Advertisement

The Effectiveness of Pre-assessment to Differentiate the Reading Tasks for the Mixed-Abilities EFL Learners

  • Syeda Saima Ferheen Bukhari
Chapter

Abstract

Pre-assessment is a diagnostic tool to facilitate the process of constructing new concepts on existing knowledge blocks and to provide an insight into learners’ readiness to receive new concepts. This study investigates the usefulness of the pre-assessment to know the learners’ language proficiency level and to incorporate differentiated tiered tasks to improve the reading comprehension. The objectives are as follows: (a) to review the usefulness of pre-assessment (as a diagnostic tool) to gauge learners’ readiness and (b) to examine the improvement of the learners’ reading skill through differentiated tasks adapted after the diagnosis of their readiness. The results of Intermediate EFL learners, divided into control and experimental groups, signify that the experimental group (EG) who was: (a) given pre-assessment; (b) measured for their readiness; (c) flexibly grouped; and (d) attempted differentiated (tiered) reading tasks, achieved distinguished results than the control group (CG) who were taught as usual. T-test analysis indicates that the pre-assessment results supported the researcher to gauge the learners’ prior knowledge and to make adjustments by adding instructional support or constructing challenging tasks used for the reading comprehension activity. Thus, pre-assessment is highly recommended for the reading comprehension tasks and making them appropriate for all level learners reach the same goals.

Keywords

Pre-assessment Diagnostic testing Learners’ readiness Differentiated reading tasks 

References

  1. Algozzine, B., & Anderson, K. M. (2007). Tips for teaching: Differentiating instruction to include all students. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 5(3), 49–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banks, J., Cochran-Smith, M., Moll, L., Richert, A., Zeichner, K., LePage, P., et al. (2005). Teaching diverse learners. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 232–274). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brualdi Timmins, A. C. (1996). Multiple intelligences: Gardner’s theory. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 5(10), 1–3.Google Scholar
  5. Bukhari, S. S. F. (2015). Application of mindmapping techniques to enhance EFL learners’ writing. Germany: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing. ISBN 978-3-659-80193-8.Google Scholar
  6. Bukhari, S. S. F. (2016). Mind mapping techniques to enhance EFL writing skill. International Journal of Linguistics and Communication, 4(1).Google Scholar
  7. Carr, J. F., & Harris, D. E. (2001). Succeeding with standards: Linking curriculum, assessment, and action planning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  8. Csikszentmihaly, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  9. Earl, L. (2013). Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximize student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  10. Forehand, M. (2010). Bloom’s taxonomy. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology (pp. 1–10). https://www.d41.org/cms/lib/IL01904672/Centricity/Domain/422/BloomsTaxonomy.pdf.
  11. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  12. Gardner, H. (1994). Reflections on multiple intelligences: Myths and messages. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(5), 200–207.Google Scholar
  13. Gregory, G., & Chapman, C. (2002). Differentiated instructional strategies: One size does not fit all. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  14. Heller, R., Wolfe, R. E., & Steinberg, A. (2017). Rethinking readiness: Deeper learning for college, work, and life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hidri, S. (2013). The effectiveness of assessment of learning and assessment for learning in eliciting valid inferences on the test-takers’ listening comprehension ability. In Article published in the Proceedings of the 2013 Nile TESOL Conference Revolutionizing TESOL: Techniques and Strategies (pp. 1–25). Egypt: The American University of Cairo. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6bmHwcjFuVYX2FJZTFndGF0QzA/edit.
  16. Hidri, S. (2017). Specs validation of a dynamic reading comprehension test for EAP learners in an EFL context. In S. Hidri & C. Coombe (Eds.), Evaluation in foreign language education in the Middle East and North Africa (pp. 315–337). Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hidri, S. (2018a). Introduction: State of the art of assessing second language abilities. In S. Hidri (Ed.), Revisiting the assessment of second language abilities: From theory to practice (pp. 1–19). Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hidri, S. (2018b). Assessing spoken language ability: A many-facet Rasch analysis. In S. Hidri (Ed.), Revisiting the assessment of second language abilities: From theory to practice (pp. 23–48). Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jensen, E. (2005). Teaching with the brain in mind. ASCD.Google Scholar
  20. Jönsson, A., Mattheos, N., Svingby, G., & Attström, R. (2007). Dynamic assessment and the “interactive examination”. Educational Technology & Society, 10(4), 17–27.Google Scholar
  21. Kathleen Dunaway, M., & Teague Orblych, M. (2011). Formative assessment: Transforming information literacy instruction. Reference Services Review, 39(1), 24–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lawrence-Brown, D. (2004). Differentiated instruction: Inclusive strategies for standards-based learning that benefit the whole class. American Secondary Education, 32(3), 34–62.Google Scholar
  23. Logan, B. (2011). Examining differentiated instruction: Teachers respond. Research in Higher Education Journal, 13, 1–14.Google Scholar
  24. McCloskey, G., Perkins, L. A., & Van Divner, B. (2009). Assessment and intervention for executive function difficulties. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Moll, L. C. (Ed.). (1992). Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Oberg, C. (2010). Guiding classroom instruction through performance assessment. Journal of Case Studies in Accreditation and Assessment, 1, 1–11. Retrieved from http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/09257.pdf.
  27. Parsons, S. A., Dodman, S. L., & Burrowbridge, S. C. (2013). Broadening the view of differentiated instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(1), 38–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Popham, J. (2011). Formative assessment—A process, not a test. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/02/23/21popham.h30.html?t.
  29. Rakow, S. (2007). All means all: Classrooms that work for advanced learners. National Middle School Association (NJ1), 11(1), 10–12.Google Scholar
  30. Reutzel, D. R., & Morgan, B. C. (1990). Effects of prior knowledge, explicitness, and clause order on children’s comprehension of causal relationships. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 11(2), 93–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sousa, D. A. (2016). How the brain learns. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  32. Tomlinson, C. A. (1995). Deciding to differentiate instruction in middle school: One school’s journey. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39(2), 77–87. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  34. Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Reconcilable differences? Standards-based teaching and differentiation. Educational Leadership, 58(4), 6–11.Google Scholar
  35. Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  36. Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom: Strategies and tools for responsive teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  37. Tomlinson, C. A. (2005a). Grading and differentiation: Paradox or good practice? Theory into Practice, 44(3), 262–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tomlinson, C. A. (2005b). Differentiating instruction: Why bother? National Middle School Association (NJ1), 9(1), 12–14.Google Scholar
  39. Tomlinson, C. A. (2007). Learning to love assessment. Educational Leadership, 65(4), 8.Google Scholar
  40. Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  41. Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Brimijoin, K., & Reynolds, T. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(2–3), 119–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tomlinson, C. A., & Germundson, A. (2007). Teaching as Jazz. Educational Leadership, 64(8), 27–31. Google Scholar
  43. Tomlinson, C. A., & Imbeau, M. (2010). Leading and managing a differentiated classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  44. Tomlinson, C. A., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrated differentiated instruction and understanding by design. Alexander, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  45. Tomlinson, C. A., & Moon, T. (2013). Assessment and student success in a differentiated classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  46. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  48. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998a). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve student performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  49. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998b). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  50. Xanthou, M., & Pavlou, P. (2008). Strategies of accommodating mixed ability classes in EFL settings: Teachers’ armour in an ongoing battle. The Teacher Trainer, 26(1), 1–23. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Syeda Saima Ferheen Bukhari
    • 1
  1. 1.English Language InstituteKing Abdulaziz UniversityJeddahSaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations