Outcomes-based assessment and reporting in language learning programmes: a review of the issues

Abstract

In recent years educational authorities in many countries have introduced outcomes-based assessment and reporting systems in the form of national standards, frameworks and benchmarks of various kinds which are used both for purposes of system accountability and for assessing individual progress and achievement in language learning. However, in some cases the introduction of these systems has proved problematic, owing to a number of political, technical and practical factors. These include the difficulty of combining formative assessment with summative reporting, the differing information requirements of different audiences, concerns about the validity and reliability of outcome statements and the lack of appropriate resources to support implementation. Such problems may be able to be alleviated by closer consultation between policy-makers, administrators and practitioners, by undertaking further research into the validity and consistency of outcome statements and by strengthening the links between assessment and reporting. A major investment in teacher professional development is necessary if teachers are to be responsible for carrying out their own assessments. Ongoing research needs to be conducted into the effects of outcomes-based assessment and reporting on student learning.

Language Program Evaluation

“…Another major impetus for language program evaluation takes the form of accreditationmandated student learning outcomes assessment in higher education. In the United States, accreditation of universities is conducted by federally authorized regional accrediting agencies, and the major focus of accreditation in the modern era is on 'student learning effectiveness' (Ewell, 2001; for examples outside of the United States, see Brindley, 1998Brindley, , 2001. The primary mechanism for gauging this dimension of universities comes in the form of a mandate that all academic programs should regularly assess the key learning outcomes of their students, for example, as they graduate from major degree programs.…”

Building Teachers’ Assessment Capacity for Supporting English Language Learners Through the Implementation of the STEP Language Assessment in Ontario K-12 Schools

“…Rather less attention has been paid to how these descriptors-based proficiency scales have influenced teacher instruction and assessment practice or to their usefulness for students. Several recent studies have focused on highlighting the diagnostic and formative purposes of descriptors-based proficiency scales for language teaching and learning (Brindley, 1998;Colby-Kelly & Turner, 2007;Davison, 2004;Hamp-Lyons, 2007;Rea-Dickens, 2004Teasdale & Leung, 2000).…”

“…Studies exploring teachers' assessment practices and their use of proficiency scales have demonstrated teachers' needs associated with implementing effective language assessment in their classrooms, including the need for clear and interpretable proficiency scales (Davison & Leung, 2009;Llosa, 2011;Rea-Dickens, 2004). Research has also documented several challenges, including variability in teachers' assessments based on their views of assessment criteria (Butler, 2009), their perceptions of student motivation (Butler, 2009), their assessment literacy (Fulcher, 2012;InbarLourie, 2013;Malone, 2013;Taylor, 2009Taylor, , 2013, and the complex nature of the classroom context (Brindley, 1998). For instance, investigating teachers' language assessment practices, Davison (2004) described several of these challenges.…”

Stakeholders' Beliefs About the TOEFL iBT® Test as a Measure of Academic Language Ability

“…Research on the testing of second language acquisition has repeatedly demonstrated that test tasks should reflect reallife learning situations (Bachman, 1990(Bachman, , 2002Darling-Hammond, 1994;Freedman, 1991;Linn, Baker, & Dunbar, 1991). A number of studies have suggested that teacher input can improve testing (Brindley, 1998(Brindley, , 2001Chalhoub-Deville, 1995;Elder, 1993;Epp & Stawychny, 2001;Grant, 1997;North, 1995North, , 2000O'Sullivan, Weir, & Saville, 2002;Stansfield & Kenyon, 1996; Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages [TESOL], 1998). In addition, Griffin (1995), Hoge and Coladarci (1989), Meisels, Bickel, Nicholson, Xue, and Atkins-Burnett (2001), and Sharpley and Edgar (1986) have suggested that teacher input can provide benefits for test design, because such input often results in suggestions for a more authentic learning situation reflected in the test.…”