continuing assessment

7/28/2019 Continuing Assessment

1/23

___________________________________________________________________

CRILE Working Papers No. 58 (2004)___________________________________________________________________

Is there life beyond language testing?

An introduction toalternative language assessment.

Dina Tsagari

Abstract

This paper aims to be an introduction to the so-called movement of alternative

assessment (Alderson and Banerjee, 2001) that has recently made its appearance

within the field of language testing and assessment. The paper attempts to familiarise

readers interested in the area with the fundamental principles, much of the associated

terminology and methods. It also raises a number of issues in the hope that they will

serve as a springboard for further discussion, research and experimentation in the field.


2/23

CWP 58 (2004)

2

1. Introduction

Language testing, generally associated with formal assessment procedures such as

tests and examinations carried out at specified times and serving a variety of purposes

(i.e. diagnostic, achievement, progress, etc.), is a vital component of instructionallanguage programmes throughout the world.

While this type of assessment is a mainstay of educational programmes

(Butterfieldet al., 1999), educators and criticsfrom various backgrounds have raised

a number of concerns about its usefulness as the primary measure of student

achievements.

Before attempting to discuss alternative assessment at any length, it is useful

first to look at some of the issues that have contributed to the need for assessment

reform.

2. Concerns about language testing

2.1. Dissatisfaction with types of information gathered

Proponents of process-oriented curricula and instruction argue that traditional testing

techniques, e.g. multiple-choice, fill-in-the-gaps, matching, etc., are often incongruent

with current second/foreign language classroom practices. In particular, they arguethat rich, descriptive information about the products and, more importantly, about the

process of learning and the ongoing measurement of student growth needed for

formative evaluation and for planning instructional strategies cannot be gathered by

conventional testing methods (Barootchi & Keshvarz, 2002). As Genesee and

Hamayan (1994: 229) stress ... tests can be useful for collecting information about

student achievement under certain restricted conditions, but they are not particularly

useful for collecting information about students' attitudes, motivation, interests, and

learning strategies (for similar discussions see also Archbald, 1991; Herman and

Winters, 1994; Madaus, 1988; Resnick and Resnick, 1992; Wiggins, 1989a, 1989b,

1994; Wolfet al., 1991).

2.2 Dissatisfaction with high-stakes/standardised tests

The literature also presents an array of negative criticism with regard to the washback

effects or consequences of high-stakes standardised tests and exams experienced on a

number of levels:


3/23

CWP 58 (2004)

3

i) Curricular level

Critics of high-stakes tests attest that these are responsible for narrowing the school

curriculum by directing teachers to focus only on those subjects and skills that are

included in the examinations. As a consequence, such tests are said to dominate and

distort the whole curriculum (Vernon, 1956: 166; see also Kirkland, 1971; Shepard,

1991; inter alia).

ii) Educational level

Critics also point out that high-stakes examinations affect

a. the methodology teachers use in the classroom, i.e. teachers restrict themethods they use and employ various exam preparation practices (also known

as coaching or cramming) at the expense of other learning activities which

do not always contribute directly to passing the exam (Alderson and Wall,

1993; Haladyna et al., 1991; Shepard, 1990; Wall, 1996),

b. the range, scope and types of instructional materials teachers use, i.e. high-stakes exams gradually turn instructional materials into replicas of the actual

examination papers (Bailey, 1999; Cheng, 1997; Gipps, 1994; Hamp-Lyons,

1998; Hilke, and Wadden, 1997; Lam, 1993; Mehrens & Kaminsky, 1989;

Paris et al., 1991),

c. students learning and studying practices, i.e. in high-stake examinationcontexts students tend to adopt surface approaches to learning as opposed to

deep approaches (Crooks, 1988; Entwistle and Entwistle, 1991; Newstead

and Findlay, 1997). As a result, students reasoning power is impeded, rote-

memorisation is encouraged by concentrating on recall of isolated details and

students resist attempts to engage in risky cognitive activities which can prove

both effective and potentially beneficial for their future improvement (Black

and Wiliam, 1998; Dietel, Herman and Knuth, 1991).

iii) Psychological level

Furthermore, high-stakes standardised tests are also said to have undesirable effects

on:

a. students psychology, i.e. it is believed that the role of the students in contextswhere high-stakes tests are introduced is that of passive recipients of

knowledge and their needs and intentions are generally ignored. High-stakes


4/23

CWP 58 (2004)

4

tests are also said to have detrimental consequences on students intrinsic

motivation, self-confidence, effort, interest and involvement in the language

learning experience and induce negative feelings in students such as anxiety,

boredom, worry and fear, which, according to the literature, are not conducive

to learning (Broadfoot, 2003; Gipps, 1994; Madaus, 1988; Paris et al., 1991;

Spielberger, 1972; Zeidner, 1996, 1998),

b. teachers psychology, i.e. it is argued that the dictates of high-stakes testsreduce the professional knowledge and status of teachers and exercise a great

deal of pressure on them to improve test scores which eventually makes

teachers experience negative feelings of shame, embarrassment, guilt, anxiety

and anger (Gipps, 1994; Herman and Golan, 1993; Johnstone et al., 1995;

Madaus, 1988; Shepard, 1991; Smith, 1991).

