Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mediating Assessment Innovation: Why Stakeholder Perspectives Matter

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Assessing Foreign Language Students’ Spoken Proficiency

Part of the book series: Educational Linguistics ((EDUL,volume 26))

Abstract

As part of recent curriculum and assessment reforms in New Zealand, the assessment of foreign language (FL) students’ spoken communicative proficiency has undergone a major shift. A summative teacher-led interview test has been replaced by the collection of learner-focused peer-to-peer interactions that take place in the context of learning programmes throughout the year. The innovation brings with it significant changes to practice, and initially invoked strong teacher reaction. This chapter sets the scene for a 2-year study focused on stakeholder views about the new assessment in comparison with the former assessment. The chapter interweaves the New Zealand case with global arguments about teaching, learning and assessment in order to situate the case in question within on-going international debates. The chapter outlines the essence of the reforms. It articulates the centrality of assessment to effective teaching and learning and describes the evidence that assessment developers would normatively draw on to determine validity. A broader approach to validation is proposed. The chapter concludes with an overview of the study in question.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In this book I use the terms ‘assessment’ and ‘testing/test’ somewhat interchangeably. A test is a discrete instance of assessment, whereas assessment is a broader concept. That is, a test is an assessment. Not all assessments are tests. In this book, the assessment in question includes recording a short instance (a few minutes) of interaction between two or more interlocutors, which may be part of a longer interaction, and using that instance for assessment purposes. This instance is not designed to be a test (although in some circumstances it may be operationalised as such), and several instances, collected together, lead to a holistic grading of performance.

  2. 2.

    The languages listservs provide a forum for subscribed New Zealand languages teachers to engage in debate about topical issues. The debates about interact were part of a broader campaign, launched by one individual, to see interact rescinded, and reached their peak around the beginning of 2014. The debates and campaign documents essentially constitute ‘personal communications’ to which this author was party.

  3. 3.

    As East (2012) makes clear, although TBLT has often been interpreted as focusing primarily on spoken interaction, the approach is designed to foster second language acquisition across the full range of skills.

  4. 4.

    I use the terms ‘static’ and ‘dynamic’ to differentiate broadly between one-time tests that measure performances at a particular point in time and on-going assessments that build in opportunities for feedback and feedforward. Alternative differentiating terms include ‘summative’ and ‘formative’, and assessments of and for learning.

References

  • ACTFL. (2012). ACTFL proficiency guidelines 2012. Retrieved from http://www.actfl.org/publications/guidelines-and-manuals/actfl-proficiency-guidelines-2012

  • Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachman, L. F. (2000). Modern language testing at the turn of the century: Assuring that what we count counts. Language Testing, 17(1), 1–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026553220001700101

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. (2010). Language assessment in practice: Developing language assessments and justifying their use in the real world. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapelle, C. A. (1999). Validity in language assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 254–272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0267190599190135

  • Cohen, R. J., & Swerdlik, M. E. (2005). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe. (1998). Modern languages: Teaching, assessment. A common European framework of reference. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crocker, L. (2002). Stakeholders in comprehensive validation of standards-based assessments: A commentary. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22, 5–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2002.tb00079.x

    Google Scholar 

  • De Ridder, I., Vangehuchten, L., & Seseña Gómez, M. (2007). Enhancing automaticity through task-based language learning. Applied Linguistics, 28(2), 309–315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml057

  • DeKeyser, R. M. (2001). Automaticity and automatization. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 125–151). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139524780.007

  • East, M. (2005). Using support resources in writing assessments: Test taker perceptions. New Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 21–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • East, M. (2007). Bilingual dictionaries in tests of L2 writing proficiency: Do they make a difference? Language Testing, 24(3), 331–353. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265532207077203

    Google Scholar 

  • East, M. (2008a). Dictionary use in foreign language writing exams: Impact and implications. Amsterdam, Netherlands/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/lllt.22

  • East, M. (2008b). Language evaluation policies and the use of support resources in assessments of language proficiency. Current Issues in Language Planning, 9(3), 249–261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14664200802139539

    Google Scholar 

  • East, M. (2009). Evaluating the reliability of a detailed analytic scoring rubric for foreign language writing. Assessing Writing, 14(2), 88–115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2009.04.001

    Google Scholar 

  • East, M. (2012). Task-based language teaching from the teachers’ perspective: Insights from New Zealand. Amsterdam, Netherlands / Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/tblt.3

  • East, M. (2015). Taking communication to task – again: What difference does a decade make? The Language Learning Journal, 43(1), 6–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2012.723729

    Google Scholar 

  • Edge, J., & Richards, K. (1998). May I see your warrant please?: Justifying outcomes in qualitative research. Applied Linguistics, 19, 334–356. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.3.334

  • Elder, C. (1997). What does test bias have to do with fairness? Language Testing, 14(3), 261–277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026553229701400304

    Google Scholar 

  • Elder, C., Iwashita, N., & McNamara, T. (2002). Estimating the difficulty of oral proficiency tasks: what does the test-taker have to offer? Language Testing, 19(4), 347–368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/0265532202lt235oa

