In the article entitled "Second Language Assessment" by Andrew Cohen, he discusses the ways in which testing is utilized in the classroom. More often than not, teachers and professors have used testing in the wrong way, using it as punishment or basing a student's entire grade solely on tests. Testing, according to Cohen, should be used as a form of interaction between the student and the teacher. Testing helps a teacher know where his or her students are at and what they still need help with.
Cohen lists several different types of language assessment instruments that are to be used in the classroom. One test can be used as each of these different instruments, but Cohen suggests that one test should only be used for one purpose. The different types fall under such categories as administrative (ie- assessment, placement), instructional (ie- diagnosis, evidence of progress), and research (ie- evaluation, experimentation). Cohen then goes on to discuss the different components of tests that are used in the ESL classroom, such as elements that are tested (ie-- reading, writing, nonverbal skills) and the form that the tests take (such as multiple-choice or free composition). Cohen also addresses the issue of the respondent (or "test taker") and how the personal characteristics, topical knowledge, affective schemata, and language ability affect the way in which the test ought to be formed. The tests that are given in language classrooms can test several different areas, including grammatical competence, discourse, and sociolinguistic competence.
Cohen focuses on the testing of reading comprehension in this article. He details several different methods of testing reading comprehension and how to score the tests. For example, a teacher can give the students a passage to read and either test their scanning/skimming abilities by giving them a set amount of time to read the passage. A passage could also be given to the students to read without a time limit and then followed up with questions about what they just read. There are four different levels of comprehension that can be tested: grammatical meaning, propositional meaning, discoursal meaning, and writer's intent. These four categories can be tested at the same time or separately.
The test can take on many different forms. The two that Cohen illustrates here are referred to as the Cloze test and the C-test. The Cloze test has one or two-word deletions, rational deletions, and partial deletions from the beginning or end of words. The C-test was invented as an alternative to this form. In the C-test, the second half of every other word is deleted, but the first and last sentence of a passage remain the same. The passages given under the C-test are short and since only half of the word is deleted, it gives the students a "hint" to the word.
There are also communicative tests that can test reading comprehension. For example, a student can be asked to practice their oral skills along with their reading comprehension by giving a speech on the reading passage. Along with oral skills, communicative tests can also test skills such as writing. For example, a student can be asked to write a letter to the author in response to the passage that was read. Communicative tests are viewed positively by Cohen, because they can put practical every-day skills into practice and don't just simply focus on the form but on the message and function.
The rest of the article addresses scoring and reliability of tests. It is important that the given assessment actually tests what it is meant to test and that it gives the teacher a valid picture of what level the students are at in the area being tested. The article also gives advice on test-taking strategies for the teachers to give to their students, along with advice on how the teacher should adjust the atmosphere of the classroom during a tests.
TASK: Think about the different ways in which you have been tested in language classrooms in the past. What different formats of tests were you given, and which do you think were the most productive and useful? What kinds of assessments do you think you would use in your own classroom someday?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Back in high school, I took Japanese for a semester or two and the assessments we were given were very brief and short. Some of them dealt with listening and others with matching and fill in the blanks. Most of them were based on recognition more than recalling what we had actually been able to comprehend and what we had learned. I think the most effective assessments were the listening because we had to think about what was being said and translate it into English whereas with the other forms we could guess from the given answers and been right and the teacher would not have known if we actually knew the material.