2.3 Dissatisfaction with teacher-made tests

In addition to the above, it is also argued that teacher-made tests, if used as the sole

indicators of ability and/or growth of students in the classroom, may generate faulty

results which cannot monitor student progress in the school curriculum (Barootchi &

Keshvarz, 2002; O'Malley & Valdez Pierce, 1992).

It is also believed that the use of tests in classroom settings tends to over-

emphasise the grading function more than the learning function of the language

learning process. As Black and Wiliam (1998) point out, in such contexts there is a

tendency to use a normative rather than a criterion approach to assessment which is

likely to create competition between pupils rather than personal improvement leading

to de-motivation and making students lose confidence in their own capacity to learn

(see also Black, 1993 and Crooks, 1988). In addition, it is also said that teachers do

not generally review the assessment questions or tasks they use in their classroom

tests and do not discuss them critically with peers. As a consequence there is little

reflection on what is being assessed (Black and Wiliam, 1998). Teachers, according to

Black and Wiliam, also do not trust or use their test results as these do not tell them

what they need to know about their students learning and appear to be unaware of the

assessment work of their colleagues, too (see also Harlen & Deakin-Crick, 2002;

2003).


5/23

CWP 58 (2004)

5

2.4 Equity in education

Other than the above, interest groups representing both linguistically and culturally

diverse students and students with special education needs have called for a change in

approaches to assessment that are more multiculturally sensitive and free of

normative, linguistic, and cultural biases found in traditional testing in order to ensure

equity in educational opportunities and achieve educational excellence for all students

(Hamayan, 1995; Huerta-Macias, 1995; Martin-Kniep, 2000; Soodak, 2000; inter

alia).

As a consequence of all the above criticisms, a shift in practice from

psychometrics to educational assessment made its appearance. This new tendency inassessment has come to be known as the alternative assessment movement in recent

state-of-the-art articles (Alderson and Banerjee, 2001; Bachman, 2000; Worthen,

1993).

3. What is alternative assessment?

3.1 Definitions

There is no single definition of alternative assessment in the relevant literature.For

some educators, alternative assessment is a term adopted to contrast with standardised

assessment, e.g. professionally-prepared objective tests consisting mostly of multiple-

choice items especially in the US tradition (Huerta-Macias, 1995). Others look at

alternative assessment in more general terms. For instance, Hamayan (1995) sees that

alternative assessment refers to procedures and techniques which can be used within

the context of instruction and can be easily incorporated into the daily activities of the

school or classroom (ibid:213). To this Smith (1999) adds that [a]lternative

assessment might take place outside the classroom or even the institution at various

points in time, and the subjects being tested may be asked to present their knowledge in

various ways (ibid:703).

Kohonen (1997) makes the point that alternative assessment (the author uses

the term authentic assessment)

. emphasises the communicative meaningfulness of evaluation and the

commitment to measure that which we value in education. It uses such


6/23

CWP 58 (2004)

6

forms of assessment that reflect student learning, achievement, motivation

and attitudes on instructionally-relevant classroom activities ... Its results

can be used to improve instruction, based on the knowledge of learner

progress (ibid:13).

In a more recent publication, Alderson and Banerjee (2001) provide the

following definition:

Alternative assessment is usually taken to mean assessment procedures

which are less formal than traditional testing, which are gathered over

a period of time rather than being taken at one point in time, which are

usually formative rather than summative in function, are often low-stakes

in terms of consequences, and are claimed to have beneficial washback

effects (ibid: 228)

3.2 Some further terminology

Other than the diversity of definitions as to what alternative assessment is, there is

also a plethora of terms used to refer to ways of assessing students language products

and processes without the use of tests.

Other than the term alternative assessment (see Alderson and Banerjee,

2001; Balliro, 1993; Brown and Hudson, 1998a, 1998b; Brown, 1998; Clapham,

2000; Genesee & Upshur 1996; Gipps and Stobbart, 2003; Hamayan, 1995; Hancock,

1994; Herman et al., 1992; Huerta-Macias, 1995; Shohamy, 1998; Smith, 1999; inter

alia), a variety of labels has been used to refer to ways of assessing students language

achievements without the use of tests. The most frequent are:

authentic assessment (Cumming and Maxwell, 1999; Darling-Hammond, 1994;

Elliott, 1991; Fradd et al, 1994; Kohonen, 1997, 1999, 2000; Newman et al., 1998;

OMalley and Valdez Pierce, 1996; Terwilliger, 1997, 1998; Wiggins, 1989a, 1989b,

1993; Wolf et al, 1991; Hart, 1994; inter alia),

performance assessment (Aschbacher, 1991; Shavelson et al., 1992; Soodak,

2000; inter alia),

continuous assessment (Bruton, 1991; Glover & Thomas, 1999; Puhl, 1997;

inter alia),


7/23

CWP 58 (2004)

7

on-going assessment (Carbery, 1999; Croker, 1999; inter alia)

as well as informal assessment, descriptive assessment, direct assessment,

dynamic assessment, instructional assessment, responsive evaluation,

complementary assessment, formative assessment, portfolio assessment,

situated/contextualised assessment and assessment by exhibition.

