Introduction
English as a Foreign Language (EFL)
instructors of secondary, tertiary, and adult
students in East Asia and Korea in
particular, face a common dilemma posed
by standardized, high-stakes tests such as
the Test of English as a Foreign Language
(TOEFL), the Test of English for
International Communication (TOEIC) and
the International English Language Testing
System (IELTS), as well as local university
entrance exams and end-of-semester tests,
all of which promote extrinsic motivation,
intensive study over short periods of time,
last-minute cramming, and memorization of
prepared answers. While these tests all serve
a well-defined purpose, their effect in the
EFL classroom can be deleterious in terms
of real learning, in that the attention of all
the stakeholders in the learning process
(parents, students, principals, and teachers)
is directed to the passing of these tests and
the associated rewards that go with this,
rather than the lifelong learning process
itself. Language instructors who are aware
of the benefits of long-term learning
strategies and the development of autonomy,
intrinsic motivation, and self-esteem, can
find themselves caught in the test-preparation trap, rather than promote
lifelong-learning strategies in their students.
Despite the extensive research findings
against the use of high-stakes, one-off tests
as sole determiners of the students’ future
careers (Hout & Elliott, 2011), the practice
of short-term test-preparation continues to
overwhelm language-learning curricula in
Korea
, even in teacher-training institutes,
where the national Teachers’ Test dominates
all pedagogical considerations, in apparent
contradiction to the humanistic “Principles
and general objectives of education”
(UNESCO 2010/2011) as set out in the
National Curriculum (KEDI, 2007). This is
an indication of the seriousness of the
current situation, in that the very institutes
that should be leading the field by
advocating and producing alternative,
pedagogically sound methods of language
teaching and assessment, are caught in the
same test-preparation paradigm, in effect
teaching future language teachers how to
prepare their students for high stakes tests,
and ignoring the effects that this approach is
having on students (Nathan, 2002).
2
In view of these considerations, this paper
attempts to show that Classroom-Based
Assessment offers an effective, bottom-up
approach to the problem of extrinsically
motivated language learning and can be
effective in developing the higher-order
thinking skills that students need when
preparing for high-stakes tests. However, it
will be appropriate at this point to take a
brief look at the current situation facing
TEFL practitioners, with regard to
assessment:
1. Teachers of English need to assess
their students’ learning needs and
achievements. This is an important
part of their daily work, whether at
elementary, secondary (middle
school, high school) or tertiary
(university, college) level.
2. Assessment of language learning is a
topic in which TEFL professionals in
Korea rarely receive tuition (teacher-training) or opportunities for
professional development (seminars,
workshops and conferences).
3. ELT Textbooks used in secondary
and tertiary education in Korea
typically contain no assessment
materials. Middle school and high-school books in particular provide
very basic content matter for the
national university entrance exam,
but they offer no feedback for
teachers and students in terms of
assessment content and practice.
Because of this:
If teachers want to review Chapters
in the school textbook, they must
make their own assessment
materials.
If teachers want to perform pre-course needs analyses and post-course reviews of learning based on
the syllabus in the textbook, they
must make their own materials.
If high school teachers want to
prepare students more effectively for
the university entrance test
(government-approved textbooks are
typically too narrow in their focus),
they must use independently
published test-preparation books, or
the government-subsidized
Educational Broadcasting Service
(EBS) test-preparation books.
4. Most secondary EFL teaching in
Korea is test-driven:
Many teachers are under pressure to
teach test-taking skills rather than
linguistic competence or the
intrinsic love of language learning.
Students who have to acquire large
amounts of vocabulary and grammar
for the College Scholastic
Achievement Test (CSAT), the
TOEFL, or the TOEIC are not
interested in language activities
which (however enjoyable and
motivational) do not appear to be
related to the test for which they are
studying.
5. High-stakes, standardized tests offer
little or no feedback to teachers
regarding test-construction criteria
and test-item results. This makes it
even more difficult to prepare
students for these tests.
It is evident from this list that the EFL
teacher in Korea is largely on his/her own in
terms of developing test-design skills and
finding ways to check on comprehension
and acquisition of syllabus content. This
paper therefore aims to help teachers and
students to develop the skills they need for
realistic evaluation of learning achievements
and needs. In order to do this, it focuses on
CBA, with its various learning-centered
methods of investigating the events
occurring in the language classroom. These
methods include:
Investigating the learning
environment;
gathering information;
teacher-designed and student-designed formative tests;
self- and peer-assessment;
performance assessment;
language portfolios;
learner journals and diaries;
projects;
web-based assessment;
comprehensive tests; and
grade-negotiation.
What is CBA?
Classroom-Based Assessment deals with
internal testing – the assessment events that
occur in the EFL classroom. This
assessment focuses on the immediate
learning needs of the students, providing
Bringing Classroom-Based Assessment 47
appropriate feedback for each class, helping
the teacher to prepare learning materials for
future lessons, and helping students learn
how to learn. CBA has a number of
characteristics:
CBA is part of the learning content
(the means is the end);
CBA examines student development
over a period of time (rather than
taking a summative snapshot at one
point in time);
CBA focuses on what students can
do (not on what they can’t do);
Students are evaluated on their
performance (rather than on their
memory);
CBA is concerned with the process
of learning (though product can be
present in forms of CBA such as
journals, portfolios and projects);
CBA is absolute (looking at
individual growth) rather than
relative (comparing students with
each other); and
CBA recognizes the complexity of
factors affecting learning in the EFL
classroom (learning styles, language
proficiencies, cultural and
educational backgrounds, emotional
management, social skills, etc.).
CBA thus aims to make language evaluation
more authentic, meaningful and relevant to
the students and the teacher. In addition to
being an integral part of the learning cycle in
the classroom, it also helps students to
become aware of the language learning
process, to examine their learning needs, to
make realistic learning goals, to assess their
achievement of those goals, to reflect on
their achievements, and to make new goals.
CBA takes evaluation to the learner, and
gives him/her the information he/she needs
in order to take responsibility for his/her
learning. CBA focuses on the immediate
learning needs of the students, providing
feedback specific to each class, helping the
teacher to prepare learning materials for
future lessons, and helping students to learn
how to learn. The affective and social
benefits of this approach extend far beyond
the classroom, since students who learn how
to set realistic goals and how to evaluate
their achievement of those goals are
acquiring a valuable life skill. CBA is not
simply an item of theoretical debate. It is a
valuable learning tool.
CBA in the EFL context has a number of
characteristics that differentiate it from other
types of assessment. These can be
effectively described by adapting and
expanding Kohonen’s table (1999, p. 285)
from his paper on authentic assessment
(Table 1):
If we look closely at these basic principles
of CBA (Table 1), we can see that they
involve and require a student-centered, non-threatening learning environment.
According to this approach, assessment is an
integral part of instruction, each learner is
treated as a unique person, the emphasis is
on strengths and progress (finding out and
building on: what learners can do),
assessment is used for improving and
guiding learning, the emphasis is on higher-order learning outcomes and thinking skills,
and collaborative learning enables learners
to help each other and work as teams.
Finally, learning is seen as valuable for its
own sake (intrinsic learning).
CBA thus aims to make language evaluation
more authentic, meaningful and relevant to
the students and the teacher, and it presents
an effective means of investigating and
improving learning in the secondary
language classroom, despite any restrictions
concerning syllabus and lesson content. Not
only does this approach make students more
aware of the learning process, but it also
reduces the assessment burden on the
teacher (by involving students in the
evaluation process), giving him/her more
time to manage the learning environment. If
such considerations seem idealistic,
especially in the test-driven language
classroom, we must ask ourselves, as
educators, why it is that “ideal” conditions
are lacking in the education system or in our
classes. If ministerial educational objectives
aim to promote “the ability to achieve an
independent life and acquire the
qualifications of democratic citizens, and to
be able to participate in the building of a
democratic state and promoting the
prosperity of all humankind” (Park, 2001, p.
3), then it is the responsibility of teachers to
produce learning environments that realize
that goal.
The current high-stakes testing cloud
appears to have a silver lining, however, and
there are signs of change in terms of
educational reform in Asia. In Korea, for
example, the Ministry of Education and
Human Resources has initiated development
of a National English Ability Test (NEAT)
that tests all four skills (instead of just
reading and listening as in the CSAT) and
will begin in 2015. High school class work
will also be given more weight when
students apply for university (Jin, 2004). If
these changes become reality, then teachers
will be empowered to focus on intrinsic
motivation and development of performance
skills and learning strategies in their
classrooms, and CBA will become a
powerful tool for enhancing that learning.
Why should we use CBA?
Before considering the topic of assessing
language learning, it is necessary first to ask
how language learning occurs. The solution
to this question continues to evade
researchers, though certain factors can be
identified:
1. construction of meaning;
2. sharing of experiences;
3. identification of needs and purposes;
4. critical evaluation of performance
strategies; and
5. awareness of this process
(Harri-Augstein & Thomas, 1991, p. 7).
CBA pays attention to these factors, using
reflective forms of assessment in
instructionally relevant classroom activities
(communicative performance assessment,
language portfolios and self-assessment) and
focusing on curriculum goals, enhancement
of individual competence, and integration of
instruction and assessment. In this two-way
process, “the essentially interactive nature of
learning is extended to the process of
assessment” (Williams & Burden, 1997, p.
42). This approach to assessment examines
what learners can do with their language,
through real-life language-use tasks (cf.
Weir, 1998, p. 9). The result is a process-oriented means of evaluating communicative
competence, cognitive abilities and affective
learning (Hart, 1994, p. 9; O’Malley &
Pierce, 1996, pp. x-6; Kohonen, 1999, p.
284).
The principles behind CBA are largely
concerned with promoting effective
learning, to the benefit of everyone
concerned. At this point, therefore, it is
relevant to refer to the “Ten considerations
crucial for language teachers” offered by
Williams & Burden (1997).
1. There is a difference between
learning and education.
2. Learners learn what is meaningful to
them.
3. Learners learn in ways that are
meaningful to them.
4. Learners learn better if they feel in
control of what they are learning.
5. Learning is closely linked to how
people feel about themselves.
6. Learning takes place in a social
context through interactions with
other people.
7. What teachers do in the classroom
reflects their own beliefs and
attitudes.
8. There is a significant role for the
teacher as mediator in the language
classroom.
9. Learning tasks represent an interface
between teachers and learners.
10. Learning is influenced by the
situation in which it occurs.
(Williams & Burden, 1997, p. 204)
How can we use CBA?
Despite the restrictions of the test-driven
classroom and other localized (specific to
individual schools) demands on the teacher,
the author has fund that there are are a
number of ways in which principles and
practices of CBA can be introduced into the
EFL classroom.
1. USE GROUPWORK IN CLASS.
Learners in groups learn more than
they do as individuals (Vygotsky,
1978). This is true for all members of
the group. Not only do the weaker
members benefit from being
instructed by someone who shares
their zone of proximal development
(ZPD), but the stronger members
also benefit, since the best way to
learn something is to teach it to
someone else.
2. INTRODUCE REGULAR NEEDS
ANALYSES (PRE-COURSE,
POST-COURSE) AND ONGOING
SELF-ASSESSMENTS. Allow the
students to complete these
themselves, using an interview
format (exchange worksheets and
write the partner’s responses on
his/her sheet). The worksheets can be
stored in individual portfolios.
3. USE PORTFOLIOS. Portfolios
combine process and product, giving
students and teachers an ongoing
view of the learning that takes place.
These can be either collection
portfolios (including everything that
has happened in class) or showcase
portfolios (including only the work
which the student wants others to
see).
4. USE LEARNER JOURNALS OR
DIARIES. Writing is a skill that
improves with practice, and diaries
encourage students to write regularly
and meaningfully. Learner journals
also help them to reflect on the
learning process and to become more
effective learners.
5. USE COLLABORATION RATHER
THAN COMPETITION. The
“Mutually Exclusive Goal
Attainment” (MEGA) (Kohn, 1992,
p. 4) approach of competitive
language learning encourages
“learned helplessness” and
demotivation. Even if groups
compete against each other, there can
be only one winner, and the focus of
work tends towards competing rather
than learning. For an excellent
description of the dangers of using
competition in the classroom, the
reader is referred to Kohn’s book No
contest: The case against
competition (1992).
6. MOTIVATE STUDENTS
INTRINSICALLY. Rewards are a
two-edged sword, and can quickly
become meaningless. If they are
given to the “winners” then other
students become demotivated. If the
are given to everyone, then the
hierarchical function of the rewards
is lost and the teacher becomes a
dispenser of candies and gold stars.
Readers who are interested in
pursuing this topic further are
recommended to read another
exceptional book by Alfie Kohn:
Punished by rewards (1999).
7. USE ABSOLUTE ASSESSMENT
RATHER THAN RELATIVE
ASSESSMENT. Even if end-of-term
exams are relative (comparing
students with each other and
therefore defining many students as
losers), absolute assessment can be
used in class during the semester.
This allows teachers to encourage
individual (and group) growth rather
than pitting students against each
other. Slow learners can be confident
that their development is seen as
valid by the teacher, and quick
learners (including those who have
lived in an English-speaking
country) must also understand that
they have to show evidence of
continuous improvement in order to
receive good grades.
8. USE PROJECT-BASED
LEARNING WHEN POSSIBLE.
Projects (e.g. a class newspaper)
enable learners to work in groups, to
define objectives (goal setting), to
work on individual tasks (allocation
of responsibility and accountability),
to reflect on what still needs to be
done (formative assessment) and to
work together on a finished product
(achievement). Projects can also
promote intrinsic learning and are
effectively assessed through peer-assessment. For an excellent
discussion of the advantages of using
projects, the reader is referred to
Legukte & Thomas’ book Process
and experience in the language
classroom (1991).
Naturalistic enquiry
In addition to performing needs analyses,
EFL teachers acquire a great deal of
information about their students based on
observations and personal instincts, and this
information can be used to improve learning
and the learning environment. Naturalistic
teacher insights are not to be dismissed as
“subjective” impressions, but should be seen
as valuable, professional judgments:
The status of evaluation in the
twentieth century represents one
of the most striking paradoxes in
the history of thought: An
essential - and perhaps the most
important - ingredient in all
intellectual and practical activity
has been explicitly banned or
implicitly excluded from
discussion or acknowledgement
in most of its natural territory.
(Scriven, 1991, p. 10)
This “most important ingredient” referred to
by Scriven is the professional, informed
opinion of the teacher, which has been
defined as worthless by “objective”
evaluation. Such an impersonal approach
ignores the fact that the classroom is “the
social-psychological and material
environment in which students and teachers
work together” (Parlett & Hamilton, 1975,
p. 145) and represents a network of cultural,
social, institutional and psychological
variables that interact in complex ways.
Because of this, assessment must be
transparent, non-threatening, student-centered and formative (feeding back into
the course to improve it). It must also
consider every aspect of learning (linguistic,
cognitive, affective, emotional, cultural, and
social). Qualitative methods of assessment
are therefore appropriate for CBA, though
this is not to exclude quantitative methods
when appropriate. If learning and growth are
examined qualitatively (through interviews,
journals, learning conversations, etc.) it is
possible to get an overall picture and then
make quantitative questionnaires and tests to
investigate in more detail. It should also be
remembered that the student is at the center
of the learning process, and should be in the
same place in terms of assessment.
A variety of information-gathering
techniques are used in naturalistic enquiry: i)
interviews; ii) questionnaires; iii)
observation; iv) diaries; v) student records;
and vi) portfolios. We might also add
self/peer-assessment and learning
conversations to this list, bringing us back to
the fact that the best way to improve the
learning environment is to get the students
actively involved in assessing and
improving their learning. The process of
continuous self/peer-assessment and
consequent raised awareness is in itself a
beneficial reflection on and use of data. The
construction of a learner-centered, non-threatening, environment, in which
assessment is an integral part of instruction,
is therefore an end in itself, and will produce
its own positive results (Finch, 2001).
Naturalistic enquiry can thus provide
important information to the most important
people in the learning process – the students
and the teacher. From the point of view of
the students, there can be attention to
product as well as process, in that they can
have a learning journal (diary) and one or
more portfolios as evidence of the growth
that has occurred during the language
course. They might also have videos of
projects designed and performed by them.
These will all assist in the formation of
positive attitudes to learning, and will
therefore improve the quality of learning
itself (success breeds success).
