ls result ro
tan princip re ults re th
conditions in whic
th te
is
inistered.
ent" (Gronl
(1989) wh grated evaJua
CHAPTER
ti
li
ly istr ti
th
le
Principles of anguag
sses ment
re ia it re ia it
to
29
in
ture,
Tes ReUabUity ip istic that will t, is ra
te
re
ly
ig
ra te
ll istr
rte
In this
te ts full ti al er pectiv onsult th aforementioned nd ulcher avidso [2007].)
li li achm
ri [1 90], J. D. Brow
[2 05],
In
su jectiv
tests,
Objectiv
thei
th
tests, in
test reliability. Also,
it ms an hastil re pond in orre tly.
imed te ts ma
is riminate
gain
students
ll
th
ra
th
t-
li
li
VALIDITY By
tant prindple-is lt lu ), rate evaluati
validity,
ri te re udgm nt
in
in te th In some ha more te hnical terms, Samu Messic iz rt ty in ty th degr to whic empiri al vi ence nd th oretic
30
Principles of Language Assessment
CHAPTER
rati nale
ppor th
eq ac
an ap ro ri te
in
of in re es an lo
ti
ri
as 's
id ly
10 objective
rr re of rs
ef l, meaningf
Considi conversatioi
"contaminattng" variable id it io (o iv in or atio ou te t-taker' bility
Directions app he a r ti c e )
Last n i g h t Y o u k no w Francisco
rg iz tion
id as
mo
th
(200 ), nd ra (2 several differen kinds
monkey
tors is
te in
it
in
r, discussions an speakin, othe cases, li te ir
te
ri ri
Content-Relate
te -t
Evidence
if
im as co tent-related validity id ntif co te t-relate vi en th
li ty if ob er ationall te is
te
te
rc
to contend, text-reduced lack conten tive perfor io ). here proficiency evid ce Another between dir
all perform ta it el bu
le rner to answ
paper-an -pen il multiple-c oice
uestions requirin
ally
grammatica
rs
if
conversation clas (listening an speaking
fo English-learners
D i e c o ns : h e p u p os e o f h i q u or yo an me ou ho wel ou ow an a p p h e r ul e o f a r c l u sa g e R e a d t h f o l ow i p a ss a g a n w r i a la n h e , (n a r ti cl e ) i n e a c h b la nk . Iha
)_
uk
m.A We ,I Wh nwe Iw
Il wi nwa
,s
31
Principles of Language Assessment
CHAPTER
wa
)_ I w e to wa (7 __
)_
an
ma
m o n k e y s f ir s t )_
m o n k e y s e c ti o n
or
li tening/s eaking
lass ti
te -r
ty.It
gain
io
ra ic
ty
between direct and indirect testing.
it re
te in
in
th
t-
ally if
tu
32
CHAPTER
Principles of L a n g ua g e A s s e ss m e n t
assessn to "mox sure future
rd assessment is ea in la that is doin
unit
re ting an
ch ng
that in lu
is ur
Construct. third
e,
it
ld
rs te in
rf
ts
constri
in may noi linguisti Virtualf
Criterion-Relate
structs. into th dent's various
Evidence
operatic T . M cN a
from Chapte
th
th
os
lassro m- se
as ssme
it
(80
id re as ssme ts
in crit ri n-relate
as of te ch r- ad
la ro
te her-de ig ed
test
). vi nc
For struct perhaps don't le ti Ims
oral inte and
le
-p
validity if te
te
or
riteri -r late vi en an predictive validity
us ally fall into
tw
at orie
co curr
socio-lin oretical So ifyo pronunc Validity ry de in
what We municat constn Cor proficier
33
Principles of Language Assessment
CHAPTER
future success.
