Classroom-based assessment: and the issue of continuity between primary and secondary school languages programs.
Hill, Kathryn
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
Abstract
This article presents selected findings from an ethnographic study
of classroom-based assessment practices in languages classrooms
(Indonesian) in the final year of primary (Year 6) and the first year of
secondary (Year 7), respectively. In particular, the paper focuses on
differences between the respective year levels in how learning was
assessed as well as what was assessed, and considers the implications of
these differences for continuity between primary and secondary school
languages programs.
Keywords
languages, transition, continuity, Indonesian, assessment
Introduction
This article presents selected findings from an ethnographic study
of classroom-based assessment practices in languages classrooms in
Victoria in the final year of primary (Year 6) and the first year of
secondary (Year 7), respectively (note that these year levels vary
across different Australian States and Territories).
The context for the study is the push, both in Australia and
internationally, to commence the study of languages in primary school.
Notwithstanding the range of benefits cited for an early start to
languages learning, the primary languages (PL) policy is clearly
motivated by a desire to effect higher proficiency outcomes in the
longer term (Sharpe, 2001; Lo Bianco, 2001). However, while the
immediate outcomes of PL programs may be positive (e.g., Clyne, Jenkins,
Chen, Tsolidou, & Wallner, 1995; Blondin, Candelier, Edelenbos,
Johnstone, Kubanek-German, & Taeschner, 1998), the evidence suggests
that they do not necessarily result in any long-term proficiency
advantage (Johnstone, 1999).
Research has identified 'discontinuity' as a key factor
responsible for undermining any of the advantages gained from an early
start to languages learning (Balandier-Brown, Bolster, &
Rea-Dickins, 2003; Blondin et al., 1998; Burstall, Iamieson, Cohen,
& Hargreaves, 1974; Hill, Davies, Oldfield, &Watson, 1997; Hill,
2001; Kubanek-German, 1998). The National Statement for Languages
Education in Australian Schools (MCEETYA, 2005), for example, identifies
continuity within programs as well as between primary and secondary
school levels as one of the major challenges to the success of languages
education. However, despite increasing interest in the issue of
transition and continuity between primary and secondary school languages
programs, this issue has remained relatively under-researched
(Rea-Dickins, 2009).
It is important to acknowledge that problems with continuity are
not exclusive to languages education programs. Edelenbos and Koster
(1993), for example, also identified discontinuity as a problem in other
learning areas such as Dutch (first language) and mathematics. In
Australia, there is also a growing recognition of the need to improve
continuity in schooling, especially during the so-called, 'middle
years' of schooling (Years 5-9) (DET, 2003). In practice, however,
policy-makers have been preoccupied with the areas of literacy,
numeracy, and science, reflecting educational priorities both nationally
and around the world. Unfortunately, this preoccupation seems to have
contributed to a perception that studying languages takes time away from
these 'more important' learning areas (e.g., Lo Bianco, 2003).
Hence, as Sharpe (2001) wryly notes, languages is the only area of the
curriculum where 'anyone seriously pursues the argument that it is
not worth primary schools teaching anything because pupils can catch up
later' (Sharpe, 2001, p.37).
There are a number of factors that may contribute to discontinuity.
These include a tendency for high school teachers to ignore any prior
learning and treat all students as 'beginners' (Edelenbos
& Koster, 1993; Edelenbos & Suhre, 1995; Hill, 2003; Low, 1999;
Oostdam & Van Toorenburg, 2002). Furthermore, differences have been
found in primary and secondary school languages teachers'
commitment to proficiency (as distinct from 'enjoyment') as a
goal for their programs (Crawford, 2001) as well as in their pedagogical
approach (Hill, 2003; Low, Duffield, Brown, & Johnstone, 1993; Low,
Brown, Johnstone, & Pirrie, 1995; Sharpe, 2001).
Classroom-based assessment
Purvis and Ranaldo (2003) compared primary and secondary school
teachers' judgements of learners' performance on a jointly
designed summative assessment task and concluded that teachers at the
respective levels applied different notions of quality and standard. A
distinction is often made between summative ('assessment of
learning') and formative assessment ('assessment for
learning', 'assessment as learning') (e.g. VCAA, 2008).
The research reported on here used a study of classroom-based assessment
(CBA) as a lens to investigate the continuity issue. CBA, as it is
defined here, encompasses all three of these aspects of assessment.
It is generally agreed that CBA comprises three key components:
evidence, interpretation, and use. However, a review of the literature
reveals a diverse range of views about the nature of each component
(Table 1).