Naturalistic data analysis happens all the
time. The teacher sets up a non-threatening
CBA environment, with portfolios, journals,
self-assessment, etc., and then observes the
results and the process. As time passes,
trends appear, and it becomes evident that
certain aspects of learning need extra
attention. At that time, the teacher can adjust
his/her teaching accordingly, and repair the
learning process at first hand, without delay,
and on an individual, group or class basis. If
we acknowledge the teacher as a
professional, an expert who can make
informed decisions, then we can see that
CBA (and naturalistic enquiry) provide the
personalized data upon which those
decisions can be made. The answer to how
to use the data is left in the hands of the
teacher.
CBA produces a wealth of naturalistic
(deep, rich, personal) data that can be
examined and used as appropriate. Rather
than an impersonalized set of numbers, this
data comes from the students and is about
the students. It is important that this
assessment information comes from various
sources. Just as a single test can only give
the information it is designed to give, so the
use of only one method of CBA can produce
misleading results. Teachers therefore need
to “triangulate.” This means using different
methods of assessment and comparing them
with each other as follows:
Learning journals can uncover
anxieties and emotional problems
that are interfering with learning;
portfolios can show that
organizational and time-management
skills have been acquired;
observations can bring interaction
issues to light; and
semi-structured or open-ended
interviews can reveal concerns
previously unimagined by the
teacher
It is not possible to describe in depth the
results of CBA in the author’s EFL
classroom, since i) this is largely a theory-based paper, and ii) there is a lack of space
for descriptions of methodology and
classroom practice. However, reference to
the author’s language-learning website
(www.finchpark.com/courses/) will confirm
that he has been using CBA for more than
ten years, and that it is now an integral part
of his teacher-training courses and seminars.
This can be seen in particular in the
Learning Journal, English Reflections
(http://www.finchpark.com/books/lj/index2.
htm), which introduces a number of self-assessment instruments, discussion activities
(about language learning), and peer-assessment activities. By working through
this learning journal, undergraduate English
Education students in particular have
opportunities to learn how to set their own
language learning goals, assess their
achievements, discuss their learning needs,
and reflect on the learning process. Contrary
to the received truth that Korean students
prefer passive learning
, examination of these journals over the past 10 years (Finch,
2008) has shown that these students quickly
become adept in self- and peer-assessment
and consequently in learning how to learn –
a skill that is vital for the 21
st
century, when
everyone can expect to reskill during their
careers.
Further implementation of the CBA concept
has recently been carried out by the author
in the Freshman English program of his
university in Korea. Having been invited to
design and implement a Freshman English
program that would provide essential
academic and career-oriented English
language skills to freshman students in all
disciplines, the author of this paper designed
and wrote the textbooks for an integrated-skills program (Finch, 2012a; 2012b) that
promoted English speaking and writing.
Each Unit of this program made use of self-assessment, peer-assessment, and peer
editing - three skills that students typically
did not possess when they entered the
university Freshman English program,
having experienced only memory-based test-preparation in high school. Despite this fact,
the first year of implementation of this
program has shown that students of al levels
and all disciplines are able to learn the skills
associated with self/peer-assessment of
language skills, and of peer-editing (in a
process-writing context) in particular. They
have also shown an ability to quickly
acquire the organizational skills involved in
keeping a portfolio of their assignments and
their written drafts.
While CBA has been shown by the author
and other researchers to be a viable and
practical method of empowering language
learners in this part of Asia, it is important to
remember that students and teachers new to
CBA need to acquire and develop the
appropriate skills. Rather than blaming
students for not knowing how to set goals,
how to perform a needs analysis, how to
make a portfolio, how to assess themselves
and each other, and how to critically reflect
on their achievements, it is important to take
into account the fact that they have never
had any tuition in this field and that
problems such as peer-pressure and
unwillingness to criticize each other are
bound to arise. However, when the
classroom is seen as a microcosm of society
it is possible to deal with such problems as
they arise and to work them through in a
democratic and sensitive manner. Given the
opportunity to think about the issues
involved and to learn about the vital
importance of self-assessment in their lives,
students are typically quick to acquire the
necessary critical-thinking skills and to
become effective learners.
Conclusion
Knowledge of the elements of a
language in fact counts for
nothing unless the user is able to
combine them in new and
appropriate ways to meet the
linguistic demands of the
situation in which he wishes to
use the language. (Morrow,
1979, p. 145)
Educational theory is currently addressing
the problems associated with an under-performing education system by revisiting
ideas that Rogers, Dewey, Bruner, Frière
and Vygotsky were expressing even before
Applied Linguistics was born, in 1961.
