Classroom-based assessment is an ongoing process that involves a great number of decisions. For example, it is important to decide the precise purpose of the assessment, the knowledge and abilities to be assessed, the assessment procedures and instruments to be followed, and the manner in which assessment outcomes will be reported to stakeholders.
Elana Shohamy (1998) has explained that at each of these “phases”in the assessment process, there are multiple options. She elaborates that there are multiple assessment purposes, multiple ways of defining language knowledge and abilities, multiple assessment procedures that may be followed, etc. This multiplism perspective in language assessments means that there are a great many assessment possibilities to consider as you determine what best suits your specific instructional context. In what follows, we will describe some of these possibilities.
In terms of assessment purpose, multiplism refers to the different reasons one may have for conducting an assessment. Of course, assessment in the classroom should ultimately be about supporting teaching and learning, but in addition to this general goal, more specific purposes can be identified. These are summarized in Figure 1.
| Predict learners’ success | Placement into groups or levels | Providing feedback to learners | Tracking learner progress and development | Conducting research | Promoting students to next level of study | Certifying learner competence |
Figure 1: Assessment Purposes
While in the past, tests were the major form of assessment, a variety of assessment procedures and approaches currently exist. These range from open-ended and informal assessments, such as observations, to performance tasks that simulate authentic language contexts learners may encounter. Each of these assessment approaches is chosen on the basis of its characterizing features and suitability for the assessment context and purpose. It is important to note that although tests are no longer the only means of assessment they are still recognized as valuable instruments for certain purposes such as some summative assessments or external assessments used for classification. Figure 2 provides examples of diverse assessments.
| Portfolios | Self assessment | Exhibitions | Simulations | Role plays | Oral debates | Projects | Presentations |
| Drama | Learning logs | Dialogue journals | Speeches or monologues | Interviews | Peer assessments | Essays | Tests |
Figure 2: Examples of classroom assessments
Rather than the traditional testing model in which all test-takers worked independently on paper-and-pencil tasks, conditions for administering assessments now include on-line assessments, video and audio components as well as individual and small group formats. In one approach, known as Dynamic Assessment, the assessor interacts with the learning offering hints, prompts, and leading questions. These are summarized in Figure 3.
| Identical for all test takers | Individualized | Interaction between assessor and learner | Group format | In-class or take-home | Paper-and-pencil | Online | Use of audio and video |
Figure 3: Multiple ways of administering assessments
Determining criteria for judging the quality of language knowledge or performance is a complicated matter that relates to whether the language knowledge or abilities targeted are based on a theory of competence or proficiency or on a curriculum or set of standards. The assessment approach one uses also plays a role. For example, a closed item test or quiz (e.g., a multiple choice exam) is more easily scored than an assessment that is open to multiple interpretations, as in a performance assessment. Rubrics and rating scales, informed by standards and guidelines, can help to determine the quality of performance. Figure 4 lists several options for assigning value to an assessment performance.
| Total score (# of correct answers) | Standards, benchmarks, competencies, bandscales | Holistic or analytic rating scales | Rubrics | Guidelines (e.g., ACTFL) | Native, near-native, advanced, etc. |
Figure 4: Multiple criteria for determining the quality of assessment performance
Assessment outcomes can be reported to various stakeholders, including learners, parents, administrators, bureaucrats, and institutions. The manner of reporting will change depending on its purpose and future use. For instance, if the assessment was conducted to monitor learner progress, the results will be discussed with the learners in detail and feedback will be provided. If, on the other hand, results are to be sent to other parties, such as administrators or officials, a conference, profile, report, or set of scores may be used. Various possibilities are included in Figure 5.
| Scores | Diagnostic information | Profiles | Pass/Fail | Comparisons among learners | Verbal descriptions and interpretive summaries | Narratives |
Figure 5: Multiple ways of reporting results
To better appreciate how a multiplism perspective can guide assessment decisions in the language classroom, consider the following example.
Jack Fillmore has studied Japanese for 6 years and is in the advanced language learning class. He is also studying social studies in Japanese and is now ending the first semester of the last year of his studies.
Throughout the semester Jack was assessed through a variety of approaches in both his Japanese language class and his social science classes. The assessment approaches included: tests, written and oral performance-based tasks (projects, a written and oral report, a book task, simulated conversations with various interlocutors). Jack has chosen to include of the tasks in a portfolio. The portfolio contents were chosen according to a list provided by the teacher of compulsory (core) and optional components. The portfolio was handed in to the teacher and a grade assigned according to given criteria. Jack has also self-assessed the portfolio according to the same criteria looking at each of the components as well as the entire portfolio.
Following the assessment, Jack and two of his teachers – the teacher of Japanese and one of his content class teachers – conduct an assessment conferencing session. The participants, including Jack himself, discuss the achievements in the various areas, exchange views on certain portfolio components and their quality, and provide feedback on what needs to be improved. Jack has self-assessed his ability according to a set of guidelines provided by the teachers. In this conference the teachers and the student map Jack’s needs in view of the evidence presented. The comprehensive picture they get from the multiple sources allows them to do so fully by relating to both Jack’s overall ability as well as to specific language components.
At the end of the conference the participants draw a profile of Jack’s language abilities and needs. This will serve to plan future work and designated progress for both the teachers and the student. A report summarizing the conference decisions will be sent to Jack’s parents and to the school administration.
The notion of multiplism is present in the above example in a number of ways, including:
Suggested Readings:
Next section : Assessing Modalities