In line with the exploratory approach used in the study reported on
here, the definition of CBA adopted here represents an attempt to
incorporate all of the dimensions presented in Table 1. That is,
any reflection by teachers (and/or by
learners) on the qualities of a learner's
(or group of learners') work, and the
use of that information by teachers
(and/or learners) for teaching, learning,
reporting, management (teaching/
behaviour), or socialisation purposes.
A problem encountered early in the data collection period is that
assessment processes are not always observable. This problem is
demonstrated in the following interaction with the Year 6 teacher:
T: It's all like you've got antennae sticking out of your
ears and it all comes in.
R: Well, that's right.
T: You're constantly processing it, you're constantly
building up, I mean, I just know, just sitting in class, you know, you
become aware of who's got the answer or who's gonna have a go
at it. Like Arthur will keep trying 'til the cows come home. You
know he won't get it straight away but, you know? So but,
there's that but there's also, there's their identity in
the class and there's all sorts of things ... In an attempt to
overcome the problem of 'observing' the essentially intuitive
forms assessment alluded to in this exchange the unit of analysis chosen
for the study was the 'assessment opportunity'. ReaDickins
(2006) used the term 'assessment opportunity' to refer to
activities actually identified as 'for assessment' by the
teacher. In contrast, this study focuses on the opportunities for
assessment afforded by the respective classrooms (i.e., regardless of
whether the teacher has identified them thus). This is defined as
any actions, interactions, or products
(planned or unplanned, deliberate or
unconscious, explicit or embedded)
with the potential to provide
information on the qualities of a
learner's (or group of learners') work.
Figure 1: Design and data collection
Year 6
Term 4, 2005
(10 weeks)
[down arrow]
Year 7
Terms 1 & 2, 2006
(10 weeks)
Design and data collection
The study used ethnographic methods (including participant
observation and case study) to investigate classroom-based assessment
practices in Indonesian language classrooms at two successive levels of
schooling: Year 6 (the final year of primary school) and Year 7 (the
first year of secondary school in Victoria - Figure 1).
There were a number of reasons for selecting Indonesian for this
study. First of all, at the time data were collected, Indonesian, after
Italian, was the most widely studied language in Victorian primary and
secondary schools (DOE, 2006). Secondly, the researcher's
qualifications in Indonesian enhanced her credibility and made her a
potential resource from the teachers' perspective. Competence in
Indonesian also afforded the researcher greater access to classroom
activities than if a language less familiar to the researcher had been
chosen.
Data collection for the study took place in Term 4, 2005 (Year 6)
and Terms 1 and 2 (Year 7) comprising a total ten weeks in each
classroom; and was longitudinal in the sense that the Year 7 cohort
included a group of students who had originally participated as Year 6
students.
Sampling was motivated by the need to identify cases that were
likely to provide the best opportunity to investigate the issue of
transition and continuity (Eisenhardt, 2002; Patton, 2002). For example,
it was important to identify sites where the languages programs were
stable and well-established and where students had the opportunity to
study the same language at both primary and high school level. It was
also considered important for the participating teachers to have a
genuine interest in the research as well as a high level of competence
in language teaching (Duff & Uchida, 1997).
One high school and one 'feeder' primary school from the
same metropolitan area were recruited for the study. The languages
programs at the selected schools were typical in terms of contact hours,
resourcing, and student populations. Two part-time teachers shared
responsibility for the Year 7 Indonesian class whereas a single teacher
was responsible for teaching the Year 6 class. Data included classroom
observation and field notes, audio recordings, and documents. Table 2
lists the range of data identified as potential sources of
assessment-related information.
Research questions
The study investigated five main research questions. The first four
questions have been identified by Leung (2005) and Rea-Dickins (2006) as
areas in need of further research. The final question relates the
results of the previous questions to the issue of continuity.
1 What do languages teachers do when they carry out classroom-based
assessment? (Leung, 2005)
2 What do they look for when they are assessing learners? (Leung,
2005)
3 What theory or 'standards' do they use? (Leung, 2005)
4 Do learners share the same understandings? (Rea-Dickins, 2006)
5 What are the implications of these results for continuity between
primary and secondary school languages programs?
Data were analysed using the framework presented in Figure 2. While
the five main research questions provide the overall structure for the
framework, the categories are derived from themes and patterns arising
from the data. The discussion that follows will focus on each of the
four sections of the framework in turn.
What do teachers do?
Four distinct CBA processes were identified in the data. These were
'planning' assessment, 'framing' assessment' to
learners, 'conducting' assessment, and 'using'
assessment-related data. As Table 3 shows, the main differences found
between the two levels related to how assessment was framed and
conducted.
While assessment activities had been planned in advance and in some
detail in Year 6, they were embedded in normal classroom activities and
essentially not 'visible' as assessment to learners. In
contrast, the assessment process in Year 7 was highly transparent,
featuring detailed written instructions, explicit advance information
about scoring and criteria, as well as information about how the
outcomes of assessment would be used. Assessment in Year 7 formed a
routine and predictable part of the teaching cycle with most activities
associated with some type of formal assessment activity.
The following examples from the Year 7 data relate to a role-play,
or 'dialogue' task, and demonstrate the different ways the
'assessment intention' of the activity was flagged to learners
(example 1).
Students were subsequently provided with detailed written
instructions (example 2) and a copy of the assessment rubric to put in
their workbooks (example 3).
Example 1: Teacher's description of
'assessment intention'
Ok we need to do some oral work in the
next couple of days because we need to
prepare you for your first assessment.
It's based on a lot of the work we've
been doing today and yesterday.
Example 2: Task specifications
DIALOGUE--script/conversation (2
people)
TASK - Oral presentation
In pairs you are to prepare a dialogue in
Indonesian. You are to pretend that you
are meeting someone for the first time.
Each person to speak at least 12 times.
You must include
* greetings
* age
* name
* address (name and number)
* telephone
* hobbies/interests
* family
* pets
* birthday
* goodbye
Another key difference between the two year levels was that
assessment tasks in Year 6 were usually completed in small groups (Year
6) whereas in Year 7, students more commonly completed assessment task
either individually or in pairs. While the preference for group work is
consistent with the emphasis in the current curriculum and standards
framework (VCAA, 2005) on the development of interpersonal skills
('Interpersonal Learning: Working in Teams'), it is
potentially problematic when it comes to reporting on individual
achievement.
A number of researchers have noted the importance of understanding
peer relationships in the context of classroom-based research. Torrance
and Pryor (1998), for example, concluded that collaboration on
assessment tasks both reflected and embedded the social relationships of
the participants in their study while Toohey (2001) documented how
patterns of domination and subordination impacted individual
students' opportunities for learning. In the present study, it was
observed that certain group dynamics (such as systematic exclusion or
disengagement) limited the opportunity for some members to participate
in collaborative assessment activities thus reducing the value of using
the product of group work (e.g., through inspection of workbooks) to
assess individual progress. While this problem can be overcome to some
extent by observing students during completion of collaborative tasks,
the experience in this study was that many students only appeared
'on task' when the teacher was nearby.
What do teachers look for?
This question was investigated through an analysis of written and
verbal instructions, assessment rubrics, written and verbal feedback to
learners, and discussions in reporting meetings in addition to written
reports.
Table 4 provides a summary of the 'valued enterprises',
'valued qualities' (criteria) and 'standards'
operating in the respective classrooms. This shows, firstly, that
although there was broad agreement in the type of qualities valued in
the respective classrooms, a wider range of linguistic criteria were
applied in Year 7. Secondly, comparison of the content of assessment
activities suggested there was a greater emphasis on Indonesian history
and culture in Year 6 when compared to Year 7, where the focus was more
or less exclusively linguistic. Finally, the concept of
'standard' in the respective classrooms was found to differ in
two respects. The first was the use of descriptive assessment scales and
rubrics in Year 7 compared to a tendency in Year 6 to define
'standard' in terms of quantity (e.g., number of correctly
formed sentences). The second was that the Year 6 teacher appeared
focused on exposing learners to linguistically and culturally rich
content in Year 6 while in Year 7 the focus was on mastery of a
relatively narrow range of linguistic content.
What theories or standards do they use?
A number of researchers have postulated a close relationship
between representations of the discipline (Indonesian language
education), pedagogic principles, and teachers' assessment
practices (Leung, 2005; James, 2006; Wiliam, 2001 ). This question was
investigated through analysis of internal policy, planning and reporting
documents, as well as teacher interview data. These differences are
summarised in Table 5.
