Brown & Abeywickrama-2010-Ch. 2 Language Assessment Principles and Classroom Practices

language Assessment, Principles

an

Classr Classroom oom Practices,

Secon Secon

Editi Edition on

Copyright

this perm permis issi sion on

peaJl,~

of!!P..r of!!P..rsp spub ubli lish sher er

CONTI

I G ~ t i € W t o iB iB a n i 1

an Clas Classr sroo oo language Assessment, Principles eam, re rese resent ntin in ed tori torial al pr duct duct n, desi design gn an ma ufac ufac urin uring, g, Seco Second nd Edit Editio io eam, are zi Lise Minovitz, Stei Stei er an Jenn Jennif ifer er Stem Stem

Practices, Ki

Preface ex Credi

ce Te Te

desi design gn en co posi posi on

Te

ar

Do

Wo f, TS raph raphic ic TS raph raphic ic

Chap Chapte te

arti arti et

Asse Asse smen smen Measu Assess

Ubrary of Congress Cataloging-In-Publication Brow Brown, n, H. Doug Dougla las, s,

Data

Inform Formal

1941 1941 as

ad

Norm-l

Abeywickrama.

p.em. ISBN 0-13-814 0-13-8149319311. Lang Langua ua an ac

pe la guag guages es-S -S dy

an each each ng Abeywickrama, Priyanvada.

2. Lang Langua ua TItle.

an

la guag guages es-E -E amin aminat at ons. ons.

P53.4.B762010 418.0076-dc22 2009039195 ISBN-13: ISBN-13: 978-0-13 978-0-13-814 -814931931ISBN-I0: ISBN-I0: 0-13-814 0-13-814931931-

nd Pur] Achiev Diagno Placem Profick Aptitud

Issues inLangu Behavi< Integral Commi

PEAR PEARSO SO

LO

MA

l'

HEWE

offers rs onli online ne Pearsonlongman.com offe reso resour urce ce fo teac teache hers rs an stud studen ents ts Acce Access ss ou Co anio anio We si es ur onli onli atal atalog og

Perfom "H Multiple Traditio Compui OtherC Exercises 22 Fo

is

ou Furt Furtbe be

pearsonlongman.com.

Prac Practi tica cali lity ty 26 Reli Reliab abil ilit it 27 Student-

CHAPTER

AG OBJECTIVES:

principles of language assessment (practicality, reliability validity, th ti ty th essentia subcategorie within reliabilit an validity

ly th importan

iv ia of each principle,

rp in ru

fail

rt

iv

in rume

all

th

ri

-b if

m-

ts

26

P r in c ip le s o f L a ng u ag e A s se ss m en t

CHAPTER

PRACTICAUTY Practicality refers to th lo istical, down-to- arth

ch riteri

is im ra ti al

Consid

th

ollo in

dministr ti

issues in ol ed in

ttri ut

ra ti alit

la

ro ic

it Students evening, ha

te er

in id -o -o hundre te t-takers nd nl andf tu ra fo most classroo situations tical if re ie to th iv test sometime

is vail bl to ac om li ic of examiner

th

it

ta

core ), th will proctor an time constr cality factor

bj ctiv min-

test ic

re

hing on such nitty-gritty practica considerations tr to

An

enroll

It's ea

takes than

in th progra ic iv it ig nd 80 item rammar oc bulary an re in

tu en When th tests, tl exchange, re

tays within udgetary limits be complete th te t-ta within propri te time onstraints as cl ar dire ti ns admini tr ti ppro ri tely utilizes aila le huma resource il ri

te

th

li om re ensi n,

RElJABILITY

AreUable il

result

la ll multiple

is com un

contai day. Sounds simple right?

rong

fa

sibl factor administratioi

lc some ofwhic

Principles of

CHAPTER

ll

se

th st

ts

it

it

in

in id

ictati

th th te ts th

istr to

th

to

le

to sc su je ti

ictati te

7)

le to th

irst

tw

evenin

th

th

te

to

th

io st

ty

avin

th in

lo to

combined dictatio

le

scores an th

th

80-ite

ltiple

ic

multiple-c oice scores

th tw rustrate examiner inally arrive at lace ents or al st dents. It's as to se at en ro re il th list in co re ension section of th test wa ap arentl scor d) th ad inistr to

ig ly ractical (easil administered an very quickl aile to ec th teri ls ea of ti (w ic

will to ti

is

co straints li

is

sc

lassroom-b se sy th

testin

th ti

id

it in

is lmos alwa in th

cr ci

th racti-

REIJABILITY

reliable test is consistent an de enda le st ilar results.

is

tc

onsist

st ts tw if si ig ca sulate th rinciple of reliabilit in th

in it co

itio

across tw

or

sh ld ollowing

dministratio

give clea directions fo scoring/evaluatio as unifor ru rics or scoring/evaluation le ds itself to onsisten ap li atio of thos ontain it

is

s/task

th

that ar

li

lity

ig ou

te

ru rics

th scorer

to th test-t ke

tt

id

nu er of actors that ca contri ut to thei unreliabilit Weloo si le actors re ardi lu tuatio in (a th st de t, (b)

er at ou

os

ad inistratio an (d th test itself (See Bach an 990, J. Brow 005, an Fulcher Davidson 00 fo furt er an more elaborated discussion of relia ility some of whic

extend well

eyon

teac er-mad

classroo

assessments.

28

P r n c p le s

CHAPTER

o f L an gu ag e A ss es sm en t

Student-Related Reliability

noise outsk th stim li

most common leamer-related issu in reliabilit is caused atigue

"bad da ,"an iety an ot er

category

re uc

ct rs

temporar

illness,

sica or sychological actors whic

test-wiseness,

test-t ker'

ma

variations,

or strategies or ef iden

Tes Reliabili to

ro

inistr ti

cont

'r

t. Bu th

ri

to

ce

im

Sometimes

in

te ch rs su ge ts ot

rwis

muluple-ch istic that difficult, dis

miz

student-related unreliability caus

Rater Reliability

th

teacher-mac tica

Huma error, su jectivit

an

rocess Inter-rater

ia ma ente into th scorin

reliability test Failur to chieve intr -r te reli ilit co ld st ro lack re ce to cori crit ri in ri ce in tt ti n, ve reconc iv iases. Lu le (200 rovide some el ul ints on ow to ensure inter-rate reliabilit

ers

an

Fulchet

clas: tors includ th

teac er

tr st scorer

ar involved Intra-rate

uncl

sc ring crit ri

relia ility is

intern

ct r,

co

on

cc r-

ve

th ir test re

Further im

tigu

ia to

rd

rtic la

le

"goo

to

"b te

tu

(f

ly-h

ve

su li in ll -t

th

"e rs

ir

th

test will be different

irst

r"

re tain to

kn th standards

nts,

m,

ma ultimat item an hr

"h rd r"

re

lu

al tests. On solution to such intra-rate unreliabilit

ro

is

it is obvi muddying riti

kill

rate reli

ie

ilit

ro

is

rticul rl

tr ts th

re

rd to ac ieve lt

proficareful specifica-

caus

define.

writin

VALIDITY

intra-rate reliability

D. Brown,

991). By far th

Test Administration Reliabilit nr li

ilit

ls result ro

tan princip re ults re th

conditions in whic

th te

is

inistered.

ent" (Gronl

(1989) wh grated evaJua

CHAPTER

ti

li

ly istr ti

th

le

Principles of anguag

sses ment

re ia it re ia it

to

29

in

ture,

Tes ReUabUity ip istic that will t, is ra

te

re

ly

ig

ra te

ll istr

rte

In this

te ts full ti al er pectiv onsult th aforementioned nd ulcher avidso [2007].)

li li achm

ri [1 90], J. D. Brow

[2 05],

In

su jectiv

tests,

Objectiv

thei

th

tests, in

test reliability. Also,

it ms an hastil re pond in orre tly.

imed te ts ma

is riminate

gain

students

ll

th

ra

th

t-

li

li

VALIDITY By

tant prindple-is lt lu ), rate evaluati

validity,

ri te re udgm nt

in

in te th In some ha more te hnical terms, Samu Messic iz rt ty in ty th degr to whic empiri al vi ence nd th oretic

30

Principles of Language Assessment

CHAPTER

rati nale

ppor th

eq ac

an ap ro ri te

in

of in re es an lo

ti

ri

as 's

id ly

10 objective

rr re of rs

ef l, meaningf

Considi conversatioi

"contaminattng" variable id it io (o iv in or atio ou te t-taker' bility

Directions app he a r ti c e )

Last n i g h t Y o u k no w Francisco

rg iz tion

id as

mo

th

(200 ), nd ra (2 several differen kinds

monkey

tors is

te in

it

in

r, discussions an speakin, othe cases, li te ir

te

ri ri

Content-Relate

te -t

Evidence

if

im as co tent-related validity id ntif co te t-relate vi en th

li ty if ob er ationall te is

te

te

rc

to contend, text-reduced lack conten tive perfor io ). here proficiency evid ce Another between dir

all perform ta it el bu

le rner to answ

paper-an -pen il multiple-c oice

uestions requirin

ally

grammatica

rs

if

conversation clas (listening an speaking

fo English-learners

D i e c o ns : h e p u p os e o f h i q u or yo an me ou ho wel ou ow an a p p h e r ul e o f a r c l u sa g e R e a d t h f o l ow i p a ss a g a n w r i a la n h e , (n a r ti cl e ) i n e a c h b la nk . Iha

)_

uk

m.A We ,I Wh nwe Iw

Il wi nwa

,s

31

Principles of Language Assessment

CHAPTER

wa

)_ I w e to wa (7 __

)_

an

ma

m o n k e y s f ir s t )_

m o n k e y s e c ti o n

or

li tening/s eaking

lass ti

te -r

ty.It

gain

io

ra ic

ty

between direct and indirect testing.

it re

te in

in

th

t-

ally if

tu

32

CHAPTER

Principles of L a n g ua g e A s s e ss m e n t

assessn to "mox sure future

rd assessment is ea in la that is doin

unit

re ting an

ch ng

that in lu

is ur

Construct. third

e,

it

ld

rs te in

rf

ts

constri

in may noi linguisti Virtualf

Criterion-Relate

structs. into th dent's various

Evidence

operatic T . M cN a

from Chapte

th

th

os

lassro m- se

as ssme

it

(80

id re as ssme ts

in crit ri n-relate

as of te ch r- ad

la ro

te her-de ig ed

test

). vi nc

For struct perhaps don't le ti Ims

oral inte and

le

-p

validity if te

te

or

riteri -r late vi en an predictive validity

us ally fall into

tw

at orie

co curr

socio-lin oretical So ifyo pronunc Validity ry de in

what We municat constn Cor proficier

33

Principles of Language Assessment

CHAPTER

future success.

Construct-Related Evidence third

ro

la ro

te

rs

ru -r

idit

mo

re

to

construct validity

ir tl

ri ti ential data Proficiency communicativ competence, and fluency linguistic constructs; self-esteem and motivation re sy holo ical structs.

th

operationa

ic ly

re th

ield

t,

tr has be

definition

of constructs in

idit defined? Let' sa

ir

r-

onstructs.

this te ll ta ou'r ssessing stu-

Ly ch T. McNamara

19 5;

2000). will be tempted, An in orma

ti

ir

ry la ro

te

ri

is

construc

valida

ti ra

tors in

final

li

ic ru

ic

ri th

if tors

th

th

iv ts

tors icie

So if r, ty

th

ik

ld

ifia

let'

icio

tr

re

it

if

ti tr

th

it

io

rt

il to

ti ru

idit te

larg ic re

to th

ts ri iple

Principles of L a n g u ag e A s s e ss m e n t

CHAPTER

example:

te

larg le

to ibly

rc

llskin-Gasparo, th

le ta io

iz

te

rl

id

il is

th

ti

tl

Att

im more fu teachers perform

rr lati

1985).

is io

ie

Face Valid

it

furthe assessnu 210),

th

validity knowlec examine

li

Consequentia

Validity (Impact)

As

De~ Interest (1989),

McNamara (2000), Brindley (2001), Fulche an an Waug (2008), te

lu

id

ti

Davidson (2007), an

in

Gronlund

in

Bachma an Palmer (1996), McKay (2000), Davies (2003), nd ho (2008) use impact as in th many onsequence as essm nt be or an afte test dministr ti n. Palmer (p 30),

iv ts ia tu ie to re la il "ca rs re ingly disillusione with EFt testing" (p. 58). More will relate issues of valu s, cial on qu nc s, thic nd irness in Ch pter As aspect of consequentia validity has ra tt io th (2000) cautione ti ls rm agains

validity. siblythe factor mortem th face cian's vc Att te es testing sequentl ception can affe,

rn

ta it d: ta ta

Principles of L an gu ag e A s

CHAPTER

me

35

(p. 54).

th

ic

ev l, specifical

he cl ss oo

in truc io al

more fully

ev l, no he

mp r-

(2008) encouraged

Fac Validity

p. 210),

looks right, nd appears

othe psychometrically unsophisticate

sibl he te t-gi er in uitive

mo tem" on fa

1998, validity. "Face

observers" (Mousavi 2009, p. 247).

pe ce ve an ns ru ent. 1990, pp. 285-289) vi

va id ty he echoes

os er

or hi ea on an asse sfa validi su er icia Bachman' "post(1947, p. 194) decades-old contentio

cian' vocabulary." (1990) an

othe as es ment

xperts "grudgingl

this

sequen ly cr at ca

ff ct studen

studen -relat

un eliabi it

pe fo mance/reliab lity

ef rred ea hers

pr viousl an in re se

familiar tasks

studen

er

tu en 's pe cep-

36

P r n c p le s

CHAPTER

o f L an gu ag e A s se ss me n

simulate learne

(con idence

nxiety ra

tc.) is ir

mp ta

in

rm

gJ

relationsh

if

real-world In at

if

yo ar testing.

fe

claime stor-

As think so.

As alread

note

ab ve validity is The re ar com! scal testiJ budgetary nents. es to

overal effectiveness. making

re

offe item paragraph We in

AUTIlENTICITY fourth major principle

ti

is authenticity,

As

art

te

(1

in

icit

re

rr

language task (p.

WASHBACK

As

me

1996; ulch worl

ta ks iall

that this

Davidson

issu sucl developmc

claim

Washback

ip

CHAPTER

real-worl

passage.

in lude

re me ning ul

tory in

is re li

li th than isolated rele nt interestin to ic

-w

ta

th

ik

te

is

ro

ti

in

il

within

io

ture

paragraphs

or stories. inyour

la sroo

test

As

WASHBACK

fa et of conseque ti

Vali it di cu se

abov is"th

ff ct of te ting

te chin

washback. ie from washback think future language

re

rs

ti

rs

38

Principles of Language Assessment

CHAPTER

letter grac

(2005)

ro lo in

tors

mpri

reduce tb nothin .. SH

le le

iv

to

AC

tive, lear With productic back Ev ca resp fo streng Give stra mance.

te

re re ir than summative

larg

te

to

t"

th

ts th

te

th

ti

accompli: it numerica

than th Enright,

itiv

rt in Jamieson, 2008).

rt

la

ro relate

-pre tasks (Chapelle,

Anot ferences Formative learner 01 mative

suits, mo me

rm

in

to th

te

ly

lt

ti

back if

ra

sition intrinsi

nr io lass At tl

ly

motivation

re

li me

tu

t'

ri iple la autonomy self-confidence, language ego, interlanguage, PUT and TBP

re beneficial FinaU feedback: te ative, colI

these principles.) to

ific

an issi

CHAPTER

r in c p le s

a ng ua g

ss ss en

In reality,

lett

grad

an

umerical scores

iv ab olutel

inform tion of intrin ic intere

tive, learning.

will permit

Gi

praise

mance. In accomplishment

an

challenge.

ts

in

in

In

la

ti

ts re iv

is

th

ly

in

ti te iv

in io rt

it

dare rg

rati

la ro

fuzzy,

ro

ti tm

ialo

rtu

40

CHAPTER

APPL IN

P r in c ip le s o f L a n gu a g A s se ss m e n

PR NCIP ES

EV

he iv principles of pr cticalit to ro tand rdized proficienc

te ts

UA IO

this

reli bility validity authenticity id in th lu in an

an wa hbac in

that overri th example,

in

le Are be invoked in evaluating an designin assessments? Th answer of course is yes. Language assessment is an extraordinaril ll

rs

be designin effectiv assessment instrument is fur principles. Good test construction fo example, is governed by research-based rule of te prep ration amplin of ta ks it design an on truction coring re pons s,

ti We will lo in

to

lu

ti

ts

in

ri

po sible. Ye

2.

ld will help yo evaluate

Reliability at: At leas four on page 27that ll stude lowingchec

xistin

is

Practicality coul

be

ry is

ti

nd do e, however, if validity is no substantiated, rendered useless.

re th test

ro

dure

ra ti

r,

rt

t, ll is ai

TES

ll

2.

l?

4.

Practicality is

Is

c(

:]

is

at

lo

3. 1. Are administrative detail al carefull attend

to before th test

3. Can th test be administered smoothly withou procedural "glitches" 4. Are al printe material accounte for? 5. Ha equipmen been pre-tested 6. th te it im ts 7. Is th scorin /evaluatio system feasible in th te ch r' time rame 8. Are method fo reportin re ults etermine in dv nc

Rate reliabi haps becaus involv tw sta

Teachers ne importance. re

CHAPTER

As

think

th

override

othe co si er tion

in va ua in

asse smen

and will

Is th test itself reli

le

Reliabilityapplie to th student, th test administration th test itself an th teacher. At leas four source of unreliabilit must be on page 27-29. Test an test administration reliabilit ca be achieved by making sure th al students rece ve th sa qualit of input; he he ritten or uditor he ol lo ng checkl st should help ou to de ermine if test is itsel reliable:

Is ound ampl fica io

le rl audibl

ever ne in th

oo

4. Are lighting temperature, extraneous noise, an othe classroo conditions equa (and optimal) fo all students? or closed en ed responses, do scor ng pr cedu es leav ittl debate abou co re tn ss of an an er

re rate

reli

nvolve tw scorers, in er-rat

ilit

el ab lity is eldo

an issu

In te d, intra- ater reli

42

P r n c p le s

CHAPTER

o f L an gu ag e A ss es sm en t

Intr rate thes questions

it

-e

re

ma

prim

ri

ever

go

work throug Have yo establishe consistent criteria fo correc responses? iv te io to ri ia thro evaluation time 3. Ca yo gu rantee that scorin is base nl on th stablish an ot xtraneou or subjective ariables

mining whet

2. Can

Aseconl crit ri

ically from th

consistency?

yo av ma "mid tream" modi ications what ou on ider rr re 6. Ca yo avoi atigue by readin th te ts in everal sittings especially if th im ir ra rs 5.

4.

Does th

rocedure demo strate co te rc

li

li

object

Some in rs ir in-class writ

validity te

is

te

ty

tasks

lu

re

iv th objectiv items, cluste te t-takers as onte alid

is based.

language c l a s s shor passages an ifyou assessmen is

ia ly th

teri riteri mi

idit

in ri th

it t.

le tyof

te

S. This questior the

appearance 1. Are unit objectives clearly identified? 2. Are ni objectives re resented in th or of te pecifications? (S th ex ag or detail on test specifications.) 3. Do th te pe ifications in lude tasks that have alread been performe as part of th ours procedures ti in tasks re (o t) th bjective fo th nit? tasks involv actual performanc of th target task(s)?

Principles

CHAPTER

li

li it

is

an

iz

th

than

is

rs

fulfill.

le specifications

re

bjecti

that ar bein

as essed)

this

ri

in

le

sw

te t-ta rs as refl ctiv th la sroo bj ctiv cont nt alidit ha most li el ee chie ed

Has th impact of th test

ee

care

ll

this),

acco

te

or

Principles

CHAPTER

L a n g ua g e A s s e ss m e n t

Consid ticity ma

Multiple-ch ®e®

1_ Have yo offere students appropriat review an preparatio fo th test 2_ Have yo suggeste test-takin strategies that will be beneficial? if possible th best students will be mode tl hall nged nd th we ke tu ents will ot be overwhelmed? 4. Do th te lend it el to ou ivin bene icia wa hback? 5. Are th stud nt courag to se th te as le rnin experience

Dlrectiol Go 1. Ama Oyou; Oyou~

6. Is

"b

G we n

"?

OAre! OYou; Olsgc

is

best;

th

tu

lo

lf

th performance.

in

is ia

(1 id

ti

is

te th positive effect of students awarenes planne

testin

experience will in lu

ic

tasks

-,

in

th

"tricky"

iv io an utilizatio of test-takin some tr te ic te

ti

3. Ama

in

ti

uggestio

strategies ho

lf le

as ossi le

tude ts

oare! oare! Ogotl

Gwe OWha OWhe

5 . A m aR I Ogo Ogoir Ogon

Adapte

Is in te 2. Are item as contextualized as possible rather than isolated 3. Are topics an situations interesting, enjoyable, and/or humorous 4.- Is om th mati organi atio pr vided, uc as throug tory li or episode? Do task re re ent, cl sely approximat real-world tasks?

fror

CHAPTER

ri

Multiple-choice tasks-contextualize

D i e c t o ns : A f e r a ns w e r

h e q U_ 'o ns , c l c k h e S u b m i

Go ng To"

o u a r o in g a r o u o in g o u g on n d o

Gw A r y o g O in g to Y o u a r g O in g to gong do 3. Ama da Melss ar go ng a r g O in g Ogoto

ar

ar

Wo

:I h a t ' it g O in g t o b e Who o in g h e re ' it g O in g be s_

,a R u th ' h o us e .

