Explore the vast range of titles available.

This symposium article, to which three authors contribute distinct parts, presents the rationale for standards-based language assessment and examines both the uses and misuses of language assessments in English-speaking countries that are engaged in standards-based education reform. Specifically, they focus on the assessment of emergent bilinguals (also referred to as English language learners or English as an additional language students). The first part lays out the intentions and challenges of standards-based language assessment for emergent bilinguals, focusing on validity concerns. The second part describes classroom-based teacher-led assessments of emergent bilinguals in England, which carry high stakes along with the national standardized tests. This contrasts with what is happening in the United States where, as the third part describes, the main focus is on high-stakes standardized testing for purposes of accountability. In addition to the challenges inherent in attempts to measure language in meaningful ways, a thread cutting across the authors' accounts is the widespread practice of high-stakes standardized testing. The U.S. and English cases show how issues of validity arise when emergent bilinguals are simply included into assessments intended for English monolinguals without appropriate differentiation, and when an assessment is used for purposes beyond what it was designed to do. As all of the authors of this symposium article contend, assessments—particularly when standardized—hold the potential to dominate standards-based education reform efforts when they are ultimately summative and attached to severe consequences.

This article summarizes findings from investigations into the development and use of a prototype English language task-based performance test. Data included performances by 90 examinees on 13 complex and skills-integrativetasks, a priori estimations of examinee proficiency differences, a priori estimations of task difficulty based on cognitive processing demands, performance ratings according to task-specific as well as holistic scales and criteria, and examinee self-ratings. Findings indicated that the task-based test could inform intended inferences about examinees’ abilities to accomplish specific tasks as well as inferences about examinees’ likely abilities with a domain of tasks. Although a relationship between task difficulty estimates and examinee performances was observed, these estimates were not found to provide a trustworthy basis for inferring examinees’ likely abilities with other tasks. These findings, as well as study limitations, are further discussed in light of the intended uses for performance assessment within language education, and recommendations are made for needed research into the interaction between task features, cognitive processing and language performance.

When the organisation I was working for began to implement the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) three years ago, I found it to be a liberating piece of legislation. However, three years on, I can see that there are pros and cons to its use. I work with about 60 people with learning disabilities of varying ages, conditions and abilities. Over time I have gained a broad, and revealing, view of how this act can change lives and the dynamics of a care organisation.

Two current developments reflecting a common concern in second/foreign language assessment are the development of: (1) scales for describing language proficiency/ability/performance; and (2) criterion-referenced performance assessments. Both developments are motivated by a perceived need to achieve communicatively transparent test results anchored in observable behaviors. Each of these developments in one way or another is an attempt to recognize the complexity of language in use, the complexity of assessing language ability, and the difficulty in interpreting potential interactions of scale task, trait, text, and ability. They reflect a current appetite for language assessment anchored in the world of functions and events, but also must address how the worlds of functions and events contain non skill-specific and discretely hierarchical variability. As examples of current tests that attempt to use performance criteria, the chapter reviews the Canadian Language Benchmark, the Common European Framework, and the Assessment of Language Performance projects.

Language testing differs from testing in other content areas because language teachers have more choices to make. The purpose of this article is to help language teachers decide what types of language tests to use in their particular institutions and classrooms for their specific purposes. The various kinds of language assessments are classified into three broad categories: (a) selected-response assessments (including true-false, matching, and multiple-choice assessments); (b) constructed-response assessments (including fill-in, short-answer, and performance assessments); and (c) personal-response assessments (including conference, portfolio, and self- or peer assessments). For each assessment type, we provide a clear definition and explore its advantages and disadvantages. We end the article with a discussion of how teachers can make rational choices among the various assessment options by thinking about (a) the consequences of the washback effect of assessment procedures on language teaching and learning, (b) the significance of feedback based on the assessment results, and (c) the importance of using multiple sources of information in making decisions based on assessment information.

During the past decade and a half, a great deal of research has posited a developmental sequence approach in second language acquisition. Much of this research has proposed that certain linguistic structures are acquired in a natural immutable order while other linguistic structures are acquired variably as a result of a learner's orientation (Clahsen, Meisel, & Pienemann, 1983; Meisel, Clahsen, & Pienemann, 1981; Pienemann, 1984, 1985, 1987; Pienemann & Johnston, 1987). Proposals have been made for extending the model into language assessment and pedagogy (Clahsen, 1985; Pienemann, 1984, 1992; Pienemann & Johnston, 1987). The present study reexamines the original social-psychological research upon which the multidimensional model is based and shows that it is incorrect due to faulty analyses. Further, it examines the limited applicability and generalizability of the developmental sequence approach for assessment and pedagogy.

During the past decade and a half, a great deal of research has posited a developmental sequence approach in second language acquisition. Much of this research has proposed that certain linguistic structures are acquired in a natural immutable order while other linguistic structures are acquired variably as a result of a learner's orientation (Clahsen, Meisel, & Pienemann, 1983; Meisel, Clahsen, & Pienemann, 1981; Pienemann, 1984, 1985, 1987; Pienemann & Johnston, 1987). Proposals have been made for extending the model into language assessment and pedagogy (Clahsen, 1985; Pienemann, 1984, 1992; Pienemann & Johnston, 1987). The present study reexamines the original social-psychological research upon which the multidimensional model is based and shows that it is incorrect due to faulty analyses.Further, it examines the limited applicability and generalizability of the developmental sequence approach for assessment and pedagogy.