Construct-Related Evidence third
ro
la ro
te
rs
ru -r
idit
mo
re
to
construct validity
ir tl
ri ti ential data Proficiency communicativ competence, and fluency linguistic constructs; self-esteem and motivation re sy holo ical structs.
th
operationa
ic ly
re th
ield
t,
tr has be
definition
of constructs in
idit defined? Let' sa
ir
r-
onstructs.
this te ll ta ou'r ssessing stu-
Ly ch T. McNamara
19 5;
2000). will be tempted, An in orma
ti
ir
ry la ro
te
ri
is
construc
valida
ti ra
tors in
final
li
ic ru
ic
ri th
if tors
th
th
iv ts
tors icie
So if r, ty
th
ik
ld
ifia
let'
icio
tr
re
it
if
ti tr
th
it
io
rt
il to
ti ru
idit te
larg ic re
to th
ts ri iple
Principles of L a n g u ag e A s s e ss m e n t
CHAPTER
example:
te
larg le
to ibly
rc
llskin-Gasparo, th
le ta io
iz
te
rl
id
il is
th
ti
tl
Att
im more fu teachers perform
rr lati
1985).
is io
ie
Face Valid
it
furthe assessnu 210),
th
validity knowlec examine
li
Consequentia
Validity (Impact)
As
De~ Interest (1989),
McNamara (2000), Brindley (2001), Fulche an an Waug (2008), te
lu
id
ti
Davidson (2007), an
in
Gronlund
in
Bachma an Palmer (1996), McKay (2000), Davies (2003), nd ho (2008) use impact as in th many onsequence as essm nt be or an afte test dministr ti n. Palmer (p 30),
iv ts ia tu ie to re la il "ca rs re ingly disillusione with EFt testing" (p. 58). More will relate issues of valu s, cial on qu nc s, thic nd irness in Ch pter As aspect of consequentia validity has ra tt io th (2000) cautione ti ls rm agains
validity. siblythe factor mortem th face cian's vc Att te es testing sequentl ception can affe,
rn
ta it d: ta ta
Principles of L an gu ag e A s
CHAPTER
me
35
(p. 54).
th
ic
ev l, specifical
he cl ss oo
in truc io al
more fully
ev l, no he
mp r-
(2008) encouraged
Fac Validity
p. 210),
looks right, nd appears
othe psychometrically unsophisticate
sibl he te t-gi er in uitive
mo tem" on fa
1998, validity. "Face
observers" (Mousavi 2009, p. 247).
pe ce ve an ns ru ent. 1990, pp. 285-289) vi
va id ty he echoes
os er
or hi ea on an asse sfa validi su er icia Bachman' "post(1947, p. 194) decades-old contentio
cian' vocabulary." (1990) an
othe as es ment
xperts "grudgingl
this
sequen ly cr at ca
ff ct studen
studen -relat
un eliabi it
pe fo mance/reliab lity
ef rred ea hers
pr viousl an in re se
familiar tasks
studen
er
tu en 's pe cep-
36
P r n c p le s
CHAPTER
o f L an gu ag e A s se ss me n
simulate learne
(con idence
nxiety ra
tc.) is ir
mp ta
in
rm
gJ
relationsh
if
real-world In at
if
yo ar testing.
fe
claime stor-
As think so.
As alread
note
ab ve validity is The re ar com! scal testiJ budgetary nents. es to
overal effectiveness. making
re
offe item paragraph We in
AUTIlENTICITY fourth major principle
ti
is authenticity,
As
art
te
(1
in
icit
re
rr
language task (p.
WASHBACK
As
me
1996; ulch worl
ta ks iall
that this
Davidson
issu sucl developmc
claim
Washback
ip
CHAPTER
real-worl
passage.
in lude
re me ning ul
tory in
is re li
li th than isolated rele nt interestin to ic
-w
ta
th
ik
te
is
ro
ti
in
il
within
io
ture
paragraphs
or stories. inyour
la sroo
test
As
WASHBACK
fa et of conseque ti
Vali it di cu se
abov is"th
ff ct of te ting
te chin
washback. ie from washback think future language
re
rs
ti
rs
38
Principles of Language Assessment
CHAPTER
letter grac
(2005)
ro lo in
tors
mpri
reduce tb nothin .. SH
le le
iv
to
AC
tive, lear With productic back Ev ca resp fo streng Give stra mance.
te
re re ir than summative
larg
te
to
t"
th
ts th
te
th
ti
accompli: it numerica
than th Enright,
itiv
rt in Jamieson, 2008).
rt
la
ro relate
-pre tasks (Chapelle,
Anot ferences Formative learner 01 mative
suits, mo me
rm
in
to th
te
ly
lt
ti
back if
ra
sition intrinsi
nr io lass At tl
ly
motivation
re
li me
tu
t'
ri iple la autonomy self-confidence, language ego, interlanguage, PUT and TBP
re beneficial FinaU feedback: te ative, colI
these principles.) to
ific
an issi
CHAPTER
r in c p le s
a ng ua g
ss ss en
In reality,
lett
grad
an
umerical scores
iv ab olutel
inform tion of intrin ic intere
tive, learning.
will permit
Gi
praise
mance. In accomplishment
an
challenge.
ts
in
in
In
la
ti
ts re iv
is
th
ly
in
ti te iv
in io rt
it
dare rg
rati
la ro
fuzzy,
ro
ti tm
ialo
rtu
40
CHAPTER
APPL IN
P r in c ip le s o f L a n gu a g A s se ss m e n
PR NCIP ES
EV
he iv principles of pr cticalit to ro tand rdized proficienc
te ts
UA IO
this
reli bility validity authenticity id in th lu in an
an wa hbac in
that overri th example,
in
le Are be invoked in evaluating an designin assessments? Th answer of course is yes. Language assessment is an extraordinaril ll
rs
be designin effectiv assessment instrument is fur principles. Good test construction fo example, is governed by research-based rule of te prep ration amplin of ta ks it design an on truction coring re pons s,
ti We will lo in
to
lu
ti
ts
in
ri
po sible. Ye
2.
ld will help yo evaluate
Reliability at: At leas four on page 27that ll stude lowingchec
xistin
is
Practicality coul
be
ry is
ti
nd do e, however, if validity is no substantiated, rendered useless.
re th test
ro
dure
ra ti
r,
rt
t, ll is ai
TES
ll
2.
l?
4.
Practicality is
Is
c(
:]
is
at
lo
3. 1. Are administrative detail al carefull attend
to before th test
3. Can th test be administered smoothly withou procedural "glitches" 4. Are al printe material accounte for? 5. Ha equipmen been pre-tested 6. th te it im ts 7. Is th scorin /evaluatio system feasible in th te ch r' time rame 8. Are method fo reportin re ults etermine in dv nc
Rate reliabi haps becaus involv tw sta
Teachers ne importance. re
CHAPTER
As
think
th
override
othe co si er tion
in va ua in
asse smen
and will
Is th test itself reli
le
Reliabilityapplie to th student, th test administration th test itself an th teacher. At leas four source of unreliabilit must be on page 27-29. Test an test administration reliabilit ca be achieved by making sure th al students rece ve th sa qualit of input; he he ritten or uditor he ol lo ng checkl st should help ou to de ermine if test is itsel reliable:
Is ound ampl fica io
le rl audibl
ever ne in th
oo
4. Are lighting temperature, extraneous noise, an othe classroo conditions equa (and optimal) fo all students? or closed en ed responses, do scor ng pr cedu es leav ittl debate abou co re tn ss of an an er
re rate
reli
nvolve tw scorers, in er-rat
ilit
el ab lity is eldo
an issu
In te d, intra- ater reli
42
P r n c p le s
CHAPTER
o f L an gu ag e A ss es sm en t
Intr rate thes questions
it
-e
re
ma
prim
ri
ever
go
work throug Have yo establishe consistent criteria fo correc responses? iv te io to ri ia thro evaluation time 3. Ca yo gu rantee that scorin is base nl on th stablish an ot xtraneou or subjective ariables
mining whet
2. Can
Aseconl crit ri
ically from th
consistency?
yo av ma "mid tream" modi ications what ou on ider rr re 6. Ca yo avoi atigue by readin th te ts in everal sittings especially if th im ir ra rs 5.
4.
Does th
rocedure demo strate co te rc
li
li
object
Some in rs ir in-class writ
validity te
is
te
ty
tasks
lu
re
iv th objectiv items, cluste te t-takers as onte alid
is based.
language c l a s s shor passages an ifyou assessmen is
ia ly th
teri riteri mi
idit
in ri th
it t.
le tyof
te
S. This questior the
appearance 1. Are unit objectives clearly identified? 2. Are ni objectives re resented in th or of te pecifications? (S th ex ag or detail on test specifications.) 3. Do th te pe ifications in lude tasks that have alread been performe as part of th ours procedures ti in tasks re (o t) th bjective fo th nit? tasks involv actual performanc of th target task(s)?
