Assessment

Abdelmalek Hadji-- Senior Teacher -- Dar Chabaane Sec. School 1

Testing and Assessment

****

Abdelmalek Hadji

Senior Teacher- Dar Chabaane Secondary School

Introduction

Teaching is a cumulative and recursive activity where the teacher is not –and should not be- playing the role of an assembly-line worker who

fixes only his part and expects –without any responsibility- the next worker to fix his. Teaching is actually the ‘full’ assembly-line with all the

hands and tools working, accountability for the whole process included. The cumulative aspect of teaching conjures up the substantial

attainment in the previous levels and how it inevitably impacts our own class teaching and students’ class performance.

With such a huge responsibility, the teachers should therefore be aware

of the students’ pre-requisites, implement a needs-study and envision a remedial work program accordingly. Here, teaching and assessment

merge to serve the ultimate objective of learning. Through take-up, consolidation, summary… teachers are consciously or unconsciously,

assessing their students. Some well-prepared diagnostic tests might help inquisitive teachers

identify students’ strengths and weaknesses in English language skills. Free debates about motivating topics might bring up to surface

students’ awkwardness in conversation mechanics, question-answer agreement, pronunciation, intonation etc. Subsequently, the teacher can

schedule a future work on those areas to improve students’ proficiency.

Putting our Teaching to the Test

� How many of us -EFL teachers- do this systematically?

� Do we really have the luxury to regularly assess students’ learning?

� What do teachers and students think of assessment?

Most of our textbooks offer diagnostic tests, mock tests, self-evaluation exercises and roundup sessions that are meant to evaluate students’

learning and consolidate what has already been taught. Students can do them without having the sensation of being observed or judged by the

inquisitive eye of the teacher. Neither do they feel the pressure of the teacher’s benchmarking. These easy and positive vibes are

unfortunately spoiled by both teachers and students. The teachers prefer to cover materials that students are liable to be tested on and

students have the tendency to just effortlessly copy the answers from older books.


Nonetheless, the ministry reference documents recommend an ongoing assessment that includes oral tests, two written tests (mid-term and

end-of-term) both of which should be conducted collectively in class. The oral test should be conducted every session where students are

questioned on the previous lesson(s). The typology is left to the teacher’s discretion to decide about.

Although the oral test is meant to make students peep at their notebooks and refresh their minds before coming to class, it’s not much

appreciated by both teachers and students. Most of the students are tormented by the prospect of standing in front of everybody to answer

the teacher’s questions. The most inhibited of them feel stuck and find themselves unable to respond to the teacher’s queries.

Some teachers resort to other techniques to avoid exposing students to

such hardships. They either ask them to answer questions while being seated or simply focus on a number of students during the session who

–without them knowing-are tested and marked. A more creative way that I personally found more motivating –and less

tormenting- is to ask students –generally a pair- to test each other. The students ask each other five or six different types of questions that

cover the language and comprehension areas previously seen. This approach requires a pre-teaching. The teacher should initiate

students to asking -and recognizing types of- questions. He should also enable them to perceive what has recently been introduced (vocabulary,

structures, ideas…) What is remarkable about this procedure is the ease with which

students deal with each others’ questions and the motivation and willingness they show in playing the roles of the tester and the testee.

Though some of our colleagues regard this approach as a deviation from

the oral testing norm, the delight I see in the students’ eyes while questioning each other and the prolific feedback I receive make it

creditable and worth trying. Along with the oral test, the student is expected to prepare-and

present- a project work that can be implemented individually or –preferably- in pair or in group.

Web quests, PowerPoint presentations, interviews, brochures, leaflets and playlet are the most common forms of projects we have observed.

When carried out in group, these activities are very engaging and make students more proficient and competitive.

What is debatable about these activities is that they are time consuming and often cause a chaotic commotion in the classroom (moving desks,

use of loud speakers, and uncontrolled fits of laughter...), and discomfiture for the neighbouring teachers.

But Jill Hearne acknowledges the importance of such spontaneous

learning situations that are not imbued by the teacher’s talking and chalking, and pointedly confides ‘…the positive vibes generated by an

hour spent hooting' and hollering' are far more valuable than [formal] class content that would be forgotten [as soon as the teacher leaves

the class]’.


Therefore, we come to the conclusion that assessment –whatever the form it takes- is –and should be viewed- as a tool for learning.

The question that pops up to the mind at this stage is how teachers and

students view assessment.

Testing and assessment as viewed by teachers and students

Jill Hearne who field-studied testing and assessment reflected on it in this way: ‘For teachers, assessment conjures up images of late night

grading sessions prior to report card deadlines… For principals, it

conjures up phone calls from media and parents demanding "bigger, better" scores. For students it signifies the judgment of others

regarding work they may or may not understand or care about…’

How true! For the three parties involved in the ‘pedagogical triangle’ - at the school level-(teacher-student-administration), testing looks like an

ordeal, an unwanted activity and a stressful pursuit.