ReplyDeleteIn my classroom I think I would do a combination of oral, listening and comprehension assessments because it is important for the students to experience different forms of assessments and become equipped to take them while at the same time I'll be able to see how much they actually know
In my foreign language classes, I have always been tested on my written, spoken, listening, and reading skills, each tested separately. For written, we would have short answer and essay questions, testing our ability to correctly form german thoughts and use the grammatical techniques we were taught. When we were assessed, we were only graded on things we had already gone over in class, and simply corrected and given "tips" on things we hadn't yet learned. This was useful so that we didn't get discouraged with a poor grade, but were still able to learn from our mistakes and learn. For our oral exams, typically the teacher would group us in twos or threes and give a topic and have us talk to each other for a few minutes. We were graded on keeping the conversation going, our understanding of the other students, and our ability to pronounce and articulate our ideas. This way, we were graded on our comprehension and understanding of the communicative aspect of the language, not so much our ability to correctly use the grammar. This allowed us to communicate with confidence and also have practice pronunciating the words. Listening tests were simply listening to a blurb or converstaion in the foreign language, and then answer multiple choice questions on it. The some questions were written in the target language--typically questions we should understand or have gone over already, and other questions were written in English to check for comprehension of the actual material. Reading tests were similar, where we would read an article or ad and answer questions in English to check for comprehension. These tests assessed our ability to understand and use the language effectively, but none of the tests tried to do both simultaneously. In an ESL clssroom, it would be important to use simliar techniques, in that you test either for comprehension or correct use of the language. Doing so separately allows students to see the areas that they need to work on while still allowing them to maintain a grade.
ReplyDeleteIn my high school Spanish class, there were a few different ways in which our reading, writing, and listening skills were tested. We would have weekly vocabulary quizzes that would involve filling in blanks, writing sentences using the vocab words, and multiple choice questions. To test our reading skills, we would have quizzes where we would be required to read passages and answer corresponding questions. To test listening skills, we would have to listen to a passage on tape, and then answer questions concerning what was discussed on the tape. To show our speaking skills, we would be required to give speeches on assigned topics.
ReplyDeleteWhile they were probably my least favorite, I think that the listening tests were the most productive because they required you to translate what you heard, as well as write out answers to questions. They can be challenging, but they require learners to really prepare themselves. I would definitely use listening assessments in my future classroom, because I believe they are one of the best ways to find out what the students have actually learned.
Amanda Prince
ReplyDeleteBlog Post 6
In Spanish classes in High School, the formats of the tests I took covered all areas of listening, reading, writing and speaking. The written tests would usually entail a listening portion from a tape for which we had to answer multiple choice questions about the audio segment. There was always reading integrated, as the article mentions even answering multiple choice questions for a listening section involves listening and reading. Furthermore, there would often be a reading passage that had either multiple choice or short answer questions that pertained to the passage (always in Spanish). Many other sections would test the students ability to conjugate verbs correctly in fill in the blanks in sentences. Also, there was usually a written portion at the end of the test where we would have to write an essay answering a question and it would have to be at least a certain amount of sentences in length. There would usually be a separate portion of our test grade allotted to the speaking assessment. This was done privately with the teacher in his office and the teacher would ask a series of questions that the student would have to answer. Vocabulary and grammar we had learned was focused on for this.
I would use all aspects of these assessments in my own classroom someday. Although it is important to not overdo multiple choice and to be very careful of what options are given for answers, I still feel that multiple choice questions are appropriate in certain situations. Otherwise, I feel that answers should be fill in the blank or short answer. I feel it is obviously very important to always integrate reading, writing, listening, and speaking into every exam. Speaking is much harder to arrange, but still should be done if possible.
In Spanish classes throughout elementary, junior high, and high school, we were assessed on our oral, written, listening, and reading skills of the language. The assessments became more specific and more in depth as the level of ability increased, and while in the beginning, I disliked the listening portion of assessment the most, I am most thankful for it now. Although reading (and comprehending after) and written were also beneficial, there isn't an "easy way out" (i.e. multiple choice, context clues, etc.) with using oral and/or written assessments. For listening assessments, if you don't know the vocabulary as soon as it's heard, you've already lost your chances at being able to answer the questions that follow. For oral assessments, when asked a question, being able to immediately develop a response with known vocabulary is crucial, especially because the ultimate goal of an oral assessment is to prove that you're developing both your vocabulary and conversational skills enough to properly utilize them.
ReplyDeleteI think that all four skills (oral, written, listening, and reading) are crucial to language development, therefore, I would utilize all of them within my future classroom. However, for structured assessment, I prefer both listening and oral.