Principles
CHAPTER
li
li it
is
an
iz
th
than
is
rs
fulfill.
le specifications
re
bjecti
that ar bein
as essed)
this
ri
in
le
sw
te t-ta rs as refl ctiv th la sroo bj ctiv cont nt alidit ha most li el ee chie ed
Has th impact of th test
ee
care
ll
this),
acco
te
or
Principles
CHAPTER
L a n g ua g e A s s e ss m e n t
Consid ticity ma
Multiple-ch ®e®
1_ Have yo offere students appropriat review an preparatio fo th test 2_ Have yo suggeste test-takin strategies that will be beneficial? if possible th best students will be mode tl hall nged nd th we ke tu ents will ot be overwhelmed? 4. Do th te lend it el to ou ivin bene icia wa hback? 5. Are th stud nt courag to se th te as le rnin experience
Dlrectiol Go 1. Ama Oyou; Oyou~
6. Is
"b
G we n
"?
OAre! OYou; Olsgc
is
best;
th
tu
lo
lf
th performance.
in
is ia
(1 id
ti
is
te th positive effect of students awarenes planne
testin
experience will in lu
ic
tasks
-,
in
th
"tricky"
iv io an utilizatio of test-takin some tr te ic te
ti
3. Ama
in
ti
uggestio
strategies ho
lf le
as ossi le
tude ts
oare! oare! Ogotl
Gwe OWha OWhe
5 . A m aR I Ogo Ogoir Ogon
Adapte
Is in te 2. Are item as contextualized as possible rather than isolated 3. Are topics an situations interesting, enjoyable, and/or humorous 4.- Is om th mati organi atio pr vided, uc as throug tory li or episode? Do task re re ent, cl sely approximat real-world tasks?
fror
CHAPTER
ri
Multiple-choice tasks-contextualize
D i e c t o ns : A f e r a ns w e r
h e q U_ 'o ns , c l c k h e S u b m i
Go ng To"
o u a r o in g a r o u o in g o u g on n d o
Gw A r y o g O in g to Y o u a r g O in g to gong do 3. Ama da Melss ar go ng a r g O in g Ogoto
ar
ar
Wo
:I h a t ' it g O in g t o b e Who o in g h e re ' it g O in g be s_
,a R u th ' h o us e .
going Ogonna
Adapte
from Sheila Vietti from Dave's ES Cafe.
ou
o me ?
bu on•
46
P r in c ip l e
CHAPTER
o f L a n g ua g e A s s e ss m e n t
Multiple-choic
tasks-decontextualized
Thefo
G o in g T o
WA s s
oh B.i Jo C . yo u
o in g O in g t o in g
2. tw
A.A o u o in g B . Y o a r O in g t C . I o in g
S he a n
4.
m y E ng l s h c la s s o m o r ro w .
a r g O in g B. ar go ng C . g o in g
Gi
nWed
A . h a t it g o in g o ? B . W h o ' s it g O in g be C . h e re ' it g o n g b e p la ye d
Somet ical. Prepar is reviewinj
eoc
Th sequence item in th contextualiz task chie es modicu of uthenll is ticity by contextualizing ig th real world, even ifwith little le rm lity he equenc of it ms in th iz ta to ic it te ry ly le
what tr tegi occurrence task is to ro Byspe cove thei ia effort The, re likely to
re authentidty
Some enhance wi
A.go B . g o in g C . g o in g
ts would
test offe th
ie
tr
ts
lt fair.
eneficial was id ty
ac
tr
le te
th
labele
ro te as uch.
ia
ti
th
learner?
