Phakiti and Leung

This Element reviews the key foundational concepts, beliefs,

and practices underpinning approaches to assessment in
English language teaching. Exploring major concepts and
practices through educational, social, and ethical perspectives,
it offers theoretically informed and close-to-practice
descriptions and up-to-date explanations of the affordances Language Teaching
and limitations of different assessment approaches related
to language teaching. This Element presents a cohesive
and pragmatic framework that allows teachers to efficiently
implement tests and assessments in their contexts.

Assessment for Language Teaching

Assessment for
Language Teaching

About the Series Series Editors

This Elements series aims to close the gap Heath Rose
between researchers and practitioners by University of
allying research with language teaching Oxford
practices, in its exploration of research- Jim McKinley

Aek Phakiti and

informed teaching, and teaching- University College
informed research. The series builds upon London

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

a rich history of pedagogical research in
its exploration of new insights within the
field of language teaching.
­Constant Leung

Cover image: EduLeite/E+/Getty Images ISSN 2632-4415 (online)

ISSN 2632-4407 (print)
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press
 Elements in Language Teaching
edited by
Heath Rose
University of Oxford
Jim McKinley
University College London

ASSESSMENT
FOR LANGUAGE
TEACHING

Aek Phakiti
University of Sydney
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Constant Leung
King’s College London
 Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8EA, United Kingdom
One Liberty Plaza, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10006, USA
477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia
314–321, 3rd Floor, Plot 3, Splendor Forum, Jasola District Centre,
New Delhi – 110025, India
103 Penang Road, #05–06/07, Visioncrest Commercial, Singapore 238467

Cambridge University Press is part of Cambridge University Press & Assessment,

a department of the University of Cambridge.
We share the University’s mission to contribute to society through the pursuit of
education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence.

www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781009468152
DOI: 10.1017/9781108934091
© Aek Phakiti and Constant Leung 2024
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions
of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take
place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press & Assessment.
When citing this work, please include a reference to the DOI 10.1017/9781108934091
First published 2024
A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library.
ISBN 978-1-009-46815-2 Hardback
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

ISBN 978-1-108-92877-9 Paperback

ISSN 2632-4415 (online)
ISSN 2632-4407 (print)
Cambridge University Press & Assessment has no responsibility for the persistence
or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this
publication and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will
remain, accurate or appropriate.
 Assessment for Language Teaching

Elements in Language Teaching

DOI: 10.1017/9781108934091
First published online: April 2024

Aek Phakiti
University of Sydney
Constant Leung
King’s College London
Author for correspondence: Aek Phakiti, [email protected]

Abstract: This Element reviews the key foundational concepts, beliefs,

and practices underpinning approaches to assessment in English
language teaching. Exploring major concepts and practices through
educational, social, and ethical perspectives, it offers theoretically
informed and close-to-practice descriptions and up-to-date
explanations of the affordances and limitations of different assessment
approaches related to language teaching. This Element presents
a cohesive and pragmatic framework that allows teachers to efficiently
implement tests and assessments in their contexts.

This Element also has a video abstract: www.cambridge.org/ELAT_Phakiti

Keywords: language testing, language assessment, language assessment
literacy, classroom assessment, English language teaching

© Aek Phakiti and Constant Leung 2024

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

ISBNs: 9781009468152 (HB), 9781108928779 (PB), 9781108934091 (OC)

ISSNs: 2632-4415 (online), 2632-4407 (print)
 Contents

1 Introduction 1

2 Assessment 3

3 Essential Concepts in Assessment 10

4 Types of Language Assessment 23

5 Key Theoretical and Technical Concepts 33

6 Summative Assessment Design – Types and Processes 41

7 Quality Aspects in Assessment 62

8 Further Developments 70

Appendix: Test Specifications 84

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Glossary of Language Assessment 87

References 95
 Assessment for Language Teaching 1

1 Introduction
This Element focusses on the various forms and practices of language
assessment frequently found in educational settings. We will use ‘assess-
ment’ as a superordinate term and ‘testing’ where we refer to it as a specific
assessment instrument. Assessment is an everyday classroom activity.
Various assessment activities can be placed along a continuum from implicit
and informal to explicit and formal. For example, when teachers ask, ‘Do
you have any questions?’ as part of a teaching activity, they are said to be
engaging in so-called informal formative assessment, which focusses on
assessing student learning processes. When teachers evaluate students’
submitted work using a scoring rubric and comment on strong and weak
points about their work, they are said to engage in formative assessment
(FA) if they provide feedback designed to improve learning and summative
assessment (SA) if they give a mark, grade, or score without feedback
comments. Teachers can, of course, do both.
This Element aims to help teachers develop language assessment literacy
(LAL), which refers to the knowledge, skills, and competencies involved in
the principles, roles, and types of assessment; appropriate assessment tasks
and/or task designs; and ethical and fairness considerations (Fulcher, 2012;
Taylor, 2009). Teachers can use LAL to help them carry out effective,
appropriate, and fair assessments. This knowledge will also allow them to
recognise inappropriate and unethical assessment practices whenever it
occurs.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

1.1 Target Readership

This Element is written for teachers working in different language teaching
contexts. We acknowledge that, in contemporary education, the view that only
language teachers and assessment specialists need to be concerned with lan-
guage assessment is changing. For example, in content–language integrated
learning (CLIL) and English medium instruction (EMI) contexts, the teachers
involved are not necessarily language teachers. Content teachers will likely
implement some form of language testing and assessment (LTA) with their
students as part of their curriculum work. For example, a CLIL, Year 3 maths
teacher needs to help students comprehend a maths question such as ‘Tyler’s
mobile service provider charges him at 5 pence per 30 seconds. How much will
it cost him if his phone call lasts 6.5 minutes?’. In this mathematics question,
some students’ success in answering it can be influenced by the target mathem-
atical knowledge and the ability to construct meaning from a long noun phrase.
In this CLIL context, academic language is likely to be taught and explained
 2 Language Teaching

together with mathematical knowledge. Therefore, all teachers involved would

benefit from an understanding that students’ content and language knowledge
can impact their performance.
In this Element, we mainly use ‘teacher/s’ to refer to our readers and
‘students’ as individuals studying in a language programme. Because other
terms are also used to describe those being tested or assessed (e.g., test-takers,
candidates, and applicants) in the educational literature, we may also use them
where they are terminologically and/or rhetorically apposite.

1.2 Overview of the Element

There are eight sections in this Element.

• Section 1 (Introduction) presents the concept of language assessment literacy,

target readership and overview of this Element.
• Section 2 (Assessment) provides a background description of some key
assessment contexts in English language teaching (ELT). The functions and
purposes of assessment are discussed.
• Section 3 (Essential Concepts in Assessment) discusses the terminological
distinctions and conceptual connections between testing, assessment, and
evaluation. In addition, it provides the essential background of LTA as an
academic and professional discipline that teachers can draw on for their
understanding of assessment practice.
• Section 4 (Types of Language Assessment) explains two main types of assess-
ment (i.e., formative assessment (FA) and summative assessment (SA)). While
not intending to polarise them, this distinction is helpful for teachers to grasp
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

some differences and interconnections.

• Section 5 (Key Theoretical and Technical Concepts) presents a set of key
concepts in the design and development of language tests and assessments.
Topics addressed in this section include constructs, tasks, and test item types,
classical test theory (CTT), and errors in assessment.
• Section 6 (Summative Assessment Design: Types and Processes) considers
major iterative stages in developing SA tasks: planning, developing, admin-
istrating, and using assessment results. This section includes a discussion of
test and assessment techniques.
• Section 7 (Quality Aspects in Assessment) discusses essential quality criteria
that ensure effective assessment. Criteria discussed include validity, reliabil-
ity, practicality, ethics, fairness, and impact.
• Section 8 (Further Developments) points to areas for classroom assessment
research that are relevant to teachers and recommends additional resources
for professional development.
 Assessment for Language Teaching 3

1.3 Special Features

This Element incorporates a call-out box, Scan Me, at various places. This
call-out box contains a quick-response (QR) code linked to a selected
YouTube video (with a URL also provided) relevant to a topic or issue
under discussion. The videos provide additional information or perspec-
tives about the issues being discussed. This shift to an audiovisual mode
can make learning about assessment more accessible and meaningful.
A guided reflection box is also provided at the end of each main section.
Underneath these, a Padlet link is provided for readers to post and share
their thoughts with others working in different parts of the world. The
authors will engage with the readers’ comments and opinions as appropri-
ate. In the final part of this Element, a Glossary of key terms in language
assessment is provided for ease of reference and an Appendix contains
example test specifications that teachers can consider if/when they wish to
develop an SA.

2 Assessment
Assessment is a broad term that includes various approaches and methods
for collecting evidence of learning and performance in language teaching
contexts. In language teaching, assessment is used to gather evidence of
students’ language knowledge, ability, skills, and attainment levels for
decision-making purposes. Such decisions relate to certification, placement,
selection for summative purposes, feedback on learning, and syllabus/cur-
riculum development for formative purposes. Assessment subsumes testing
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

and measurement for eliciting information of interest in a standardised

manner (e.g., achievement or language proficiency tests and questionnaires
on learning strategies, motivation, or anxiety).
For clarity and practicality, we use ‘assessment’ as a superordinate term for
all assessment activities and ‘testing’ when we refer to a test for assessment
purposes. Generally, testing uses a standardised procedure for collecting
student performance information. For example, tests are often administered
under strictly controlled time limits and in an invigilated environment (e.g.,
midterm and final tests, language proficiency tests). It is essential to note that,
in the classroom context, assessment can involve activities other than tests, for
example a reading comprehension activity, and some tests are used independ-
ently of the classroom, for example a commercially marketed test such as
TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language) or IELTS (International
English Language Testing System).
 4 Language Teaching

Two primary stakeholders directly involved in classroom assessment are

teachers and students. In language teaching, assessment occurs when
teachers ask informal questions during teaching and learning activities,
especially if the intention is to check understanding or elicit language
production. Students can also monitor and evaluate their learning and that
of others during classroom activities or responses to assigned tasks. Teachers
can use standardised tests, quizzes, and other assessment tasks, such as
project-based, task-based, and portfolio assessments, to promote learning
and performance. They may ask students to undertake these activities and
tasks individually, in pairs, or in groups.

2.1 Power and Influences of Assessment

All assessment activities have power and consequences (see, e.g., Fulcher
& Harding, 2022; Kunnan, 2018; Shohamy, 2001). Sometimes their influ-
ence can be subtle and non-directly observable; at other times they can be
profound and immediate. For example, when teachers use informal or
embedded classroom assessments (e.g., checking student understanding
by asking confirmation, clarification, or comprehension questions), they
can be said to engage in subtle and non-directly observable but powerful
assessment for pedagogic purposes. Teachers can help students improve their
learning after observing their answers by providing immediate feedback to
their students and modifying their subsequent teaching activities. While
such teacher formative assessment practice is implicitly embedded in the
ongoing classroom activities, it can have a powerful impact on the quality
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

of learning. With FA, students can learn to independently assess their

understanding, gain confidence in their ability to use the target language,
and sustain their motivation to learn.
The impact and power of summative assessment (SA) can be more imme-
diate and noticeable, such as when students are asked to take the midterm
and final examinations and complete assigned coursework (e.g., individual,
paired, or group tasks) that are used to represent their overall achievement in
the course (e.g., final scores and grades to be recorded in academic tran-
scripts). The power of such assessment is immediately apparent to both
teachers and students. The assessment outcomes can determine students’
future opportunities. For example, if students fail a mandatory assessment
task, they cannot move on to the next level or stage of their study. They have
to repeat the same course. It also means that they will be behind their peers in
terms of study completion, and they can lose their confidence, self-esteem,
motivation to study harder, and so on.
 Assessment for Language Teaching 5

SCAN ME 1

Formative Assessment | Walford Anglican School for Girls | Australian

Education Research Organisation (posted to YouTube by Australian
Education Research Organisation (AERO))
https://bit.ly/46M8uAg

The power of external assessment (e.g., college or university admission tests,

state or government tests) can impact classroom teaching and learning situ-
ations. Students may be required to take a college entrance examination at the
end of secondary education. Teachers are often tasked to help students prepare
for such an examination. This situation can shift teachers’ and students’ atten-
tion away from the curriculum content (i.e., they gear their teaching and
learning specifically to the test). Teachers may get promoted or rewarded if
the students’ success rate for admission is high. Another example of the power
of external assessment is a standards-based assessment of students’ literacies
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

and progression by governments and education agencies. Such assessment

regimes enable governments to use assessment data to enforce or introduce
some academic curriculums nationally and impose assessment outcomes–
driven funding models that can directly impact schools, educational sectors,
and society.
Globally speaking, governments often devise national educational policies
and promulgate standards or benchmarks and curriculums that need to be
followed by educational institutions. They rely on standardised testing and
assessment to adjudge students’ educational standards and attainment levels
nationally. Large-scale standardised testing is often deployed to ascertain stu-
dent learning attainment at a state, provincial, or national level. One underlying,
often hidden reason for using standardised assessment by governments is
a perceived lack of rigour and trust in teacher- or school-based assessment by
external government agencies. For this reason, there is a need to help teachers
understand the roles and practices of assessment to change such negative
perceptions of their professional knowledge and skills.
 6 Language Teaching

SCAN ME 2

Testing, Testing | Linda Darling-Hammond | TEDxStanford

(posted to YouTube by TEDx Talks)
https://bit.ly/46WFUw2 >

Education systems can enhance their assessment frameworks by providing sup-

portive resources and professional development for teachers so that the educational
value of teacher assessment can be positively promoted. With a more positive
public perception of teachers’ ability to conduct a sound assessment, governments
will be more willing to adopt a combination of standardised and teacher-led
assessments for evaluating students. This approach is growing in popularity in
some educational jurisdictions. For example, in New South Wales, Australia,
50 per cent of school students’ achievement is determined by school-based assess-
ment (e.g., teacher and curriculum assessment) and the other 50 per cent by formal
state-based examinations. Furthermore, there has been some strong resistance by
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

various state governments to the Australian federal government’s attempt to

mandate the same national tests for all Australian states. Another example is the
Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education (HKDSE) English language exam-
ination which has a teacher assessment component.

2.2 Assessment in Education

Approaches and practices of assessment vary across language classrooms, edu-
cational contexts, and countries. For instance, SA is mandated or implemented,
for instance, by official policies (e.g., all students must take part in the national
examination program), entrance requirements (e.g., all students must pass the
final examination to be eligible for the next course), or authorities (e.g., applicants
need to obtain an overall IELTS Band 7 to be eligible for student visas).
Standardised tests are often adopted to evaluate students according to established
criteria, such as classroom learning outcomes stipulated by state or provincial
educational curriculums. Standardised tests are carried out in accordance with
strict administrative conditions and are marked or evaluated in the same way for
 Assessment for Language Teaching 7

all students; as such, they are seen to be fair because all students are treated in the
same way, allowing comparisons among students’ performances. On the strength
of this reasoning, decisions on students’ achievement levels, represented by
marks or grades, can often be based solely on their test performances. While
standardised tests can be valuable and transparent for decision-making on stu-
dents, teachers know that the content of many tests does not require their students
to perform tasks related to their actual classroom activities or real-life situations.
We note that in anglophone applied linguistics and assessment of English as
a foreign/second language, there is a tendency to see the notion of ‘stakes’ (high
versus low) in terms of impact on the individual or institutional functions. The
concept of high-stakes within this purview can vary in degree and conse-
quences. For instance, the impact of passing or failing a high-stakes exit or
national test in English is first and foremost felt by the student. At the same time,
such a test serves an important institutional function for educational institutions
(e.g., student selection), employers (e.g., personnel selection of qualified pro-
fessionals), and society (e.g., fairness for all). Seen in this light, high or low
stakes relate to how assessment use affects individuals and society.

SCAN ME 3
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

What Is High Stakes Testing – and Why Hasn’t It Worked? (posted to

YouTube by Gregg Clemons)
https://bit.ly/3RiXMLI>

Classroom assessment focusses on activities in the classroom, which can be

informal and embedded in teaching and learning activities. Teachers can employ
various assessment activities to ascertain student learning and support effective
teaching. Teacher assessment can be a dynamic or impromptu reaction to a given
teaching–learning situation (e.g., teachers ask students to explain the target gram-
mar rule after they have completed an exercise together). Follow-on activities such
as this can reinforce learning. Teachers can also provide feedback comments on
students’ responses in informal assessment to support further learning. Informal
 8 Language Teaching

assessment, such as a teacher-led question-and-answer activity, may not immedi-

ately impact the student (e.g., passing or failing a mandatory public examination or
test, as discussed already). For this reason, informal assessment is sometimes seen
as low-stakes. If the purpose of assessment is to find out what has been learnt and
how to improve learning further, then such informal assessment should not be seen
as low-stakes because it is pivotal to the central purpose of education.
Assessments in education vary in the degree of stakes, and they can have
different roles in teaching, learning, and decision-making, depending on whether
they are immediately impactful or have delayed effects on students and society.
A conventionally accepted view that teacher-led classroom assessment is generally
low-stakes has been questioned. There is a case to suggest that the use of teacher
assessment to enhance learning is educationally high-stakes (see Black and
Wiliam, 1998, 2009, 2018; James, 2006; Leung, 2014; Lewkowicz and Leung,
2021; Stobart, 2006).
This Element presents and discusses other formal non-test tasks for evaluat-
ing students’ learning (e.g., assigned coursework, project-based assessment,
portfolios). These forms of classroom assessment have gained acceptability in
recent years because they can fully capture students’ overall learning and
development across time points. The use of high or low diverse assessment
frameworks and practices in different contexts suggests a more fluid educa-
tional view of assessment impact than the narrower view of high or low stakes
traditionally associated with language assessments in English as a foreign/
second language contexts. The movement towards balanced types of assess-
ment suggests that teachers need to develop and use a range of learning-oriented
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

and standardised assessments in their educational context.

2.3 Purposes and Functions of Assessment

We have thus far provided a broad account of assessment in language education.
We will now look at some major functions that language assessment can serve.

1. Formative function – to enable students to achieve or attain the target learning

objectives. The verb ‘enable’ suggests that the focus of FA or assessment for
learning (AfL) is on supporting the achievement of learning targets. When
conducting FA, language teachers devise or use various assessment and
learning activities to help students develop their knowledge and skills relevant
to the learning outcomes. Thus, FA informs teaching and learning. It is
designed to help students overcome difficulties (e.g., when they cannot recog-
nise their mistakes, errors, or problems on their own). Teachers’ feedback and
guidance can help them develop further learning and problem-solving skills or
promote positive attitudes towards learning and self-regulation.
 Assessment for Language Teaching 9

2. Summative function – to assess learning achievement or attainment levels at the

end of a learning period, whether it is a lesson, a term, or a course. This kind of
assessment includes achievement tests, end-of-year examinations, and a class
quiz led by the teacher (to check what has been learnt in the lesson). Periodic
quizzes may also check student achievement or attainment level as students
progress through various lessons. Results of SA can be used to decide whether,
how much, or how well students can use the language according to the learning
objectives and/or formatively to determine whether students have learnt the
specified syllabus content and how best to support their further learning to
ensure that they have fulfilled the learning outcomes. Grades or final scores
derived from SA can be considered quantitative information indicating stu-
dents’ attainment or mastery relative to the target learning outcomes (discussed
further in Section 4).
3. Diagnostic function – to diagnose students’ readiness or preparedness.
Diagnostic language assessment identifies students’ or individuals’ strengths
and weaknesses regarding specified language abilities or skills. There are
various ways in which diagnostic assessments are used. For instance, students
can take a diagnostic language test that is relevant to what they will be
studying. If the course is related to writing, error detection tasks (e.g.,
identifying errors in a sentence) may be used to determine whether students
can notice grammatical errors. If the diagnostic assessment outcomes suggest
they cannot, teachers can use the information to plan further learning support.
The DELNA (Diagnostic English Language Needs Assessment) is an
example of using assessment for diagnostic purposes for English as
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

a second language (ESL) international students.

4. Placement function – to place students in an appropriate programme or
course. The outcomes of an assessment of language proficiency and/or
ability can be used to assign students to an approrpiate class or programme.
Such assessment often takes the form of a placement test. For example, it
will be challenging for students with a beginner’s proficiency level to be
placed in a more advanced language class that requires advanced reading.
Therefore, knowing whether a student’s current language ability and skills
are suitable for a given class is essential.
5. Gatekeeping function – to admit student applicants into an academic or
professional training programme. Admission or selection tests serve gate-
keeping purposes. Usually, there are student quotas for an academic or
training programme. Therefore, applicants’ scores may be rank-ordered
before selection or admission. University and college entrance examinations
are examples of admission tests (e.g., the National College Entrance
Examination (NCEE) or China’s Gaokao).
 10 Language Teaching

SCAN ME 4

Understanding Assessments | Different Types of Assessments | Kathleen

Jasper (posted to YouTube by Kathleen Jasper)
https://bit.ly/487xx1I

Reflection Box 1
Is language assessment necessary for language teaching and learning?
Why or why not?
Share your thoughts here: https://bit.ly/3tcbeZX.

3 Essential Concepts in Assessment

This section addresses two aspects of the background of assessment. The first
concerns the interconnections among the technical terms testing, measurement,
assessment, evaluation, and utilisation. The second is related to the theoretical
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

background of LTA. This section provides a summary account of the back-

ground research related to the concept of language proficiency.

3.1 Testing, Assessment, and Evaluation

The discussion of language assessment involves various related terms such as
testing, assessment, and evaluation. These terms are associated with both FA and
SA. Figure 1 presents the overlapping natures of testing, assessment, measure-
ment, evaluation, and utilisation. This graphic representation suggests a set of
complex and embedded concepts in language assessment in educational settings.

3.1.1 Testing

A good deal of educational and professional language assessment is conducted

through tests. For this reason, we will refer to testing as a point of departure here
and describe the general design characteristics of a language test in ELT. Testing
is the first level of collecting information about students or test-takers. It
 Assessment for Language Teaching 11

Evaluation

Assessment

Testing

Figure 1 The complex and embedded concepts testing, assessment, and

evaluation

involves measurement and is a particular approach to assessment, represented

by the larger enveloping circle. Testing includes methods and techniques for
eliciting language use or responses to test questions (also known as ‘test items’
and ‘test tasks’). A language test typically includes instructions for students, test
questions, items or tasks, or stimuli such as written or audio texts and visuals,
and required responses. For instance, students’ answers or responses are scored
or judged for correctness or appropriateness. Standardised testing requires
a predetermined and uniform procedure for collecting language use or
responses, and scoring and interpreting performance.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

3.1.2 Assessment

As discussed in Section 1, assessment is a concept broader than testing. The

primary interest in assessment is to gather evidence for decision-making.
Evidence can derive from tests, other sampling tools, and formal and informal
observations. Figure 1 suggests that not all assessment activities result in scores
derived from testing. Other assessment methods or techniques can yield qualitative
information that describes the nature of language learning, understanding, or
knowledge in terms of accuracy, fluency, complexity, or appropriacy. For instance,
in a classroom context, teachers can ask students to explain a concept or idea to find
out whether their understanding is correct; teachers can ask students to provide
reasons(s) for choosing a particular answer to a test question. In practice, assess-
ments can be conducted in various forms and formats, such as tests, examinations,
quizzes, portfolios, and assignments and serve multiple purposes.
 12 Language Teaching

3.1.3 Evaluation
Figure 1 shows that testing and assessment implicate evaluation – a process of
judging the value or quality of information collected by tests, measures, or other
assessment tasks. Evaluation is a broader concept than assessment (depicted in
another larger circle). Evaluation requires language teachers to take a broader
view of assessment outcomes and to interpret them with reference to other
relevant issues. That is, it may require some logical inferencing and reasoning
processes. For instance, teachers ask what scores or observed performance
mean to students’ learning status.