  • Gardner, J., Harlen, W., Hayward, L., & Stobart, G. (2008). Changing assessment practice: Process, principles and standards. Belfast, Northern Ireland: Assessment Reform Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haertel, E. H. (2002). Standard setting as a participatory process: Implications for validation of standards-based accountability programs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22, 16–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2002.tb00081.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgs, T. V. (Ed.). (1984). Teaching for proficiency: The organizing principle. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, D. (2009). Communicative language teaching and the ELT Journal: a corpus-based approach to the history of a discourse. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of Warwick, Warwick, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kane, M. J. (2002). Validating high-stakes testing programs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 21(1), 31–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2002.tb00083.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R. M., & Saccuzzo, D. P. (2012). Psychological testing: Principles, applications, and issues (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Centage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline, P. (2000). Handbook of psychological testing (2nd ed.). London, England: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315812274

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramsch, C. (1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence. The Modern Language Journal, 70(4), 366–372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1986.tb05291.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramsch, C. (1987). The proficiency movement: Second language acquisition perspectives. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9(3), 355–362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0272263100006732

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunnan, A. J. (2000). Fairness and justice for all. In A. J. Kunnan (Ed.), Fairness and validation in language assessment (pp. 1–14). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazaraton, A. (1995). Qualitative research in applied linguistics: A progress report. TESOL Quarterly, 29(3), 455–472. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3588071

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazaraton, A. (2002). A qualitative approach to the validation of oral language tests. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leung, C. (2005). Convivial communication: Recontextualizing communicative competence. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(2), 119–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2005.00084.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, M. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126–141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/4.2.126

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York, NY: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madaus, G. F., & Kellaghan, T. (1992). Curriculum evaluation and assessment. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook on research on curriculum (pp. 119–154). New York, NY: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, T. (1997). ‘Interaction’ in second language performance assessment: Whose performance? Applied Linguistics, 18(4), 446–466. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/18.4.446

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, T., & Roever, C. (2006). Language testing: The social dimension. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741–749. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.50.9.741

    Google Scholar 

  • Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). New York, NY: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum. Wellington, NZ: Learning Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mislevy, R., Wilson, M. R., Ercikan, K., & Chudowsky, N. (2003). Psychometric principles in student assessment. In T. Kellaghan, & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), International handbook of educational evaluation (Vol. 9, pp. 489–531). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0309-4_31

  • Morrow, K. (1991). Evaluating communicative tests. In S. Anivan (Ed.), Current developments in language testing (pp. 111–118). Singapore, Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton, P., & Shaw, S. (2014). Validity in educational and psychological assessment. London, England: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, J. (2002). Interpretations, intended uses and designs in task-based language assessment. Language Testing, 19(4), 337–346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/0265532202lt234ed

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, J. (2008). Validity evaluation in language assessment. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511667336

  • Philp, J., Adams, R., & Iwashita, N. (2014). Peer interaction and second language learning. New York, NY: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203551349

  • Rea-Dickins, P. (1997). So, why do we need relationships with stakeholders in language testing? A view from the UK. Language Testing, 14(3), 304–314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026553229701400307

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511667220

  • Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching (3rd ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, K. (2002). Assessment validation in the context of high-stakes assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22, 7–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2002.tb00080.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Savignon, S. (2005). Communicative language teaching: Strategies and goals. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 635–651). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Segalowitz, N. (2005). Automaticity and second languages. In C. J. Doughty, & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 381–408). Oxford, England: Blackwell. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470756492.ch13

  • Shohamy, E. (2000). Fairness in language testing. In A. J. Kunnan (Ed.), Fairness and validation in language assessment (pp. 15–19). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shohamy, E. (2001a). The power of tests: A critical perspective on the uses of language tests. Harlow, England: Longman/Pearson. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315837970

  • Shohamy, E. (2001b). The social responsibility of the language testers. In R. L. Cooper (Ed.), New perspectives and issues in educational language policy (pp. 113–130). Amsterdam, Netherlands/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/z.104.09sho

  • Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. New York, NY: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203387962

    Google Scholar 

  • Shohamy, E. (2007). Tests as power tools: Looking back, looking forward. In J. Fox, M. Wesche, D. Bayliss, L. Cheng, C. E. Turner, & C. Doe (Eds.), Language testing reconsidered (pp. 141–152). Ottawa, Canada: University of Ottawa Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spada, N. (2007). Communicative language teaching: Current status and future prospects. In J. Cummins, & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 271–288). New York, NY: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-46301-8_20

  • Spolsky, B. (1995). Measured words. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomlinson, B. (Ed.). (2011). Materials development in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winke, P. (2011). Evaluating the validity of a high-stakes ESL test: Why teachers’ perceptions matter. TESOL Quarterly, 45(4), 628–660. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.5054/tq.2011.268063/abstract

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, R. (1993). Assessment and testing. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education and Social Work, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

    Martin East

Authors
  1. Martin East
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

East, M. (2016). Mediating Assessment Innovation: Why Stakeholder Perspectives Matter. In: Assessing Foreign Language Students’ Spoken Proficiency. Educational Linguistics, vol 26. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0303-5_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0303-5_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-0301-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-0303-5

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation