From the CALPER/LARC Testing and Assessment Webinar Series Download the handouts and ppt: https://larc.sdsu.edu/archived-events/ View the recording: http://vimeo.com/59919647 Presentation Abstract: Foreign language teachers must balance their commitment to meeting learner needs and promoting learner language abilities with their responsibility to generate grades and document learner progress toward curricular objectives. Large-scale, formal testing practices lead many to view teaching and assessment as distinct or even competing activities that classroom practitioners must choose between. The focus of this webinar is how assessment may be conceived not as a separate undertaking but rather as a perspective on teaching and learning activities – that is, a way of looking at regular classroom activities as sources of information regarding forms of learner participation and contribution, difficulties they encounter, and forms of support they require to progress. This way of thinking about assessment’s relation to teaching resonates with recent calls for an Assessment-for-Learning framework, which underscores the relevance to instructional decisions of insights into learner abilities that are gained through informal assessments. It also draws heavily upon the recent innovation of Dynamic Assessment as a principled approach to integrating teaching and assessment as a single activity that supports learners to stretch beyond their current language abilities. Examples of classroom interactions intended to serve both instructional and evaluative purposes will be presented. Participants will be invited to critically examine these examples and, through discussion, to derive principles for teaching and assessing to promote language learning. Webinar Date: February 10, 2011

1. FOREIGN LANGUAGE
CLASSROOM ASSESSMENT IN
SUPPORT OFTEACHING AND
LEARNING
Matt Poehner (mep158@psu.edu)
Center for Advanced Language Proficiency Education and
Research,
The Pennsylvania State University

2. An assessor is:
“an educator whose success is to be judged
by what others learn rather than a referee
for a basketball game who is hired to decide
who is „right‟ or „wrong‟ (Cronbach et al.,
1980)
“Simply knowing the final score of the game
after it is over is not very useful.What we
need is a vivid rendering of how that game is
played” (E.W. Eisner)

3. About Me

4. Relating Assessment to Teaching & Learning
 Divergence b/t activities of intervention in processes of
development (i.e., teaching) & attempts to understand
products of development (i.e., testing… and assessment?)
 Teaching-Assessment Dualism -> both domains developed
(throughout 20th Century) their own theories, research
methods, and forms of practice
 “Incompatible epistemological traditions” (Delandshere 2002, p.
1478)
 Esp. evident in area of Summative Assessment: at end of
period of study learners receive scores, grades, or rankings
to summarize performance, often in relation to others
(Bachman 1990)
◦ How helpful is this „feedback‟ for learner development?

5. Modeling relationship between teaching
and assessment
 Teaching and Assessment are separate enterprises
 Connection, or „spill-over‟ between them, is often viewed as
a negative (narrowing the curriculum, teaching to the test,
washback)
 Closer interface between assessment and teaching
(Bachman & Cohen 1996); diagnostic assessment (Alderson
2006); interactive assessment (ongoing work in HK -
Davison, Hamp-Lyons)
Teaching Assessment

6. 3 Ps of Assessment
1. Purposes:Why are we doing the assessment? What
information do we hope to obtain? What will we do
with this information? What decisions need to be
made?
2. Principles:Where do (language) knowledge and
abilities reside? How can we get at them? Under what
conditions?What/how much can be inferred? How do
we know if our inferences are valid?
3. Practices: Open response or closed response?
Discrete items or tasks/projects? Ongoing or one-off
assessments?Timed assessments? Access to resources?
Permission to interact/collaborate?

7. Moss (2003): Fundamental Differences b/t
PsychometricTesting Paradigm & Classroom
Discrete, one-off activity versus ongoing activity
Opportunities to gather various kinds of info
Formulation of kinds of information that are valued &
to what degree
Authority of „scientific‟ tests to trump other indicators?
Object of assessment – ability as stable trait in an
individual‟s head or emerging through collaborative
performance
Assessment Outcomes – reduction of complexity of
performance to # (percentile ranking, score) or
sharing of work (products & processes)

8. Assumptions Behind Assessment Practices
Delandshere 2002, p. 1480
 CONSIDER: when the same test is given to all sixth
graders in a state to find out whether their educational
experiences yield similar achievements, is it because we
are working from a theory stating that if students have all
been taught the same thing, they all will learn it in the
same way at the same time?
 It seems unlikely that any educator would articulate such
a theory.Yet without this perspective, how can current
forms of state- mandated assessment be justified?
 When assumptions and theoretical explanations are not
made explicit , they tend to appear to be unreasoned
speculations

9. Classroom Assessment - Low Risk?
(Rea-Dickins & Gardner 2000)
 Classroom assessment, despite assumptions to
the contrary, is not necessarily low-stakes,
because it is often the case that high-stakes
decisions are predicated on learners‟ in-class
performance. The problem is that because it
tends to be informal and unsystematic, such an
assessment could well result in either an
overestimation of a learner‟s or a group‟s
ability or conversely, it could underestimate
their progress.

10. Delandshere (2002, p. 1475): From Assessment as
Measurement to Assessment as Inquiry?
 Move from state of having knowledge to action
involving participation, transaction, & transformation
 Move from educational practice of assessment where
we have defined a priori what we are looking for to
educational practice where we are participating in
activities in which we formulate representations to
better understand & transform world
◦ Doesn‟t mean don‟t have criteria to determine quality
 Inquiry – open, critical, dialogic – for purpose of
understanding and supporting learning and
knowing

11. Delandshere (2002, p. 1479): Assessment as
Inquiry (cont.)
 „Typical‟ assessment question: What do students
know?
◦ Most current educational assessment practices rest on
this question, answered by administering tests, scoring
responses
◦ Scores interpreted as representing amount or level of
knowledge each student possesses in test
◦ Consistent w/ early theoretical perspectives on learning
(e.g., behaviorism, assessment questions typically defined
in narrow and oversimplified ways: How is Jenny doing
in spelling this grading period?
 Different theoretical perspective: What do students
know? Or How do they accomplish this task?

12. Efforts to Relate Assessment to
Teaching/Learning
 Embedded Assessments: tasks/projects designed to
perform learning function but also provide basis for
evaluating learner performance (Spence-Brown 2001)
◦ But which orientation will dominate for teachers? And
for students?
 Task-based Pedagogy: difference between parallel
assessment tasks and learning tasks is presence of
teacher support (Candlin 2001)
->Why must teacher be removed from this process
when framed as assessment?

13. Possibility of Integrating Assessment &Teaching?
 In classroom, a single activity performing both evaluative
and instructional functions?
 Question of perspective one wishes to take (i.e.,
viewing as „teaching‟ episode or „assessment‟ episode)?
 Consequences -> How does one proceed to
structure activities/tasks to perform dual function?
How does one approach interactions with
learners?
Assessment-Teaching

14. Formative Assessment
(d‟Anglejan, Harley & Shapson 1990)
 information which will inform teachers and
students about the degree of success of their
respective efforts in the classroom. It allows
teachers to diagnose students‟ strengths and
weaknesses in relation to specific curricular
objectives and thus guides them in organizing
and structuring instructional material

15. Integrating Formative Assessment into
Classroom Practice
• Ellis (2003): Practice-Based or Incidental
Formative Assessment –> Curriculum driven
integrated into the instructional process. May involve:
• External: teachers and students reflect on student
performance while it unfolds or just after it unfolds
• Internal: occurs through teacher questioning,
probing and on-line feedback
• Aligns with calls for Assessment-for-Learning,
idea that assessment with formative feedback should
be embedded in classroom activities (Black &
William, 1996)

16. 16
Importance of feedback in Formative Assessment
- “Feedback, however detailed, will not lead to
improvement until a pupil understands both the
feedback and how to use it in the context of
his/her own work” (Sadler, 1989; cited in Hall and
Burke, 2003: 58)
- While formative assessment may be informally
conducted, feedback and monitoring must be
systematic to avoid underestimates of learner
abilities, overestimates of learner progress (Rea-
Dickins & Gardner)

17. 17
Note about Feedback in Formative
Assessment vs. Learner Self-Assessment
 “If the learner generates the relevant
information by him/herself, the procedure is
a part of self- monitoring” but “if the
source of information is external to the
learner (for example, the teacher), then it is
associated with feedback” (Sadler,1989).
 Sadler (ibid) says that “It is important to
facilitate the transmission from feedback to
self-monitoring”

18. 18
Summary
1. Assessment need not be stand-alone activity at
odds with teaching & learning; can be
perspective on classroom activity, form of
inquiry that accompanies daily practices &
interactions
2. Teachers are implicated in this process
- source of support and feedback during
activity (systematic & tailored)
3. Learners expected to move toward their own
source of feedback/support, guiding themselves
more independently

19. Dynamic Assessment
 an “approach to understanding individual
differences and their implications for
instruction…[that] embeds intervention
within the assessment procedure” (Lidz &
Gindis 2003: 99)
 focuses “on modifiability and on producing
suggestions for interventions that appear
successful in facilitating improved learner
performance” (Lidz 1991: 6)
 From this perspective, all assessments (even
formal testing) must also be formative

20. Importance of the Zone of Proximal
Development (ZPD)
 Actual level of development -> inferred according
to observations of learner independent
work/performances
 Proximal development -> understood according to
learner responsiveness when offered support; how
much more are they capable of when working
cooperatively with others?
 “determining the actual level of development not only
does not cover the whole picture of development, but
very frequently encompasses only an insignificant [italics

21. Importance of Mediation for Diagnosis
 Responsiveness to mediation – support carefully
calibrated to learner needs – indispensable for
understanding cognitive ability (provides insight into
the person‟s future potential development)
- what individual is able to do one day with assistance,
s/he is able to do tomorrow alone
 ZPD always situates instruction ahead of
development relative to abilities in the process of
maturing.The goal of DA is not to measure these
abilities but to help them mature.

22. ZPD and Integration ofTeaching & Assessing
ZPD indicates abilities that are still emerging &
therefore ripe for instructional intervention
so development-oriented teaching should
target ZPD by providing mediation to help
him/her stretch beyond current capabilities
(Teaching)
To determine a learner‟s ZPD involves engaging
him/her in activities beyond his/her current
capabilities and providing mediation as
needed (Assessment)

23. Types of DA
 Interventionist – mediation is scripted beforehand;
mediation must be administered in a standardized format
(same way for everyone)
 Interactionist – mediation is emergent in interaction
between examiner & examinee (or mediator & learner)
 Differences in
Scale Replicability & comparisons
Planning Demands on mediator during procedure
Effectiveness Definitions of effectiveness

24. Inventory of Mediating Prompts
1. Pause
2. Repeat the whole phrase questioningly
3. Repeat just the part of the sentence with the
error
4. Teacher asks,“What is wrong with that
sentence?”
5. Teacher points out the incorrect word
6. Teacher asks either/or question (negros o
negras?)
7. Teacher identifies the correct answer
8. Teacher explains why

25. Sample Cumulative Mediation Chart
(Poehner, 2009)

26. Resources Online
CALPER:
http://calper.la.psu.edu
1. Information regarding Dynamic Assessment, including
ordering the Teachers Guide to Dynamic Assessment as
well as free downloadable documents
2. Assessment website:
http://calper.la.psu.edu/assessment/index.php
Including assessment terminology, overview of assessment
practices, and additional readings