Interesting post! It is funny how something one would think comes so simple to a teacher needs to be assessed in detail. Graded is often taken lightly in many areas, and often is overlooked. I think this is one of the stems of misconceptions that grow on students, because bad habits are made and gone unnoticed. A red line on a paper that gets thrown into someone's backpack at the end of the day is in no way going to help a student within their language learning. My very first spanish teacher in high school used to grade us on whether or not we knew the word as well as the whether or not be had the correct ending of the word. This made me as a student focus on the complexities of the language, allowing me to see my common misconceptions and errors. When learning a new language I found that it was often hard to look at my graded paper and assess and correct it. The mechanics of the language are unknown at this point, so a realization of what we did wrong does not come as easy as a simple multiple choice science question. I found it also helped when my teachers used to write the correct form on the side of my paper as well as give be a very brief explanation of why I got something wrong.
ReplyDeleteIn conclusion, I really like the idea of the communicative test. It seems very efficient in terms of understanding two skills within a students language. As you can tell from my above examples, I was in a large school and every test given to me was on paper. We practiced aloud as class, but never got the opportunity to be questioned on our oral speaking skills. Nice post.
-Kim B.
In my Japanese language classes, I was tested on all four skills that are needed to learn a language; speaking, listening, reading, and writing. We had a listening section where the teacher would ask us questions and we wrote down our answers. There was a section that had a paragraph we needed to read and answer questions. The last part of the test was writing a short essay. The test had multiple choice, short answer and essay. We also had 2 oral tests throughout the semester. I think it's important to include all skills into a test whether it's one whole test or separate tests that touch on all the skills. I also think oral tests are very important. I know that in my future classroom I am going to test the students ability to speak because that is what learning a language is all about. I will also be sure to have vocab and grammar tests as well.
ReplyDeleteIn my past foreign language classes, I have likewise been tested on my written, listening, reading, and oral skills. However, the way I was tested in my middle school differed greatly compared to the way I was tested in my high school. My middle school barely focused on the listening, and oral aspects of teaching spanish. Instead, they focused specifically on the vocabulary (reading, and written). One of my teachers did it in a very interesting way, too. She would put vocabulary words from each unit on the blackboard behind the projector screen, so we wouldn't know what ones she picked. When we got back from lunch, we would have our quiz. I thought this was a good way to have us study ALL the words in the unit, and not just pay attention to the important ones we think we would get tested on. However, in high school, we got tested over everything. I personally felt as if the oral aspect of the tests was the most important, because it allowed you to brush up on what you did and did not know from a language, and go from that. Communication is key, in my opinion. The format of the actual written out tests would include a listening activity of some sort, a reading text of some kind (accompanied with questions), and of course, the writing portion that consisted of fill in the blank, multiple choice, or true and false. I think ALL forms of obtaining your language skills are important to know and learn.
ReplyDeleteIn my classroom, I think I would definitely try to include all forms in assessing my material. However, I would wait to include the oral part towards the end of the semester (maybe for a big test), so by that time I get a feel of what I can expect from each one of my students. But, regardless, my feedback is critical for them to learn from because it only will brush up on their mistakes, and improve them. However, I don't want to correct their mistakes for them. I would make sure to have them correct their own mistakes on their exams, instead of me doing it for them.
Alice Wilcox - 002
ReplyDeleteI took Spanish classes in high school. I was mainly tested on reading, comprehension, and writing. Often times there would be a long passage and then we would have to answer either multiple choice questions or short answer. For writing, we were usually given a short prompt and then we would just have to write a mini essay. There were a few occasions where we would have to listen to a recording in Spanish and then answer questions based on the recording. We didn’t have listening on every test though, and when we did, it was usually just a short part of it. At the end of each year we would have an oral exam where we would have to go and talk with the teacher. It was basically just having a conversation with her. She would ask questions and we would answer them, trying to using vocab words and different tenses and aspects. In my class, I would like to use more listening and oral tests than I received in high school. I think they are really important in becoming literate in a second language, and also most helpful in just regular verbal communication. When I got to college I felt like I was behind most of the other students in terms of speaking in Spanish, and I think it was because it wasn’t a huge focus in my high school classes.
In my high school Spanish class my teacher gave tests which included sections on listening, reading, writing, and comprehension. The listening section consisted of listening to a tape and writing, in English, what the speaker said. The reading/comprehension part consisted of reading a passage and answering a few questions about it. The last section of the test was writing a small essay in Spanish covering a certain topic. The strength of these tests was the variety of skills that it covered. The weakness was that the tests centered around the vocabulary words that we had learned for that week and didn't incorporate a lot of past vocabulary words. We also had weekly vocabulary tests that had us only write down the vocabulary word after we heard it on a tape and spell it correctly. I didn't remember a lot of these words after the test because we only had to spell them right and not really have to use them in a sentence or dialogue. Consequently as the test came, I forgot some of the vocabulary words and had a difficult time. I think it's important to have a lot of oral and writing tests because they help evaluate if a student can use the words correctly when speaking and can also write essays that show good comprehension of the words' meanings.
ReplyDeleteIn my Chinese class, our teacher assigns us a skit to write and perform for each lesson. This tests our writing knowledge and speaking ability, and I think that it's very effective. We can use our creativity, so we can make it as realistic or silly as we want. This keeps us interested in the topic and motivated to learn new words and phrases. It also helps us explore new ways to use the grammar structures and vocabulary we learned. However, our lesson tests include cloze sections, where key vocabulary words have been left out of sentences. These do not help with learning, because the sentences are usually taken directly out of the textbook. All we are required to do is memorize the sentence, which does not help us learn either the vocabulary words or the grammar structures.
ReplyDeleteIn my classroom, I would definitely use the communicative tests. I think they are a better indicator of learning, because they require students to apply their knowledge and create an original response instead of regurgitating memorized phrases.
Elena Dunckel, Section 2
In my opinion, one of the simplest and most effective types of language testing is for vocabulary. While memorization techniques differ, all students gain vocabulary by studying, and a test is sometimes the only motivator for students who have no innate desire to learn a language. Vocabulary is more easily retained than other aspects of a language, as well. For example, I have talked to many people who took something in high school, and remember little but thematic vocabulary, such as clothing or food.
ReplyDeleteListening tests always frustrated me. It seemed like they were always too hard or far too easy, and I never felt like they helped me improve my listening skills. Evaluating listening skills is a hard thing to measure, too- a student might do fine in practical listening situations such as conversation, and just not understand that particular recorded speaker.
One type of test I found particularly helpful was writing tests, where essays were required. Having a length requirement for a question often forces the student to grasp for more conceptual expression and really draw from what they know. It's a great opportunity for the teacher to check the student's ability to practically apply vocabulary and grammar.
In a future classroom, I would definitely try to use weekly vocabulary tests. I would try to follow those up with some sort of more interactive, practical material in which they could apply their new words. I would also utilize essay questions on tests wherever possible.
When I took Arabic last year, my professor liked to test on every aspect of the language but mostly on grammatical and discourse competence. Testing always worried me because I never felt like I was a good test taker but I really appreciated it in my Arabic class. It really helped me develop my reading, writing and oral skills. The professor would test my reading comprehension with a passage to read and several questions to answer about it. He did not stress about the grammatical errors just yet. The professor would test my writing skills by listing several words in English and asking me to translate them into Arabic writing.
ReplyDeleteOne type of test I found particularly frustrating was a type of Cloze test Cohen mentions. The professor would have a passage written in Arabic with several words missing. Then, I had to listen to the passage from a video and fill in the missing word. I do not believe this evaluated a student's comprehension because the Cloze test only tested my grammatical skills. I might have known exactly what the word was and what the passage was saying but it would not matter because I spelled the word incorrectly.
I believe that the reading comprehension tests were the most useful and one that I would use because it shows whether or not a students comprehends what they are reading and how to use that knowledge to reciprocate in the form of a written sentence. I do not believe that grammatical errors should be focused on too much.