going Ogonna

Adapte

from Sheila Vietti from Dave's ES Cafe.

ou

o me ?

bu on•

46

P r in c ip l e

CHAPTER

o f L a n g ua g e A s s e ss m e n t

Multiple-choic

tasks-decontextualized

Thefo

G o in g T o

WA s s

oh B.i Jo C . yo u

o in g O in g t o in g

2. tw

A.A o u o in g B . Y o a r O in g t C . I o in g

S he a n

4.

m y E ng l s h c la s s o m o r ro w .

a r g O in g B. ar go ng C . g o in g

Gi

nWed

A . h a t it g o in g o ? B . W h o ' s it g O in g be C . h e re ' it g o n g b e p la ye d

Somet ical. Prepar is reviewinj

eoc

Th sequence item in th contextualiz task chie es modicu of uthenll is ticity by contextualizing ig th real world, even ifwith little le rm lity he equenc of it ms in th iz ta to ic it te ry ly le

what tr tegi occurrence task is to ro Byspe cove thei ia effort The, re likely to

re authentidty

Some enhance wi

A.go B . g o in g C . g o in g

ts would

test offe th

ie

tr

ts

lt fair.

eneficial was id ty

ac

tr

le te

th

labele

ro te as uch.

ia

ti

th

learner?

to

rr

lu

io

te

re

ri

ty

if they aren't specifically

simply list wh journs th

r i c ip le s o f a n u ag e A ss es s

CHAPTER

he ollowi

he klis should help yo to maximi

bene icia washba

nt

47

in te t:

WASHBACK CHECKLIST

will

th

ti te 2. Ha yo give tude ts sufficient pre-test op ortunities to review th te In tt to lu that will contribute to students formativ development? returnin r" th te ri ld in 5. Afte returnin te ts do yo nc urag ue tion ro students 6. time an ircumsta ce ermit, do ou ffer students (esp cially th ts in

"1

-0

ti ic

" ," ,

id io

ly

im

re th

is re

ll

ro

ri ro

ti

'1

th

rn io

ti

An increasingly common

oc urrenc task is

in tude t-centered

effort Th

ey is

lassroom

th

is

'm

t'

r"

li

tu

ts

ts nh nc

wa hb ck

ro

tests. (S

al

Chapte

6.

elf-assessment ma sometime

ment has also be

48

P r in c ip le s o f L a n gu a g e A s s es s m en t

CHAPTER

ig

te ts

larg

rs

le

ty

rs

t.

te lw

ti

the only onsideration

it

is

ll i-

in valu ting or maki

1. Standardized proficienc te production (Student) rece listin tota sc fo listening, gr

2. Timed improm E n s h T W E@ ·

EXERCISES [Note:

Whole-class discussion.]

holistic scor ra

1. (e ll

th

it

ly

ti

iv

in

In th process, try ferentiate four kinds 2. (I/e)

3. One-on-one

overal oral pr receives on

dif-

rt

th

idit

ti 4.

ra

tern

rt

is

umbe of basi princi le autonomy el -confidenc

iv five-n re entati in (Teacher ev rating heet in delivery, rappor

ta

of language cqui ition: intrinsi motivation language go interl nguage nd strategi invest

5.

ri ic

4.

r.

lu

fi

lectur an tak make indivi of S' notes.

nection. 6.

lndi atingtha

th

ri cipl

is

lu

th

io

indicating very intuit in

organization am return essa to

CHAPTER

SCENARIO 1 . S t a nd a r di ze d m u l ti p le -c h o i c p ro f nc es no or or wr production

S(Student) receives report form listin to al sc re an subscore fo listening, grammar, proofreading and readin comprehension.

T im e m p o m p st of wr English(TW E®Test)

Sreceivesa report or listin on holistic scor rangin betwee an 6.

One on on or nt rv ss ss o v er a o r a p r o du ct io n a b t y Sreceive on

4.

holistic scor rangin

g iv e v e m in ut e p re pa re d o r a p re se nt at io n c la ss .

(Teach r)evaluates by illing in rating shee indicating S' succes in delivery, rapport, pronunciation, grammar, and content.

5.

s te n e ct ur e a n

t ee n m in ut e v id e t ak e n o te s

of S' notes.

6.

wr ak p a e ss a o n

o m e o ve rn ig h ss ne op

on

readspape an comments on organization an conten only then returnsessayto fo subsequent draft. (continued)

50

Principles of Language Assessment

CHAPTER

Evah

orally to SCENARIO