SCAN ME 5

The Principles of Testing and Assessment (posted to YouTube by Advance

Consulting for Education)
https://bit.ly/41UG9Xr >
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

3.2 Language Ability and Assessment

In this section, we discuss the development of a theoretical framework inform-
ing an understanding of general language proficiency. Assessment has been
used as a tool for social, educational, and political power and control (see
Spolsky, 1995, 2017; Kunnan, 2018, who provide a review of the history of
language assessment). For instance, the Imperial Civil Service Examination in
China is considered the first examination in the world to produce an adminis-
trative elite for governance, dating back to the Sui dynasty, 581–618 CE
(Kunnan, 2018). The establishment of this prestigious public examination is
a very good example of how assessment can be built into the fabric of the
sociopolitical affairs of a society.
In the anglophone academy, the book Language Testing by Lado (1961) took
a primarily structural view of language in which underlying linguistic systems
and rules such as vocabulary and grammar are considered significant in effect-
ive language communication; thus, it formed a crucial part of language testing.
 Assessment for Language Teaching 13

Lado’s (1961) book was a milestone in testing and language assessment because
it helped formalise language testing as a discipline within applied linguistics
(see Read, 2015; Spolsky, 1995). In the past forty years or so, the communica-
tive model of language has been prominent (see Section 2.2.1). Further, LTA
research in the English language has made invaluable contributions to many
aspects of language education (e.g., Fulcher & Harding, 2022; Winke &
Brunfaut, 2021). The following subsections discuss the related theoretical
concepts influencing our understanding of language proficiency.

3.2.1 General Language Proficiency

Researchers and scholars of LTA have long been developing a theoretical

concept of language proficiency that can explain what and how people know
and use language across various contexts and situations (see Bachman &
Palmer, 2010; Jeon & In’nami, 2022; McNamara, 1996). Language proficiency
is a general language ability independent of specific classroom learning or
teaching. It may reflect accumulative knowledge and skills acquired through
classroom and informal learning. Language proficiency tests assess what indi-
viduals can do with a particular language without referencing a specific lan-
guage syllabus. Language proficiency can be divided into levels, for example
beginner, pre-intermediate, intermediate, and advanced. Students at different
levels can be described in terms of what they can do with language and how well
they can or cannot do it. It is important to know that language proficiency tests
are traditionally psychometrically oriented and standardised.
Until the 1960s, LTA was based on a theory that language use behaviours were
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

underlined by human mental structures manifested through the linguistic system,

which at the time was understood to be related to lexico-grammatical features
(e.g., vocabulary and grammatical knowledge). Hence, language assessment
research at the time developed and used test techniques such as multiple-
choice, cloze, and short-answer formats for assessing lexico-grammatical features
of the linguistic system (see Leung, 2022b; McNamara, 1996; Purpura, 1999).
That said, research in the 1970s onwards started to suggest that language
proficiency was multi-componential in that it was made up of more than lexico-
grammatical knowledge (see Bachman, 1990; Bachman & Palmer, 1996, 2010;
Canale, 1983; Canale & Swain, 1980; Jeon & In’nami, 2022; Savignon, 1972,
1983). Figure 2 provides a sociocognitive model of language proficiency (adapted
from Bachman & Palmer, 2010), encompassing cognitive and social dimensions.
The model suggests that various internal linguistic processes interact in
language use or learning. In Figure 2, areas within the oval represent internal
mental processing and correspond with language tasks and settings. Language
 14 Language Teaching

proficiency comprises language knowledge and strategic competence

(Bachman & Palmer, 2010), both of which have a social dimension.

• Language knowledge is concerned with knowing and understanding the formal

rule-governed structure of language regarding grammatical and vocabulary (also
referred to as lexis formally), pronunciation, and conventions of language use in
context, including a social and cultural dimension (see also Bachman, 1990).
Various aspects of language knowledge are highly connected (e.g., ‘went’ is
a lexical item (word) and the grammatical past tense for ‘go’). While various
linguistic features are conceptually distinctive (e.g., vocabulary versus gram-
mar), they are not easily separated in language use. In the contemporary
language assessment literature, a term such as lexico-grammatical knowledge
is preferred for describing the knowledge of rule-governed structures.

Language use, observed

performance, or scores
* Personal
characteristics
Language tasks and settings * World knowledge
* Affective schemata

Language
Proficiency
Non-
linguistic
factors
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Language Strategic
knowledge competence

* Organisational Metacognitive
knowledge knowledge &
* Pragmatic strategies
knowledge * Goal setting
* Planning
* Appraising

Social dimensions

Figure 2 Model of language proficiency (adapted from Bachman and

Palmer, 2010)
 Assessment for Language Teaching 15

• Strategic competence is the ability to employ cognitive and metacognitive

knowledge and regulation (including practical know how of language use in
context), such as working out what things to say and how to say them to best
express one’s meaning in context (Bachman & Palmer, 2010). Students use
various strategies, such as cognitive and metacognitive strategies, to help them
process information and complete given tasks (see also Oxford, 2017).
According to Bachman and Palmer (2010), strategic competence mediates the
language knowledge and non-linguistic factors of a given person, such as
personal characteristics, as well as knowledge of the world (or topical know-
ledge) and affective schemata (e.g., emotions and feelings). In Figure 2,
a double-headed arrow links language proficiency to non-linguistic factors.
Our current understanding is that strategic competence is not only a cognitive
aspect of language use control; it also has a social dimension in that particular
ways of thought regulation are shaped by a specific social and cultural context.

In Figure 2, language use, observed performance, and scores at the top of the
model are seen as the results of interactions between a given person’s language
proficiency and the context (i.e., language tasks and settings). This multi-
componential view of general language proficiency has had a significant
methodological influence on how people’s language proficiency is tested or
assessed. This view underpins the design of test items requiring students to
produce their responses communicatively. This orientation is also reflected by
the scoring rubrics in language proficiency tests such as TOEFL and IELTS
that focus on assessing test-takers’ vocabulary range, pragmatic appropriacy,
task fulfilment, and grammatical accuracy.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

SCAN ME 6

Assessing General Language Proficiency (posted to YouTube by British

Council Aptis Official)
https://bit.ly/3IPcfvd
 16 Language Teaching

In language assessment practice, it is often necessary to gather evidence of students’

specific-purpose language proficiency in a given language within a specific target
language use (TLU) domain or situation. Specialist assessment designers can
combine features of general proficiency and specific-purpose proficiency to meet
the requirements of different disciplines and professions (Douglas, 2000; Moder &
Halleck, 2022). An example of a specific-purpose language domain in language
teaching is academic writing for engineering. The idea of specific-purpose language
proficiency can be useful outside the language classroom. For example, the
Occupational English Test (OET) for medical professionals, the Objective
Structured Clinical Exam (OSCE), and the Aviation English Language
Proficiency Test are specific-purpose language proficiency tests for professional
certification and accreditation (see Elder & McNamara, 2016).

3.2.2 Language-Using Skills

Language-using skills typically refer to four distinct modes: listening, speaking,

reading, and writing. These are also grouped into receptive and productive
modes. Receptive modes comprise reading and listening skills (decoding and
making sense of information), whereas speaking and writing skills are product-
ive modes (encoding and creating information). Language-using skills can be
related to general or specific-purpose language proficiency.
Although language use is naturally multimodal (meaning that it requires
multiple skills or modes to operate or make meaning), in FA and SA situations,
test items and assessment tasks are usually designed to elicit performance that
can provide information on using a particular language skill. There are also
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

practical reasons to assess one skill at a time: it is easier to design, administer,

and interpret results. Nonetheless, a recent trend has been to use integrated
language tasks that reflect real-life situations, such as in an academic or
professional setting (discussed further in Section 4.2.2). We should not auto-
matically assume that all language proficiency tests would cover all four skills
equally; much would depend on the purpose of the test concerned.
The following provides an overview of each language-using skill from the
perspective of an individual language user.

• Reading skills refer to the ability to process and understand the meaning of
written texts (see Alderson, 2000; Brunfaut, 2022; Grabe, 2009). Reading
comprehension is derived from the reader’s construction and interpretation of
meaning from a text through language processing and activation of their prior
world knowledge.
• Listening skills refer to processing and understanding audio and spoken texts
and obtaining information (see Field, 2008; Rost, 2016). Unlike reading
 Assessment for Language Teaching 17

a written text where the reader can move back and forth, spoken language is
temporally streamed, making retrieving what has been missed more difficult.
• Speaking skills refer to the ability to process and produce coherent speech
that is meaningful and appropriate for a given purpose in a given context (see
Fulcher, 2014; Luoma, 2004). Speaking can be one-way (e.g., reading aloud,
talks, announcements) or two-way (e.g., conversations, interviews).
• Writing skills refer to the ability to process and produce ideas or information
using a given writing system (e.g., alphabets and letters, word orders, punc-
tuations, syntax) to convey meaning (see Hyland, 2016; Weigle, 2002).

Tables 1 and 2 are examples of language-using skills that underpin constructs in

language assessment (see also Brown & Abeywickrama, 2019; Green, 2020;
Hughes, 2003). We will focus on linguistic and discourse components for the
purpose at hand.

SCAN ME 7
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Productive and Receptive Skills (posted to YouTube by ITTT International

TEFL & TESOL Training)
https://bit.ly/4afk4qA

3.2.3 Language Proficiency Components

It is recognised that language proficiency components and language skills are

related. Teachers may need to teach and assess language knowledge or compo-
nents related to the curriculum tasks in teaching contexts. Therefore, this section
presents three language components (grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation)
against which teachers may directly assess their students.

• Grammar: Grammar is part of the knowledge of lexical and sentence-level

forms and structures associated with a given language. Grammatical know-
ledge is also connected to pragmatics in that the use of grammar needs to
follow expected conventions and to be appropriate, meaningful, and
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Table 1 Reading and listening skills (in alphabetical order) of the verbal processes involved

Reading skills Listening skills

Adjust reading rates to suit a reading purpose and context. Distinguish main ideas from supporting details or examples.
Identify main ideas and the author’s purposes. Identify and retain specific details.
Infer what writers imply. Identify main ideas and the speaker’s purpose, tone, attitude, or
intention.
Predict the content from an introduction paragraph. Infer the speaker’s implied speech or meaning in context.
Recognise spellings and word meanings in context. Predict what speakers may say next based on the background
information.
Recognise types of text and genre. Process incoming speech at an efficient rate.
Search for and recall specific details. Recognise discourse markers and cohesive devices in spoken texts.
Skim and scan for general and specific information. Recognise grammatical functions of words (e.g., nouns, pronouns,
verbs, prepositions) and tenses in speech.
Understand discourse markers and cohesive devices in written Recognise speech sounds (e.g., stressed patterns and reduced forms)
texts. and meanings in utterances, and retain them in working memory
temporarily.
Understand grammatical functions of words (e.g., nouns, Search for general or specific information.
pronouns, verbs, prepositions) and recognise tenses in written
texts.
Use headings, paragraphs, and enhanced texts (e.g., bold, Understand spoken discourse meaning (e.g., monologue, dialogue)
italicised) to assist reading. using real-world knowledge.
Use prior knowledge and/or experiences to relate to the topic and Use non-verbal clues and body language to make meaningful
aid reading comprehension. interpretations.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Table 2 Speaking and writing skills (in alphabetical order) of the verbal processes involved

Speaking skills Writing skills

Apply pragmatic knowledge such as speech acts and implicatures, as well as Apply appropriate writing rhetorical forms and conventions
conversation rules and social skills (e.g., politeness, turn-taking, and (e.g., form completing and personal, professional, and
cross-cultural knowledge). academic writing).
Connect topics, ideas, or arguments to a given situation or event (e.g., use of signposts, conjunctions, and cohesive devices).
Differentiate and pronounce individual words or sounds intelligibly. Construct phrases, clauses, and sentences appropriately
based on the grammatical system.
Express meaning and speaking intention clearly for a given audience. Express meaning and writing aim clearly for a given
audience.
Produce correct and intelligible stress patterns and intonation contours. Spell individual words correctly (i.e., spelling).
Produce fluent (e.g., smooth) and natural-sounding speech. Use appropriate cohesive devices to enhance textual clarity.
Use cohesive devices (e.g., adverbs and pronouns) appropriately. Use correct subject–verb agreements, function words, word
orders, pronouns, prepositions, articles, and so on.
Use correct subject–verb agreements, function words, word orders, Write at an appropriate pace in context.
pronouns, prepositions, articles, and so on.
 20 Language Teaching

acceptable in a given context (see Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004; Larsen-

Freeman, 1989; Purpura, 2004).
• Vocabulary: Vocabulary is related to knowledge of words and word order in
a clause/sentence, including formulaic expressions and collocations, and how
to use them across various language modes (e.g. reading and writing) (see
Read, 2000).
• Pronunciation: Pronunciation is tied to phonology (the sound system) and
phonetics (sound articulations). It is the vocal manifestation of vocabulary
items, conveying grammatical meaning and the speaker’s intention through
intonation (see Isaacs & Trofimovich, 2017; Kang & Ginther, 2018;
Pennington & Rogerson-Revell, 2019).

3.2.4 Social Dimensions of Language Assessment

There are different layers to the social dimensions of language proficiency and
language assessment practice (e.g., McNamara & Roever, 2006; Young, 2022).
In terms of language proficiency, an individual’s underlying language profi-
ciency does not entirely manifest in observed language performance. People’s
performance in a test is also affected by the tasks, conditions and social
interactions involved (e.g., the choice of tasks decided by test developers, the
technology used, the type/s of language used in group discussion).
The social dimension in language assessment within an educational or
professional context includes the use of assessment by authorities as
a mechanism or system for controlling or regulating people’s language learning
or language use behaviours and choices. Mandatory or compulsory assessments
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

(e.g., final examinations, exit tests, entrance or admission tests) have a political-
cum-social function of controlling and regulating students (see Section 1.3).
Immigrants are given a test at a particular proficiency level, such as the
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) A2, before
being granted a visa or citizenship in some countries (see also Rocca et al.,
2018; Shohamy, 2006).
From a teaching point of view, it is useful to know the various social functions
of assessment in the different classroom and educational contexts. Assessments
can be seen as tools to help teachers ascertain learner progress and the extent to
which teaching has been effective. In particular, teachers have the power given
by compulsory tests and assessments to decide whether students will pass or fail
(in a particular course or programme of study). However, formative classroom
assessment practice is not necessarily about power and control: FA can engen-
der a unique social dimension for establishing and maintaining a productive
teacher–student relationship. The fostering of such relationships should also
 Assessment for Language Teaching 21

take account of the sociocultural environment involved. For instance, teachers

working in a Confucian-influenced society in Asia, where teachers are often
considered to be students’ second parents, may find that conducting FA involves
different approaches to student–teacher interactions from those in educational
environments where such interpersonal relationships cannot be expected. In
summary, discussing the social dimensions of LTA helps teachers become
conscious and judicious about using tests and assessments on their students.

3.2.5 Multilingualism and Language Proficiency

Until recently, the concept of language proficiency used in LTA was modelled
on what native speakers of a given language could do when they communicated
(see McNamara, 1996). Such modelling is based on a monoglossic ideology
underpinning a language proficiency view that idealises the notion of native-
speaker competence as the gold standard for learners of English. It follows that
language tests and assessments based on such conceptual assumptions have
tended to norm the TLU on that of native speakers.
However, an idealised language proficiency model requires some revisions on
some theoretical and methodical grounds. For instance, there are many native-
speaker varieties of English (e.g., American, British, Australian, Singaporean, and
Indian Englishes). Furthermore, a one-standard approach in multicultural, multi-
lingual, and globalised societies can be problematic in LTA. Especially in
a localised context, there can be different models and acceptable norms of language
proficiency. Many individuals in ethnolinguistically diverse communities routinely
communicate with one another through their multilingual repertoire without regard
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

for idealised native-speaker models. Language communication tends to focus more

on comprehensibility than on observance of putative native-speaker norms.
Teachers can benefit from understanding the contemporary notion of fluid/
flexible multilingualism1 broadly discussed in language education and applied
linguistics. Multilingualism acknowledges the coexistence of different

1
The term ‘fluid/flexible multilingualism’ refers to the use of all linguistic resources for communication.
For instance, speakers with a knowledge of English, Japanese, and Spanish may draw on their total
linguistic repertoire to communicate with one another without necessarily observing language-specific
grammatical conventions. The term ‘multilingual’ is used to refer to societies that have more than one
language community, but some members of each language community may be monolingual. The term
‘plurilingualism’ is used by the Council of Europe (2020) to refer to the communicative repertoire of
speakers with knowledge of several languages. A plurilingual speaker uses all of their linguistic
knowledge and skills to enhance communication with others. Plurilingualism moves away from the
ideal native-speaker proficiency as the ultimate attainment benchmark; instead, it focusses on speakers
who can freely draw on their diverse and unique linguistic and cultural repertoire in their communica-
tion. In this Element, we use the term ‘multilingualism’ as it is more commonly used than plurilingu-
alism at this time, but the term ‘plurilingualism’ to likely to figure in language education and assessment
research in future years (see Leung, 2022a for a detailed discussion).
 22 Language Teaching

languages within individuals in and across societies. In the contemporary

language assessment literature, assessing multilingual constructs has been
increasingly considered, but it is challenging to accomplish well (e.g.,
Chalhoub-Deville, 2019; Schissel et al., 2019). Chalhoub-Deville (2019)
acknowledged that multilingual constructs could be more problematic for test
designers to assess. For example, how should the different languages used by
a speaker in a multilingual social interaction be recognised and scored?

SCAN ME 8

Embracing Multilingualism and Eradicating Linguistic Bias | Karen

Leung | TEDxWWU (posted to YouTube by TEDx Talks)
https://bit.ly/3GBSI01

An implication for recognising multilingualism in language teaching is that

teachers can appreciate the roles of multilingualism in classroom teaching, learning,
and assessment. A traditional focus of language teaching and assessing has been on
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

helping students learn and acquire an idealised native-speaker-like language profi-

ciency (as seen by an emphasis on fluency, accuracy, and appropriacy in using
a given language in language teaching curriculums and tests). Although relevant
research has shown that teachers’ and students’ own languages (other than English)
are used in teaching and learning activities, assessment of students’ achievement
still focusses only on their ability to use the target language accurately, fluently, and
appropriately. An ideal native-speaker proficiency is inadequate and inappropriate
to capture multilinguals’ language ability and performance in social interaction (for
further discussion, see Leung, 2022a, 2022b).

Reflection Box 2
What are challenges you often face when assessing students’ language
learning?
Share your thoughts here: https://bit.ly/3ReJOKX..
 Assessment for Language Teaching 23

4 Types of Language Assessment

This section discusses FA and SA in greater detail. Figure 3 provides a diagram
that conceptualises these two types of assessment in terms of their differences
and interrelationships. It should be noted that Figure 3 is not intended to polarise
the two types of assessment in language teaching because they are generally
nested within an educational or societal system.
In Figure 3, FA and SA appear at the same level, indicating that, educationally,
they are both important, with the levels below showing some examples of
assessment practices:

• FA collects evidence of students’ learning and engagement to improve

learning and teaching. It emphasises the importance of understanding stu-
dents’ current developing knowledge related to the teaching–learning out-
comes or specific classroom objectives.
• SA is concerned with gathering evidence of students’ performances judged
against pre-established learning outcomes, standards, or benchmarks. SA
includes tests and examinations administered in controlled or standardised
conditions (e.g., amount of time allowance and fixed tasks or questions) and
other performance assessment tasks such as submitted reports, assigned
coursework, and portfolios.

Testing and assessment and

language teaching
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Learning Goals and

Performance Standards

Formative assessment Summative assessment

(FA) (SA)

Assessment for learning (AfL) Assessment of learning (AoL) Standards-based assessment

e.g., embedded assessment in exercises; guided e.g., summative assessment; e.g., Admission tests; state or
questions; needs assessment; assessment of formal periodic quizzes; national examinations;
learners’ cognitive and affective processes; achievement tests; midterm and commercial language proficiency
self- and peer-assessment; portfolio assessment final examinations. tests; professional association
certification assessments.

Figure 3 Overview of testing and assessment in language teaching

 24 Language Teaching

As shown in Figure 3, FA and SA are interconnected in the classroom ecological

network (double-headed arrow). For example, when teachers assess students’
understanding of the concept through informal FA (e.g., teacher questioning),
they adjudge their students’ spoken and written language use against curricu-
lum-derived learning outcomes (which would also inform SA). The expected
overall learning outcomes in terms of linguistic fluency, accuracy, or appro-
priacy inform teacher judgements in FA. An interrelationship between FA and
SA is also apparent when summative achievement tests are used for formative
purposes. For example, student performances in a midterm test can show the
strengths and weaknesses of their current learning progress. This information
can be used as feedback, which can help students appreciate what they are
already good at and focus on improving their weaknesses. Large-scale external
SA (e.g., national or university entrance examinations and internationally
marketed language proficiency tests) can influence classroom-based FA and
SA practices. The following sections explain Figure 3 in more detail.

4.1 Formative Assessment (FA)

Carrying out FA serves various educational functions and purposes, including:

1. gauging the extent to which students are developing or have developed

a body of knowledge and skills or abilities as defined by the target learning
outcomes; and
2. observing student learning behaviours to inform teaching and learning and
using teacher feedback to help students recognise the strengths and gaps in
their learning (e.g., by pointing out good and weak aspects of performance)
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

and feedforward to help students improve their future performance (e.g.,

how to avoid similar mistakes or errors in future similar tasks or situations,
how to move towards the desired goal).

In the professional literature, the term AfL is also used to refer to assessment
with a formative purpose. Generally, AfL is embedded within teaching and
learning. It can range from being informal or ‘on the run’ (e.g., spontaneous or
impromptu assessment of students’ current knowledge or understanding during
classroom activities, such as teachers’ use of questions and clarification
requests) to being formal (e.g., planned assessment activities, such as portfolios
and project-based assessment). Teachers engage in AfL to ensure that students
develop the required knowledge and skills.
As indicated earlier, Figure 3 shows that FA and SA are interconnected. We
will elaborate on this point further here. For example, teachers need to under-
stand the standards or learning outcomes assessed at the end of a learning
 Assessment for Language Teaching 25

period. Such understanding helps teachers observe students’ current learning

status, thereby enabling teachers to provide helpful feedback and feedforward
that will shape students’ overall achievement or attainment. Formative insights
from in-class SA can yield information for practical teaching plans and material
development. We, hence, argue that teachers’ SA is directly related to FA in
classroom contexts. In language teaching, assessment of learning (AoL) can be
teacher-made assessments or tasks and standardised assessments by others (e.g.,
by the department, school, university, and international testing companies).

SCAN ME 9

Formative assessment in the classroom (Posted to YouTube by AITSL)

https://bit.ly/3RVO1nj

4.2 Summative Assessment (SA)

Using SA has long been integral to formal education. The term summative implies
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

that assessment focusses on collecting cumulative evidence of students’ know-

ledge, skills, or abilities derived from the teaching and learning activities and
engagement at the end of the semester or the teaching and learning period. In
a broad sense, SA and AoL are synonymous; they provide accountability for
student learning (e.g., grades in academic transcripts and institutional certificates).
Official requirements for AoL are also known as mandates, which are the frame-
works that regulate classroom assessment regimes (Davidson & Lynch, 2002).
Use of SA is associated with a given syllabus’s standards or learning out-
comes. Standards are the pre-specified criteria of language ability, skills, or
learning outcomes that determine what counts as success (or not). Standards-
based assessment, such as that provided by the state or by government agencies,
is also considered summative. See Brown and Abeywickrama (2019), Harsch
and Malone (2021), and Popham (2017) for a detailed discussion of summative
and standards-based assessments. Although the boundaries between AoL and
standards-based assessment can sometimes be blurry since both involve
 26 Language Teaching

standards, in practical terms AoL tends to be closely associated with a specific

learning point. Standards-based assessments tend to be associated with external
mandatory targets or requirements.

4.2.1 Assessment of Learning (AoL)

Traditionally, AoL seeks to determine whether students have met the desired
learning objectives of a course. It does not primarily focus on providing
feedback for learning or improving learning processes. Typically, AoL is a
component of a language syllabus design (e.g., when and how to assess, what
kinds of assessment tasks, and weights of assessment tasks). Generally, the
academic committee that approves a proposed syllabus also checks the infor-
mation about the assessment tasks.
In principle, AoL focusses on evaluating the outcomes of students’ learning
that are compared against the set of learning outcomes or defined standards that
underly a language syllabus or curriculum, teaching and learning activities, and
AoL (e.g., midterm and final examinations). An achievement test that collects
summative information on students’ learning attainment at the end of a course is
also considered to be AoL. It is important to note that AoL does not always rely
on midterm and final examinations in contemporary education. Classroom-
based SA can combine traditional (e.g., tests and quizzes) and process-
oriented assessments (e.g., take-home tests, assignments, group work, and
portfolio submissions). The standards for reading skills for Level 1 on the
ESL scales used in Australia for English as an additional language/dialect
(EAL/D) learners can be used to exemplify AoL activities:
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Standard 1
1. Students can obtain meaning from reading a short, simple text.
2. Students can use basic familiar vocabulary, sounds, and sentence structures
to aid their reading comprehension.
3. Students can independently use their classroom reading experiences to
complete similar reading tasks and activities.

After AoL data have been evaluated, students are awarded scores or grades
that best describe their level of the prescribed standards. In AoL, students’
performance should be assessed against the standards (i.e., criteria or bench-
marks) rather than being compared with their peers. This approach is called
criterion-referenced approach (CRA).
Alignment is an important aspect of AoL. Since all forms of assessment can
impact student learning quality in various ways, alignments among the target
 Assessment for Language Teaching 27

Learning
outcomes

Alignments

Teaching
Assessment
and
of learning
learning

Figure 4 Alignments among learning outcomes, teaching

and learning, and AoL

learning outcomes, teaching and learning activities, and assessment are essen-
tial. Alignments can warrant assessment relevance and promote fairness in
assessment. We illustrate an example of such alignments in Figure 4.
The basics of alignments are that, first, teaching and learning in the classroom
should be relevant to the learning outcomes to ensure that students develop their
language repertoires in association with the learning outcomes. Second, assess-
ment should be aligned with the learning outcomes and the teaching and
learning activities. Figure 5 shows the alignments among learning outcomes,
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

teaching and learning activities, and assessment tasks.

4.2.2 Standards-Based Assessment

A hallmark of large-scale standards-based assessment is standardisation of

content and process. In standards-based assessment, the design, administrative,
and scoring procedures strictly follow predetermined steps and requirements
(e.g., time allowance, proctoring procedures, and scoring methods). It is
a procedure that requires all students or test-takers to complete assessment
tasks within a strictly observed administrative procedure.
We denote standards-based assessments as those implemented by external
agencies or authorities on a system-wide basis, for example a suite of nation-
wide school leaving examinations. Government standards or benchmarks
largely influence school curriculums, syllabuses, and SAs. Influential stand-
ards-based tests include nation- or state-wide standards-based examinations
at statutorily specified times (e.g., by ministries of education). Officially
 28 Language Teaching

Learning outcomes for reading (LOR): Students are Teaching and learning activities
able to
1. use key words for understanding explanations Teacher Direct Activities: Teacher provides
when reading or listening to texts being read. language lessons by
2. read previously seen explanatory texts to increase 1. giving various examples of explanatory texts (3
accuracy and fluency and improve appropriate texts of 100-150 words) – LOR 1
pauses and intonation. 2. reading them aloud several times to help
3. identify sequences using linking words such as students match words and sounds, focusing on
first, second, next. appropriate pauses and intonation – LOR 2
4. use visual supports such as diagrams, and 3. discussing how to focus on key information
illustrations to interpret meaning in an explanation. from explanatory texts – LORs 1 & 3
5. match a sentence or caption to a visual support of a 4. using visual supports to link to explanatory texts
phenomenon. -- LORs 4 & 5

Guided Student Activities: Students practise the

target LORs by
1. Pairs, reading the texts provided by the teachers
out loud to each other. Take notes on difficult
and new words. –LORs 1 & 2
Assessment for Learning (AfL)– LORs 1-5 2. Pairs, reading the same texts to understand
1. Teacher monitors students’ language behaviours in explanations –LORs 1 & 2
the teacher direct activities. 3. Groups of 4-5 students, ordering sequences of
2. Teacher asks display questions. explanations – LOR 3
3. Teachers monitors students’ performance during 4. Groups of 4-5 students, identifying features in
guided activities. pictures or illustrations that match explanations
4. Teacher asks representative pairs or groups to in the given texts – LOR 4
present their work to the whole class and provides 5. Pairs, completing missing gaps in new
answers and feedback on their learning. explanatory texts – LORs 1 & 3
5. Teacher discusses and explains answers in the
independent individual activities. Independent Individual Student Activities: Students
6. Teacher asks individual students to share their practise the target LORs by
answers or read aloud to the whole class. 1. ordering provided pictures based on sequences
7. Assigned homework for individual completion of explanations in a text – LORs 1 & 3
8. In groups, students discuss their answers to 2. ordering provided sets of sentences to form a
homework. Teachers provide correct answers and coherent explanatory text.
answer student questions to clarify the answers. 3. matching a provided caption to a correct visual
support for new explanatory texts – LORs 4 & 5
Assessment as Learning (AaL)– LORs 1-5 4. reading aloud the new explanatory texts,
1. Students take control of their guided activities. focusing on appropriate pauses and intonation –
2. Students monitor their performance and thoughts. LOR 2
3. Students help each other regulate their learning and
note obstacles or difficulties.

Assessment of Learning (AoL)– LORs 1-5

1. An in-class quiz in the following class.
2. Submission of portfolios of students’ work at the
end of the semester/term.
3. The midterm and final tests that ask students to:
• order provided pictures based on sequences of
explanations in a text
• match captions to correct visual supports
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

• order provided sets of sentences to form a

coherent explanatory text
• read aloud an unseen explanatory text,
focusing on appropriate pauses and intonation

Figure 5 Detailed example of alignments among learning objectives, teaching

and learning, and assessment tasks in a pre-intermediate reading unit of study
(based on NSW Department of Education and Training, 2004)

mandated standards-based assessments can have government funding impli-

cations for schools according to students’ performance, and some teachers
may be rewarded or penalised depending on students’ performance.
Governments use such external standards-based assessments to identify, for
instance, the level of national literacy and skills required to help determine
their country’s international economic competitiveness and inform education
reform policies.
 Assessment for Language Teaching 29

Other examples of external standards-based frameworks are the American

Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) Proficiency Guidelines,
the Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB) for ESL, the CEFR, the EAL
Assessment Framework for Schools in the UK (published by the Bell
Foundation), and the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment
(PISA). In Australia, for example, NAPLAN (National Assessment Program –
Literacy and Numeracy) is an example of an annual standards-based assessment for
Years 3, 5, 7, and 9.

SCAN ME 10

NAPLAN Nightmare: National Test Results Show The School System Is

Going Backwards (posted to YouTube by The Project)
https://bit.ly/41iCIti

Table 3 is an example of an ESL scale in Australia for describing progres-

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

sions of EAL/D students in different standard phases (e.g., emerging and

developing). Table 3 shows some overlapping and transitional content at
each competency level.

4.2.3 Types of Decision-Making in SA

We have seen already that SA is used to decide on students’ achievement or

success levels. Two types of decision-making approach are commonly used in
assessment practices: the norm-referenced approach (NRA) and the CRA.

Norm-Referenced Approach (NRA)

The term ‘norm’ is derived from the normal distribution concept of test scores
(bell-shaped distribution; see Figure 6). The normal distribution is a probabilistic
frequency distribution of quantitative data or scores in which the average or mean
score is used as the midpoint in the distribution (the 50 per cent point). The
standard deviation (SD), a statistical measure that estimates the spread of scores
in a given sample or population, is used to help establish the distribution curve.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Table 3 Example of the ESL standards (emerging and developing phases) for EAL/D students in Years 3–6 (based on Australian Curriculum,
Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA), 2014, pp. 9, 16)

Emerging level Developing level

At the beginning of this phase, students demonstrate the ability to At the beginning of this phase, students demonstrate the ability to
understand simple short texts with varying success. Students are understand more complex and longer texts with a good success rate.
able to: Students are able to:
1. develop linguistic knowledge of predictable English sound– 1. become more independent in their reading than in the emerging
symbol relationships and some common letter patterns phase
2. recognise common subject-specific words 2. when instructed, recognise common suffixes and prefixes, and
3. comprehension use these to construct meaning (e.g., -ly for the adverbs of
4. understand familiar prints around the classroom (e.g., posters and adjectives)
signs) 3. identify the gist or the main idea in most class texts correctly,
5. read their own writing correctly and in more complex and lengthier texts that have predictable
6. read short texts with predictable structures and everyday structures and contain familiar vocabulary, although they may
language still depend on some illustrations
7. read texts out loud, following the print from left to right and top to 4. identify characters in texts
bottom, using appropriate pauses and intonation 5. search for specific factual information.
8. understand some gist or main ideas in simple short texts As they reach the end of this phase, they are able to:
9. use their current spelling and pronunciation knowledge to 6. recognise various purposes of texts and reading comprehension
attempt pronouncing new words. 7. recall and retell sequences of events or stories accurately
As they reach the end of this phase, they become more independent 8. make some inferences
in their reading and realise the purpose of reading. 9. adjust their reading rate to cope with available time allowance
and tasks
10. read aloud most class texts correctly, with confidence and
appropriate intonation (e.g., statements, questions, and
dialogue).
 Assessment for Language Teaching 31

Figure 6 The normal distribution

As illustrated in Figure 6, SDs are placed around the mean (average score).
A minus sign appears before them when they are below the mean, but no plus sign
is used when they are above the mean. Theoretically, this kind of score distribu-
tion suggests a ranking system. For example, students whose scores are below the
mean score are considered below the average, whereas those above it are con-
sidered above the norm; how far below or above is defined by the values of SDs.
The perfect normal distribution of scores is symmetrical (mirror image) on
the left and the right sides of the mean. When the normal distribution is
considered, scores are placed along a continuum of the lowest and highest
possible score. When there is a normal distribution, many students will likely
be placed around the average score (approximately 68 per cent within ±1SD).
To illustrate, if the mean score is 60 and the SD is 10, the scores between the
mean and 1SD can range from 60 to 70 (making up approximately 34 per cent of
all students), and the scores between the mean and –1SD can range from 50 to
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

60 (also making up around 34 per cent of all students).

However, a perfect normal distribution (i.e., symmetrical) is unlikely in a dataset
because the normal distribution is affected by sample size and the heterogeneity of
students’ abilities (high, medium, and low), among other things. Through the
normal distribution principle, NRA adopts a ranking system of students’ scores
(e.g., the highest to the lowest) for decision-making on students. There are reasons
for NRA to be used in many standardised standards-based assessment contexts, for
example where students are compared with others in a given school across different
states or provinces. The type of decision-making in the NRA is relative (see Brown,
2005). Scores are first ordered and calculated in percentiles. In statistics, a percentile
of a given student indicates the proportion of students who score above or below
them. For example, students with a percentile score of 90 perform better than 90 out
of 100 but worse than 10 out of 100. In Australia, for example, students who have
completed a two-year higher school certificate in most states are given an Australian
Tertiary Admissions Rank (ATAR) score. Their grades and subjects are calculated
 32 Language Teaching

to derive each student’s ATAR score, which is out of 100 (i.e., a percentile).
Therefore, if a student’s ATAR is 95, it means that this student performs better
than 95 per cent of the students (i.e., this student is in the top 5 per cent). Generally
speaking, a high ATAR is specified for a competitive field of study (e.g., medicine)
in a highly ranked university.
In summary, NRA is used in SA when limited places, quotas, or positions are
available. It is also used in general or specific-purpose language proficiency
tests in which test-takers must be identified as beginners, intermediate, or
advanced, and so forth. In practice, even though scores may not be normally
distributed, scores are rank-ordered, and those with the highest scores are
selected.

Criterion-Referenced Approach (CRA)

An example of a CRA is a driving test. It is of no interest to the licensing
authorities whether candidates are the best or the worst drivers among all
candidates before they are given a driving license. The driving test officer has
the official criteria and must determine whether a given candidate has met each
of them (e.g., speed management and vehicle control). In the end, the decision is
a yes/no decision. Candidates of a given day are not compared against one
another for decision-making.
The driving test scenario can be applied to classroom-based SA. Students’
achievement or attainment performances are decided using the given learning
outcomes (i.e., criteria). For example, in a reading lesson, if one objective is
‘students can identify the main idea in an expository text’, and if students can
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

correctly answer the questions related to the main ideas in a reading test, then
it can be said that those students have met the objective (i.e., passed). In
practice, the cut or minimum expected scores decide whether students have
met the criteria or standards (e.g., at least 70 per cent correct). In this example,
students’ scores are not ranked as in the NRA. Accordingly, CRA focusses on
matching or aligning students’ performance against the given standards or
criteria (see also Fulcher, 2010). In other words, the CRA decision is absolute
as it focusses on whether a student has achieved the stipulated benchmark, be
it in the form of a single answer or a minimum number of acceptable answers/
responses.
Of course, in many language courses, students are not necessarily given a pass or
fail grade. There may be different letter grades that are associated with a range of
percentage scores (e.g., 0−49 = F, 50−59 = D, 60−69 = C, 70−79 = B, 80−89 = A,
and 90−100 = A+). The decision to award particular grades to students would
depend on where their scores fall in the ranges. In this grading system, teachers
 Assessment for Language Teaching 33

should use percentages (rather than percentiles) to decide students’ achievement

levels or grades. If all students have scores between 90 and 100, they should all
receive A+.

Reflection Box 3
Should assessment for and of learning be norm-referenced? Why or why
not?
Share your thoughts here: https://bit.ly/4aaPyhx.

5 Key Theoretical and Technical Concepts

This section elaborates on some methodical concepts that language assessment
professionals apply in test or assessment design (e.g., constructs, CTT, and
types of error associated with assessment). Some aspects of these concepts are
relevant for both SA and FA.

5.1 Constructs in Assessment

Teachers may encounter the word construct when they read a test manual or
technical report of a given test or assessment. Constructs represent abstract
concepts of knowledge and skills. Language proficiency is an example of
a construct because it is abstract. We cannot observe it directly, but we can
make it ‘knowable’ through tests or assessments, allowing inferences and
evaluations to be drawn from responses to test questions or tasks. Constructs
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

such as language proficiency or skills are theorised to manifest observed

language use or responses to test tasks for inferring the constructs of interest.
For example, speaking fluency can be inferred by observing how students talk
when they respond to a given task. Reading comprehension can be inferred by
observing whether students answer comprehension questions correctly.
Assessing what we cannot define is difficult because we do not know what we
seek in students’ abilities or knowledge. Teachers may not use the term con-
struct, but terms such as language skills and learning outcomes or objectives in
their assessment would be part of the established professional terminologies.
Knowing what to assess is important for at least two reasons. The first is related
to FA. When teachers employ FA during their teaching, they can be more aware of
what they are looking for in their students (e.g., abstract ability, language skills) as
they interact with classroom activities. For example, teachers can recognise
students’ errors or inappropriate language use. Knowing what to assess allows
teachers to effectively use their time and effort to gauge and support students’
 34 Language Teaching

learning. The second implication is related to SA. In AoL, test-writers and

teachers can explicitly define what language knowledge or skills they aim to
assess in their students. Explicit definitions can provide a checklist for evaluating
questions or tasks that students will complete (e.g., quizzes, midterm and final test
questions, and tasks for portfolios). By being explicit about what to assess,
teachers can check whether their assessment constructs are aligned with class-
room tasks and activities. Likewise, test-writers can check the alignment between
test design and curriculum and/or syllabus specifications.

SCAN ME 11

CEFR and Language Assessment (posted to YouTube by British Council

Aptis Official)
https://bit.ly/41cNktX

5.2 Ways to Elicit Performance (as Evidence

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

of Learning/Knowing)
This section elaborates on fundamental considerations when teachers elicit or
collect evidence of student learning or performance (as specified in the learning
outcomes). Suppose teachers aim to know whether students can orally tell others
about themselves (e.g., their names, hobbies, or interests) after a lesson. In that
case, they can design a paired task where students exchange information about
themselves. This method seems appropriate and relevant. If, however, students
are asked to complete missing gaps in a written conversation dialogue, their
speaking is not appropriately assessed. In this situation, their performance also
depends on reading comprehension and writing skills.
Language assessment professionals have developed and fine-tuned the use of
test or assessment techniques for assessing language skills or components (see
Brown & Abeywickrama, 2019; Green, 2020; Coombe, 2018; Weir, 1990,
2005; Winke & Brunfaut, 2021). This section considers three (interrelated)
methods for eliciting students’ performance.
 Assessment for Language Teaching 35

5.2.1 Elicitation Approaches

The three frequently used approaches for eliciting language performance are
direct, semi-direct, and indirect. Discussing the extent of directness is useful
when considering the level of task engagement and involvement, which require
various skills and processes.

1. A direct approach asks students to directly engage in the focal language-

using skill (e.g., students engage in reading when we assess their reading
ability). It is called ‘direct’ because it is strongly related to the construct of
interest. This approach allows teachers to understand how well students can
complete skill-specific tasks. A speaking test that asks students to interact
with prompts from a computer (e.g., by speaking into a microphone) is an
example of a semi-direct approach.
2. An indirect approach asks students to perform language tasks that involve using
a particular piece of language knowledge and/or skills relevant to the target
construct (e.g., grammar or vocabulary tests for inferring reading or writing, or
pronunciation tests for inferring speaking). The indirect approach does not
require students to engage in a full range of requisite language knowledge
and language-using skills. For example, error detection tasks ask students only
to identify an ungrammatical option in a sentence. Although accurately identi-
fying errors in a sentence can be linked to the lexico-grammatical knowledge
required for good writing, an error detection task is indirect to assessing writing
because it does not ask students to write sentences or essays.

Choosing the most appropriate method to assess language skills (i.e., direct or
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

indirect) is critical because it influences the level of inferences and generalisa-

tion. Indirect approaches are not suitable for making holistic claims about
students’ language use since they have not produced the language independ-
ently. For instance, in an indirect speaking task such as a pronunciation test,
students may pronounce individual words correctly, but the extent to which their
pronunciation is comprehensible in communicative speaking tasks is not fully
known.

5.2.2 Integrated Approach

A good deal of language assessment now adopts an integrated approach. There
are two related ways of understanding this approach, represented by two related
terms – integrative and integrated:

1. Integrative tasks require students to use various aspects of language know-

ledge and language-use skills to respond to a given question or task. For
 36 Language Teaching

example, a dictation task that asks students to write what they hear is
integrative since it requires them to integrate their listening and writing
skills, vocabulary, grammatical knowledge, and spelling skills. Similarly,
a cloze task that asks students to fill in a gap in a phrase or sentence with one
suitable word only requires them to read the text for global comprehension
and to use a specific vocabulary and correct syntactic form (i.e., vocabulary
and grammatical knowledge) in the provided space. The word integrative,
therefore, suggests an interactive nature of language use as students respond
to the task.
2. Integrated tasks are considered to be a variety of integrative tasks. Unlike
the need to integrate different aspects of students’ own language know-
ledge, skills and processes in dictation or cloze tasks, they are explicitly
asked to select and/or use a set of provided stimulus materials (e.g.,
written or spoken texts) in combination to generate their test perform-
ance. For example, students are asked to read a written passage about
public health and to listen to a talk on a related topic. Then, they need to
speak to respond to a question or prompt by using information from the
reading and listening texts to form their viewpoints. In this example,
students are said to integrate various sources of information to produce
their responses. Integrated tasks are useful for assessing language pro-
duction directly, such as speaking and writing for a specific purpose.
Receptive skills are indirectly evaluated in such an integrated test task.

5.2.3 Selected- or Constructed-Response Techniques

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Many teachers are familiar with techniques such as multiple-choice, true/

false, and short-answer questions, as well as essay and interview tasks. In
the language assessment literature, these techniques can be classified into
selected- or constructed-response categories. The term selected-response sug-
gests that students must choose from the provided options to respond to
questions or tasks. In contrast, the term constructed-response indicates that
they can produce (i.e., construct) their own answers or responses. Therefore,
the multiple-choice and true/false techniques are selected-response, whereas
essay and interview tasks are constructed-response techniques.
Knowlwdge about these techniques is helpful for both FA and SA because
there are advantages and disadvantages associated with these techniques. Some
techniques are regarded as suitable for a particular language use. For example,
selected-response techniques are often used to assess receptive skills, whereas
constructed-response techniques are often used to assess productive skills.
 Assessment for Language Teaching 37

Therefore, matching a technique to the target construct is crucial for language

assessment.

5.3 Classical Test Theory (CTT)

Developed in the early to mid-twentieth century, CTT is related to a body of
psychometric theory in ensuring accuracy and reliability in test scores (see
Brown, 2022; Sawaki, 2014, for detailed discussion). Brown (2022) argues
out that CTT helps teachers understand abstract testing and assessment con-
cepts. Constructs, for instance, are abstract, so it is plausible that errors can
occur in an assessment process. Test reliability and error in testing and assess-
ment are well-conceptualised within CTT. In a nutshell, CTT is a measurement
theory that focusses on the accuracy and consistency of collecting relevant and
sufficient information about an aspect or construct of interest. It aims to connect
an observation (e.g., as represented by performance criteria and/or test scores)
to an underlying construct of interest.
Brown (2022) argues that it is a misconception that CTT is a thing of the past
or an old-fashioned theory that is no longer relevant to language assessment. He
asserts that CTT is still relevant to many practices in language assessment and is
widely used, especially in educational and professional settings. He suggests
that some may perceive it to be old-fashioned because it has been overshadowed
by more sophisticated alternative measurement theories, such as the Item
Response Theory (IRT) and the Generalisability Theory (G-theory) used by
assessment researchers and test companies (e.g., Educational Testing Services,
Pearson Education).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

One of CTT’s core assumptions is that a test score comprises what we are
looking for plus some irrelevant information (labelled as errors) that can
interfere with or give a false understanding of students’ ability, knowledge, or
attainment, for example. We summarise this concept as follows:

A test score = A true score + an error score

According to this principle, the first component of a test score is a true score that
is explained by what we aim to assess (e.g., the underlying construct(s)) by
asking students to complete test tasks or questions. For example, we seek to
know whether students can give directions using a map. In that case, their scores
should represent their ability to use appropriate words, comprehensible expres-
sions, and specific information relevant to the map. As can be seen from this
example, the ability we are interested in includes grammatical and lexical
knowledge, pronunciations, social skills (e.g., turn-taking, politeness), and
 38 Language Teaching

knowledge of how to read a map. This is the part of scores we often think of as
a true score – what underlies a given score.

SCAN ME 12

Classical Test Theory and Operationalization (posted to YouTube by

Sprightly Pedagogue)
https://bit.ly/3PykZcG

Hypothetically, if a score comprises a true score plus zero error (true score + 0
error), a test or assessment has captured 100 per cent of the underlying con-
struct. However, it is unlikely that a test score is made up only of a true score
since various interfering factors can impact students’ performance. Therefore,
in CTT, the products of interfering factors or conditions are known as ‘errors’ or
an ‘error score’. Now let us return to the example of the map-reading and giving
direction task and think about possible errors that may affect a score. We will
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

use two scenarios to explore plausible errors:

Scenario 1: Jay is generally good at speaking and is familiar with giving
directions to places using a map from the classroom activities. She is short-
sighted but forgot to bring her glasses to the test room that day. She also had her
wisdom tooth removed two days before the test. Consequently, in this test, she
could not see the map clearly (as it was also relatively small and in black and
white), and she felt uncomfortable when speaking owing to some pain from the
dental surgery. She had to guess some street names and places on the map. Jay felt
upset and worried during this test because she could not pronounce words intelli-
gibly. Jay subsequently got a low score owing to her poor performance. Is Jay’s
score an accurate picture of her ability? What could be the errors in this test? What
might be a problem with using the current score to decide her speaking ability?
Scenario 2: Mike is an average speaker and happened to know what map
was to be used in the test beforehand. Therefore, he memorised street names
and places and practised giving various directions based on the map several
 Assessment for Language Teaching 39

times. Mike produced an impressive speaking performance with fluency and

accuracy in this test. Subsequently, Mike received a top score. Is Mike’s score
an accurate picture of his ability? What could be the errors in this test? What
might be a problem with using the current score to decide his speaking
ability?
As can be seen in Scenario 1, some factors other than the target ability
influence Jay’s performance (e.g., no eyeglasses, a small map, an inability to
speak comfortably, and the associated effects they have on Jay, such as causing
her to become upset and worried). Because Jay’s ability is high, her test score is
not representative of her ability and, hence, the observed score contains many
errors. In Scenario 2, we do not know how much Mike’s score represents his
ability because he was familiar with the map used and had memorised what to
say. We might know more by asking him to do the task with a map he has never
seen and finding out whether he performs similarly well. Nonetheless, we know
that his current score cannot represent his ability. Should we construe Mike’s
background knowledge and familiarity with the test task as an interfering factor
contributing to the measurement error?
In CTT, an error score is theorised to be contributed by factors other than the
construct(s) or aspect(s) of language knowledge and ability of interest. Such
known factors include testing or assessment methods, administrative and scor-
ing conditions, and students’ factors such as current illness and fatigue (see also
Bachman & Palmer, 1996; Brown, 2005 for further discussion). Our hypothet-
ical examples of Jay and Mike suggest that the more the true score is included in
an observed score, the more valuable the score can be when it comes to
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

decision-making (Brown, 2014).

The proponents of CTT have developed and used rigorous and robust systems
in test design, standardised administration, and scoring to minimise errors. For
example, a test should not rely only on one task or question because it cannot
adequately sample students’ abilities. Therefore, CTT has a tradition of dissect-
ing errors from true scores and improving a test or assessment that can eliminate
systematic errors. The development of CTT, no doubt, has led to statistical
analyses of test reliability such as internal consistency (with reference to
parallel tests and items), item difficulty, discrimination of different ability levels
(note the discussion of test discrimination as a test function is not related to
racism or sexism), test–retest reliability, split–half reliability, and so on (see
Bachman, 2004; Brown, 2005, 2022; Lynch, 2003; Roever & Phakiti, 2018;
Sawaki, 2014, 2017 for further details).
To understand CTT, it is also important not to confuse the notion of CTT
errors with ‘mistakes’ that students make in assessment. In FA, teachers
benefit from knowing students’ mistakes since they can provide corrective
 40 Language Teaching

feedback and other support to help students correct their errors. Students’
mistakes are not the same as measurement errors in assessment (manifested
through testing and test scores). For example, when a teacher asks her
students to explain the grammar rule related to a communicative task they
are learning, one student representative explains it correctly. Therefore, the
teacher feels delighted that her students have got the concept right.
However, in the exam, most students fail to correctly use the grammar rule
in a similar task they had accomplished in the classroom. To the teacher, this
is a shocking discovery. In this scenario, the teacher might have made an
error in her generalisation about student learning: while the student repre-
sentative might have correctly understood the grammatical concept, the rest
of the class might not have. Therefore, more students with different ability
levels should have been asked to avoid such errors. In this example, the
teacher’s inaccurate understanding creates the illusion of student collective
knowing. Such an observation error can be likened to an error score in CTT,
leading to ineffective assessment.
Finally, CTT has limitations, for example its reliance on the use of raw
scores to estimate errors, its assumption of item equivalence across the
whole test (i.e., sum scores), and error of measurement being treated the
same for all ability levels.
Understanding CTT is beneficial for teachers when they design a test or
assessment task or use an already developed test; it makes them aware that
a single observation is likely to result in a misleading conclusion about
performance. Awareness of errors in assessment is relevant to tests and
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

other non-test tasks such as portfolios and assigned coursework. For example,
in portfolio assessment of young children, parents may assist their children in
completing their portfolios. Therefore, the portfolio may include contribu-
tions from the parents involved. Furthermore, in another non-test condition,
many unknown factors can contribute to errors in assessment. For example,
students may use Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) to help
them write an essay that can be completed at home, but they cannot access any
such assistance when they are asked to hand-write an essay in a controlled
testing condition. Their writing scores can differ significantly under these
different conditions.

Reflection Box 4
What do you do to reduce errors in FA or SA?
Share your thoughts here: https://bit.ly/3t35TnR.
 Assessment for Language Teaching 41

6 Summative Assessment Design – Types and Processes

Stages in designing a test for summative purposes can differ from those used in
non-test administration conditions (e.g., portfolios and task-based assessments,
which can combine FA and SA). Non-test classroom assessment can take different
forms and involve several stages flexibly to suit the context of a given classroom
situation. For example, in a portfolio assessment, students can choose their topics
and set their portfolio goals. They have out-of-class time to work on their projects
and receive teacher and/or peer feedback as they complete their tasks. The inter-
national baccalaureate diploma, for example, has a project-based component for
SA. In the Nordic countries, classroom assessments are generally teacher-led, and
in general the school systems use only standards-based testing at school leaving
age. The following section aims to provide an overview of test and assessment
designs that may be relevant for teachers when considering assessment for different
purposes.

6.1 Test Design

There can be situations in which teachers need to develop a test (e.g., midterm and
final examinations, screening tests, admission tests). In such situations, teachers are
assumed to be knowledgeable in creating test tasks or quizzes for their students.
Their school or academic institute may ask them to design a test. The following
design stages, as illustrated in Figure 7, can be seen as a road map for test
development.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Plan

Use Develop

Score Administer

Figure 7 Five stages in test design

 42 Language Teaching

6.1.1 Stage 1 (Plan)

Planning is essential in test design because it allows teachers to ask relevant
questions, for instance: What are the reasons or purposes of the given test? Who
are the target students and relevant stakeholders? What are the constructs or
learning outcomes that will be assessed? What techniques (e.g., selected- and
constructed-response techniques) will be used? What are the resources required
for developing the test task? What is the time frame for completion of the test
development?

6.1.2 Stage 2 (Develop)

Since language tests are based on standards that define the target knowledge,
abilities or skills, teachers need to engage in the following preparations: devel-
oping test specifications, creating questions and tasks, and piloting and improv-
ing them before actual use. We note that some of these considerations are also
relevant for other non-test assessments, for instance portfolios and assigned
coursework.

1. Test or assessment specifications (also known as blueprints) provide

a detailed outline of the test or assessment structures (see Bachman &
Damböck, 2017; Carr, 2011; Davidson & Lynch, 2002 for comprehensive
coverage of this topic). A test specification can give an overview of the
sections that assess specific language skills. Test or assessment specifica-
tions can help guide teachers when they write items or tasks. When evaluat-
ing test specifications, teachers should focus on the alignments among the
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

constructs to be tested, the methods and tasks being used to elicit student
performance, and the scoring methods. Test specifications can evolve and be
improved over time, and test items, tasks, and questions can be collected,
revised, and reused when appropriate (see the arrow from ‘use’ pointing to
‘plan’ in Figure 7). The appendix at the end of this Element provides an
example of Davidson and Lynch’s (2002) test specifications.
2. Question and task creation requires teachers to produce instructions for
students and create test items (questions and tasks) to elicit responses or
performance. Teachers need to choose assessment techniques when they
develop their specifications. Assessment techniques are determined with
reference to the nature of language skills or components. (We will further
discuss some test and assessment techniques in Section 5.1.6.)
3. Piloting and/or improving before use requires teachers to gather informa-
tion about test questions’ and prompts’ quality, appropriateness, and
suitability. A pilot study can start from internal team reviews (e.g., all
 Assessment for Language Teaching 43

teacher-cum-test-writers review one another’s test tasks or questions,

checking for alignments of constructs and assessment tasks, typograph-
ical errors, and clarity and appropriacy of tasks, and making suggestions
for improvement). It can also involve expert reviews (e.g., getting lan-
guage testing experts to review whether tasks conform to expectations),
to check for language accuracy and authenticity, and trial or pilot testing
with some students who are similar to the target group. All of these
activities should lead to improvement of the test quality.

After these sub-stages have been completed and the tasks and items have been
corrected and improved, the test can be assembled for administration and use
(which involves formatting, programming, second-round pre-testing or piloting if
needed, deciding on the scoring methods, and ensuring test security such as no
accidental release of the test before the scheduled administration).

6.1.3 Stage 3 (Administer)

This stage is concerned with test administration. Test administration refers to

the process of managing and delivering the actual test. Some pre-assessment
administration processes include providing test information (e.g., the nature and
the criteria of the test and tasks, as well as any pre-test preparation) to students
beforehand (via website, flyer, brochure, and/or information sessions). This
information helps students orient and prepare to take the test. Drawing on
O’Sullivan (2012, p. 53), in the actual assessment administration, the following
should be considered:
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

1. physical conditions, such as the seating of students, lighting, noise control,

and room temperature;
2. uniformity of administration and invigilation, including consistent monitor-
ing of ongoing administration, proctoring, penalties for test cheating or
dishonesty, timing, and time management;
3. test security, such as test delivery modes, storage of assessments or tests
before and after administration, and where to safeguard students’ data.

To succeed in these aspects, it is essential to provide clear instructions for proctors

and/or administrators, so that they understand what they have to do to deliver and
moderate the assessment, including checking students’ identities and informing
them at the beginning about what will happen if they engage in dishonest conduct.
Assessment administrators must report any administrative problems impacting
students’ performance to the responsible designer or teacher.
Another crucial administrative consideration is ensuring that accommodations
are provided and administered adequately to students with disabilities (discussed
 44 Language Teaching

further in Section 6.5 as part of assessment qualities). Students with disabilities or

special needs may take the test separately owing to their specific requirements. In
non-test assessments, accommodations can be arranged similarly for students
where appropriate, and special considerations such as extension of time owing to
students’ illness, injury, or misadventure can be provided.

6.1.4 Stage 4 (Score)

There are three main types of scoring method: objective, semi-objective, and
subjective.

• Objective scoring refers to scoring that does not require raters’ judgements.
That is, answer keys can be used for scoring. Restricted-response techniques
(e.g., multiple-choice and true/false) are scored objectively.
• Semi-objective scoring suggests that there can be some variation in the
correct answers or responses. Short constructed-response techniques such
as short-answer questions and cloze or gap-filling tasks may involve semi-
objective scoring as correct answers can appear in variable forms (e.g., word
choices and grammatical correctness of responses) that require informed rater
judgements. Some constructed-response tasks, such as dictation, may be
considered semi-objective scoring as acceptable responses are pre-
identified (see further discussion on the dictation technique in Section 5.1.6
under ‘Constructed-Response Techniques’).
• Subjective scoring requires scorers or raters to make their judgements on
responses. Usually, performance assessments such as direct speaking and
writing tasks require subjective scoring. The term subjective is used because
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

test scores are based on scorers’ or raters’ perceptions about the quality of the
performance. It is subjective because there can be variations in test scores.
For example, two raters may assign the same performance different scores. In
subjective scoring, scoring rubrics and rater moderation can help ensure
consistency (Galaczi & Lim, 2022; Pill & Smart, 2021).

6.1.5 Stage 5 (Use)

Finally, assessment use should correspond to the intended purpose(s) identified
earlier in the planning stage. We note that the reasoning underpinning this stage is
applicable to both tests and non-test assessments. Once students’ responses are
scored, teachers decide their success (e.g., pass/fail, admit/not admit, employ/not
employ, and so on). In language education, decisions based on assessment can go
beyond simply a pass-fail decision (e.g., awarding different grades). If there is
a limited number of positions available, scores are typically ranked, and candidates
 Assessment for Language Teaching 45

with the highest test scores are generally considered for selection (as discussed in
the NRA).
In summary, developing summative tests or assessments is a complex process.
Typically, the development of standardised testing for large-scale assessment is
not a task for a teacher working on their own; it requires teamwork and expert
knowledge, with each team member responsible for leading a specific stage. To
learn more about the stages discussed in this section, see Bachman and Damböck
(2017), Davidson and Lynch (2002), and Green (2020).

SCAN ME 13

Test Development (posted to YouTube by British Council Aptis Official)

https://bit.ly/47wD2X9

6.1.6 Types of Test Techniques

This section presents examples of selected- and constructed-response tech-
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

niques teachers may consider in their question (also known as ‘test item’) design
(see Brown & Abeywickrama, 2019; Purpura, 2016; Weir, 1990, 2005 for
a comprehensive discussion of test and assessment techniques).

Selected-Response Techniques
In selected-response techniques, students are limited in how they can respond to
questions or tasks. Such techniques include discrete-point techniques such as
checklists, analogies, multiple-choice, true/false, and matching. These techniques
are often used for assessing receptive language skills or linguistic knowledge (e.g.,
grammar and vocabulary) because the focus is often on comprehension, under-
standing, and/or identification. The following are selected examples of this
technique.

a. A dichotomous technique (e.g., yes/no, true/false, A/B, present/absent) can

be used to assess receptive skills but is unsuitable for assessing productive
 46 Language Teaching

skills. A test using this technique is relatively easy to construct (e.g., ideas or
information from the text can be presented as statements with prompts) and
quick to score. In FA, teachers can use this technique to check students’
understanding in the classroom. In binary or dichotomous items, e.g., yes/no
questions, students have a 50 per cent chance of being correct using blind
guessing – a source of error in scores. They may answer incorrectly owing to
flaws, a lack of clarity, or inaccuracy in the statement, and they may obtain
the correct answer for the wrong reason or by merely picking randomly.
Teachers can use FA techniques to overcome this by asking students to
explain their answers. Providing grounds for answers is an extra task that
requires reflexive thinking skills and additional writing requirements.
b. A multiple-choice technique is often adopted in language assessment. These
items allow students to select an answer from three to five choices, although
four may be the most common. The popularity of this technique is driven by
the practical nature of its administration and scoring, especially in large-
scale standardised assessments. This technique can test a broad range of
reading and listening constructs or knowledge of productive skills such as
grammatical, vocabulary, pronunciation, and pragmatic ability. Figure 8
illustrates an example of a multiple-choice reading comprehension test.
As with the dichotomous techniques, students are asked to choose only one
of the multiple options as the correct answer. It is essential to pre-test, edit, and
check the difficulty levels and distractor functions for this type of test. The sole
use of and reliance on this technique in a test has been criticised and discour-
aged (Alderson, 2000). For instance, there is the possibility of guessing. Even
when five-choice questions are used, the chance of being correct by guessing is
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

20 per cent, so the effect of guessing is not negligible. Furthermore, the

choosing activities are unnatural in real-world language use (e.g., people are
rarely given options in real-life conversations). It is, therefore, difficult to
generalise high test scores to real-life language use success.

c. A checklist technique is used to ask students to select and produce a list of

items of information based on a reading or listening text (e.g., check all that
are relevant to the question). Checklists can assess scanning and skimming
skills and the accuracy of information retrieval and retention. Figure 9
provides an example of a checklist technique.
Partial correctness can be used in scoring this technique, though this may
result in a complex procedure. In FA, checklists are useful for checking
students’ knowledge and understanding. For example, in FA of writing, a list
can be used to remind students whether they have completed or engaged in
some activities (e.g., ☑ I have checked subject–verb agreements; ☑ I have
 Assessment for Language Teaching 47

Instructions: Read the following passage. Answer the questions based

on what is stated or implied in the text. Choose the best answer A, B, C or
D to each question.
Most of us at some point in our lives, most frequently during our school
years, find ourselves struggling to learn foreign vocabulary. As you have
probably discovered for yourself, learning new words is generally a very
time-consuming and effortful business. Interestingly, in their research in
1975, Atkinson and Raugh found that the keyword technique was a useful
way of making it easier to acquire or learn foreign vocabulary. In this
technique, for example, native English learners first of all form an
association between each spoken foreign word and an English word or
phrase sounding like it and its English equivalent. For example, the
Russian word zvonok is pronounced zvah-oak and means bell. This can
be learned by using an oak tree covered with bells.

Source: Extract adapted from Baddeley et al. (2009, p. 374).

1. What is the main topic of this passage?

A. How to pronounce the Russian word zvonok.
B. Problems in learning new foreign vocabulary.
C. A technique for learning foreign vocabulary.
D. Who discovered the keyword technique?
Answer: C

Figure 8 Example of a multiple-choice test

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

According to information given in the conversation between Thomas and

Jane, put a tick (✓) next to what Thomas has planned to do on Saturday.
There may more than one answer.

□ Go to the beach
□ Go to the dentist
□ Do some gardening
□ Get a haircut
□ Go shopping

Figure 9 Example of a test using a checklist technique

 48 Language Teaching

checked my spelling before submitting). Test instructions need to be precise

because students may understand the written or spoken text but may be
confused by the instructions provided. For example, some students may
believe that they must choose just one item in the given list (as in multiple-
choice tests) when they need to select more than one, and this leads to failure.

Constructed-Response Techniques
Constructed-response techniques ask students to produce answers or responses
on their own. Compared to the selected-response techniques, these minimise the
effect of guessing. These techniques can be used to elicit short or extended
responses. Short constructed-response techniques are, for instance, short-
answer questions (e.g., one word only, or no more than three words), cloze or
gap-filling (e.g., one word per one missing space in a text), and diagram
completion (e.g., no more than three words). These techniques are somewhat
restricting and controlling. The following are examples of this technique in
more detail:

a. A cloze technique is mainly used for assessing reading skills. Every nth word
(e.g., every fifth, sixth, or seventh word) in a paragraph is deleted, and
students must devise a word to replace it. This technique taps into students’
broad comprehension of the stimulus text. They have to work out what might
be missing that could complete the meaning. When they complete the gap,
they must pay attention to content meaning, grammatical features (e.g.,
tenses, verb forms), and word forms (e.g., plurals, nouns, adjectives, or
adverbs). Figure 10 presents an example of a cloze technique in which
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

every sixth word is removed.

This technique can infer students’ ability to understand text coherence
since a word that correctly fills a given space needs to be meaningful and

The cloze technique can be (1) __________ with other techniques, such
as (2) __________ mixing it with a multiple-choice (3) __________ or by
providing a list (4) __________ words from which students or (5)
__________ can select the correct answer. (6) __________ combination
makes test tasks easier (7) __________ the cloze format on its own.
Answers (based on the original text): (1) combined (2) by (3) technique
(4) of (5) candidates (6) This (7) than

Figure 10 Example of a test using a cloze technique

 Assessment for Language Teaching 49

fit logically with the remaining parts of the sentence or paragraph. This

technique, hence, requires the integrative skills discussed in
Section 4.2.2. The cloze technique can be combined with other tech-
niques, such as multiple-choice or providing a list of words to select the
correct answer from. This technique can give students corrective feed-
back in FA because they must notice their vocabulary, grammar, spelling,
and reading comprehension. The cloze technique, however, is known to
lack authenticity in the sense that in ordinary real-life reading, not every
nth word is missing; therefore, assessing reading this way requires more
than reading ability since this is also a problem-solving activity.
b. A gap-filling technique can have different variants ranging from one
word only to a few words. A one-word gap-filling technique is similar
to a cloze technique, but a particular word is selected to be removed. That
is, word deletion is motivated by assessment objectives, whereas the
cloze technique is more format-driven (i.e., deleting every nth word) as
the cloze technique. A gap-filling technique can assess reading and other
language-using skills, such as listening, writing, and speaking, as well as
grammatical knowledge. In listening, students can fill in a gap in
a written text, diagram, or graph as they listen to the audio passage.
This technique can be successfully employed in dictations in which
students listen to an audio text and fill in the missing words according
to what is heard. This is also known as partial dictation. In writing, they
may complete a form or application. In speaking, they may complete
a conversation (e.g., what the person will likely say after a question in
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

a discourse completion task). Discourse completion tasks are indirect

assessments of speaking. In a grammar test, they may complete a space
that makes the sentence grammatically correct.
c. A short-answer technique is considered to be a semi-objective, constructed-
response technique. Assessments using this technique involve students
giving responses that are somewhat restricted. This technique can assess
reading or listening comprehension skills (e.g., what, where, when, why, and
how questions). The number of words for short answers can vary but should
range between three and six in reading or listening tests. Long answers will
shift students’ attention from listening to writing answers in listening assess-
ment. The writing-up of ‘long’ answers is likely to be construct-irrelevant
(i.e., the ability has nothing to do with listening comprehension skills). In
some reading tests, students can write a sentence or two as their answers.
Again, the instructions for students regarding the length of response required
 50 Language Teaching

should be explicit and easy to understand to avoid misunderstanding, leading

to failures.
An information-transfer technique is a variant of the short constructed-
response technique. This technique is usually linked to visual representa-
tions or mind maps of texts. In a reading or listening test, students read or
listen to a text and complete a graph, diagram, chart, or table with missing
information, for example.
A short-answer technique can also be applied in speaking assessment.
Students may complete a series of questions by responding to them verbally
(e.g., What’s your name? Where do you come from? What is your favourite
subject this semester?). Such a test inevitably involves listening skills since
students need to be able to understand questions before they can answer
them. In a pronunciation test, tasks that require reading aloud a series of
words, phrases, or sentences may be considered a short-answer technique. In
a writing test, a short-answer technique is exemplified by completing a form
or application. It can also ask students to construct a sentence based on the
provided words.
The target skill or ability assessed through constructed-response tech-
niques depends on other language and/or cognitive skills not directly
assessed. For example, in a listening test, skills other than listening skills
include reading comprehension and writing, as students need to read ques-
tions and options or write answers to questions.

Extended constructed-response techniques require students to produce length-

ier answers or responses (e.g., essays, interviews, role plays, oral presenta-
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

tions). These techniques can assess productive skills such as writing and
speaking.

a. A pictures or events description technique is an extended constructed-

response technique. However, responses remain somewhat restricted
because students can only speak or write what a series of sequentially
ordered pictures or events suggests. At the same time, students need to
construct their own spoken or written discourse as they describe the pictures
or events. To achieve this task, students need to have sufficient vocabulary
knowledge related to the photographs or events and the grammatical ability
to construct their speech or sentences. This technique is suitable for specific-
purpose tests. For example, a doctor may need to explain a series of medical
procedures to colleagues or patients; a chef may explain the steps in which
a particular dish is to be prepared; and a tourist guide can explain the history
of a tourist destination or cultural artefact. Since all students describe the
same pictures or events, scoring is less complicated than scoring for
 Assessment for Language Teaching 51

Instructions: Look at the picture below. You are to talk about what you can see. You have
30 seconds to look at the picture carefully and to prepare what to include in your talk. You
will have 30 seconds to complete your talk. You should speak clearly and not rush. Start
with the words ‘In the picture, I can see ….’

Figure 11 A speaking task based on a picture

interview or role-play techniques. Figure 11 provides an example of a picture

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

task for a speaking test.

There are some cautions to keep in mind when using a picture or events
task. For instance, students’ performance may depend on the quality of the
pictures used and their content-specific knowledge. They may not interpret
the pictures or events in the same way as the test designers, teachers, or
essay markers. Furthermore, pictures may be culturally sensitive regard-
less of test designers’ best attempts to find culturally neutral scenes.
A picture that puts test-takers in a negative frame of mind is unlikely to
elicit their optimal performance. Finally, some students may be more
creative than others when describing pictures or telling events. However,
creativity may not be a construct of interest in the assessment.
b. A dictation technique is an integrative constructed-response technique that
requires students to listen to a read-aloud text and then write what they have
heard verbatim. Students use listening, reading, and writing skills as well as
memorisation (which may not be a relevant construct of interest that
 52 Language Teaching

differentiates performance). Once the appropriateness of the content of the

dictation passage has been checked, the difficulty levels are determined
simply by deciding whether the text is read once or twice and whether the
reading speed is slow, moderate, or fast. Partial dictation, which may involve
students writing a phrase or sentences in specific areas in a given text, may
be considered to reduce writing volume. Figure 12 is an example of a partial
dictation technique.

Instructions: You are to listen to a talk about the use of dictation tests to
control immigration in Australia. You are to write down exactly what you
have heard in the missing spaces. First, the text will be read once at
a natural speed; second, the text will be read with a pause between
sentences; third, the text will be read again at a natural speed. You should
check your spelling and use of capital letters.
Test-takers hear:
The ‘White Australia Policy’ and the dictation test under which it was
infamously enforced provided central policy tools in the quest to control
Australia’s immigrant population from Federation in 1901 until well into the
twentieth century. The dictation test, which was a key element of the
Immigration Restriction Act 1901, has always been associated with the
question of race.
It was administered to ‘coloureds’ and ‘Asians’ in order to have an
apparently neutral reason to deport them. The last person to pass the test
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

did so in 1909. It became foolproof, as it was designed to be. The

applicant would be given the test in a language that their background
firmly indicated they would not know and, upon failing, they would be
told that the authorities could go on giving them tests in languages that
they did not know, infinitely.
Test-takers see:
The ‘White Australia Policy’ and the dictation test under which it was
infamously enforced provided central policy tools in the quest to (1)
_________________________________________________________
________________________________________________ until well
into the twentieth century. The dictation test, which was a key element of
the Immigration Restriction Act 1901, (2) _________________
___________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________.
 Assessment for Language Teaching 53

Figure 12 (cont.) 15
It was administered to ‘coloureds’ and ‘Asians’ in order to have an
apparently neutral reason to deport them. (3) _______________
_______________________________________________. It became fool-
proof, as it was designed to be. The applicant would be given the test in
a language that (4) _____________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
and, upon failing, they would be told that the authorities (5)
___________________________________________________________
_________.

Source: Adapted from Robertson et al. (2005, pp. 241–2).

Figure 12 Example of a partial dictation test

The feedback on performance involving dictation or partial dictation

can be formative. A dictation test can help students improve their work-
ing memory, self-monitoring and self-assessment, and fluent recall of
information. In scoring, issues such as spelling mistakes and other
writing skills (e.g., capitalisation and tenses) should be considered and
addressed.

c. A summary technique can assess receptive and productive language skills. It

assesses integrative skills. The focus, however, is on accuracy in expressing,
summarising, or paraphrasing the main ideas, sequences, and essential infor-
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

mation from a text. A summary technique can be combined with the dictation
technique. Students read and summarise a text through writing or speaking.
Instructions must ensure that students understand the requirement (e.g., Write
no more than 50 words; Speak within 30 seconds after the beep sound.).
d. A free-verbal or free-written recall technique is a variant of the dictation and
summary technique. This is an extended integrative technique for assessing
reading, listening, speaking, or writing. In a reading or listening test, students
read or listen to a text and then speak or write about what they have understood
from their reading or listening. This type of assessment focusses on accurate
comprehension of a given text. In a speaking assessment, in addition to correct
recollections of information, the assessment can focus on the intelligibility of
speech, pronunciation, and fluency. In writing tests, the assessment criteria
can include content accuracy, spelling, grammatical accuracy, vocabulary use,
and mechanics (e.g., punctuation). This technique can become an integrated
task when students are required to add or relate their position to the topic and
their examples or support in an essay or speech. This technique seems natural
 54 Language Teaching

in the sense that there are no test questions that intervene in students’ receptive
or productive language processes.
In SA, performance is, however, dependent on task familiarity, practice,
memory capacity, and the topics and the complexity of texts. Some students
can comprehend a text well while reading or listening but may struggle to
remember what they have just read or heard shortly after finishing reading or
listening. In a reading or listening assessment, this technique may not reveal
students’ natural ways of reading or listening because they do not usually
need to tell people what and how much they can recall. The relevance of this
technique for FA is that it helps students learn to use memory strategies,
which are essential for enhancing language learning and use. Teachers can
help students with feedback and memory strategy instructions. Students can
practise recalling what they have read or heard, and they can start with
simple texts, then move to more complex and lengthier texts.
e. An essay technique is a flexible constructed-response method for assessing
writing. Generally, students are asked to independently write an essay
responding to a statement or question (see integrated tasks in
Section 4.2.2). Essay topics can range from personal topics, such as my
last holiday, my hobby, or my family, to academic or social topics, such as
issues in climate change, technology, education, or social issues. In EMI and
CLIL settings, essays are most likely to be subject topic–related. Students
are expected to state their position, provide support, reasons, and examples,
and organise an essay based on what they have been taught (e.g., introduc-
tion–body–conclusion). As far as possible, it would be advisable to avoid
offensive topics that may impact negatively on student performance.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Instructions need to be explicit and transparent (e.g., the number of words

students need to write, the time allowance, and the criteria used to judge their
essays).
f. A role-play technique is used frequently for assessing speaking as it is
adaptable for various student or test-taker levels. This technique is com-
monly used in standardised language proficiency tests and can be suitable for
scenario-based assessment. It is versatile and communication-oriented to
capture various speaking repertoires, from basic pronunciations to prag-
matic and turn-taking skills. It is often used in specific-purpose assessments
(e.g., business English, English for aviation and medical professionals).
Students imagine themselves being in a specific role in a given scenario
and use the target language to exchange information or solve a problem, for
instance. A role-play technique can be carried out between an interviewer
(examiner) and a student or test-taker, or it can be assigned in a pair-
speaking task in which two students are responsible for a particular role.
 Assessment for Language Teaching 55

Similar to the essay technique, instructions must be clear regarding the

criteria for evaluating performance and the preparation time and time for
task completion.
g. Oral presentation: Oral presentation is a versatile and authentic technique
for assessing speaking and communication skills and content knowledge. In
professional and educational contexts (e.g., meetings, conferences, advert-
isements, product or service promotions), oral presentations are common. In
classroom contexts, oral presentations can be part of a larger project or
assessed coursework students have been working on. Students can present
a topic with or without a PowerPoint presentation or other audiovisual or
multimedia aids. Students need to understand task requirements and practise
before their oral presentations.
In some educational contexts, for example in some Italian universities,
final degree exams can involve oral presentations to the professor, which
is, in effect, a verbal essay on a topic. For example, there is an element of
oral presentations in North American, New Zealand, and UK university
practice for PhD viva voce. Such oral presentations typically include
a question-and-answer session after the presentation. Oral presentations
can also be included as part of paired or group work, as they can involve
collaboration and leadership. That said, they can also be challenging for
some students owing to a lack of language proficiency and collegiality
with group members.

6.2 Non-test Assessment Design

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Standardised summative tests follow specific stages in design, development,

and administration. Therefore, while some considerations in test design can be
applicable for non-test assessments (e.g., planning, designing, and evaluating),
other considerations differ significantly because, typically, non-test assessment
tasks can serve both formative and summative purposes. Unlike standardised
tests focussing on individual students, non-test assessments can be conducted as
pair or group tasks.

6.2.1 Contemporary Approaches to FA

This section explores four approaches that can inform FA practices: dynamic
assessment, learning-oriented assessment, usage-based, and scenario-based
assessments. In the language assessment literature, these assessment approaches
have been discussed in relation to assessment for and of learning.
 56 Language Teaching

Dynamic Assessment
Dynamic assessment focusses on the development and processes of learning
during teacher-guided activities. Generally speaking, it tends to focus on an
individual student who is regarded unique in their language learning needs and
their ability to tackle a learning task successfully. When students encounter
difficulties, teachers provide scaffolding and feedback to support task engage-
ment, considering the student’s current knowledge and ability. Guidance is fine-
tuned to each student’s particular learning needs or difficulties with the learning
task. The aim is not to spoon-feed students in terms of how to correct their errors
but to provide advice on how to address problems, taking account of their learning
dispositions. Teacher feedback in dynamic assessment should be premised on
a clear view of the learning processes or steps involved. To achieve this, teachers
have to analyse and understand the nature of learning involved in any pedagogic
task. This feature makes dynamic assessment different from other kinds of
formative support. The principles of dynamic assessment have been extended
to cover whole class teaching contexts. See Poehner and Infante (2017) for further
discussion.

SCAN ME 14
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Dynamic Assessment for Speech (posted to YouTube by Bilinguistics –

Speech Therapy)
https://bit.ly/47oUBIw

Learning-Oriented Assessment
Learning-oriented assessment (LoA) takes a learning approach in which the
real-life educational environment (e.g., learning outcomes, mandatory internal
and external assessments), cognition (e.g., thinking processes required to
develop and learn the target language features), affect of students (e.g., feeling
and emotion), and social contexts (classroom settings, teachers and peers) are
considered (Carless, 2007, 2015; Turner & Purpura, 2017). Thus, LoA can
 Assessment for Language Teaching 57

involve a cycle of teaching, learning, and assessment both inside and outside the
classroom, and it can use all forms of assessment, including both FA and SA.
For example, it can begin with teachers using the learning outcomes or object-
ives to develop teaching, learning, and assessment activities (e.g., how to
engage in small talk). Students are then introduced to the concept of small
talk with real-life examples of small talk. They work individually, in pairs, or in
groups to learn from the examples. After that, they are encouraged to personal-
ise their own small talk. In-class activities include teachers monitoring student
learning, tracking student progress, and providing feedback on their learning
and performance (e.g., suggesting correct pronunciation or word choice). Self-
and peer-assessment can also be promoted as students complete learning activi-
ties. Teachers can also use SA techniques, such as quizzes and achievement
tests, and non-test assessment tasks, such as project-based and portfolio assess-
ments, to help students realise real-life applications of small talk. Both FA and
SA techniques can be aligned with the learning outcomes or objectives. In out-
of-class activities, students are invited to engage in independent study projects
(on topics and materials guided by teachers). They may be encouraged to use
digital technology to conduct their studies multimodally. Teachers can also offer
a follow-up discussion with students about their out-of-class learning during
class time. The fundamental premise of LoA is that students should learn new
skills or useful knowledge while participating in assessment activities. In LoA,
targeted language-use scenarios are adopted to ensure that the learning activities
meet students’ personal, educational, and social goals as appropriate. See
Chong and Reinders (2023), Jones and Saville (2016), and Turner and
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Purpura (2017) for further discussion.

SCAN ME 15

Learning Oriented Assessment: The different stages of the LOA cycle

(posted to YouTube by English with Cambridge)
https://bit.ly/3SdbnG8
 58 Language Teaching

Usage-Based Assessment
Ellis et al. (2015) and Douglas Fir Group (2016) discuss a theoretical
framework that describes and explains the nature of language use as lan-
guage learning. This framework postulates that people recognise the func-
tion of language through how it is used. For example, frequently or
repeatedly used language features in a given context are likely to be more
noticed in terms of how and what they are used for than those infrequently
used. This idea recognises that language use in a real-life activity is often
patterned (see Cadierno & Eskildsen, 2015; Dolgova & Tyler, 2019; Hall,
2019). For that reason, concepts in usage-based language learning have
implications for language teaching and assessment in terms of what to
teach and assess. For example, Thai students learning to use English in
Thailand require different foci on content and activities from those studying
English in England because the needs for and exposures to English usage are
different. Therefore, usage-based assessment should be sensitive to local
language use and learning.

Scenario-Based Assessment
Purpura (2021) provides a useful discussion of scenario-based assessment.
A scenario is an imaginary language-use scene that is used to generate a real-
life experience in which a student interacts with a task. The task may include
a collaborative activity among students and teachers. Language use in a given
scenario can be dynamic and flexible. Purpura (2021) operationalises scenario-
based assessment through computer technology, although it can be carried out in
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

an in-person classroom. Scenario-based assessment focusses on using real-life,

interconnected tasks. For example, in academic language use, students are likely
to engage in various tasks both individually and in groups. They later create
a nexus of interconnected language use to accomplish a larger communicative
goal. Students may read several texts about a topic of interest and watch
a documentary or news about that topic, and so forth, to discuss main issues
with other students and professors. Before that, they may summarise key mes-
sages from various resources through notes or texts. They may read their sum-
maries aloud to rehearse their speech or check their intelligibility. This example
shows that different language uses are integrated or combined to serve
a meaningful overall purpose.
These four assessment approaches are relevant to effective classroom
language teaching and assessment. They share three common concerns.
First, it is vital to help students imagine a real-life language-use situation
they will face and to relate their language learning and use to such a situation.
Second, various multimodal learning and assessment tasks can be created as
 Assessment for Language Teaching 59

a pedagogic space (comprising tasks of increasing complexity) in which

students can connect smaller pieces or segments to form a larger language-
use goal for a specific purpose or scenario. Third, students can receive
feedback on language use as part of their engagement with the assessment
activities.

6.2.2 General Considerations for Non-test SA Tasks

The following are some significant non-test SA design features that are relevant
to the four approaches discussed above. We focus on assessments that will
contribute to student attainment or achievement decision-making.

1. Assessment tasks should be conceptualised as an integral part of a syllabus

design, paying particular attention to their purposes, suitability, and mean-
ingfulness for students and their alignments with the learning outcomes.
Teachers need to calculate the relative contributions of various assessment
tasks to students’ final grades.
2. Instructions for each assessment task should be explicit and clear.
Students need to know the purpose of a given task and what they need to
do to meet the task requirements (e.g., structures or components of their
work, word counts (for written work), other materials to be included, and
assessment criteria). Students should be clear on whether, for example,
generative artificial intelligence (AI) is allowed to help them complete
their assigned task. They also need to know the timeline for completion
and checklists, including the due date and how to seek help when they
have questions. If students are asked to submit various stages of their
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

drafts for feedback, specific dates should be provided. Figure 13 presents

an example of a timeline for students to follow when working on a piece of
coursework.
3. Asessment rubrics should be carefully developed to assess various aspects of
students’ submitted work. Rubrics should provide transparency in terms of
expectations. Teachers should explain the rubrics and promote how students
can use them to self-assess their ongoing and final work (see Brown, 2012
for rubric development and use in LTA). Figure 14 provides an example of
an assessment rubric that evaluates various aspects of students’ submitted
work.
4. Students should receive a final grade/score on their submitted work as well
as formative and summative feedback, such as strengths and points for
improvement (see Section 7 on feedback).
 60 Language Teaching

• Decide a topic or if you can have a clearly focused topic.

• Library research on that topic (theories, principles, resources).
• Work on interview questions.
Weeks 1-3
• Submit your interview questions for feedback on Week 3.

• Choose a participant and conduct an interview

• Transcribe the interview and read the transcript
• Begin to analyse the interview script
• Draft 1 of your analysis
Weeks 4-5 • Submit Draft 1 for feedback on Week 5

• Write up your assignment draft 2.

• Use the assignment rubrics to evaluate your assignment.
• Submit draft 2 for peer-assessment. Keep the evidence of your peer assessment.
Weeks 6-7
• Revise drafts.

• Carefully proofread your assignment and check the format.

• Submit your assignment on the canvas site before [Date and time].
Week 8

Figure 13 Timeline for completing a piece of coursework

6.2.3 Examples of Non-test Assessment Tasks

The following provides an overview of non-test assessment tasks that have
gained popularity in classroom assessments because they promote task authen-
ticity, integrated language skills, application skills, and creativity. Students are
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

not constrained by the extent of time pressure as they are in a standardised test
condition.

Portfolio Assessment
Portfolio assessment is a broad approach that focusses on a collection of
students’ work over time (e.g., an assigned task that cannot be completed in
standardised conditions). It can accommodate collections of separate or inte-
grated language skills. It takes a learner-centred approach to assessment
because it focusses on students’ ongoing learning processes and the outcomes
of such processes. Therefore, students collect various drafts and outlines of their
work that have been commented on for improvement, the materials they have
used and produced, and their reflections as they completed the assessment task.
Portfolios can be constructed in the form of physical folders or artefacts.
E-portfolios are portfolios that embrace computer and information technology
as well as cloud-based storage and sharing. E-portfolios have gained popularity
 Assessment for Language Teaching 61

Subject & Task Excellent Very Good Good Fair Fail

Fulfilment (30%) 30 to >25.5 25.5 to >22.5 22.5 to >19.5 19.5 to >15 15 to >0
Exceptionally Largely fulfils the Competently Fulfils the Does not fulfil the
Point: ________ fulfils the task task requirements fulfils the task minimum task task requirements.
requirements. very well. requirements. requirements.
Appraisals (25%) 25 to >21.25 21.25 to >18.75 18.75 to >16.25 16.25 to >12.5 12.5 to 0
Effectively and Uses and evaluates Competently uses Meets the Does not use or
Point: ________ suitably uses and sources and and evaluates minimum evaluate sources
evaluates sources information very sources and expectation of and information to
and information to well to support the information to sources and serve the purpose
support the purpose purpose of the task. address the purpose information use of the task.
of the task. of the task. and evaluation.

Analysis (25%) 25 to >21.25 21.25 to >18.75 18.75 to >16.25 16.25 to >12.5 12.5 to 0
Effectively analyses Analyses the Competently Meets the Does not meet the
Point: ________ the interview to interview to support analyses the minimum minimum
support the research the research interview to requirements for requirements for
question. question very well. support the interview analysis. interview analysis.
research question.

Organisation 10 to >8.5 8.5 to >7.5 7.5 to >6.5 6.5 to >5 5 to >0

(10%) Effectively follows Largely follows the Competently Meets the Does not follow, or
the assignment assignment follows the minimum deviates
Point: ________ structural guideline. structural guideline. assignment assignment significantly from,
Shows superior Shows very good structural guideline, structural the assignment
organisational and organisational and although some guideline. structural
conceptual skills. conceptual skills. sections are not as guideline. Several
effective. aspects may be
largely confused or
undeveloped.
Writing Quality 10 to >8.5 8.5 to >7.5 7.5 to >6.5 6.5 to >5 5 to >0
(10%) Shows superior Uses a fluent and Shows mainly clear, Uses some unclear Some apparent
clarity in expressions, succinct style fluent, and expressions. meaning emerges
Point: ________ with attention to appropriate to appropriate Some flaws exist in but is largely
detail in all aspects the assessment task. expression. grammar, spelling, not fluently or
evident. Grammar, spelling, Grammar, spelling, use of language, clearly expressed.
use of language, and use of language, and punctuation. Grammar, spelling,
punctuation are and punctuation are language, and/or
mostly appropriate generally accurate. punctuation are
and accurate. poor.

Figure 14 Assessment rubric (based on an assessment rubric of an English for

academic purposes unit of study)
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

as they are flexible regarding simultaneous and synchronous student–student or

student–teacher communication (see Lam, 2023 for further discussion).

Task-Based Assessment
Task-based assessment is directly related to a task-based language teaching
approach, which focusses on helping students learn and use the target language
communicatively in authentic language-use situations. Task-based teaching and
learning is a communicative approach to language teaching and learning that
focusses on fulfilling communicative tasks. It does not ignore the importance of
raising awareness of relevant linguistic form that makes language use accurate and/
or appropriate (i.e., focus on form). Task accomplishment tends to be integrative
and integrated as students must combine various language skills for successful
communication. Task-based language assessment can be both formative and sum-
mative as students can receive feedback on their performance to improve their
communicative skills, contributing to overall learning attainment. Task-based
 62 Language Teaching

assessment may be designed similarly to portfolio assessment, but students may not
be required to submit all their drafts and other artefacts for evaluation. Instead, the
focus may be on the outcome of fulfilling the task rather than on the detailed
processes and development that led to the outcome, as in portfolio assessment.

Reflection Box 5
Is it necessary to plan an SA for a language classroom? Why or why not?
Share your thoughts here: https://bit.ly/46WJmXw.

7 Quality Aspects in Assessment

Several frameworks for considering the quality and the practice of testing and
assessment are available in the language assessment literature (e.g., Bachman &
Palmer, 2010; Green, 2020; ILTA, 2020; Kunnan, 2018). This section presents
six quality criteria (see Figure 15).

7.1 Reliability (Revisited)

We have introduced the concept of reliability under CTT in regard to measurement
errors. Reliability relates to how assessment practices and results are consistent in
standardised tests. In SA, we can think of reliability as the level of consistency of

Reliability
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Impact Validity

Quality
Criteria

Fairness Practicality

Ethics

Figure 15 Six interrelated quality criteria for testing and

assessment practice
 Assessment for Language Teaching 63

students’ performance. When students complete the same test, they should perform
similarly today, yesterday, and tomorrow. If students pass the test today but fail the
same test tomorrow, then there is a problem with reliability. We cannot rely on this
test for decision-making. In statistics, a reliability estimate of a test ranges from 0
(completely unreliable or random) to 1 (completely reliable). A reliability estimate
of 0.90 is expected for tests used to make a high-stakes decision.
It is important to note that the concepts of reliability in CTT cannot be
applied to some aspects of classroom assessment, such as learning-oriented,
formative, and dynamic assessment. It is unreasonable to expect that stu-
dents’ performances can be consistently measured because they are develop-
ing their knowledge and skills. Their performances can fluctuate over time
and across contexts and tasks. Similarly, in portfolio assessment, much of
students’ work can be in the form of drafts and revised drafts, so their
performances cannot be expected to be consistent. Therefore, in learning-
oriented or dynamic assessment, trustworthiness is more appropriately used.
The notion of ‘trustworthiness’ in language assessment refers to the quality
of assessment activities that can be dependable, useful, and relevant to
teaching and learning activities.

7.2 Validity
In the mainstream language assessment literature, validity refers to the extent to
which scores infer the target ability or construct and are used appropriately and
ethically in decision-making (Chapelle, 2021; Chapelle & Lee, 2022; Phakiti &
Isaacs, 2021). In this section, we explain three aspects of validity that are
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

relevant for consideration in FA and SA: construct, content, and face validity.

1. Construct validity: Constructs are theoretical and abstract concepts that

cannot be observed directly. When we use scores to indicate students’
abilities or skills, we can ask whether the test or assessment accurately
and appropriately captures the abstract abilities or skills that we claim to be
testing or assessing. If so, what evidence do we have to support our claim?
The same question can be applied to classroom assessment. The focus of
assessment should always be aligned with assessment tasks, be they in the
form of test questions or portfolios compiled by students.
2. Content validity: We all know that examinations and tests are unusually
concerned with a particular subject or area of knowledge and skills. So, the
selection and the design of test/exam items (questions) have to tap into the
focal construct. Content validity refers to the extent to which the tasks and
activities involved in assessment are linked to the focal construct. Therefore,
only sample tasks or activities relevant to and representative of the target
 64 Language Teaching

constructs should be used. Therefore, content validity can be thought of as the

extent to which the content of the test is relevant and sufficient to assess the
target constructs of interest. By relevance, we mean that assessment tasks or
questions must prompt students to produce the language related to the target
constructs or abilities. For example, suppose teachers give students a multiple-
choice grammar test and use the scores to infer the extent of their speaking
skills. In that case, the test is both construct and content invalid simply because
knowledge of grammar does not equate to speaking skills, and the tasks
cannot elicit samples of the speaking skills. By sufficiency, we mean obtaining
an adequate amount and quality of task responses from students to enable
evaluation and making an evidence-based decision. This consideration applies
to both standardised testing and classroom assessment. In classroom assess-
ment, content validity can be checked by asking whether test tasks or ques-
tions are similar to what students have done in the classroom. If they are not,
then there are issues with the content validity.
3. Face validity: Generally, this refers to the appearance or perceived relevance of
the assessment or test to stakeholders including teachers, students, university
administrators, employers, and possibly even the general public. If a test or
assessment task does not look as though it measures what it claims to measure,
it does not have face validity. We used an example of a grammar test to claim
about students’ speaking ability in Point (2), which lacks both construct and
content validity. This is also an example of a test that lacks face validity. In
addition, face validity can be considered in terms of assessment formats,
sequences of tasks, and how fairness and test security are addressed.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Although the primary focus of language assessment should be construct and

content validity, it is undeniable that face validity is essential.

SCAN ME 16

What every teacher needs to know about assessment (posted to YouTube

by Dylan Wiliam)
https://bit.ly/3Nkw8gk
 Assessment for Language Teaching 65

7.3 Practicality
In language assessment, ideally, we would like to collect as much language and
language-related information as possible to have confidence in our decisions.
Nonetheless, there is a need to consider whether such an expectation is realistic
because assessment needs to be practical. The term practicality is related to the
extent to which an assessment is feasible in a given context. In both FA and SA,
teachers need to consider the cost, resources, and time required and constrained
to develop, administer, and score or evaluate students’ responses.
The practicality considerations of FA differ from those of SA in various ways.
For example, classroom AfL is ongoing and embedded in teaching and learning
activities. The teaching and learning activities, whether in-person or online, are
designed to lead to qualitative feedback to the students. Thus, AfL can be time-
demanding for teachers and students. It may not be practical to give individual-
ised feedback to each student. In SA, since the main assessment concern is
mainly obtaining outcomes accurately and efficiently, test designers routinely
consider how much time will be needed to develop a test or assessment task,
how much time students will need to complete the test or assessment, and how
much money will be spent on development and administration. Practicality
considerations can also cover issues such as throughput efficiency (the number
of students/test-takers per administration) and marking efficiency (use of
machine marking or human raters). A lengthy and complex assessment can
collect extensive evidence of learning, but it is more expensive and time-
consuming to develop and administer. A shorter assessment may be time-
efficient and affordable, but may not sufficiently collect students’ knowledge
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

or skills of interest.

7.4 Ethics
The issues of ethics and fairness impact the quality aspects of testing and
assessment. These concepts are intertwined (see the International Language
Testing Association (ILTA) Guidelines for Practice, which comprehensively
cover ethical assessment). Generally speaking, the term ‘ethics’ concerns the
broad educational principles and social responsibilities that assessment develop-
ers, curriculum designers, teachers, and policymakers have to address. Ethics are
at the heart of testing and assessment practice. Ethical considerations are part of
the decision-making when teachers or test developers select test questions or
assessment tasks for a given purpose and group of students, decide on the marking
and reporting framework, and design protocols for safeguarding students’ per-
sonal and assessment data.
 66 Language Teaching

Teachers are expected to ensure that students learn as effectively as

possible. It is considered unethical if teachers never monitor their students’
learning. Using a range of assessment methods (e.g., questions, exercises,
quizzes, homework) to help students engage in language learning activities
allows teachers and students to find out what has been learnt and what has
been a challenge. These are ways to establish trust, shared purpose, and
collaboration in the classroom. Teachers can guide students to take respon-
sibility for their own learning. For example, students can be taught to engage
in self- and peer-assessment. As they become more and more independent,
they begin to develop learner autonomy. These are ethical principles that
have been embedded in FA.
But SA is imbued with ethical considerations too. For instance, final degree
examinations are a means of providing accountability – examination results can
be used as an indicator of the quality of the education programs involved.
Ethical practice in SA includes:

1. designing and using tests and assessments relevant to the unit of study or the
subject being taught. Using tests or assessments not aligned with the learn-
ing outcomes or the teaching and learning activities is unethical;
2. informing students about essential tests and assessments they must complete
in the course and the consequences of not succeeding. Students should be
aware of their assessment responsibilities;
3. reminding students of assessment dates and allowing them to ask questions
to help them prepare for assessment tasks;
4. ensuring that students have equal access to essential resources for learning
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

and attainment. Assessment is unfair if some students can access resources

while others cannot;
5. conducting the SA in accordance with the appropriate rubrics and protocols
within the given assessment framework. Making ungrounded, unfair, and
prejudicial judgements on test performance is unethical;
6. providing feedback on students’ performance individually or in groups so
that they can confirm their understanding and realise critical areas they need
to correct or improve on. In tests, quizzes, or assessments that produce
scores, this includes providing numeric feedback with explanations of the
scores that also cover areas of strength and weakness and what students
should consider improving;
7. treating all students fairly, regardless of their ability level, gender, race/
ethnicity, disabilities, religion, and socio-economic status;
8. calling out when dishonesty, such as cheating and plagiarism, is found.
If such issues are not raised and addressed in accordance with the
 Assessment for Language Teaching 67

established code of conduct, students who engage in such behaviours

may think that it is acceptable to do so. Not doing anything about this
is unethical because such an experience can engender further misdeeds.
Furthermore, cheating, if unchecked, can result in unfairness for other
students and test-takers.

7.5 Fairness
In the discussion on ethics in Section 6.4, issues of fairness are implicated.
Fairness is related to equality of treatment and opportunity for all students (see
Kunnan, 2018). In FA, for example, if teachers give detailed feedback and
support only to some students, but not to others, they are unfair in their
assessment practice. If a high-stakes SA offers advantages only to some stu-
dents, but not to others (e.g., owing to gender, race, religion, or socio-economic
status), it is not a fair assessment. An assessment can be considered unfair if the
test items and tasks involve knowledge and skills that are accessible only to
some of the students and/or test-takers, for example topics that some students
may know more about owing to their backgrounds in terms of language,
ethnicity/race, gender, religion, and socio-economic status (for further discus-
sion, see Mirhosseini & De Costa, 2019). The following scenario illustrates how
fairness and ethics can be intertwined, presenting plausible dilemmas that
teachers may face.

The school principal has decided that a computer-based test designed by

a reputable testing company will be used in the final examination for the course.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

The argument for this decision is that it will save time for marking as scoring is
automated, making the school look ‘up-to-the-minute with technology’ to the
public. The teachers know that many students do not yet have sufficient skills to
use computers and are from a low socio-economic background. Their students
barely use computers to complete classroom tasks. The teachers also learn that
none of the teaching and learning activities they have been covering in class are
related to the test tasks and activities. There is a severe lack of alignment between
the classroom activities and the test tasks. They fear that many students will fail
if this computer-based test is used. This does not seem fair for students as the test
content and the delivery method are inappropriate. Nonetheless, the teachers
know that the school principal does not like people to disagree with their ideas;
expressing such an opposing concern could mean running a career risk. If you
were the teachers, what would you do?

In this scenario, the principal has not advanced a ‘fairness’ argument for the
use of computer auto-marking. The professional dilemma for the teachers is
whether to challenge the principal’s authority. To do that might cause friction
between the teachers and the principal. At the same time, the teachers cannot
 68 Language Teaching

simply ignore the concerns; that course of (in)action might lead to students
failing the test simply because it does not align with what they have been taught.
In many contemporary public education systems, schools and colleges
serve minoritised students from diverse language backgrounds (e.g., some
Hispanic backgrounds, Spanish-speaking communities in the USA, or
speakers of indigenous languages in Australia). Suppose the language of
academic communication is standard English (however defined). In that
case, many minoritised students may receive unequal treatment and oppor-
tunity, particularly those at an early stage of learning English. For these
students, the educational provision is unfair.
On a positive note, fairness can be facilitated by special considerations and
accommodations. Considerations of accommodations for students with disabil-
ities (both physical and cognitive diabilities) or those in difficult circumstances
(e.g., unexpected illness or family tragedy) are essential (see Abedi, 2014;
Abedi et al., 2020). Accommodations in language assessment may require
some changes or modifications to the test questions, assessment tasks, adminis-
tration conditions, and procedures. For example, accommodations may include
extending the amount of time for completion of the test, allowing the use of text-
to-speech software to read a text in a reading test or to produce speech in
response to a speaking task, or providing an amanuensis (a person writing
down answers for the student or test-taker).

7.6 Impact
Earlier in this Element, we discussed the meanings of ‘stakes’ in testing and
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

assessment. Mandatory standardised tests can have a high impact on teachers as

well as students. Teachers’ careers may be impacted when their students
perform poorly. Therefore, introducing a test or assessment will always have
some degree of influence on the participants in various ways, as discussed
earlier.
Test and assessment impact can be felt broadly by individual students, other
stakeholders (e.g., teachers, schools, parents, employers), and society. Generally,
intended consequences are directly related to using tests and assessments for
a given purpose (e.g., to provide feedback to improve learning, to decide students’
achievement or mastery of the learning outcomes, to certify, to admit, and to
employ). Unintended consequences refer to the negative impacts of assessment
use beyond intended results, for example the high-stakes nature of a given test or
assessment causing cheating behaviours on the part of weak or low-ability students.
Another example of unintended consequences of a high-stakes test is the massive
use of private tutoring for test preparation, popularly known as ‘cramming’.
 Assessment for Language Teaching 69

We now focus on a well-recognised impact – washback (e.g., Tsagari &

Cheng, 2017; Wall, 2012). Washback refers to the influences of tests or assess-
ments on language teaching, learning, and/or curriculum design. For example, if
a national language test is to be given to all students in their final year at school,
teachers and students will pay attention to ways of maximising success. There
may be extra teaching and learning activities to prepare students to take this test
at the expense of other learning activities. This is an example of negative
washback. In the language assessment literature, washback can be positive or
negative.

• Positive washback refers to the impact of assessment that helps students

progress, retaining or transferring what they have learnt. The test or
assessment can prepare students to use the knowledge and skills in their
future careers and lives. For example, if a test asks students to write or
speak in the target language, they are likely to prepare themselves to do
so. Consequently, this knowledge is also available for non-test language
use after the test.
• Negative washback refers to a situation in which student learning is overly
restricted to the knowledge and skills covered by a test or assessment task. In
other words, the nature of the learning is curtailed to fit the parameters of the
test. For example, a language assessment that measures only students’ gram-
matical knowledge using a multiple-choice technique can have negative
washback impact because isolated grammatical knowledge is insufficient
for reading, listening, speaking, and writing in real-life contexts. Knowing
grammar rules and how to answer multiple-choice questions is not sufficient
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

for real-life language use or applications.

SCAN ME 17

Positive washback (posted to YouTube by Judith Granados)

https://bit.ly/4aNCZsL
 70 Language Teaching

The concept of washback is relevant to both FA and SA. Teachers’ AfL can
have positive washback impacts on students’ linguistic, cognitive, and social
engagement. For example, when students receive some corrective feedback on
their learning, they can realise their current difficulty or weakness and pay
attention to improve it. This is an example of positive washback. When students
are guided to become autonomous and self-regulated in their learning through
the use of assessment criteria (often in the form of rubrics and sample questions/
tasks), self-practices or rehearsals, and self-tests and assessments, they are
likely to develop a capacity for autonomous learning as they have realised the
benefits of self-monitoring and exploratory enquiry. The impact of assessment
is omnipresent in formal education. The impact of assessment in English
language education is most keenly felt in SA. The washback of large-scale
commercially marketed tests such as IELTS and TOEFL often impacts the
content of teaching programmes.

Reflection Box 6
Choose one of the quality criteria to focus on in a classroom assessment.
How would you apply its principles in your assessment practice?
Share your thoughts here: https://bit.ly/3TkzqnK.

8 Further Developments
In this Element, we have explored functions and practices of language assess-
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

ment, paying particular attention to the interconnections between FA and SA.

We have discussed FA as embedded teaching and learning activities within
a localised classroom for supporting and promoting learning. Teacher-led FA
can respond to areas of students’ learning and understanding that would benefit
from further guidance and support. By contrast, SA mainly concerns pre-
specified criteria of language ability, knowledge, skills, or learning outcomes.
We have also presented a theoretical and technical discussion on what and how
to assess in different contexts. We have foregrounded the significance and the
impact of language assessment on education and society generally. We have
drawn on conceptual and practical insights from language assessment research
where appropriate.
In the next section, we articulate practical pedagogical implications, drawing on
the insights and the principles of testing and assessment that we have presented. We
share our thoughts on using formative feedback to improve students’ learning, as
well as guidelines for enhancing various types and forms of classroom assessment.
 Assessment for Language Teaching 71

Section 7.2 focusses on the potential contributions of research and development for
testing and assessment activities in language teaching. In Section 7.3, we provide
recommendations for further professional development. A Glossary of Language
Assessment and an Appendix are provided after this section.

8.1 Pedagogical Practice

8.1.1 Teaching and Assessment Alignments

Testing and assessment activities, for example AfL and AoL, serve various
educational and professional functions and purposes. The alignment among
them is often implicit. Many language curriculum specifications serve as teach-
ing and learning objectives and as assessment criteria at the same time. Table 4
is an example of teaching–learning objectives that can also be used as assess-
ment criteria.

8.1.2 Formative Feedback

Readers will notice that the discussion in this section on pedagogic practice
contains some repetition of points made in other sections. We intend to make
explicit the connections between theory and practice. Feedback matters
in additional/second language acquisition (Gass et al., 2020). For example, it
can raise awareness of students’ language use, behaviours, or errors. According
to Duckor and Holmberg (2023), it matters ‘in a world where we grow, where
we learn, and where we expect everyone to change for the better’ (p. 2). These
authors also point out that students need assistance to help them understand
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

where they are going and what steps will lead them there; FA can help students
achieve this by offering appropriate guidance (Duckor & Holmberg, 2023).
Teachers should ask the following questions before giving feedback: (1) Should
feedback be provided? (2) What feedback should be provided? (3) When should
it be delivered? (4) Who should give it? and (5) How should it be given?

Five Considerations for Effective Formative Feedback

This section presents five points language teachers should consider when
providing formative feedback to students.

1. Types of formative feedback: Different types of feedback can be considered

when providing formative feedback.

• Performance feedback focusses on helping students realise the correct-

ness or appropriateness of their language use or responses to test tasks or
activities.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Table 4 Teaching and assessment alignments

Assessment
Purpose activities What to assess Examples Primary intended use
1. To enable students to AfL & AaL ➔ AoL Linguistic knowledge, Quizzes, exercises, To provide feedback on
achieve or attain the language skills, homework, informal performance and to
target learning cognitive and discussion, teachers’ adjust or develop
objectives psychological questions, diaries, and teaching activities
processes, other reflections
academic challenges to
learning
2. To determine whether AoL ➔ AfL & AaL Language skills or Midterm and final tests, To award a grade; to
students have achieved abilities related to the assignments, portfolios, produce grade
or attained the learning learning outcomes and group projects transcripts; to certify
outcomes of a course; classroom activities course fulfilments
to summarise the level
of achievement or
attainment
3. To find out the level of Diagnostic Language skills that Practice or mock tests; To inform
readiness or assessment enable success in the diagnostic assessment a recommendation of
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

preparedness (e.g., FA (for support of study of different areas (e.g., DELNA); in- whether a given student
what areas of language learning & suc- of study; language skills house workplace or employee needs
skills/abilities need cess) & SA (as to perform required assessment further specific
more improvement and based on identified occupational language support
support) ability criteria); responsibilities (e.g., as
see No. 6 a receptionist, as
a secretary)
4. To admit or accept new Admission or selec- Language ability specific College or university To accept or reject
students into tion tests; aptitude to a programme or entrance examination; students or applicants
a programme; to tests; see No. 6 degree offered in Test of English for
determine which SA (as based on tar- a given academic International
applicants should be get language con- institute or provider, or Communication
employed structs, skills, to a job interview; (TOEIC); job
knowledge); FA language aptitude tests interviews in the target
(for test-taking language; language
preparation & aptitude tests for
score users) military personnel
selection
5. To place students or Placement tests Language skills at the English Placement Test; To allocate students or
candidates into an point before being Oxford Placement Test; candidates into
appropriate level of placed into a specific in-house placement a programme that suits
a subject or area subject; a raw ability to tests their current language
learn new languages ability
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Table 4 (cont.)

Assessment
Purpose activities What to assess Examples Primary intended use

6. To determine a level of Proficiency or General language ability Academic language To certify a level of
general or specific- specific-purpose free from any previous proficiency tests such as proficiency; to accept or
purpose proficiency language tests; learning, specific TOEFL and IELTS; reject applicants
(e.g., beginner, admission tests; instructions, or university or college
intermediate, see Nos. 3 & 4 language courses; entrance examinations;
advanced) professional specific specific-purpose tests
language ability such as OET; language
tests for immigrants;
Aviation English Test
7. To determine the level State, province, or Language skills related to National/state curriculum To ensure that students
of student learning national the expected level of standards; Bloom’s meet an expected level
attainment according to assessment; see attainment in a given taxonomy; ESL scales of standards relative to
predetermined criteria Nos. 1 & 2 school grade (e.g., used in Australia; their grades or levels; to
(known as standards or Grades 1 to 12) defined ACTFL Proficiency promote students’ self-
benchmarks) used to by governments (e.g., Guidelines; CLB assessment; to fund
guide language ministry of education) standard for English as schools or educational
curriculum and a second language; sectors
assessment design CEFR
 Assessment for Language Teaching 75

• Numerical feedback (e.g., scores) is also performance feedback. It tells

students the level of performance relative to the maximum score they can
achieve. It is helpful to provide an average score so that students know if
they are above or below the average. However, numerical feedback alone
is insufficient because students may not know how to use it.
• Corrective feedback is complementary to numerical feedback and part of
performance feedback because teachers inform students whether their
language use or responses are accurate or appropriate and provide an
explanation.
• Metacognitive feedback focusses on helping students understand cognitive
processes that can help them succeed in language use or task completion. It
concerns how well students process information for monitoring and plan-
ning purposes (e.g., planning and goal-setting, monitoring, remembering,
recalling, analysing, and synthesising). In a writing task, students’ poor
knowhow may result in a lack of outlining or weak brainstorming of ideas
before writing. After realising this, teachers can discuss how to improve
their outlining with students.

2. Configuration of feedback: Formative feedback needs to be delivered in ways

that would benefit the student. Formative feedback configuration is related to
efficacy, effectiveness, and fairness. According to Duckor and Holmberg
(2023), formative feedback can be designed for whole class, group, and
individual configurations. Whole class formative feedback provides a general
guidance in areas in which students perform and do not perform well. Group
feedback focusses on the work of a specific group of (more or less homogen-
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

ous) students, whereas individual feedback is tailored to a particular student.

3. Explicitness of feedback: Teachers can vary the degree of explicitness when
giving feedback to students.

• Explicit feedback provides direct information to students on whether they

are right or wrong in their responses and what the correct responses are
(e.g., ‘You misspelt “weather” here.’).
• Implicit feedback offers indirect correction of students’ responses but
does not promptly provide the correct answer or response (e.g., ‘Is
“weather” spelt correctly?’).
• Recasts are examples of implicit feedback when teachers use a proper form
without explicitly correcting the student(s). For instance, in an interview
task, a student says, ‘I did not had breakfast, so I am quite hungry’; in
response, the teacher says, ‘Oh, you didn’t have breakfast. Why?’.
• Other types of feedback include clarification requests and elicitation and
repetition techniques (see Lyster & Ranta, 1997).
 76 Language Teaching

4. Time of feedback: This consideration is related to promptness of feedback

provision.

• Immediate feedback occurs when teachers provide feedback to students

promptly when they realise students’ errors or incorrect or inappropriate
language use or responses. Immediate feedback may disrupt students’
cognitive processes of language use or learning or embarrass them, so
teachers must decide whether it is necessary and when it is appropriate.
With automated scoring, numerical and generic feedback can be pro-
vided soon after students have submitted the work or test. A benefit of
immediate feedback is that students can associate the correction with the
error.
• Delayed feedback can be provided after students have completed a given
activity or complex language task. In some educational settings where
teachers design and administer their own tests to groups of students,
teachers will need time first to score or evaluate students’ responses, so
feedback can be delayed. Delayed feedback can be both ‘holistic’ and
detailed – giving specific information to help students learn about their
work.

5. Feedback agencies: Agency is concerned with the directionality of the forma-

tive feedback framework (Duckor & Holmberg, 2023). Formative feedback can
be teacher-driven, but it is not always the case. Students can be encouraged to
assess their own work (e.g., self-assessment) or provide feedback to one another
(e.g., peer-assessment). Teachers need to support and guide students when they
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

engage in self- and peer-assessment (e.g., how to use assessment criteria and
what to look for in their work).

SCAN ME 18

Assessment for learning 4 Giving formative feedback (posted to YouTube

by COGNITA LATAM)
https://bit.ly/3GAVvGR
 Assessment for Language Teaching 77

8.1.3 Consolidated Guidelines for Improving Classroom Language

Assessment Practices
Here, we present seven summary points that can help improve assessment
practices. These summary points can serve as a starting point for evaluating
assessment practice; teachers working in diverse educational settings will, of
course, have to make sensitive judgements to suit their local circumstances.

1. Classroom assessment should focus primarily on student learning quality,

development, and enjoyment rather than, for example, on final scores or
achievement grades. Classroom assessment should promote equitable
access to the learning materials and resources required to successfully
perform classroom activities and subsequent assessment tasks. Therefore,
the quality of learning and assessment should be understood as the extent to
which students’ current needs have been responded to and accommodated
pedagogically.
2. Classroom assessment should recognise the context-specific nature of teach-
ing and learning. This sociocultural perspective contrasts with the large-
scale standardised SA that often separates teaching from assessment and
merely focusses on certification and gatekeeping functions.
3. Classroom assessment should mainly adopt a CRA, which focusses on
whether and to what extent students have met the expected learning outcomes
and, if not, what further support should be provided. This should apply to both
test items (questions) and non-test assessment tasks. Classroom assessment
focusses primarily on the learning outcomes (within a given syllabus or
curriculum) rather than on ranking students into different levels.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

4. During classroom activities, time should be given to observation, evaluation,

and reflection on student learning, challenges, and successes (and not just the
correctness or quality of the performance, be that in the form of responses to
test items or non-test assessment tasks).
5. Assessment schemes should clearly indicate how the different components
contribute to the final (summative) score or grade (e.g., end-of-year exams
50 per cent, coursework portfolio 50 per cent).
6. When assessing performance, scoring or assessment rubrics should be
developed and validated as far as possible (e.g., checking with knowledge-
able colleagues or assessment specialists) and published to all parties
involved (see Brown, 2005, 2012; Green, 2020). Without knowing scoring
rubrics, students cannot set goals to address the assessment task and self-
assess their performance or progress; teachers cannot show evidence of their
scoring method and cannot provide effective feedback that targets improv-
ing students’ weaknesses.
 78 Language Teaching

7. Observing and identifying classroom assessments’ intended and unintended

consequences is essential. Intended effects include improvement of learning,
ability to use what students have learnt in real-life situations, positive
attitudes towards learning, and accountability or accreditation. Unintended
consequences include fatigue from too many assessment tasks, dishonesty,
and a lack of peer collaboration in group assessment tasks.

8.2 Research and Enquiries in Language Assessment

A number of issues in language assessment require further research at this time.
We present six issues and areas for discussion for illustrative purposes. Many of
these issues cut across both FA and SA (illustrated in Figure 16).

1. Research that investigates applications of language proficiency or language

competency frameworks or benchmarks that are used to inform language
curriculums, policies, and language teaching and assessment across various
regions around the world (e.g., ACTFL, CEFR, the ESL scales in Australia,
to name but a few). Several frameworks have been influential and revised
over time. Therefore, knowing whether and to what extent such frameworks

Proficiency or Multilingual
competency proficiency
frameworks
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Social
Fairness and Topics and areas for dimensions in
ethical language
classroom
assessment assessment
assessment contexts

Applications Integrated
of computer language
technology skills

Figure 16 Topics and areas for assessment research

 Assessment for Language Teaching 79

have impacted or been used in local, national, and international assessment

contexts is essential. The benefits and drawbacks of adopting a particular
language framework for teaching, learning, and assessment in localised
contexts are under-researched.
2. Research that considers and explores the nature of multilingual proficiency in
language assessment. Insights from this area of study can inform how lan-
guage proficiency can be assessed differently across localised multilingual
contexts. Multilingual assessment requires re-conceptualising the prevailing
English language proficiency models, which are largely based on anglophone
monolingual language proficiency theories. Multilinguals are currently
assessed based on this view in many language proficiency tests. In both FA
and SA, English language learning outcomes are strongly influenced by
anglophone theories of language proficiency. This is evident when schools,
universities, or language institutes adopt or subscribe to commercial language
books from mainstream publishers that provide them with language tests or
assessment tools for classroom use. There is a need to embrace and accept the
presence of multilingualism in English language use, learning, and assess-
ment. There has been a call to consider flexible multilingualism and trans-
languaging, which occurs when English language learner-users (who, by
definition, are multilingual) use all their language resources from their multi-
lingual repertoire to make meaning when communicating with others
(Chalhoub-Deville, 2019; Jenkins & Leung, 2016; Leung, 2022b; Schissel
et al., 2019).
3. Research that investigates various roles and influences of social dimensions
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

in language learning, use, and performance. For example, SA research can

explore how students co-construct their language use with others, such as
interviewers or partners, as they complete communicative language tasks.
What are the features of social interaction that manifest in a given type of
task completion? (For further discussion, see Kramsch, 1986).
4. Research that promotes assessment of integrated language skills (multi-
modal language use) that reflect real-world language-use situations.
Language skills are often assessed separately. There are pedagogical reasons
for separating language skills (to suit learner levels and to break down the
complexity of language learning). While this practice is likely to continue, it
is essential to note that in real-life language use, people mix various skills
simultaneously and/or asynchronously.
5. Research that reviews and evaluates applications and influences of computer
technology in language assessment. The past decades have seen the popu-
larity of Internet- or technology-based, large-scale assessments. Computer
and mobile technology use for testing and assessment has become common
 80 Language Teaching

in FA and SA. However, teachers need to be vigilant and critical about the
use of technology since its introduction changes the nature of assessment
methods, language use, and ways of observing performance. Teachers
should aim to examine and address the theoretical, methodological, and
fairness issues and other challenges they face, for example, in test design,
administration, and scoring, as well as those faced by students and teachers
(e.g., test preparation, access to resources, and technology).
In addition to the use of technology for test delivery, there has been a rise
in the use of in automated scoring technology (AST) in which AI and natural
language processing (NLP), for example, have been adopted to replace
human scoring. Developers who adopt AST as part of their test or assess-
ment design have been challenged by critical questions about the reliability,
the accuracy, and the suitability of automated scoring use (in terms of the
real-world construct of writing or speaking ability). This, incidentally, has
triggered public suspicion in relation to claims about the reliability and the
validity of automated scoring made by researchers who are affiliated with
the institutions that are developing and marketing the products.
Teachers should enquire about the use and the impact of AST on their
classroom practice, particularly as there could be unforeseen or unintended
consequences for students, test-takers, and stakeholders. For example, much
attention has been drawn to AI technology that can threaten the integrity of
assessments (e.g., it writes on behalf of students). Already, AI technology is
sufficiently sophisticated that it can be challenging for AST to detect AI
plagiarism. Teaching students to use AI ethically is also essential. If teachers
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

do not have the knowledge and/or the technology to see such use, it would be
challenging to determine students’ actual learning attainment. Therefore,
when technology has become an integral part of language assessment, it is
essential to research its impacts on the validity and the trustworthiness of
assessment practice and students’ lifelong learning.
6. Research that focusses on fairness and ethics in language assessment.
Fairness and ethical considerations in classroom language assessment are
integral to the abovementioned topics and areas. Fairness and ethics are
complex matters as all assessment contexts are different; each case has to be
considered in its own context.
Although there is no one-size-fits-all, bullet-proof measure to guarantee
fairness in language assessment, we argue that research into practices of
fair and ethical assessment would allow teachers to realise the problems
that they and their students face when assessment is unfair. For example,
teachers can focus on transparency of purpose in language assessment
(e.g., reasons for promoting self- and peer-assessment in the classroom;
 Assessment for Language Teaching 81

clarity in the task, the assessment instructions, and the evaluation criteria
used; and how classroom assessment includes students with special needs).
Teachers can also investigate how they and their students shape the class-
room environment in which all students have access to equitable support
and resources (e.g., through appropriate feedback provision and opportun-
ity for students to access educational material or technology) that give
them an equal chance to be successful in their learning and achievement.

We hope that teachers’ enquiries into research that is relevant to language

assessment practice in their contexts will help enhance their expertise and profes-
sional repertoire. Teachers can also conduct research into aspect(s) of their language
assessment practice. For instance, teachers, working individually or together with
colleagues, can look into the way(s) in which they design their end-of-term tests or
non-test tasks, analyse student performance, and provide feedback.

8.3 Further Professional Development and Further Reading

We recognise that a high level of teacher knowledge in assessment matters is vital
to professionalism. We therefore encourage teachers to join international or local
professional associations that work with their members to promote good practice
in language assessment (e.g., the International Language Testing Association, the
European Association for Language Testing and Assessment, the Asian
Association for Language Assessment, the Association of Language Testing
and Assessment of Australia and New Zealand), and other local/national profes-
sional associations. Several prominent academic journals, e.g., Language Testing,
Language Assessment Quarterly, Assessing Writing, Language Testing in Asia,
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Language Education and Assessment, and Assessment in Education: Principles,

Policy & Practice, and websites maintained by professional associations provide
up-to-date information on language assessment developments and research find-
ings. Open access (free-to-use) publication of journals has made it easier in recent
years for everyone to read up on research and development.
Although we have provided many citations throughout this Element, we
recommend the following books for teachers to further their language assess-
ment knowledge:

- Bachman and Damböck (2017) presents theoretical and practical concepts

and issues in classroom-based assessments, such as the relative importance
of decisions based on assessment (e.g., formative and summative) and
assessment design;
- Fulcher and Harding (2022) is the second edition of Fulcher and Davidson
(2012). It provides updated chapters from the first edition and new
 82 Language Teaching

chapters on issues and key considerations in language assessment research

and use;
- Griffee (2012) encourages teachers to do research and providing an access-
ible introduction to research methods (e.g., research design and data collec-
tion) that can be useful for language assessment research;
- Jeon and In’nami (2022) is an edited volume based on a research synthesis
approach. It presents four areas in which language skills have been con-
sidered, assessed, and researched, and provides an essential theoretical
explanation of each language skill that can help teachers extend their
theoretical repertoires for informing their teaching and assessment;
- McMillan (2013) provides comprehensive coverage of classroom assessment
topics and areas, and offers articulated research questions for classroom
assessment (e.g., FA, SA, quality assessment criteria) so that teachers can
relate specific research questions to their localised context;
- Shohamy et al. (2017) is an edited volume that provides innovative perspec-
tives and methodologies on critical language assessment use and practice
issues. Key themes include assessing language domains (e.g., language
proficiency, multilingualism, and lingual franca), assessment methods (e.g.,
use of technology, methods for test validation), assessment in education (e.g.,
dynamic assessment, washback, and test impacts), and assessment in society
(e.g., test stakes, critical language testing);
- Tsagari and Banerjee (2017) presents the essential foundations of language
assessment (e.g., assessment purposes, quality factors), key assessment areas
(e.g., assessing language skills), contexts of assessment (e.g., assessment in
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

educational or workplace settings), and contemporary issues in assessment

(e.g., assessing young learners and students with learning and other disabilities);
- Winke and Brunfaut (2021) comprehensively treats language assessment meth-
odology for second language acquisition research, focussing on the interface
between language assessment and second language acquisition research.
Topics include fundamental concepts in assessment and measurement, research
instruments, measuring individual differences, and assessment of language
development.

Also, the UK Association for Language Testing and Assessment (UKALTA)

has published a number of briefing sheets on various topics, including AI and
language assessment and flexible multilingualism. See https://ukalta.org/
ukalta-reports-and-briefing-papers/.
 Assessment for Language Teaching 83

8.4 Concluding Remarks

We must recognise the significance of language assessment in the educational
enterprise. Spolsky’s (2012, p. 502) metaphorical remark that ‘tests, like guns,
are potentially so powerful as to be commonly misused’ is a moral reminder that
we should all be aware of the power of assessment.

REFLECTION BOX 7
Reflect on the symbolic use of tests and assessments as guns by Spolsky
(2012). Have you seen or experienced instances in which tests or assess-
ment practices were misused?
Share your thoughts here: https://bit.ly/48cSNTW.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press
 Appendix: Test Specifications
There is no correct structure or framework for test specifications (see Alderson
et al., 1995; Bachman & Damböck, 2017; Bachman & Palmer, 1996; Brown &
Abeywickrama, 2019; Carr, 2011; Fulcher, 2010). The complexity of test
specifications depends on the nature of the language constructs or skills to be
tested and the resources available. Fulcher (2010), for instance, presents various
specifications for the whole language assessment system (e.g., specifications for
assessment production, administration, scoring, and validation). This appendix
presents Davidson and Lynch’s (2002) test specifications, which are useful for
assessments in the classroom context.

Davidson and Lynch’s (2002) Assessment Specifications

Davidson and Lynch (2002) adapted Popham’s (1978, 1981) test specifications for
language assessment. Their framework is applicable for an entire test and a single
test section. In writing a test specification, it is useful to include the title of the
specifications, version references, dates, and details of the test designers or devel-
opers. There are five interrelated components in this specification framework:

1. The general description (GD): This section provides a statement of the

purpose of the assessment; the rationale for assessing the target constructs,
skills, or abilities; and a description of the language constructs or learning
outcomes being tested (e.g., what students or test-takers need to demonstrate
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

through the assessment tasks). The following is an example of a GD of Part 1

in a reading comprehension test:

GD: Students need to be able to identify the main topic of each paragraph in
a written text. These days, students read texts on computers, tablets, and mobile
phones daily. In this test, students are required to illustrate their ability to
identify the main topic of each paragraph by reading a text with several
paragraphs, selecting a heading for each paragraph from a list of headings,
and then dragging and dropping it into the space above the relevant paragraph.

2. The prompt attribute (PA): This section describes the assessment tasks’ charac-
teristics, that is, what students or test-takers will be given to inform them of what
they need to do to complete the test. A PA may include an instruction or direction
to complete the task and the technique(s) to be used (e.g., multiple-choice, short
answers, essay, or oral interview). The PA may vary according to the skills or
language components being assessed. For example, in a reading or listening test,
 Appendix: Test Specifications 85

the PA needs to include details of the characteristics of the text (e.g., topics,
vocabulary range, lengths, text familiarity, and sources, e.g. authentic, simplified,
scripted sources). For a speaking test, the PA describes how students or test-
takers will be prompted to produce their speech (e.g., warm-up questions
followed by a series of tasks (usually from simple to more complex ones);
who will interact with them; and whether their speech will be recorded). The
PA may describe the prompt’s presentation mode (e.g., paper-based, computer-
based, multimedia-multimode prompts) and the time allowance (e.g., ‘You have
1 hour to complete this assessment.’). The following is an example of a PA:

PA: The students will read two written passages about a holiday destination
and wildlife. The students are familiar with these topics and relevant
vocabulary from their coursework. They have also had exposure to passages
of a similar length. The passages can be based on or adapted from online
magazines or newspaper articles. The content can be modified regarding
vocabulary and sentence structures to suit the students’ proficiency levels.
Each passage should be about 220–250 words long and be organised into
six to seven short paragraphs.
Students will complete five items for each passage (ten items across the two
passages). They will be given 20 minutes to complete the items for both
passages. The first passage and its items will be presented on screen. After
completing the first passage, students must submit their answers by clicking
the ‘Next’ button. At that time students will be prompted to proceed to
the second passage. Should the time limit of 20 minutes be reached, their
answers will be saved automatically, and no further answers can be supplied
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

at that time. Students will then be prompted to go to the next section of the test.
Each text should appear similar to how it appeared in its original form, but
this could be adjusted to suit the context of the students’ learning or to make its
appearance similar to that of the texts used in class. Provision should be made
for students with disabilities to complete the test without undue hindrance.
Each passage will include a title and will be formatted in a similar way to
the original version. A picture may be incorporated into the text if that is
deemed to improve its authenticity. Seven plausible headings describing the
paragraphs’ main topics will be provided at the top of the screen. A space or
box will be provided above each paragraph. Students are to drag and drop
one of the provided headings into each space using the computer mouse so
that each heading describes the following paragraph. Each of the headings
provided can be used only once, and two extra headings do not represent
any of the paragraphs. The heading for the first paragraph may be offered to
students as an example of how to respond to the task.
 86 Appendix: Test Specifications

3. The response attribute (RA): The content of this section overlaps with that
of the PA section. It includes how students or test-takers will respond to the
PA. The information includes how students or test-takers should provide
answers or responses to the questions or tasks. For example, test-takers
choose one option per question on a computer screen in a computer-based
multiple-choice test. Once an answer has been submitted, it cannot be
changed. In an essay test, test-takers are asked to respond to the task by
writing in a designated place and producing a specified word count (e.g.,
‘Write at least 200 words.’). The following is an example of an RA of the
same reading test as in Point 2 (PA):

RA: The students will read two passages about a holiday destination and
wildlife. Each passage contains several paragraphs. A list of seven plausible
headings that best describes each paragraph is provided above the passage.
They are to read each text first and consider the main topic discussed in each
paragraph. Then they will choose one of the provided headings for each
paragraph that best describes that paragraph. The first paragraph has been
completed for students as an example. They are given a total of 20 minutes for
this section.
They will use the computer mouse to drag and drop each chosen heading
into the provided space/box above or next to the relevant paragraph. Each
heading can be used only once.

4. The sample item (SI): This section provides an example of the assessment
tasks to be developed. The directions or instructions to complete the tasks
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

should be explicit and formulated for students or test-takers to follow and for
item writers to understand. Examples allow item or task writers to replicate the
example tasks in parallel form. An SI may link to the specification supplement
in Point (5); examples of lessons, classroom activities, exercises, or past tests
or assessments that can be modelled may be included in this section.
5. The specification supplement (SS): While this section is optional, its inclu-
sion can be useful for item writers. It can function similarly to an appendix.
Detailed information for each section (Points (1)–(4)) can distract the item or
task writers from some crucial points. An SS may include relevant tips or
suggestions for selecting topics, texts, question or task formulations, sample
texts and source texts, lessons, previous tests or assessment tasks, and
criteria for scoring or assessment.
 Glossary of Language Assessment
Accommodations: Alterations or modifications of assessment procedures,
deliveries, or administrations to allow students with special educational
needs and/or disabilities to participate in language assessment activities in
a way that will enable them fully to show their potential and their
capabilities.
Accountability: A concept to ensure that objectives and learning outcomes are
effectively and appropriately delivered, supported, and assessed in accord-
ance with published criteria. This concept is essential for gaining public
confidence.
Additional language: An increasingly adopted term to replace the notion of a
second or foreign language. ‘Second’ or ‘foreign’ denotes contexts and
processes of language use and language learning that are assumed to be
separate and different from that of first language; for example, English is
learnt and used as a foreign language in places such as Spain and South Korea.
The term ‘additional’ offers more comprehensive coverage for the diverse
language learning contexts and use in contemporary settings.
Administration: A predetermined process, usually officially sanctioned and
verified by the assessment authority, that test administrators, proctors, and
students must follow when completing a given assessment (e.g., instruc-
tions, order of test sections, time allowance).
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Alignment: In FA, it refers to strong articulation between desired learning

outcomes, teaching and learning activities and assessment. In SA, it refers to
strong agreements between test construct/s, test task/s and scoring method/s.
Assessment: A broad concept that describes processes designed to collect
information from students’ or individuals’ learning, ability, and capacity
and to use the collected data to adjust or modify teaching and learning
activities, including feedback on success and guidance to improve.
Assessment as Learning (AaL): Assessment as part of language learning or
use. It also emphasises the responsibility of students to ensure and sustain
their learning, progress, and success (e.g., through self-assessment, self-
regulation, and peer-assessment).
Assessment for Learning (AfL): Assessment that aims to support and
improve language learning and use and to ensure that students can meet
the desired or expected learning outcomes. Generally speaking, it has been
 88 Glossary of Language Assessment

conceptualised in terms of teacher-led assessment activities in which

teachers could use informal and formal assessment methods to identify
students’ learning status and to provide support to help them overcome
specific difficulties or challenges.
Assessment of Learning (AoL): Assessment that focusses on the volume,
quality and level of attainment or achievement of the learning outcomes by
students. Midterm and final examinations are examples of AoL.
Authenticity: A concept that refers to real-life language use, tasks, and situ-
ations in which language assessment can be based.
Benchmarks: Learning outcomes or performance criteria used to evaluate
students. Benchmarks are analogous to standards and frameworks of reference.
Bias: A feature(s) in assessment involving content, techniques, delivery for-
mats, and specific administrations that offers an advantage to some groups
of students and adversely affect other groups. The advantages and disad-
vantages are generally associated with knowledge of assessment content
and activities, access to resources, disabilities, and cultural (un)familiarity.
Classical test theory (CTT): A testing theory that postulates that an observed
test score consists of true and error scores. The true score derives from the
target attribute or ability of interest that a test aims to measure. In contrast, the
error score can result from specific test techniques, scoring methods, and other
random factors, such as the test room temperature, lighting, or students’ health.
Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR): An influential
document that provides standards for classifying additional language suc-
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

cess into three primary levels from A (Basic) to C (Advanced). They, in

turn, make up six reference levels in total: A1 (Breakthrough); A2
(Waystage); B1 (Threshold); B2 (Vantage); C1 (Advanced); C2 (Mastery).
Construct: An abstract concept that is hypothesised to exist but cannot be
observed directly. For example, it is believed that students must have some
grammatical knowledge that informs or influences their speech.
Construct validity: The extent to which language assessment collects relevant,
adequate, and appropriate information in line with the target construct.
Constructed-response techniques: Assessment techniques that allow stu-
dents to create their responses to questions or tasks (e.g., an interview, pair
interaction tasks, essays).
Content validity: The extent to which an assessment includes relevant and
adequate questions or tasks that help elicit relevant information about the
target language construct or ability of interest.
 Glossary of Language Assessment 89

Criterion-referenced approach (CRA): A marking or grading approach that

matches students’ performance with a set of criteria. It does not have an
interest in ranking or comparing students.
Diagnostic assessment: Assessment that aims to gather language informa-
tion to identify students’ strengths and weaknesses. Information can be
used to determine whether further support is needed and, if so, what kind of
support can be provided.
Direct method: A test method that asks students to use language directly
related to the objective of assessment. For example, when students are
asked to write about their weekend activities, their writing is assessed
directly.
Dynamic assessment: Assessment of student performance that takes account
of the nature of the task involved and the students’ current capacity to
accomplish the learning task. This analytic information is then used to
design guidance to support student progress. As part of the assessment,
students receive tailored support and guidance to direct their learning and
development to the next step in acquiring the knowledge and skills in focus
and becoming more independent learners.
Error of measurement: Inaccurate information about language performance
derived from a technical problem in a given test or assessment task. It can
be specifically related to some weaknesses of a given assessment technique
(e.g., multiple-choice and short-answer questions), scoring methods (e.g.,
use of rating scales that are poorly constructed), and incorrect or inappro-
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

priate administration of the test or assessment task, for instance.

Error score: That part of an observed test score that is irrelevant or unrepre-
sentative of the target language construct or ability of interest. Error scores
include systematic (e.g., owing to a specific technique, scoring method, or
administration) and random errors (e.g., test conditions, unexpected dis-
ruptions such as electrical blackouts, students’ illness, or fatigue).
Ethics: A complex concept related to professional standards and conducts
that conform to a set of collectively agreed principles regarding equity and
fairness in assessment activities. Ethics are also concerned with respecting
all stakeholders’ cultures, values, and beliefs. Ethical concerns also cover
issues related to potential unintended results of assessment activities that
may endanger students’ well-being or limit their future opportunities to
improve their lives.
Face validity: A quality of an assessment or test associated with public accept-
ance and trust.
 90 Glossary of Language Assessment

Fairness: Impartial treatment of all students regardless of their previous achieve-

ment, gender, race, nationality, culture, religion, and socio-economic status.
Formal assessment: An assessment that a given institute or officials agree to
give to students or applicants as part of a decision-making process for
selection and discrimination (in the technical sense of differentiation
according to some performance criteria).
Formative assessment (FA): A broad assessment term to describe assess-
ment activities that inform language teaching and learning.
Indirect method: Assessment that does not ask students to directly engage in
tasks related to the target construct, such as speaking or writing, but to
complete questions or tasks involving the target construct, or through one
or more language use skills (not directly focussed on the target construct).
For example, students may be asked to take an error detection test (e.g.,
Which option makes a given sentence grammatically incorrect?), and their
accumulative scores are used to infer part of their writing skills. See Direct
method.
Informal assessment: Assessment activities, often embedded in teaching,
that may be spontaneous and unplanned to address students’ current
learning situations. It supports teaching and learning rather than deciding
on students’ final achievement or other purposes such as course admission.
Teachers’ regular use of display questions (in which they know the correct
answers) during teaching (e.g., asking students to recall a grammar rule or
a word meaning) is an example of informal assessment.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Integrated task: An assessment task that requires students to use more than
one language skill to illustrate their ability or performance (i.e., multi-
modal assessment). The performance outcomes are related to productive
language skills, that is, writing and speaking. For example, students read a
news article about issues of animal extinction, watch a documentary about
it, and then write an essay to present their position about the issues using
information from the article and the documentary as well as their own
views.
Language assessment literacy (LAL): Conceptual understanding and
working knowledge about various kinds and purposes of language
assessment, how to vary and use them to improve or inform teaching
and learning, and how to use them to decide on students.
Language for specific purposes: Specific language style and specialist or
technical language for a given profession or context of language use. For
 Glossary of Language Assessment 91

example, the terms ‘bull’ and ‘bear’ to describe stocks and shares market
conditions in economics.
Language proficiency: General ability to understand language and use it to
communicate across various language modes. Typically, language profi-
ciency is placed along a continuum from non-user and beginner to inter-
mediate and advanced users. See Constructs.
Language skill: These are conventionally labelled as listening, reading,
speaking and writing. They are not entirely independent from one another
in language use or learning. For instance, writing requires an ability to
read, and speaking involves listening skills.
Learning-oriented assessment (LoA): Assessment that emphasises the
promotion of various aspects of learning as a key goal.
Measurement: Quantification of abstract concepts or ability into numbers or
scales. For example, a zero is given when students answer a question incor-
rectly, and one is given when they answer correctly. Their scores are accumu-
lated to derive a total score that is then used to quantify their knowledge.
Multilingualism: The knowledge and ability to use multiple languages to
communicate with others. Multilingualism does not mean equal fluency in
terms of proficiency levels in the languages involved, and it may be used
separately or in combination or conjunction with other languages, depend-
ing on the target audience and the specific context.
Multimodality: Using one or more language skills and other graphic/audio-
visual modes to communicate or address a language task.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Norm-referenced approach (NRA): Assessment involving making a deci-

sion about students by ranking their scores or performance levels. This
approach assumes that most students are average (i.e., norm), and there are
extreme students below and above the average. Norm-referenced assess-
ment is often used for selecting students, applicants, or candidates when
there are limited places or positions.
Objective scoring: A scoring method that does not require personal judgements
on performance (e.g., answer keys are available for scoring). It is associated
with restricted-response assessment techniques such as multiple-choice, true/
false, matching, and ordering questions.
Outcome-oriented assessment: Assessment that focusses on an end product,
or a result of accumulated learning in a learning activity or course. It
focusses on a level of achievement or attainment.
 92 Glossary of Language Assessment