Due to lack of space the differences in meaning and use could not be discussed here.

The interested reader could explore these through the references mentioned. However,

the term alternative assessment will be used in this paper since it is more generic than

the other terms and it incorporates characteristics of the other commonly-used labels.

4.Benefits of alternative assessment

Researchers and practitioners in the field believe that alternative assessment can:

a. Evaluate the process and product of learning as well as other important

learning behaviours

It is stressed that because most alternative assessment is ongoing in nature, the picture

that emerges about the learner and his or her language proficiency also reflects the

developmental processes that take place in language learning over time. Thus, through

alternative assessment, it is possible to focus on both the process and the product of

language learning (Belanoff & Dickson, 1991; Genesee & Hamayan, 1994; Hamayan,

1995; Wiggins, 1989a, 1989b).

Other than the above belief, educationists also claim that through alternative

assessment it is possible to collect information about some of the factors that

influence achievement found in the students linguistic, cultural, familial or

educational backgrounds, e.g. their prior educational experiences, their family

education, etc. which can be especially important when planning and evaluating the

effectiveness of instruction (Genesee & Hamayan, 1994; Kohonen, 1997; O Malley

and Valdez Pierce, 1996).

Furthermore, Genesee and Upshur (1996) stress that alternative assessment

methods can also gather information about those factors that affect student

achievement which, according to the authors, should be seen as an integral part of

students assessment, e.g.


8/23

CWP 58 (2004)

8

learning strategies (e.g. whether the student takes risks, improvises, focuses onmeaning/form, self-corrects, uses first language strategies)

affective and personality styles (e.g. whether the student is enthusiastic, self-reliant, resourceful, passive)

students work habits (e.g. whether the student is punctual, followsinstructions well, meets goals, prepares for class homework, seeks assistance

when needed)

students social behaviour (e.g. whether the student works cooperatively,socialises with peers, participates in class discussion)

reactions to the course (e.g. student participates actively in class activities,requires extra guidance, shows initiative)

b. Evaluate and monitor instruction

Alternative assessment is also believed to provide a strong link between instruction and

assessment by forming part of a feedback loop that allows classroom teachers to

monitor and modify instruction continually in response to results of student assessment.

This process is illustrated in Figure 1 (adapted from Genesee and Hamayan, 1994:215).

Figure 1. Classroom-based assessment

Instructional PlansRevise Proceed

Instruction

Assessment

Objective

not

achieved

Objective

achieved


9/23

CWP 58 (2004)

9

c. Produce meaningful results to a variety of stakeholders

It is also believed that information obtained from alternative methods of assessment can

be much more useful and informative compared to test scores and easy to interpret and

understand (Alderson and Banerjee, 2001; Clapham, 2000).

Hamayan (1995) makes the point that this represents a tremendous benefit not

only for teachers but other clients of assessment, e.g. students, parents and

administrators. In particular she sees that alternative assessment methods allow

students to see their own accomplishments in terms that they can understand and,

consequently, it allows them to assume responsibility for their learning (ibid: 215)

while parents are offered a clear insight into what their children are doing in school.

Teachers are also provided with data on their students and their classroom for

educational decision-making. (ibid: 215). Alternative assessment also gives them

the opportunity to chronicle the success of the curriculum and can present them with a

framework for organising students work. Even administrators can benefit from

alternative assessment. According to Hamayan, administrators, who are typically

least convinced of the advantages of alternative assessment, can benefit from the clear

information about student and teacher attainment over time (1995: 215).

d. Relate to cognitive psychology and related fields

Furthermore, alternative assessment is also said to be in line with views expressed in

cognitive psychology, which suggest that learning is not linear, but proceeds in many

directions at once and at an uneven pace. Under this perspective, as Dietel et al.

(1991:4) argue, students should be given the opportunity to use the strategies they

acquired at the right time and in the right way so as to apply them for the realization

of particular tasks. They also stress that alternative assessment techniques allow

learners plenty of time to generate rather than choose a response: after recently-

acquired knowledge is brought to the forefront of their minds, the higher-order

thinking skills of synthesis and analysis are required for the learners when

participating in alternative assessment activities, which they can later reconsider by

critically working together with the teacher or other learners in sharing perceptions.

e. Represent a collaborative approach to assessment

Alternative assessment also represents a collaborative approach to assessment that

enables teachers and students to interact in the teaching/learning process (Barootchi &


10/23

CWP 58 (2004)

10

Keshvarz, 2002). Thus, in the context of alternative assessment, collaborative work is

reinforced among students and/or between students and teachers within a relaxed

classroom atmosphere.

f. Support students psychologically

In addition to the above, alternative assessment is said to enhance learners self-esteem

and feelings of efficacy as a growing person. Furthermore, it is believed that alternative

assessment can foster intrinsic learning motivation and learner involvement (Broadfoot,

1986, 2003; Gardner, 1993; Gottlieb, 1995; Kohonen, 1997; Leach et al., 1998;

Mortimer, 1998; Wiggins, 1993; Wolfet al., 1991; inter alia).

