Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T02:21:28.071Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ecology of assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 December 2008

Carl Falsgraf
Carl Falsgraf*
Affiliation:
Center for Applied Second Language Studies, University of Oregon, USAfalsgraf@uoregon.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Assessment has long been beset by a dichotomy between what Lynch (2003: 4) termed the positivist and interpretivist orientations. The former views assessment as a technical exercise involving the quantification of learners' knowledge or cognitive abilities; the latter considers assessment as the humanistic endeavor of portraying learners' qualitative development and subjective experiences. This presentation argues that, although these distinctions may be useful heuristics, differing types of assessments are more profitably viewed as filling particular niches within an ecosystem. The speech also reports on technical developments that place control over assessment results in the hands of learners, which allows them to assemble evidence from a variety of sources to substantiate proficiency claims. These developments should help promote the paradigm of assessment as ecology and help the field move beyond the uneasy dichotomy that now predominates.

Type
Plenary Speeches
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 42 , Issue 4 , October 2009 , pp. 491 - 503
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, M. J. & Yen, W. M. (1979). Introduction to measurement theory. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.Google Scholar
Bergan, J. R., Sladeczek, I. E., Schwarz, R. D. & Smith, A. N. (1991). Effects of a measurement and planning system on kindergartners’ cognitive development and educational programming. American Educational Research Journal 28, 683–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 5.1, 7–32.Google Scholar
Butler, R. (1988). Enhancing and undermining intrinsic motivation: The effects of task-involving and ego-involving evaluation on interest and performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology 58, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, L., Watanabe, Y. & Curtis, A. (eds.) (2004). Washback in language testing: Research contexts and methods. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fontana, D. & Fernandes, M. (1994). Improvements in mathematics performance as a consequence of self-assessment in Portuguese primary school pupils. British Journal of Educational Psychology 64, 407–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giordano, G. (2005). How testing came to dominate American schools: The history of educational assessment. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Gipps, C. (1994). Developments in educational assessment: What makes a good test? Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 1.3, 283–296.Google Scholar
Lynch, B. K. (2003). Language assessment and programme evaluation. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
McNamara, T. F. (2007). Language assessment in foreign language education: The struggle over constructs. Modern Language Journal 91.2, 280–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2000). Purposeful language assessment: Selecting the right alternative test. English Teaching Forum 39.1. http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol38/no1/p18.htm.Google Scholar
Poehner, M. E. & Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research 9, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stecher, B., Chun, T. & Barron, S. (2004). The effects of assessment-driven reform on the teaching of writing in Washington State. In Cheng et al. (eds.), 53–72.Google Scholar
Thompson, B. (2002). Score reliability: Contemporary thinking on reliability issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Y. (2004). Teacher factors mediating washback. In Cheng et al. (eds.), 129–146.Google Scholar