to
rr
lu
io
te
re
ri
ty
if they aren't specifically
simply list wh journs th
r i c ip le s o f a n u ag e A ss es s
CHAPTER
he ollowi
he klis should help yo to maximi
bene icia washba
nt
47
in te t:
WASHBACK CHECKLIST
will
th
ti te 2. Ha yo give tude ts sufficient pre-test op ortunities to review th te In tt to lu that will contribute to students formativ development? returnin r" th te ri ld in 5. Afte returnin te ts do yo nc urag ue tion ro students 6. time an ircumsta ce ermit, do ou ffer students (esp cially th ts in
"1
-0
ti ic
" ," ,
id io
ly
im
re th
is re
ll
ro
ri ro
ti
'1
th
rn io
ti
An increasingly common
oc urrenc task is
in tude t-centered
effort Th
ey is
lassroom
th
is
'm
t'
r"
li
tu
ts
ts nh nc
wa hb ck
ro
tests. (S
al
Chapte
6.
elf-assessment ma sometime
ment has also be
48
P r in c ip le s o f L a n gu a g e A s s es s m en t
CHAPTER
ig
te ts
larg
rs
le
ty
rs
t.
te lw
ti
the only onsideration
it
is
ll i-
in valu ting or maki
1. Standardized proficienc te production (Student) rece listin tota sc fo listening, gr
2. Timed improm E n s h T W E@ ·
EXERCISES [Note:
Whole-class discussion.]
holistic scor ra
1. (e ll
th
it
ly
ti
iv
in
In th process, try ferentiate four kinds 2. (I/e)
3. One-on-one
overal oral pr receives on
dif-
rt
th
idit
ti 4.
ra
tern
rt
is
umbe of basi princi le autonomy el -confidenc
iv five-n re entati in (Teacher ev rating heet in delivery, rappor
ta
of language cqui ition: intrinsi motivation language go interl nguage nd strategi invest
5.
ri ic
4.
r.
lu
fi
lectur an tak make indivi of S' notes.
nection. 6.
lndi atingtha
th
ri cipl
is
lu
th
io
indicating very intuit in
organization am return essa to
CHAPTER
SCENARIO 1 . S t a nd a r di ze d m u l ti p le -c h o i c p ro f nc es no or or wr production
S(Student) receives report form listin to al sc re an subscore fo listening, grammar, proofreading and readin comprehension.
T im e m p o m p st of wr English(TW E®Test)
Sreceivesa report or listin on holistic scor rangin betwee an 6.
One on on or nt rv ss ss o v er a o r a p r o du ct io n a b t y Sreceive on
4.
holistic scor rangin
g iv e v e m in ut e p re pa re d o r a p re se nt at io n c la ss .
(Teach r)evaluates by illing in rating shee indicating S' succes in delivery, rapport, pronunciation, grammar, and content.
5.
s te n e ct ur e a n
t ee n m in ut e v id e t ak e n o te s
of S' notes.
6.
wr ak p a e ss a o n
o m e o ve rn ig h ss ne op
on
readspape an comments on organization an conten only then returnsessayto fo subsequent draft. (continued)
50
Principles of Language Assessment
CHAPTER
Evah
orally to SCENARIO
ag es ay peer an T-review d, nd turn
Leung, C( opmer
comments on grammatical/rhetorical S.
over
secoru
Erlbau Thist issues it is es respor and re alterns practic
mble rt io semester-lon course
conferences wit
FORYOUR:
on th portfoli
ples of language assessment
lk
in
Weir, Cyri
Basing This sies, ai
6. (G be ore, duri g, an after" strategi s. "Before" tr tegies ri
tr
ie rate
ig
t,
iz
in
ip
ta li
te
ould includ
giving
classrc
im
le
ti
7. (I/G) ic in rm b. Observ
).
th
lo in
it in th if possible th actual administration of th assessment
question yo migh have
ficult
ic
CHAPTER
iple of assessme hapter Presen yo rall to th class.
nd/o
Principles of Language Assessment
51
(b)
findings
Leung,
on tanc (2 05). Cl ssroom teac er as essm nt ec nd la gu ge de el t: tr ti E. Hinkel (Ed.), second language teaching an learning (pp. 869-88 ). Mahw h, N): Lawrence Erlbau Associates. in la ro
lternative ic
-b
ssessm nt th
rela iv
te
it
te ting
icle
re critically discussed, al with some down-to-eart rs il ti th
Weir, Cyril]. (2005) Language testtng and valtdatton:A Basingstoke, 'England: Palgrave Macmillan.
in lang ag
rt
evidence-based approach.