g. Promote autonomous and self-directed learning

It has also been argued that participating in alternative assessment can assist learners

in becoming skilled judges of their own strengths and weaknesses and in setting

realistic goals for themselves which can develop their capacity to become self-

directed and autonomous learners (by acquiring the necessary metacognitive

knowledge and strategies, language learning strategies and cognitive styles) and thus

develop lifelong learning skills (Brindley, 2001; Council of Europe, 2001; Kohonen

1999, 2000; Leites & Butureira, 2000; Lemos, 1999; Luoma and Tarnanen, 2003;

inter alia).

h. Provide new roles for teachers

With regard to the role of teachers within the alternative assessment paradigm, Genesee

(2001) points out that [t]hese new evaluation approaches recognise classroom teachers

as reflective, self-motivated professionals (ibid:150) while Kohonen (1997) points that

alternative assessment allows teachers more space for developing criteria (ibid:14) and

strengthens the importance of the teachers professional judgement and commitment

to enhancing student learning (ibid:13).

3.3 Alternative Methods of Assessment

The following list summarises some of the most commonly used types ormethods of

alternative assessment (based on Brown, 1998; Cohen, 1994; Genesee & Hamayan,


11/23

CWP 58 (2004)

11

1994; Genesee and Upshur 1996; Hamayan, 1995; Ioannou-Georgiou and Pavlou,

2003; Newman and Smolen, 1993; OMalley and Valdez Pierce 1996; Short, 1993):

Conferences

Debates Demonstrations Diaries/Journals Dramatizations Exhibitions Games

Observations

Peer-assessment Portfolios Projects Self-assessment Story retelling Think-alouds

It is important to note here, following Hamayans suggestion (1995:218) that the

above methods of assessment need to be distinguished from tools or ways whicheducators can use to recordalternative assessment information. The author cites the

following as the most frequent ways of recording alternative assessment:

Anecdotal records Checklists Learner profiles

Progress cards Questionnaires Rating Scales

(for a different classification of methods of alternative assessment, see also Herman et

al., 1992; Navarrete et al., 1990 and Short, 1993).

5. Concerns raised about certain qualities of alternative assessment

Although alternative assessment provides new possibilities for language evaluation,

concerns about how certain of its qualities (ie conceptual, technical, practical, etc)

may be realised and/or appropriately investigated have been voiced by educational

measurement and language testing specialists. For instance, it is argued that alternative

assessment documentation provides rich data about learning but it is much more cost-

effective and time-consuming for the teacher to administer and analyse thoughtfully in

order to give accurate feedback to the learner - especially in classes with large numbers

of learners (Alderson and Banjeree, 2001; Brindley, 2001; Clapham, 2000; Kohonen,

1997).

Another concern is related to the special skills needed by teachers in order to

successfully implement alternative methods of assessment (Breen et al., 1997; Clark

and Gipps, 2000). As Cizek (2000:2) comments in the context of general education in

the USA: Perhaps the peskiest pocket of resistance in the assessment revolution is


12/23

CWP 58 (2004)

12

the inadequate preparation of teachers and administrators in the fundamentals of

educational assessment. To this Kohonen (1997) adds that learners also need a great

deal of personal supervision and clear guidelines as it is quite likely that certain

learners may resist the new practices, being accustomed to more traditional language

assessment practices.

Brown and Hudson (1998a, 1998b) also point out that alternative assessment

needs to satisfy the same standards or psychometric qualities as do conventional tests,

that isvalidity, reliability andpracticality and should be critically evaluated for their

fitness for purpose (what Bachman and Palmer (1996) called usefulness).Brown

and Hudson also emphasise that decisions for use of any alternative assessment

procedures should also be informed by considerations of consequences (washback)

and the significance, need for, and value of, feedback based on the assessment results

(see also Alderson and Banerjee; 2001; Clapham, 2000; Gipps and Stobbart, 2003 ;

Worthen, 1993).

Hamp-Lyons (1996) and Hamp-Lyons and Condon (2000), on the basis of

their studies of portfolio assessment mainly conducted in the US, also argue the case

for the adoption of a number of practices to ensure an ethical basis for the evaluation

of alternative assessments, focusing their discussion on the following criteria:

1. transfer andgeneralizability

2. cognitive complexity3. content quality4. content coverage

5. meaningfulness6. cost and effect

The question of whether alternative assessment can be used for large-scale evaluation is

also discussed in the literature devoted to alternative assessment. Worthen (1993:447-

453) proposes that alternative assessment can reach its full potential in education for

large-scale assessment applications if:

1. conceptual clarity is achieved to ensure consistency in the applications ofalternative assessment.

2. a mechanism for evaluation and self-criticism of alternative assessment practicesis established.

3. the users of alternative assessment, whether they are teachers or administrators,become well versed in issues of assessment and measurement.

4. standardisation of assessment judgements is introduced.


13/23

CWP 58 (2004)

13

5. the ability to assess complex thinking skills can be established.6. educations key stakeholders (e.g. legislators, school boards, teachers, students,

associations of professional educators, etc) are persuaded of its importance and

usefulness.

7. the fiscal and logistic feasibility of alternative assessment for large-assessmentis shown.

(see also Brindley, 1998; Gipps and Stobbart, 2003 ; Stansfield, 1994).