In the Tunisian context nothing looks better. The teachers know well how pressured they are by the deadlines and other constraints set up

even before they prepare the tests. Some of them are pushed to hurriedly prepare tests just to feel the relief of submitting them to the

school administration. Sick-leave remains the safest way for teachers to

get enough time to ponder over materials to include in the test and submit tests before telephones start buzzing for a delay. But for

teachers, testing is not by any means a pleasurable activity. The following table features the scores (pass marks) recorded in three

different schools in the end-of-term test (2009-2010). A sample of two classes per school are considered here.

Level N° of testees Stdts with

pass mark

Percentage Highest

percentage

1st Sec 207 101 48.8 61.5

2nd Sec 199 100 50.25 63

3rd Sec 187 90 48.1 65

For three different experienced teachers in three different schools only about 50% of the students had a pass mark. This result raises many

questions on accountability.

While teaching and testing, we assume that our instructions are clear and evident to all the students. The results unfortunately do not

corroborate those assumptions. Bitterness and dissatisfaction might be the first overwhelming response towards such results but Jill Hearne

suggests we should use the sound assessment as ‘both a barometer of

how well things are progressing as well as a compass indicating future

direction’. The assessment has now another role, it is serving teachers… Teachers should adjust their approaches, rectify their norms and come

to terms with the blunt inadequacies shown by the discrepancy between

their expectations and students’ results.


Jill Hearne goes even further in her optimism and declares that a shift from using ‘assessment as a negative force in schools to a positive

force that builds a climate of reflection about what is going on in

classrooms’ should take place to keep the teaching-learning assembly-

line working with the same momentum.

The positive drive of teachers would be insufficient if on the other side we have unenthusiastic students who do not assume their own learning

seriously. In exams, most students see themselves as anvil subjected to the teacher’s testing hammer strikes. Scoring intoxicates the teaching-

learning environment and diminishes compliance to teaching and learning from both sides. Disappointment may entail disinterestedness

and enlarges the group of truants and lazy-bones we often see in class.

Graham Tullis and Charles Talcott have studied this issue from another

angle and pointed accusing fingers to the systems of education that do not develop the skills of test-preparation and test-taking. They believe ‘… the demands of test preparation shift the emphasis towards another skill that is not normally a language acquisition objective in

itself, namely, test-taking.’

They have also pointed out that by reiterating what experienced

teachers do in testing, novice teachers make of those used testing norms firmly established standards that are beyond reservation.

In this hazy situation where teachers and students accuse each other of inefficiency, Dr. Mary Allen-a consultant in assessment and accreditation

in higher education- suggests the establishment of an objective scoring guide to define the criteria of any assessment system through a set of

rubrics. She defines the rubric ‘as explicit description of performance

characteristics corresponding to a point on a rating scale. A scoring

rubric makes explicit expected qualities of performance on a rating scale or the definition of a single scoring point on a scale’.

Scoring rubrics as a solution

Dr. Mary Allen describes the strengths of scoring rubrics as follows:

� Complex products or behaviors can be examined efficiently.

� Developing a rubric helps to precisely define school expectations.

� Well-trained reviewers apply the same criteria and

standards, so rubrics are useful for assessments involving multiple reviewers.

� Summaries of results can reveal patterns of student

strengths and areas of concern.

� Rubrics are criterion-referenced, rather than norm-referenced. Raters ask, "Did the student meet the criteria for

level 5 of the rubric?" rather than "How well did this student do compared to other students?" This is more compatible


with cooperative and collaborative learning environments than competitive grading schemes and is essential when using rubrics for program assessment because you want to

learn how well students have met your standards.

� Ratings can be done by students to assess their own work, or they can be done by others, such as peers, fieldwork

supervisions, or the school.

If this objective system of rating is established, teachers can coherently integrate assessment and test preparation into their courses and avoid

the pitfalls that used to annoy them. Students also can assess their own work without having the sensation of being victimized. Those of them

taking national exams will be sure of having a rigorous marking system that can only be fair to them.

___________________________

References

-Rubrics: From an Assessment Workshop presented at Honolulu Community College on August 31, 2004 -by Dr. Mary Allen, The California State University

System- http://honolulu.hawaii.edu

-Practical Assessment - Ronald Hambleton and Jane H. Rodgers University of Massachusetts at Amherst- http://pareonline.net

-Methods of assessment – Internet article on http://www.btinternet.com

-Putting our Teaching to the Test: Language Learning and Test Preparation by Graham Tullis and Charles Talcott on http://peo.cambridge.org

-Classroom Assessment Techniques- By Thomas A. Angelo and K. Patricia Cross - A Handbook for College Teachers, 2nd Ed.-

http://honolulu.hawaii.edu

- Assessment as a Tool for Learning by Jill Hearne - http://www.newhorizons.org

Documents

Assessment