Differences in the relative emphasis given to the cultural
component of Indonesia, noted earlier, is consistent with differences in
the respective teachers' commitment to the relevant external
frameworks (i.e. CSF II and VELS). The Victorian Essential Learning
Standards (VELS-VCAA, 2005) replaces the Curriculum and Standards
Framework II (CSF II, 2000). A key difference between the two frameworks
is that the VELS places an increased emphasis on the intercultural
aspects of language learning relative to the CSF II. VELS also
emphasizes 'interdisciplinary' and 'interpersonal',
in addition to discipline-specific, learning. Both frameworks are linked
to year levels (or 'stages of learning') based on a
recommended minimum of 150 minutes of instruction per week, and specify
a separate trajectory (or 'pathway') for students who begin
learning the language in primary school to those who begin the language
for the first time in high school. Both are intended as a set of
guidelines: neither is intended to be prescriptive in relation to
programs or resourcing. While schools are obliged to use these
frameworks for reporting, this is not considered 'high stakes'
as is the case, for example, with assessment and reporting for the UK
National Curriculum. Rather, there is an 'understanding' that
Government schools will make provision for their students to meet the
appropriate standard for their year level.
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
In Year 6, the teacher-authored planning and assessment document
was explicitly designed to comply with VELS (Level 4), which places a
greater emphasis on the cultural component of the discipline (or
'Intercultural Understanding'--ICU), than its predecessor (CSF
II).
[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]
This is in contrast to Year 7 where the external frameworks
appeared, at best, incorporated into existing practice. This is
evidenced in the following discussion with the two Year 7 teachers.
R: How does the stuff you're doing tie in with the VELS stuff?
Do you think it needs to be, or does it?
T1 : I don't think it ties in very well at all. I just get a
confused with all this VELS stuff I mean we've only done one
reporting on it anyway and we've found it ...
T2: I found it very similar to what I used to write anyway.
T1 : Yeah.
R: With the, did you use the CSF before, or you didn't bother?
T1 : Ohh, not really. It's a hard one ...
T2: In all honesty, no.
T1 : Yeah hmm. It's a hard one, yeah.
While it is important to recognise that data collection took place
in the first year of VELS implementation (and, hence, the program was
still in a period of transition to the new assessment and reporting
framework), this finding is consistent with research which identified a
tendency for Australian (adult ESL) teachers to use their professional
judgment and knowledge of what students 'typically' achieve
rather than rely on published criteria and standards (Arkoudis &
O'Loughlin, 2004; Davison, 2004).
Finally, when reporting achievement the Year 7 teachers displayed a
greater reliance on 'hard' evidence (based on formal
assessment) when compared to the Year 6 teacher who also relied on
intuition and knowledge about students accumulated over time (as
evidenced by the 'antennae' comment quoted earlier). However,
these differences may be, at least partly, explained by the fact that
the Year 6 teacher had taught the same students for four years in
contrast to Year 7, where teachers were meeting students for the first
time.
Do learners share the same understandings?
The fourth research question investigated learner understandings
about assessment processes, criteria, and standards. An analysis of how
one pair of Year 7 learners interpreted the feedback on the
'dialogue' task (presented earlier)is illustrative.
Figure 3 shows the completed assessment rubrics for the two
students (Dan and Adam) and Figure 4 shows written feedback on
Dan's copy of the script for their dialogue. Note that Adam had not
bothered to copy their jointly composed script into his workbook as
requested. Note also that Adam had scribbled something in Dan's
workbook that Dan had attempted to cross out (see heavy black marks in
the middle of the page).
In the following interaction, Dan, Adam, and a third unidentified
student are discussing the boys' results. Adam starts by reading
the teacher's comment aloud (text in capitals).
1 A: Oh my god! (*) I got 25 out of, I got 25 for this!
2 S?: What did you get?
3 A: I still beat him.
4 S?: Did you get a B? What did you get?
5 A: Dan you writ* the thing in the book and I didn't write it
in the book and I still got a higher mark.
6 S?: You beat me too.
7 A: But he, he writ* the thing in his book, I didn't and I
still beat him.
8 D Yeah. Look I got a bad marks cause of that crap ((points to
scribble))
9 A: ((laughs))
10 D: '... the last time I let someone borrow my book.
11 A: So Dan. '... you like, disgusted?
12 D: I don't know.
13 A: I got 25, I got an A.
14 S?: (*)
15 A: I got an A. I shouldn't of gotten an A.
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
In summary, despite a high level of transparency in terms of task
specifications and criteria, the pair seems to have completely
misunderstood the basis for their results. For example, although the
marked assessment rubric is clearly labelled 'oral
presentation', the boys interpret their marks in relation to the
written component (i.e., the script). Hence, Adam believed that he
didn't 'deserve' the higher score on the grounds that he
had not copied the script into his book.
It is also interesting that Dan chose to focus exclusively on the
teachers' feedback about 'presentation' (due to the
crossing-out) at the expense of other aspects of the feedback provided
(e.g., spelling and punctuation). As the 'dialogue' task was
their first assessment in Year 7, it could be argued that this
unorthodox interpretation of the feedback provides insight into the
pre-existing understandings of assessment that the learners have brought
with them from primary school. Perry (1998), for example, found that
primary school students perceived 'neatness',
'correctness', and 'completeness' as the main
criteria used by their teachers. Finally, despite the provision of
explicit criteria (on the assessment rubric) the boys have adopted a
comparative (or competitive) frame of reference ('I beat him')
to interpret their scores.
In short, it appears that these students were on a steep learning
curve in terms of their understanding of 'what counts' in the
Year 7 Indonesian classroom. Specifically, they needed to understand
that their scores were calculated with reference to specific qualities
of their performance (criterion-referenced), rather than by comparing
their performance to those of other students (norm-referenced). They
also needed to learn how to use the stated criteria (rather than notions
of 'completeness' and 'presentation') to interpret
their results.
The students' attitude toward collaborative versus individual
work was also quite illuminating.
1 Jade: Um, I don't like working on my own sometimes. Cause
it's all right sometimes cause then you can't say anyone
copied. Well, yyyeah. But when you're working in a group, say I
don't understand colours and I need colours, she can use her
knowledge of colours.
2 Sim: Everyone has their speciality but then there might be
something else that you're really bad at that someone's really
good at, so.
3 R: Ok so you think learning in pairs or in groups is the way to
go?
4 Jade: Yeah, because I think you learn a bit more in pairs or
groups cause some people know more than you. Say they know a bit more
about colours you learn off them. But then if you work by yourself (*)
you won't understand a bit.
5 R: Mm
6 Jade: When the teacher's like, 'time' and stuff,
sometimes you don't understand it but other people don't
understand it, but other people do understand it. So if there's
someone there with you, you can understand more because one of you has
probably understanded* it.
The type of 'distributed' competence discussed in this
interaction equates to what Wenger (1998) has termed 'knowing in
practice'. This notion of competence supports a communal memory
that allows individuals to do their work without needing to know
everything, and helps newcomers join the community by participating in
its practice (Wenger, 1998, p. 46).
However, this conceptualisation of competence runs counter to the
need for teachers to assess individual progress. This tension is
illustrated in the following interaction, where the Year 7 students were
asked about a recent vocabulary test.
1 R: I noticed [the teacher] she really made you space out.
2 Tam: Yeah.
3 Jess: That was a bit annoying.
4 Tam: We didn't really copy anyway.
5 Jess: She made us cover our work kinda thing.
6 R: So in [T2's] class, when you did the test do you think
anybody ...
7 Tam: Copy? Yes.
8 Jess: They did copy but they were sort of helping each other,
were sort of helping each other not, like, copying.
9 Tam [The teacher] did that, separate us, to see where we were. So
in a way that's good, but yeah.
10 Jess: If you don't know the answer to, like, loads of them
you don't know what to do.
However, the students appeared to apply a different notion of
'standard' when it came to Maths.
1 R: You just said before that you don't work in pairs in
Maths cause that's the 'main one'. What do you mean?
2 Jade: Oh well, as in, sort of, we will use Indonesian if we go to
like, other countries and stuff where they speak that language but with
Maths and English they're like ones we would use in everyday life
other than with Indonesia, with Indonesia when we're in Australia.
3 R: Mm, but why does that mean you don't do it in pairs?
4 Jade: So that you can do it by yourself and you know everything
you're doing.
5 Sim: They can determine our own intelligence of the subject.
6 Jade: Yeah (*)
7 Sim: Yeah, yeah cause, cause, like, it's Maths and they want
you to learn that stuff for your own like.
In other words, a distributed form of competence (or 'knowing
in practice') was considered sufficient standard for Indonesian,
whereas 'individual mastery' was required for Maths, a key
component of the so-called 'core' curriculum.
Implications for continuity
These results have a number of implications for continuity between
the two year levels. Table 6 attempts to summarise the different ways
'competence' appeared to differ across the respective year
levels. Firstly, in the Year 6 classroom competence has been
characterised as a property of the group ('knowing in
practice') rather than of individual students. Secondly, there
appear to be differences in terms of the content ('valued
enterprises') which is assessed, and the standard expected.
Specifically, competence in the Year 7 classroom appeared to entail
mastery of a relatively narrow range of linguistic input compared to
Year 6 where there appeared to be a greater focus on exposing students
to rich cultural and linguistic input (without necessarily requiring
master of it). Finally, while they share much in common, competence in
the Year 7 class appeared to be defined in terms of a broader range of
criteria ('valued qualities') than Year 6.
Discussion
This article presents some findings from an ethnographic study of
CBA practices at two successive levels of schooling. The results suggest
that the Year 6 and 7 Indonesian classrooms represent two distinct
assessment cultures. This has clear implications for continuity at this
critical juncture of schooling.
The study also identified a number of tensions in CBA that need to
be recognised and managed. The first is the need to balance a desire to
expose learners to culturally and linguistically rich input (as intended
by current curriculum documents) against the need for students to
demonstrate mastery of that content. The other key tension is the
emphasis on generic skills such as team work (which are emphasised in
the current curriculum and standards framework: VELS) with the
requirement to report on individual performance.
The intention was not to make judgements about teachers but rather
to better understand their assessment practices. Nonetheless, it is
hoped that the findings of this study will encourage languages teachers
to reflect more deeply on their own assessment practices. For example,
teachers need to be aware that differences in how learning is assessed
in the respective classrooms may be as important as what is assessed in
determining 'what counts' in the languages classroom. Teachers
may also consider the benefit of greater transparency in assessment
processes as well as increased learner involvement in assessment more
generally. Finally, the demonstrated capacity for students to
misunderstand feedback underscores the importance of training learners
in the use of assessment rubrics in addition to providing explicit
information about task, quality, and standard.
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
References
Arkoudis, S. & O'Loughlin, K. 2004.Tensions between
validity and outcomes: teacher asssessment of written work of recently
arrived immigrant ESL students. Language Testing, 21, 3, 284-304.
Balandier-Brown, C., Bolster, A., & Rea-Dickins, P. 2003.
Investigating issues of transition between primary and secondary in
modem foreign languages (MFL). Bristol: University of Bristol.
Blondin, C., Candelier, M., Edelenbos, R, Johnstone, R.,
Kubanek-German, A., & Taeschner, T. 1998. Foreign languages in
primary and pre-school education: context and outcomes. London: CILT.
Burstall, C., Iamieson M, Cohen, S., & M. Hargreaves, 1974.
Primary French in the balance. Windsor: NFER Publishing Company.
Clyne, M., Jenkins, C., Chen, I.Y., Tsolalidou, R., & Wallner,
T 1995. Developing second language from primary school. Deakin: NLLIA.
Crawford, J. 2001. Teachers' attitudes to proficiency as a
goal in primary language programs. Paper presented at the Applied
Linguistics Association of Australia Congress, Canberra, 5-8 July 2001.
CSF II, 2000. Curriculum and Standard Framework II. Retrieved 9
August 2010 from http://vels.vcaa.vic.edu.au/support/csf.html
Davison, C. 2004. The contradictory culture of teacher-based
assessment: ESL teacher assessment practices in Australian and Hong Kong
secondary schools. Language Testing, 21, 3, 305-334.
DET [Department of Education &Training]. 2003. Blueprint for
Government schools. Retrieved 5 August 2005 from www.
education.vic.gov.au/about/directions/blueprint2008
DOE [Department of Education]. 2006. Languages Other Than English
in Government Schools 2006. Retrieved 24 August 2010 from
www.education.vic.gov.au/studentlearning/teachingresources/lote
Duff, RA. & Uchida, Y. 1997. The negotiation of teachers'
sociocultural identities and practices in postsecondary EFL classrooms.
TESOL Quarterly, 31, 3, 451-486.
Edelenbos, P. & Koster, C.J. (Eds). 1993. Engels in het
basisonderwijs. Bussum: Coutinho.
Edelenbos, P. & Suhre, C.J. 1995. English in Dutch primary
education. In P. Edelenbos & R. Johnstone (Eds), Researching
languages at primary school: some european perspectives, 47-58.
Stirling: Scottish CILT.
Eisenhardt, K.M. 2002. Building theories from case study research.
In A.M. Huberman & MB. Miles (Eds), The Qualitative
Researcher's Companion, 5-35. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Hill, K. 2003. Assessment in transition. Babel, 38, 1, 19-24 &
30.
Hill, K. 2001. Between the cracks: the transition from primary to
secondary school foreign language study. Asia Pacific Applied
Linguistics: The Next 25 Years. Proceedings of the 2001 ALAA National
Congress. ACT: University of Canberra, Centre for Research in
Professional Education.
Hill, K., Davies, A., Oldfield, J., & Watson, N. 1997.
Questioning an early start: the transition from primary to secondary
foreign language learning. Melbourne Papers in Language Testing, 6, 2,
21-36.
James, M 2006. Assessment, teaching and theories of learning. In J.
Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning, 47-60. London: Sage.
Johnstone, R. 1999. Research agenda for modern languages. In R
Driscoll &. D. Frost (Eds), The Teaching of Modem Foreign Languages
in the Primary School, 197-209. London: Routledge.
Kubanek-German, A. 1998. Primary foreign language teaching in
Europe: trends and issues. Language Teaching, 31, 4, 193-205.
Leung, C. 2005. Classroom teacher assessment of second language
development. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language
Teaching and Learning, 869-888. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Lo Bianco, J. 2001. Calling in the big guns! Australian Language
Matters, 9, 1, 6-10.
Lo Bianco, J. 2003. A letter to ALAA. ALAA Newsletter, 23 June
2003.
Low, L. 1999. Policy issues for primary modern languages. In R
Driscoll & D. Frost (Eds.), The Teaching of Modem Foreign Languages
in the Primary School, 50-63. London: Routledge.
Low, L., Brown, S., Johnstone, R., & Pirrie, A. 1995. Foreign
languages in Scottish primary schools--Evaluation of the Scottish pilot
projects: Final Report to Scottish Office. Stirling: Scottish CILT
Low, L., Duffield, J., Brown, S., & Johnstone, R. 1993.
Evaluating foreign languages in Scottish primary schools. Report to
Scottish Office. Stirling: Scottish CILT.
MCEETYA. 2005. National statement for languages education in
Australian schools: National plan for languages education in Australian
Schools 2005-2008. Hindmarsh, SA: DECS Publishing.
Oostdam, R. & Van Toorenburg, H. 2002. 'Leuk is not
enough': Het vraagstuk van de positionering van Engels in het
basisonderwijs en de aansluitingmet het voortgezet onderwijs. Levende
Talen Tijdschrift, 3, 4, 3-17.
Patton, M.Q. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Perry, N. 1998. Young children's self-regulated learning and
contexts that support it. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90,
715-729.
Purvis, K. & Ranaldo, T 2003. Providing continuity in language
teaching and learning from primary to secondary. Babel, 38, 1, 13-18.
Rea-Dickins, R 2006. Currents and eddies in the discourse of
assessment: a learning focused interpretation. International Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 16, 2, 164-188.
Rea-Dickins, P. 2009. Personal communication. February 1 2009.
Sharpe, K. 2001. Modern foreign languages in the primary school.
London: Kogan Page Ltd.
Toohey, K. 2001. Disputes in child L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly,
35, 2, 257-278.
Torrance, H. & Pryor, J. 1998. Investigating formative
assessment: teaching, learning and assessment in the classroom.
Buckingham: Open University press.
VCAA [Victorian Curriculum & Assessment Authority]. 2008.
Framework of essential learnings. Languages other than English.
Melbourne: Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority.
VCAA [Victorian Curriculum & Assessment Authority]. 2005.
Victorian essential learning standards (VELS). Melbourne: Victorian
Curriculum and Assessment Authority.
Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and
identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wiliam, D. 2001. An overview of the relationship between assessment
and the curriculum. In D. Scott (Ed.), Curriculum and Assessment , 1,
165-185. Westport: Ablex Publishing.
Kathryn Hill has a B.A. (Indonesian, Politics, & Arabic),
Dip.Ed. (Indonesian/TESL), M.A., and PhD (Applied Linguistics) from The
University of Melbourne. She spent fifteen years as Research Fellow in
the Language Testing Research Centre, University of Melbourne, and the
Australian Council for Educational Research where she was involved in a
number of projects related to school-based languages learning. During
that time, she also taught postgraduate courses in applied linguistics
at the University. She currently lecturers in clinical communication in
the Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences. Kathryn is a
regular presenter at local and international conferences and has
numerous publications, including the 2004 International Language Testing
Association (ILTA) best paper in the field of language testing. Her
research interests include language testing and language program
evaluation, and Languages for Specific Purposes (LSP), including English
for health professionals. Her email address is kmhill@unimelb.edu.au.
Table 1: Parameters of classroom-based assessment.
EVIDENCE
Input What is assessed? Valued enterprises/behaviours
Approach How is evidence * Planned/Incidental
collected?
* Visible/Embedded
Target Who is assessed? * Individuals
* Groups/Whole class
Agent By whom? * Teachers
* Students
* Teacher/Student collaboration
INTERPRETATION
Reflection Level of attention * Sustained/Fleeting
Criteria Values guiding * Explicit/Unconscious criteria
assessment
* Official/Idiosyncratic criteria
USE
Purpose How is evidence Summative
used? * Assign level (reporting)
Formative
* Teaching (plan/modify)
* Learning
Management
* Managing lesson
* Managing behaviour
* Socialisation (into
classroom culture)
User By whom? * Teachers
* Learners
* School
Table 2: Potential sources of assessment-related information
Teacher Interactions
* planning sessions
* reporting sessions
* discussions with researcher
Teacher-Student Interactions
* written or verbal instructions
* requests for explanation/clarification
* oral or written feedback
Student Interactions
* discussion of task requirements
* discussion of feedback/results
* self- and peer evaluations
Documents
* assessment tasks
* assessment rubrics
* course outlines, work requirements
* student workbooks
* statements of aims (policy)
* teachers' notes and 'running records'
* summative reports
Table 3: Comparison of what the Year 6 and 7 teachers do
Year 6 Year 7
1.1 Planning + detail - detail
1.2 Framing + implicit + explicit
1.3 Conducting + embedded + formal, transparent
+ group + individual (pair)
Table 4: Comparison of what the Year 6 and 7 teachers look for
Year 6 Both
Valued qualities
(Inter)personal -- Capable, Confident,
Bilingual, Behaviour
Group work Effort,
Work habits -- Organisation
Task completion/
Submission of work
Linguistic Phrasing Accuracy: grammar
(reading aloud) (word order),
spelling,
Variety punctuation,
(question types) meaning,
Pronunciation
Other 'Winning'
(finishing first)
Valued Culture (ICU) & Listening, Speaking,
enterprises Language Reading, Writing
Standard Quantity
+ Exposure
(rich)
Year 7
Valued qualities
(Inter)personal 'Fragility'
Work habits --
Linguistic Accent, Intonation,
Body Language,
Fluency,
Comprehensibility,
Vocabulary,
Credibility,
Performance
Other --
Valued Language
enterprises
Standard Assess't rubrics/
scales
+ Mastery (narrow)
Table 5: Comparison of theories or standards used
Year 6 Year 7
Discipline + cultural content + linguistic content
Pedagogy + exposure + mastery
Assessment + intuition + evidence
Table 6: Notions of 'competence' in Years 6 & 7
Year 6 Year 7
Location of competence + Distributed (group) + Individual (?)
Valued enterprises + ICU + Language
Valued qualities Presentation, Broader range of
accuracy, linguistic
completeness criteria
Notion of standard + Exposure (rich) + Mastery (narrow)
Quantitive Descriptive
Example 3: Assessment rubric
ORAL PRESENTATION: Year 7 Dialogue (Term 1, 2006)
Nama Saya:
Kelas:
Guru Saya:
Word Body Participation
Accent Intonation Pronunciation Order Language & group work
5 5 5 5 5 5
4 4 4 4 4 4
3 3 3 3 3 3
2 2 2 2 2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1
OVERALL ASSESSMENT:
Figure 2: Framework for data analysis
1. What do teachers do?
1.1 Planning Assessment * Task specifications
* Focus of assessment
* Relationship to instruction
* Relationship to external frameworks
1.2 Framing Assessment * Explicit/Implicit
1.3 Conducting Assessment * Formal/Instruction-embedded
* Planned/Unplanned
* Assessment of group/individuals
1.4 Using Assessment Data * Teaching
* Learning (feedback)
* Reporting
* (Management, Socialisation)
2. What do teachers look for?
2.1 In Advance * Written/Verbal instructions
* Assessment rubrics
2.2 In Feedback * Verbal feedback (during/after
performance)
* Written feedback
2.3 In Reporting * Reporting decisions
* Written reports
3. What theory or 'standards' do they use?
3. Teacher Theories & * The discipline (Indonesian)
Beliefs
* Language, second language
learning/teaching
* Assessment
4. Do learners share the same understandings?
4. Learner Theories & * The discipline (Indonesian)
Beliefs * Language, second language learning
* Assessment (criteria)