Indeed, a holistic view of education, which
Bringing Classroom-Based Assessment 77
can be traced back to Aristotle, Plato, and
early oriental philosophers, represents a
return to basic principles, rather than simply
another fashionable trend. In Korea, the
ideal of Hongik-Ingan (contributing to the
overall benefit of humankind) has always
been at the heart of education (UNESCO,
2010/2011; KEDI, 2007). Such an emphasis
must be given utmost urgency in these times
of natural and man-made disasters; times in
which society, in its deification of monetary
gain, has neglected moral education; times
in which an ethical awareness must extend
to every aspect of life.
Stevick (1976) identifies four forms of
alienation which have resulted in the failure
of modern language teaching:
1. alienation of the learners from the
materials;
2. alienation of the learners from
themselves;
3. alienation of the learners from the
class; and
4. alienation of the learners from the
teacher. (Stevick, 1976, p. 225)
These alienations result from an impersonal
education system which values intellect over
emotion, and behaviorist learning over
moral responsibility. However, changes that
occurred in the 20th century in social
science, psychology, philosophy, and
political science, indicate that in modern
society, learning and understanding meta-skills (problem-solving, critical thinking,
etc.) is more important than knowledge.
Furthermore, the various kinds of social
awareness (minority rights, the status of
women, rights of patients, etc.) that have
arisen have helped to make quality of life
the new marker of social progress. A radical
rethinking of education is therefore
necessary, since the present model would be
unsatisfactory even if it worked! Imagine a
society full of A+students as defined by
traditional education. Who would drive the
trains, clean the streets, grow the food, and
deliver the newspapers? Such roles are
integral to society, yet their artisans are seen
(and perceive themselves) as unsuccessful
products of the school system. Young
people who possess practical skills are
forced to attend institutions that tell them
they are failures. They then move on to
Technical and Vocational Colleges, learning
skills that are the lifeblood of the
community, but which are not taught in
high-level institutions.
Language education is typically poor in
producing learners who can be termed
successful, even within the narrow criterion
of linguistic proficiency. Because of this, the
question “How can language be taught
effectively?” must be exchanged for “How
can the language classroom become an
instrument of positive attitude change?” In
other words, “How can language classrooms
mirror changes in social development, and
produce future citizens equipped to take on
the challenges of a century in which the only
constant factor will be change?” Legutke &
Thomas (1991, pp. 7-10) pose a number of
questions that are relevant at this point:
Question 1: Is it possible and feasible
to turn learners’ classrooms into
whole-person events, where body and
soul, intellect and feeling, head, hand
and heart converge in action?
Question 2: Can second-language
(L2) learning be a satisfying activity
in itself, in the here and now of the
classroom? What adventures and
challenges are possible under the very
conditions of L2 learning?
Question 3: What needs to be done to
regain some of this creative potential
in the L2 classroom? Do we have to
consider individual and cultural
differences?
Question 4: What needs to be done to
create situations and scenarios where
communication in the target language
could be more meaningful? What are
the roles of teacher, learners, topic and
input in such scenarios? Could even
inter- and intra-student discourse be
carried out in the target language?
Question 5: What needs to be done to
develop in learners such a capacity for
critique? How can they become co-managers of their learning and
participate in their own teaching?
How do we create the learning space
so that learners can take initiatives to
pursue their own learning for their
own benefit, and to discover their own
learning styles? (Legutke & Thomas,
1991, pp. 7-10)
These questions highlight both the problem
and a means of addressing it. It is no longer
defensible to use discrete-item testing of
dubious constructs. Instead, the need to
understand performance itself and the
processing (and affective) factors that
influence it, suggests the use of reflective
forms of assessment in instructionally
relevant classroom activities
(communicative performance assessment,
language portfolios and self-assessment),
which focus on integration of instruction and
assessment. In this two-way process, the
essentially interactive nature of learning can
be extended to the process of assessment
(Williams & Burden, 1997, p. 42),
examining what learners can do with their
language, through real-life language use
tasks (cf. Weir, 1998, p. 9).