Worthen also suggests that in the interim, it would seem prudent to develop and test

alternative assessment approaches in low-stakes settings where they can serve needs

for better classroom assessment (ibid : 451).

Van Daalen (1999:21) concurs that there is a need for on-going research on

psychometric features of alternative assessment as part of the development of

alternative assessment procedures. Hamp-Lyons (1997) also sees the need for further

studies: We must conduct studies of the impact of alternative assessment, on the

same basis that we apply to traditional forms of assessment. We cannot assume that

because alternative assessments start from humanistic concerns they produce

outcome that do only good and no harm (ibid:300)

6. Responses to concerns raised

Advocates of alternative assessment object to the above views on philosophical

grounds. For instance, Huerta-Macias (1995) argues that alternative assessment is

valid and reliable by virtue of its close integration with learning and teaching:

trustworthiness of a measure consists of its credibility and auditability.

Alternative assessments are in and of themselves valid, due to the direct

nature of the assessment. Consistency is ensured by the auditability of

the procedure (leaving evidence of decision making processes), by using

multiple tasks, by training judges to use clear criteria, and by

triangulating any decision making process with varied sources of data

(for example, students, families and teachers). Alternative assessment

consists of valid and reliable procedures that avoid many of the

problems inherent in traditional testing including norming, linguistic,

and cultural biases (ibid: 10)


14/23

CWP 58 (2004)

14

Hamayan (1995), a strong supporter of alternative assessment, also argues that

alternative assessment approaches provide a wealth of information which could serve

as a context for more valid interpretations of standardised test results. She also

stresseds that information from alternative assessment procedures can constitute the

sole basis for educational and instructional decision-making.

Lynch (2001) further argues that alternative assessment represents a different

paradigm (an assessment culture) and therefore cannot be evaluated from within the

traditional positivist framework of educational measurement (a testing culture).

Other researchers have also suggested that the application of psychometric criteria for

technical adequacy may result in comparisons that reflect unfairly on alternative

methods of assessment (Gipps, 1994; Linn et al., 1991; Moss, 1992). In this regard, it

has been argued that new rules of evidence are needed for alternative assessment. In

an attempt to address this issue, Linn et al. (1991) have proposed that a different set of

validation criteria needs to be applied to alternative assessment, for instance:

the extent of transfer and generalizabilty of the assessment tasks beyond theassessment situation

the cognitive complexity of students responses to the assessment tasks the content quality of the tasks the adequacy of sampling the meaningfulness of the assessment to students and the cost efficiency of the assessment system

(see also Garcia & Pearson, 1991; Gipps, 1994; Van Daalen, 1999)

7. Conclusion

The alternative assessment paradigm, as discussed in the present paper, is seen to

embody a different concept of assessment, i.e. assessment as an essential part of the

learning process. However, further theoretical and empirical work needs to be done to

examine alternative assessment practices in depth. For example, we need to

reconceptualise alternative assessment and its relationship to standardised testing, to

understand how the aspects of alternative assessment are actually accomplished in

classroom interaction and to develop appropriate theory and research methods in the

study of this highly complex and dynamic teaching-learning-assessing interface

before any definite conclusions about its positive effects on teaching and learning are


15/23

CWP 58 (2004)

15

drawn. Therefore, the present paper makes an urgent appeal to future researchers with

an interest in the area to conduct empirical research in this exciting field within

foreign/second language settings.


16/23

CWP 58 (2004)

16

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alderson, J. C. and Banerjee, J. 2001. Language testing and assessment (Part 1).

Language Teaching 34, 4:213-236.

Alderson, J. C. and Wall, D. 1993. Does washback exist? Applied Linguistics 14, 2:115-129.

Archbald, D. A. 1991. Authentic assessment: an introduction to a neo-behavioural

approach to classroom assessment. School Psychology Quarterly 6, 4: 273-278.

Aschbacher, P. R. 1991. Performance assessment: State activity, interest and

concerns.Applied Measurement in Education 4, 4: 275-288.

Bachman, L. F. 2000. Modern language testing at the turn of the century: assuring

that we count counts. Language Testing 17, 1: 1-42.

Bachman, L. F. and Palmer, A. S. 1996. Language Testing in Practice. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Bailey, K. M. 1999. Washback in Language Testing. TOEFL Monograph Series MS-

15. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Balliro, L. 1993. What kind of alternative? Examining alternative assessment. TESOL

Quarterly 27, 3:558-561.

Barootchi, N. and Keshavarz, M. H. 2002. Assessment of achievement throughportfolio and teacher-made tests.Educational Research 44, 3:279-288.

Belanoff, P. and Dickson, M. eds. 1991. Portfolios: Process and Product. Portmouth,

NH: Boyton/Cook.

Black, P. and Wiliam, D. 1998. Assessment and Classroom Learning. Assessment in

Education: principles, policy and practice 5, 1: 7-74.

Black, P. J. 1993. Formative and summative assessment by teachers. Studies in

Science Education 21, 49-97.

Breen, M., Baratt-Pugh, C., Derewianka, B., House, H., Hudson, C., Lumley T. and

Roth, M. 1997. Profiling ESL children. Volume 1: Key issues and findings. Canberra;

Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

Brindley, G. 1998. Outcomes-based assessment and reporting in language learning

programmes: A review of the issues. Language Testing 15, 1: 45-85.

Brindley, G. 2001. Outcomes-based assessment in practice: some examples and

emerging insights.Language Testing 18, 4:393-407.

Broadfoot, P. M. ed. 1986. Profiles and records of achievement. London: Holt,


17/23

CWP 58 (2004)

17

Rinehart and Wilson.

Broadfoot, P. M. 2003. Dark Alleys and Blind Bends: Testing the Language of

Learning. Paper presented over the 25th Language Testing Research Colloquium, 22-

25 July, University of Reading.

Brown, J. B. ed. 1998.New Ways of Classroom Assessment.USA: TESOL.

Brown, J. B. and Hudson, T. 1998a. The alternatives in language assessment

TESOL Quarterly 32, 4:653-675.

Brown, J. B. and Hudson, T. 1998b. The alternatives in language assessment:

Advantages and Disadvantages. University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL, 16,

2:79-103.

Bruton, A. 1991. Testing round the world: continuous assessment in Spanish State

Schools.Language Testing Update, 10:14-20.

Butterfield, S., Williams, A. and Marr, A. 1999. Talking about Assessment: mentor-

student dialogues about pupil assessment in initial teacher training. Assessment in

Education 6, 2:225- 246.

Carbery, S. 1999. Fundamentals of on-going assessment. Shiken: JALT Testing &

Evaluation SIG Newsletter3, 1:3-7.

Cheng, L. 1997. The Washback Effect of Public Examination Change on Classroom

Teaching. Department of Linguistics , University of Hong Kong: PhD thesis..

Cizek, G. 2000. Pockets of resistance in the assessment revolution. Educational

Measurement: Issues and Practice 19, 3:19-23.

Clapham, C. 2000. Assessment and Testing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics

20:147-161.

Clark, S. and Gipps, C. 2000. The role of teachers in teacher assessment in England

1996-1998.Evaluation and Research in Education 14:38-52.

Cohen, A. D. 1994. Assessing language ability in the classroom. 2

nd

edition. Boston,MA: Heinle and Heinle.

Council of Europe 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:

Learning, teaching, assessment.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crooks, T. J. 1988. The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review

of Educational Research 58: 438-481.

Croker, R. 1999. Fundamentals of on-going assessment. Shiken: JALT Testing &

Evaluation SIG Newsletter3, 1:8-12.


18/23

CWP 58 (2004)

18

Cumming, J. J. and Maxwell, G. S. 1999. Contextualising Authentic Assessment

Assessment in Education 6, 2:177-194.

Darling-Hammond, L. 1994. Performance-based assessment and educational equity.

Harvard Educational Review 64, 1: 5-30.

Dietel, R. J., Herman, J. L. and Knuth, R. A. 1991. What does research say about

assessment. NCREL, 1-17. Available online at

http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/stw_esys/4assess.htm

Elliott, S. 1991. Authentic assessment: an introduction to a neobehavioral approach to

classroom assessment. School Psychology Quarterly 6, 4:273-278.

Entwistle, N. J. and Entwistle, N. 1991. Contrasting forms of understanding for

degree examinations: The student experience and its implications. Higher Education,

22:205-227.

Fradd, S. H., Larrinaga McGee, P. and Wilen, D. K. 1994.Instructional Assessment.

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Garcia, G. E. and Pearson, P. D. 1991. The Role of Assessment in a Diverse Society.

InLiteracy for a Diverse Society, eds. E. F. Hiebert. New York: Teachers

College Press.

Gardner, H. 1993. Assessment in context: the alternative to standardized testing. In

Changing assessments: alternative views of aptitude, achievement and instruction

eds. R. Gifford and M. C. OConnor. Massachusetts, USA: Kluwer Academic Press.

Genesee, F. 2001. Evaluation. In The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to

Speakers of Other Languages, eds. T. Carter and D. Nunan. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press. Pp. 144-150.

Genesee, F. and Hamayan, E.1994. Classroom-based assessment. InEducating Second

Language Children. eds. F. Genesee Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 212-

239.

Genesee, F. and Upshur, J. 1996. Classroom-based Evaluation in Second Language

Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gipps, C. and Stobbart, G. 2003. Alternative Assessment. InInternational Handbook

of Educational Evaluation, eds. T. Kellaghan, D. L. Stufflebeam and L. A.Wingate.

Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Pp. 549-576.

Gipps, C. V. 1994. Beyond Testing: towards a theory of educational assessment.

London: Falmer Press.

Glover, P. and Thomas, R. 1999. Coming to grips with continuous assessment.

Assessment in Education 6, 1:117-127.


19/23

CWP 58 (2004)

19

Gottlieb, M. 1995. Nurturing student learning through portfolios. TESOL Journal

5, 1:12-14.

Haladyna, T. M., Nolen, S. B. and Haas, N. S. 1991. Raising standardized

achievement tests scores and the origins of test score pollution. Educational Research

20, 5:2-7.

Hamayan, E. V. 1995. Approaches to Alternative Assessment. Annual Review of

Applied Linguistics 15:212-226.

Hamp-Lyons, L. 1996. Applying ethical standards to portfolio assessments in writing

in English as a second language. In Performance Testing, Cognition and Assessment,

eds. M. Milanovic and N. Saville. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 151

164..

Hamp-Lyons, L. 1997. Washback, impact and validity: ethical concerns. LanguageTesting, 14/3:295-303.

Hamp-Lyons, L. 1998. Ethical Test Preparation Practice: The Case of the TOEFL.

TESOL QUARTERLY(Forum Commentary) 32(2): 329-337.

Hamp-Lyons, L. and Condon W. 2000.Assessing the Portfolio. New Jersey: Hampton

Press Inc.Cresskill.

Hancock, C. R. 1994. Glossary of Selected Terms. In Teaching, Testing and

Assessment: Making the Connection, ed. C. R. Hancock .Lincolnwood, Illinois, USA:

National Textbook Company. Pp. 235-240.

Harlen, W. and Deakin-Crick, R. 2002. A systematic review of the impact of

summative assessment and tests on students motivation for learning (EPPI- Centre

Review, version 1.1) Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre,

Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education. Available online at

http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/

Harlen, W. and Deakin-Crick, R. 2003. Testing and motivation for learning.

Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 10, 2:169-208.

Hart, D. 1994.Authentic assessment: a handbook for educators. New York: Addison-

Wesley.

Herman, J. L., Aschbacher, P. R. and Winters, L. 1992.A practical guide to

alternative assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

Herman, J. L. and Golan, S. 1993. The effects of standardized testing on teaching and

schools.Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices 12, 4:20-25.

Herman, J. and Winters, L. 1994. Portfolio research: a slim collection.EducationalLeadership 52, 2:48-55.


20/23

CWP 58 (2004)

20

Hilke, R. and Wadden, P.1997. The TOEFL and its Imitators: Analyzing the TOEFL

and Evaluating TOEFL-prep texts.RELC Journal 28(1): 29-53.

Huerta-Macias, A. 1995. Alternative assessment: responses to commonly asked

questions. TESOL Journal 5, 1: 8-11.

Ioannou-Georgiou, S. and Pavlou, P. 2003.Assessing Young Learners. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Johnstone, P., Guice, S., Baker, K., Malone, J. and Michelson, N. 1995. Assessment

of teaching and learning in literature-based classrooms. Teaching and Teacher

Education 11:359-371.

Kirkland, M. C. 1971. The effects of tests on students and schools. Review of

Educational Research 41:303-350.

Kohonen, V. 1997. Authentic Assessment as an Integration of Language Learning,

Teaching, Evaluation and the Teachers Professional Growth. In Current Developments

and Alternatives in Language Assessment: Proceedings of LTRC1996, eds. A., Huhta,

V. Cohonen, L. Kurki-Suonio and S. Luoma. University of Jyvaskyla: Jyvaskyla. Pp.7-

22.

Kohonen, V. 1999. Authentic assessment in affective foreign language education. In

Affect in Language Learning, ed. J. Arnold. Cambridge: CUP. Pp. 279-294.

Kohonen, V. 2000. Student reflection in portfolio assessment: making language

learning more visible.Babylonia 1:15-18.

Lam, H. P. 1993.Washback-Can it be quantified ? A study on the impact of English

English Examinations in Hong Kong. Department of Linguistics, University of Leeds,

UK: MA dissertation.

Leach. L., Neutze G. and Zepke, N. 1998. Motivation in assessment. In Motivating

Students, eds. S. Brown, S. Armstrong, G. Thompson. England: Kogan Page. Pp. 201-

209

Leites, M. and Butureira, A. 2000. Self-directed learning as a growing trend in in-

company EFL.Humanizing Language Teaching 2, 6:1-7. Available online at:

http://www.hltmag.co.uk/NOV00/sart2.htm

Lemos, M. S. 1999. Students goals and self-regulation in the classroom.

International Journal of Educational Research 31, 6: 471-485.

Linn, R., Baker, E. and Dunbar, S. 1991.Complex, performance-based: expectations

and validation criteria.Educational Researcher 20:15-21.

Luoma, S. and Tarnanen, M. 2003. Creating a self-rating instrument for L2 writing:from idea to implementation.Language Testing 20, 4:440-465.


21/23

CWP 58 (2004)

21

Lynch, B. 2001. Rethinking assessment from a critical perspective.Language Testing

18, 4: 351-372.

Madaus, G. F. 1988. The influence of Testing on the Curriculum. In Critical Issues in

Curriculum:87th Yearbook for the National Society for the Study of Education , ed.L. N. Tanner. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pp. 83-121.

Martin-Kniep, G. O. 2000. Standards, feedback, and diversified assessment:

addressing equity issues at the classroom level. Reading & Writing Quarterly 16:

239256

Mehrens, W. A. and Kaminski, J. 1989. Methods for improving standardized test

scores: fruitful, fruitless or fraudulent? Educational Measurement: Issues and

Practice 8, 1:14-22.