I'm taking Japanese here at MSU, and I took Japanese in high school as well. The Japanese tests in high school were mostly multiple choice, I didn't find that to be particularly effective at testing my proficiency. It was really only testing my reading, listening and comprehension skills, not my ability to speak or produce. My Japanese professors here use a wide variety of testing. We do written exams with listening, essay, reading, short answer, and multiple choice questions. We also do a lot of vocabulary quizzes. We do at least one oral exam per semester. We have done C-tests and Cloze tests before, but they've only been once piece of a larger exam. In my opinion the traditional multiple choice test is the least effective, for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Vocabulary quizzes without further practice of the vocabulary are also fairly ineffective. I think the most effective forms of testing I have experienced are the listening (with short answer), reading (with short answer), essay, and oral exams. These forms of testing are difficult, but also give me the best opportunity to show what I've learned and challenge me. After completing them I can feel accomplished, and it helps me realize just how far I've come in my language development. The C-tests and Cloze tests can be sort of fun, but if not done to match the skill level well become intimidating. In my own future classroom i'll probably synthesize a variety of test types, much like my Japanese professors do. This gives students the opportunity to showcase what they're good at, and allows the instructor to see what needs more focus in class. If a large percentage of students struggle with one element of language, that element clearly needs more focus. I would love to follow the communicative test model in this synthesis, but it sounds like a lot of work, and sort of intimidating to plan, possibly hard to grade. That might be something I attempt to tackle after I've had a few solid years of teaching experience and I'm feeling comfortable in the classroom.
ReplyDeleteI am pretty sure that I have experienced nearly every type of language assessment that exists. In high school, most of the assessments were tests or quizzes that included multiple-choice, fill-in-the-blank, matching, etc. We also had oral quizzes, which I found to be rather useful. They were pretty short; however it gave us a chance to dialogue in the language (Spanish) with our teacher one-on-one. I found it to be more productive than your typical written exam because if we got stuck, our teacher might ask us a question or suggest a word, which then helped us get back on track and continue. Many times on written exams, there is only so much the teacher can do to help you, and then they cannot say anything more without giving away the answer.
ReplyDeleteOnce I got to the college level, many of the exams switched to a short-answer format. Of course, at the lower levels we still used multiple choice. The short-answer format is a good way to assess writing skills and also whatever content the class may be covering. For example, in my literature classes, the content would be about the themes of the text, or a literary analysis. It is more challenging, but it has really helped me to become more comfortable expressing my thoughts in Spanish.
In my future classroom, I plan on including a mixture of assessments to meet more of the students’ needs and to also ensure the validity of the assessments. I will probably use multiple-choice/matching/fill-in-the-blank formats for some formal assessments, as well as oral quizzes. I also like the idea of using cloze-tests, however not for formal assessment. I have always found them to be challenging and intimidating; however I believe that they are excellent practice for students.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn my beginning Spanish courses at MSU, our assessments were usually hour-long exams that had a listening component, some multiple-choice or fill-in-the-blank for grammar and vocabulary, a reading and comprehension section, and usually a short writing sample. There was usually one oral assessment at the end of the semester. The hour-long exams throughout the semester definitely had their pros and cons. Even though it may not be the most effective form of assessment, it is certainly the most practical in terms of administering and scoring the assessment and similar to what I imagine most students have come to expect from an exam. Looking back, I can see that they were definitely trying to assess several different language abilities on the exams, although oral skills were only assessed at the end of the semester.
ReplyDeleteThe reading section usually consisted of a short (no more than one page) article or story, which was followed by multiple-choice comprehension questions. This was usually my least favorite section because I tried to understand every word in the article as I read, which was nearly impossible as a beginner. Yet the multiple-choice questions usually asked specific questions about things that could easily be missed by skimming (especially in a foreign language), thus requiring a pretty close reading. With my own students, I think it would be a good idea to assess reading comprehension with a written or oral response to an article, rather than multiple-choice questions (although multiple-choice is probably more practical). I think that these types of responses allow the students to respond on a more personal level and would be more effective at assessing true comprehension of a reading. Another benefit of written or oral responses to reading is that you could assess more than one language skill at a time.