Piloting: A process of trying out a test or assessment task as if in an actual

testing or assessment situation. A pilot test aims to check whether assess-
ment tasks are suitable or work well to collect language information as
intended. Questions found to be problematic are revised or improved.
Practicality: The extent to which a test or assessment is easy and feasible to
use in terms of time and financial costs. A lengthy assessment is impractical
because it takes a long time for students to complete and for teachers to
mark.
Pragmatic competence: The ability to use and understand language dis-
course in a way that is sensitive to social and cultural practices in context
(e.g., expressing implied meaning, indirect intention, politeness).
Process-oriented assessment: Assessment that focusses on the activities that
students carry out in response to the test questions or required tasks.
Process-oriented assessment considers students’ thought processes, such
as planning, outlining, monitoring, and evaluative procedures, and the
linguistic and affective challenges they encounter during their language
use or task completion.
Rater moderation: A quality control process to ensure that raters base their
evaluations on the criteria (e.g., scoring rubrics) that define the target
abilities or skills. This process includes collecting evidence that intra-
rater reliability (scoring consistency within a given rater) and inter-rater
reliability (scoring consistency between raters) are high and comparable.
Rater moderation can be carried out as part of rater training and during the
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

scoring process.
Reliability: The consistency of assessment results or scoring methods for
standards-based assessment. The term reliability is often associated with
CTT.
Selected-response techniques: Assessment techniques that provide students
with options or choices when responding to questions or tasks (e.g., true/
false and multiple-choice items).
Social dimensions: An aspect of language assessment that is inextricably
linked to the social context involved. For example, in a writing task, clear
instructions of what to do, and performance related to social conventions
of language use expectations are social aspects (as created by test-writers)
that will influence students’ performance. Another social dimension of
language assessment is its educational and political functions (e.g., to limit
access to study at a given educational institute, to provide credentials to
 Glossary of Language Assessment 93

people who have passed a given test or assessment, to permit someone a

visa or citizenship).
Stakes: A ‘stake’ refers to the impact or the effects that success or failure in
assessment can have on the test-taker or student. ‘High-stakes’ is generally
used to describe a situation in which an assessment outcome can signifi-
cantly influence students’ lives (e.g., qualified or disqualified for admis-
sion, failing a degree or certificate, and so on). ‘Low-stakes’ refers to an
assessment that does not affect students significantly or instantly.
Standardisation: A practice of administering standards-based assessment
that adheres to a stated content, predetermined procedural steps in admin-
istration, and published scoring rubrics that are applied to all students in
the same manner.
Standards-based assessment: Assessment based on a set of predetermined
standards, benchmarks, learning outcomes, or performance criteria that
students should meet.
Subjective scoring: A scoring method in assessing performance such as
writing and speaking. While attempting to be impartial, subjective scoring
requires raters’ judgements on performance quality. Hence, the same piece
of performance may receive a different score from different raters.
Summative assessment (SA): Assessment that collects evidence of students’
accumulative learning performance. It focusses on deriving a grade or final
score that best describes their levels.
Test specifications: Documents or blueprints that describe and explain how
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

an assessment or a test can be created for a given purpose and for particular
students.
Testing: A predetermined procedure for collecting specific information such
as language learning, skills, and ability using test or assessment tools. See
Assessment.
Test-taking strategies: Knowhow to respond to test questions and tasks, and
their awareness of how to deal with specific test techniques. For example,
they can choose only one answer per question in a multiple-choice ques-
tion. Similarly, in a cloze test, they need to supply one word only per gap.
Test-wiseness strategies: Students’ or test-takers’ know-how or shortcuts to
answer a question correctly without much engagement in a given question
or task. For example, in a multiple-choice reading test, students can learn
to eliminate impossible answers or to guess an answer correctly without
 94 Glossary of Language Assessment

reading a given text carefully. Test-wiseness strategies can adversely affect

the validity and the trustworthiness of tests and assessments.
True score: That part of an observed score that is explained or influenced by
the target language construct or ability of interest. See Error score.
Validity: A broad quality related to the soundness of assessment design,
adminstration, scroing and use. An assessment is valid to the extent that
it does what it claims to do. See construct and content validity above.
Washback: Influence or impact of assessment on teaching and learning. An
introduction of a high-stakes standardised test, for example, will be used to
determine whether students can graduate or complete their final year and
will shape how students focus on their language learning. Teachers may
focus on learning activities that are similar to the test tasks or questions.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press
 References
Abedi, J. (2014). Accommodations in the assessment of English language
learners. In A. J. Kunnan (Ed.), Companion to language assessment (vol.
III, part 9, ch. 67, pp. 1115–29). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/
9781118411360.wbcla059.
Abedi, J., Zhang, Y., Rowe, S. E., & Lee, H. (2020). Examining effectiveness and
validity of accommodations for English language learners in mathematics: An
evidence-based computer accommodation decision system. Educational
Measurement: Issues and Practice, 39(4), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/
emip.12328.
Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge University Press.
Alderson, J. C., Clapham, C., & Wall, D. (1995). Language test construction
and evaluation. Cambridge University Press.
Australian Curriculum, Assessment, and Reporting Authority (ACARA)
(2014). English as an additional language or dialect teacher resource:
EAL/D learning progression: Foundation to Year 10. https://bit.ly/
473Z5UW.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing.
Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. F. (2004). Statistical analysis for language assessment.
Cambridge University Press.
Bachman, L. F., & Damböck, B. (2017). Language assessment for classroom
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

teachers. Oxford University Press.

Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. (1996). Language testing in practice: Developing
language assessments and justifying their use in the real world. Oxford
University Press.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. (2010). Language assessment in practice. Oxford
University Press.
Baddeley, A., Eysenck, M. W., & Anderson, M. (2009). Memory. Psychology Press.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment
in Education, 5, 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment.
Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2018) Classroom assessment and pedagogy.
Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 25(6), 551–75.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2018.1441807.
 96 References

Brown, H. D., & Abeywickrama, P. (2019). Language assessment: Principles

and classroom practice (3rd ed.). Pearson Longman.
Brown, J. D. (2005). Testing in language programs: A comprehensive guide to
English language assessment. McGraw-Hill.
Brown, J. D. (Ed.) (2012). Developing, using, and analyzing rubrics in lan-
guage assessment with case studies in Asian and Pacific languages. National
Foreign Language Resource Center.
Brown, J. D. (2014). Classical test reliability. In A. J. Kunnan (Ed), Companion
to language assessment (pp. 1165–81). John Wiley & Sons. https://bit.ly/
482rtYN.
Brown, J. D. (2022). Classical test theory. In G. Fulcher & L. Harding (Eds.),
Routledge handbook of language testing (2nd ed., pp. 447–61). Routledge.
Brunfaut, T. (2022). Assessing reading. In G. Fulcher & L. Harding (Eds.),
Routledge handbook of language testing (2nd ed., pp. 254–67). Routledge.
Cadierno, T., & Eskildsen, S. W. (Eds.) (2015). Usage-based perspectives
on second language learning. De Gruyter.
Canale, M. (1983). On some dimensions of language proficiency. In J. Oller
(Ed.), Issues in language testing research (pp. 333–42). Newbury House.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative
approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1
(1), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/I.1.1.
Carless, D. (2007). Learning-oriented assessment: Conceptual bases and prac-
tical implications. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44
(1), 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290601081332.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Carless, D. (2015). Exploring learning-oriented assessment processes. Higher

Education, 69(6), 963–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9816-z.
Carr, N. (2011). Designing and analysing language tests. Oxford University Press.
Chalhoub-Deville, M. B. (2019). Multilingual testing constructs: Theoretical
foundations. Language Assessment Quarterly, 16(4–5), 472–80. https://doi
.org/10.1080/15434303.2019.1671391.
Chapelle, C. A. (2021). Argument-based validation in testing and assessment.
Sage.
Chapelle, C. A., & Lee, H. (2022). Conceptions of validity. In G. Fulcher &
L. Harding (Eds.), Routledge handbook of language testing (2nd ed., pp.
17–31). Routledge.
Chong, S. W., & Reinders, H. (Eds.) (2023). Innovation in learning-oriented
language assessment. Palgrave.
Coombe, C. (Ed.) (2018). Assessment and evaluation, vol. VIII of J. I. Liontas
(Ed.) TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 4837–5334).
John Wiley & Sons.
 References 97

Council of Europe (2020). Multilingual 2020: Annual Report of the Secretary

General of the Council of Europe. Council of Europe.
Davidson, F., & Lynch, B. K. (2002). Testcraft: A teacher’s guide to writing and
using language test specifications. Yale University Press.
Dolgova, N., & Tyler, A. (2019). Applications of usage-based approaches to
language teaching. In X. Gao (Ed.), Second handbook of English language
teaching (pp. 939–61). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58542-
0_49-1.
Douglas, D. (2000). Assessing languages for specific purposes. Cambridge
University Press.
Douglas Fir Group (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in
a multilingual world. Modern Language Journal, 100, 19–47. https://doi
.org/10.1111/modl.12301.
Duckor, B., & Holmberg, C. L. (2023). Feedback for continuous improvement in the
classroom: New perspectives, practices, and possibilities. Corwin Press.
Elder, C., & McNamara, T. (2016). The hunt for ‘indigenous criteria’ in
assessing communication in the physiotherapy workplace. Language
Testing, 33(2), 153–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532215607398.
Ellis, N. C., O’Donnell, M. B., & Römer, U. (2015). Usage-based language
learning. In B. MacWhinney & W. O’Grady (Eds.), Handbook of language
emergence (pp. 163–80). John Wiley & Sons.
Field, J. (2008). Listening in the language classroom. Cambridge University
Press.
Fulcher, G. (2010). Practical language testing. Hodder Education.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Fulcher, G. (2012). Assessment literacy for the language classroom. Language

Assessment Quarterly, 9(2), 113–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2011
.642041.
Fulcher, G. (2014). Testing second language speaking. Routledge.#
Fulcher, G., & Davidson, F. (Eds.) (2012). Routledge handbook of language
testing. Routledge.
Fulcher, G., & Harding, L. (Eds.) (2022). Routledge handbook of language
testing (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Galaczi, E., & Lim, G. S. (2022). Scoring performance tests. In G. Fulcher &
L. Harding (Eds.), Routledge handbook of language testing (2nd ed., pp.
495–510). Routledge.
Gass, S. M., Behney, J., & Plonsky, L. (2020). Second language acquisition: An
introductory course. Routledge.
Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to
practice. Cambridge University Press.
 98 References

Green, A. (2020). Exploring language assessment and testing: Language in

action (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.sydney.edu.au/
10.4324/9781003105794.
Griffee, D. T. (2012). An introduction to second language research methods.
TESLEJ Publications. www.tesl-ej.org/pdf/ej60/sl_research_methods.pdf.
Hall, J. K. (2019). The contributions of conversation analysis and interactional
linguistics to a usage-based understanding of language: Expanding the trans-
disciplinary framework. Modern Language Journal, 103(Supp), 80–94.
http://doi.10.1111/modl.125350026-7902/19/80–94.
Halliday, M. A. K., & (revised by) Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An
introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). Hodder Arnold.
Harsch, C., & Malone, M. E. (2021). Language proficiency frameworks and
scales. In P. Winke & T. Brunfalt (Eds.), Routledge handbook of SLA and
language testing (pp. 33–44). Routledge.
Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers (2nd ed.). Cambridge
University Press.
Hyland, K. (2016). Teaching and researching writing (3rd ed.). Routledge.
International Language Testing Association (ILTA). (2020). ILTA guidelines
for practice in English. www.iltaonline.com/page/ILTAGuidelinesfor
Practice.
Isaacs, T., & Trofimovich, P. (Eds.) (2017). Second language pronunciation
assessment: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Multilingual Matters.
James, M. (2006). Assessment, teaching and theories of learning. In J. Gardner
(Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp. 47–60). Sage.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Jenkins, J., & Leung, C. (2016). Assessing English as a lingua franca. In

E. Shohamy (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and education, Vol. 7:
Language testing and assessment (pp. 1–15). Springer. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-319-02326-7_7-1.
Jeon, E. H., & In’nami, Y. (Eds.) (2022). Understanding L2 proficiency:
Theoretical and meta-analytic investigations. John Benjamins.
Jones, N., & Saville, N. (2016). Learning-oriented assessment: A systemic
approach. Cambridge University Press.
Kang, O., & Ginther, A. (2018). Assessment in second language pronunciation.
Routledge.
Kramsch, C. (1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence.
Modern Language Journal, 70(4), 366–72. https://doi.org/10.2307/326815.
Kunnan, A. (2018). Evaluating language assessments. Routledge.
Lado, R. (1961). Language testing: The construction and use of foreign language
tests. Longman.
 References 99

Lam, R. (2023). E-portfolios: What we know, what we don’t, and what we need
to know. RELC Journal, 54(1), 208–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0033688220974102.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1989). Pedagogical descriptions of language: Grammar.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 187–95. http://doi:10.1017/
S026719050000129X.
Leung, C. (2014). Classroom-based assessment: Issues for language teacher
education. In A. Kunnan (Ed.), Companion to language assessment (vol. III,
pp. 1510–19). Wiley-Blackwell.
Leung, C. (2022a). Action-oriented plurilingual mediation: A search for fluid
foundation. In D. Little & N. Figueras (Eds.), Reflecting on the Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages and its companion volume
(pp. 78–94). Multilingual Matters.
Leung, C. (2022b). Language proficiency: From description to prescription and
back. Educational Linguistics, 1(1), 56–81. https://doi.org/10.1515/eduling-
2021-0006.
Lewkowicz, J., & Leung, C. (2021). Classroom-based assessment –
Timeline. Language Teaching, 54(1), 47–57. http://doi:10.1017/
S0261444820000506.
Luoma, S. (2004). Assessing speaking. Cambridge University Press.
Lynch, B. K. (2003). Language assessment and program evaluation. Edinburgh
University Press.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies
in second language acquisition, 19(1), 37–66. https://doi.org/10.1017/
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

s0272263197001034.
McMillan, J. H. (Ed.) (2013). Sage handbook of research on classroom assess-
ment. Sage.
McNamara, T. (1996). Measuring second language performance. Longman.
McNamara, T., & Roever, C. (2006). Language testing: The social dimension.
Blackwell.
Mirhosseini, S.-A., & De Costa, P. (Eds.) (2019). The sociopolitics of English
language testing. Bloomsbury.
Moder, C. L., & Halleck, G. B. (2022). Designing language tests for specific
purposes. In G. Fulcher & L. Harding (Eds.), Routledge handbook of lan-
guage testing (2nd ed., pp. 81–95). Routledge.
New South Wales (NSW) Department of Education and Training. (2004). ESL
steps: ESL curriculum framework K-6. New South Wales, Australia.
O’Sullivan, B. (2012). The assessment development process. In C. Coombe,
P. Davidson, B. O’Sullivan, & S. Stoynoff (Eds.), Cambridge guide to second
language assessment (pp. 47–58). Cambridge University Press.
 100 References

Oxford, R. L. (2017). Teaching and researching language learning strategies:

Self-regulation in context (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Pennington, M. C., & Rogerson-Revell, P. (2019). English pronunciation
teaching and research. Palgrave Macmillan.
Phakiti, A., & Isaacs, T. (2021). Classroom assessment and validity:
Psychometric and edumetric approaches. European Journal of Applied
Linguistics and TEFL, 10(1), 3–24.
Pill, J., & Smart, C. (2021). Raters: Behavior and training. In P. Winke &
T. Brunfaut (Eds.), Routledge handbook of second language acquisition
and language testing (pp. 135–44). Routledge.
Poehner, M. E., & Infante, P. (2017). Dynamic assessment in the language
classroom. In D. Tsagari & J. Banerjee (Eds.), Handbook of second language
assessment (pp. 275–90). De Gruyter Mouton.
Popham, W. J. (1978). Criterion-referenced measurement. Prentice-Hall.
Popham, W. J. (1981). Modern educational measurement. Prentice-Hall.
Popham, W. J. (2017). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know (8th
ed.). Pearson.
Purpura, J. E. (1999). Learner strategy use and performance on language tests:
A structural equation modeling approach. Cambridge University Press.
Purpura, J. E. (2004). Assessing grammar. Cambridge University Press.
Purpura, J. E. (2016). Second and foreign language assessment. Modern
Language Journal, 100(Sup), 190–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12308.
Purpura, J. E. (2021). A rationale for using a scenario-based assessment to
measure competency-based, situated second and foreign language
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

proficiency. In M. Masperi, C. Cervini, & Y. Bardière (Eds.), Évaluation

des acquisitions langagières: du formatif au certificatif, mediAzioni, 32,
A54–A96. http://www.mediazioni.sitlec.unibo.it.
Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Oxford University Press.
Read, J. (2015). Researching language testing and assessment. In B. Paltridge &
A. Phakiti (Eds.), Research methods in applied linguistics: A practical
resource (pp. 471–86). Bloomsbury.
Robertson, K., with Hohmann, J., & Stewart I. (2005). Dictating to one of ‘us’:
The migration of Mrs Freer. Macquarie Law Journal, 5(2), 241−75.
Rocca, L., Carlsen, C. H., & Deygers, B. (2018). Linguistic integration of adult
migrants: Requirements and learning opportunities. Report on the 2018
Council of Europe and ALTE survey on language and knowledge of society
policies for migrants. Council of Europe.
Roever, C., & Phakiti, A. (2018). Quantitative methods for second language
research: A problem solving approach. Routledge.
Rost, M. (2016). Teaching and researching listening (3rd ed.). Routledge.
 References 101

Savignon, S. J. (1972). Communicative competence: An experiment in foreign

language teaching. Center for Curriculum Development.
Savignon, S. J. (1983). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom
practice. Addison-Wesley.
Sawaki, Y. (2014). Classical test theory. In A. Kunnan (Ed.), Companion to
language assessment. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118411360.
wbcla097.
Sawaki, Y. (2017). Norm-referenced vs. criterion-referenced approach to
assessment. In D. Tsagari & J. Banerjee (Eds.), Handbook of second lan-
guage assessment (pp. 45–60). De Gruyter.
Schissel, J. L., Leung, C., & Chalhoub-Deville, M. (2019). The construct of
multilingualism in language testing. Language Assessment Quarterly, 16(4–
5), 373–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2019.1680679.
Shohamy, E. (2001). The power of tests: A critical perspective on the uses of
language tests. Pearson Education.
Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches.
Routledge.
Shohamy E., Or, I. G., & May, S. (Eds.) (2017). Language testing and assess-
ment (3rd ed.). Springer.
Spolsky, B. (1995). Measured words. Oxford University Press.
Spolsky, B. (2012). Language testing and language management. In G. Fulcher
& F. Davidson (Eds.), Routledge handbook of language testing (pp.
495–505). Routledge.
Spolsky, B. (2017). History of language testing. In E. Shohamy, I. G. Or, &
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

S. May (Eds.), Language testing and assessment (3rd ed.) (pp. 375–84).
Springer.
Stobart, G. (2006). The validity of formative assessment. In J. Gardner (Ed.),
Assessment and learning (pp. 133–46). Sage.
Taylor, L. (2009). Developing assessment literacy. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 29(1), 21–36. https://doi.org/doi:10.1017/S0267190509090035.
Tsagari, D., & Banerjee J. (Eds.) (2017). Handbook of second language assess-
ment. De Gruyter Mouton.
Tsagari, D., & Cheng, L. (2017). Washback, impact, and consequences
revisited. In E. Shohamy, I. G. Or, & S. May (Eds.), Language testing and
assessment (3rd ed., pp. 359–72). Springer.
Turner, C. E., & Purpura, J. E. (2017). Learning-oriented assessment in second
and foreign language classrooms. In D. Tsagari & J. Banerjee (Eds.),
Handbook of second language assessment (pp. 255–73). De Gruyter Mouton.
Wall, D. (2012). Washback. In G. Fulcher & F. Davidson (Eds.), Routledge
handbook of language testing (pp. 79–92). Routledge.
 102 References

Weigle, S. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge University Press.

Weir, C. J. (1990). Communicative language testing. Prentice Hall.
Weir, C. J. (2005). Language testing and validation: An evidence-based
approach. Palgrave Macmillan.
Winke, P., & Brunfaut, T. (Eds.) (2021). Routledge handbook of second lan-
guage acquisition and language testing. Routledge.
Young, R. (2022). Social dimensions in language testing. In G. Fulcher &
L. Harding (Eds.), Routledge handbook of language testing (2nd ed., pp.
63–80). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press
 Acknowledgements
This Element would not have been possible without support from various
people. We would like to thank Jim McKinley and Heath Rose for their support
during the writing of this Element. We also thank our testing and assessment
colleagues, scholars past and present, and the producers of the YouTube videos
included in this Element for their contributions to our knowledge about testing
and assessment.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press
 Language Teaching

Heath Rose
University of Oxford
Heath Rose is Professor of Applied Linguistics and Deputy Director (People) of the
Department of Education at the University of Oxford. At Oxford, he is the course director
of the MSc in Applied Linguistics for Language Teaching. Before moving into academia,
Heath worked as a language teacher in Australia and Japan in both school and university
contexts. He is author of numerous books, such as Introducing Global Englishes, The
Japanese Writing System, Data Collection Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, and
Global Englishes for Language Teaching. Heath’s research interests are firmly situated
within the field of second language teaching, and includes work on Global Englishes,
teaching English as an international language, and English Medium Instruction.

Jim McKinley
University College London
Jim McKinley is a Professor of Applied Linguistics and TESOL at UCL Institute of Education,
where he serves as Academic Head of Learning and Teaching. His major research areas
are second language writing in global contexts, the internationalisation of higher educa-
tion, and the relationship between teaching and research. Jim has edited or authored
numerous books, including the Routledge Handbook of Research Methods in Applied
Linguistics, Data Collection Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, and Doing Research in
Applied Linguistics. He is also an editor of the journal, System. Before moving into academia,
Jim taught in a range of diverse contexts including the US, Australia, Japan and Uganda.

Advisory Board
Brian Paltridge, University of Sydney
Gary Barkhuizen, University of Auckland
Marta Gonzalez-Lloret, University of Hawaii
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Li Wei, UCL Institute of Education

Victoria Murphy, University of Oxford
Diane Pecorari, University of Leeds
Christa Van der Walt, Stellenbosch University
Yongyan Zheng, Fudan University

About the Series

This Elements series aims to close the gap between researchers and practitioners by allying
research with language teaching practices, in its exploration of research-informed
teaching, and teaching-informed research. The series builds upon a rich history of
pedagogical research in its exploration of new insights within the field of language
teaching.
 Language Teaching

Elements in the Series

Language Teacher Agency
Jian Tao and Xuesong (Andy) Gao
Pedagogical Translanguaging
Jasone Cenoz and Durk Gorter
Intercultural and Transcultural Awareness in Language Teaching
Will Baker
Technology and Language Teaching
Ursula Stickler
Reflective Practice in Language Teaching
Thomas S. C. Farrell
English-Medium Instruction in Higher Education
David Lasagabaster
Task-Based Language Teaching
Daniel O. Jackson
Mediating Innovation through Language Teacher Education
Martin East
Teaching Young Multilingual Learners: Key Issues and New Insights
Luciana C. de Oliveira and Loren Jones
Teaching English as an International Language
Ali Fuad Selvi, Nicola Galloway, and Heath Rose
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108934091 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Peer Assessment in Writing Instruction

Shulin Yu
Assessment for Language Teaching
Aek Phakiti and Constant Leung

A full series listing is available at: www.cambridge.org/ELAT