Mortimer, J. 1998. Motivating Student Learning through Facilitating Independence: Self

and Peer Assessment of Reflective Practice An Action Research Project. InMotivating

Students, eds. S. Brown, S. Armstrong and G. Thompson. England: Kogan Page. Pp.

173-187

Moss, P. A. 1992. Shifting conceptions of validity in educational measurement:

implications for performance assessment.Review of Educational Research 62, 3:229-

258.

Navarrete, C., Wilde, J., Nelson, C., Martinez, R., and Hargett, G. 1990. Informal

assessment in educational evaluation: Implications for bilingual education programs.Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

Newman, C. and Smolen, L. 1993. Portfolio assessment in our schools:

implementation, advantages and concerns. Mid-Western Educational Researcher6:

28-32.

Newman, F., Brandt, R. and Wiggins, G. 1998. An exchange of views on semantics,

psychometrics, and assessment reform: a close look at authentic assessments.

Educational Researcher27, 6:19-22.

Newstead, S. E. and Findlay, K. 1997. Some problems with using examinationperformance as a measure of teaching ability. Psychology Teaching Review 6, 1:23-

30.

OMalley, M. and Valdez Pierce, L. 1996.Authentic assessment for English language

learners. New York: Addison-Wesley.

Paris, S. G., Lawton, T. A., Turner, J.C. and Roth, J. L. 1991. A developmental

perspective on standardized achievement testing. Educational Researcher 20, 5:12-

20.


22/23

CWP 58 (2004)

22

Puhl, C. A. 1997. Develop, Not Judge: Continuous Assessment in the ESL Classroom.

English Teaching Forum 35, 2:2-9.

Resnick, L., and Resnick, D. 1992. Assessing the thinking curriculum : New Tools for

educational reform. In Changing assessments: Alternative views of aptitude,

achievement and instruction, eds.B. R. Giord and M. C. O. Connor. Boston, MA:Kluwer. Pp. 3775.

Shavelson, R. J., Baxter, G. P. and Pine, J. 1992. Performance assessments: political

rhetoric and measurement reality. Educational Researcher21, 4:22-27.

Shepard, L. A. 1990. Inflated test score gains: is the problem old norms or teaching

the test?Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 9:15-22.

Shepard, L. A. 1991. Will national tests improve student learning? CSE Technical

Report 342, CREEST, University of Colorado, Boulder. Available online at

http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/

Shohamy, E. 1998. Alternative assessment in language testing: applying a

Multiplism approach. In Testing and Evaluation in Second Language Education, eds.

E. Li, and G. James. Hong Kong: Language Centre, Hong Kong University of Science

and Technology. Pp. 99-114

Short, D. J. 1993. Assessing integrated language and content instruction. TESOL

Quarterly 27, 4: 627-656.

Smith, M. L. 1991. Put to the test: the effects of external testing on teachersEducational Researcher20, 5:8-11.

Smith, K. 1999. Language Testing: Alternative Methods. In Concise Encyclopedia of

Educational Linguistics, ed. B. Spolsky. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Pp. 703-706.

Soodak, L. C. 2000. Performance assesement: exploring issues of equity and fairness.

Reading and Writing Quarterly 16: 175178.

Spielberger, C. D. 1972. Anxiety: Current trends in theory and research. New York:

Academic Press.

Stansfield, C. 1994. Developments in foreign language testing and instruction: A

national perspective. In Teaching, testing and assessment: Making the connection eds.

C. Hancock, C. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company. Pp.43-67.

Terwilliger, J. 1997. Semantics, psychometrics, and assessment reform: a close look

at authentic assessments.Educational Researcher26, 8:24-27.

Terwilliger, J. 1998. Rejoinder: response to Wiggins and Newman. Educational

Researcher26, 6:22-23.

Van Daalen, M. 1999. Test Usefulness in Alternative Assessment.Dialog on


23/23

CWP 58 (2004)

Language Instruction 13,1&2:1-26.

Vernon, P. E. 1956. The Measurement of Abilities (2ndedition). London: University of

London Press.

Wall, D. 1996. Introducing new tests into traditional systems: insights from generaleducation and from innovation theory.Language Testing 13, 3:334-354.

Wiggins, G. 1989a. A true test: Toward more authentic and equitable assessment. Phi

Delta Kappan 70:703-713.

Wiggins, G. 1989b. Teaching to the (authentic) test.Educational Leadership 46,7:41-

47.

Wiggins, G. 1993.Assessing student performance. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Wiggins, G. 1994. Toward more authentic assessment of language performances. InTeaching, Testing and Assessment: Making the Connection, ed. C. R. Hancock.

Lincolnwood, Illinois USA: National Textbook Company. Pp. 94:69-85.

Wolf, D., J. Bixby, J. Glenn, and Gardner, H. 1991. To use their minds well:

Investigating new forms of student assessment. Review of Research in Education 17:

31-74.

Worthen, B. R 1993. Critical issues that will determine the future of alternative

assessment. Phi Delta Kappan 74, 6:444-456.

Zeidner, M. 1996. How do high school and college students cope with test situations?

British Journal of Educational Psychology 66:115-128.

Zeidner, M. 1998. Test Anxiety The State of the Art. New York: Plenum Press.

continuing assessment

Documents