Understanding Classroom Language Assessment Through Teacher Thinking Research

Abstract

While research into classroom language assessment has expanded in recent years, the nature of thought processes used by teachers when conducting such assessment has received less attention. This article reports on research that explored these cognitions through case studies of two instructors teaching an EAP (English for Academic Purposes) course in a UK university language center; data collection involved classroom observations, interviews, and stimulated recalls. This paper describes the numerous types of cognitions that the study found teachers drew upon when assessing students. Based upon these findings, the paper also suggests ways for improving classroom assessment, highlights the influence of managerialism, and considers the social construction of student language ability in the classroom.

Notes

¹This definition was arrived at by taking one from Airasian (1997, p. 4)—”the collection, synthesis, and interpretation of information to aid the teacher in decision-making”—and amending it with aspects of the definition provided by Leung (2004, p. 20)—”the noticing and gathering of information about student language use in ordinary (non-contrived) classroom activities, and the use of that information to make decisions about language teaching without necessarily quantifying it or using it for reporting purposes.” The advantages of Airasian's definition are that 1) it leaves the decision undetermined—that is, the information could be used for formative or summative purposes—and 2) it highlights the interpretive nature of assessment (a la Messick, 1989). However, Airasian is writing for a general education readership (mainly primary and secondary teachers in training) and includes assessment of aspects such as student motivation and interest level; this study is focused on language classrooms and in assessment of student language use, and so his definition has been narrowed with parts of Leung's (who is writing within the field of language teaching). Leung's definition has not been taken wholesale because it reflects his particular interest in formative assessment, while this study was designed to “cast a wider net” and consider assessment for a range of purposes and how assessment for different purposes may interact in a teacher's thinking (e.g., how summative assessments impact on formative assessments and vice versa).

²Royal Society of Arts Diploma in Teaching English as a Foreign Language to Adults, a teaching qualification replaced by Cambridge ESOL's Diploma in English Language Teaching to Adults, or DELTA.

³This practice was done usually outside of class time, and thus is not examined in detail here. In fact, tutorial sessions that teachers held with students outside class time to read and discuss written work were also mentioned by the case teachers and focus group teachers as important contexts for formative assessment of students.

⁴Bracketed information refers to location in transcripts. A and B refer to teachers IA and IB, respectively, followed by recall session number, and then line numbers after the colon.

⁵A similar idea, that certain “micro” decisions are nested in earlier “macro” decisions, is expressed by Woods (1996).

⁶Of course, several syllabus items such as “turn taking” and “recognising transition and signalling devices” can also be seen as linguistic in nature, depending on one's definition of the language construct.