Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T11:57:15.660Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

14C - Designing a Classroom-Based Task-Based Language Assessment Framework for Primary Schools

Blurring the Lines between Teaching, Learning, and Assessment

from Part VII - Task-Based Assessment and Program Evaluation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2021

Mohammad Javad Ahmadian
Affiliation:
University of Leeds
Michael H. Long
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park
Get access

Summary

This case study focuses on the design of an assessment framework for a task-based language syllabus for first and second language speakers in Flemish primary education. It describes the choices that the syllabus designers made with respect to task specifications, assessment criteria and teacher support. The case study shows how classroom-based task-based language assessment (TBLA) can provide teachers with rich, useful information about students’ progress in performing target tasks, and help them provide quality feedback to scaffold and advance students’ learning. Crucially, it illustrates how an integral TBLT-TBLA approach can integrate teaching, learning and assessment in a meaningful way.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Further Reading

Colpin, M. and Van Gorp, K. (2007). Task-based writing in primary education: The development and evaluation of writing skills through writing tasks, learner and teacher support. In Van den Branden, K., Van Gorp, K., and Verhelst, M., eds. Tasks in action: Task-based language education from a classroom-based perspective. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 194234.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2016). Current issues for task-based language assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 230–44.Google Scholar
Rea-Dickins, P. (2006). Currents and eddies in the discourse of assessment: a learning-focused interpretation. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 163–88.Google Scholar
Van Gorp, K. (2018). Task-based language assessment for L1 and L2 speakers in primary education. Designing a useful task-specification framework. In McE, J.. Davis, J. Norris, Malone, M., McKay, T., and Son, Y. A, eds. Useful assessment and evaluation in language education. Washington DC: Georgetown University, pp. 131–48.Google Scholar
Van Gorp, K. and Deygers, B. (2014). Task-based language assessment. In Kunnan, A. J., ed. The companion to language assessment. Volume II. Approaches and development. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 578–93.Google Scholar

References

Bachman, L. F. (2002). Some reflections on task-based language performance assessment. Language Testing, 19, 454–76.Google Scholar
Berben, M., Callebaut, I., Colpin, M., François, S., Geerts, M., Goethals, M., Vander Meeren, K., Vandommele, G., and Van Gorp, K. (2007a). TotemTaal. Themahandleiding en kopieerbladen 4A. Mechelen: Wolters Plantyn.Google Scholar
Berben, M., Callebaut, I., Colpin, M., François, S., Geerts, M., Goethals, M., Vander Meeren, K., Vandommele, G., and Van Gorp, K. (2007b). TotemTaal. Inleiding en evaluatie 4. Mechelen: Wolters Plantyn.Google Scholar
Berben, M., Van den Branden, K., and Van Gorp, K. (2007). We’ll see what happens: Tasks on paper and tasks in a multilingual classroom. In Van den Branden, K., Van Gorp, K., and Verhelst, M., eds. Tasks in action: Task-based language education from a classroom-based perspective. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 3267.Google Scholar
Carless, D. (2007).Learning-oriented assessment: Conceptual basis and practical implications.Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44, 5766.Google Scholar
Colby-Kelly, C. and Turner, C. E. (2007). AFL research in the L2 classroom and evidence of usefulness: Taking formative assessment to the next level. Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(1), 937.Google Scholar
Colpin, M. and Van Gorp, K. (2007). Task-based writing in primary education: The development and evaluation of writing skills through writing tasks, learner and teacher support. In Van den Branden, K., Van Gorp, K., and Verhelst, M., eds. Tasks in action: Task-based language education from a classroom-based perspective. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 194234.Google Scholar
Departement Onderwijs (1998). Ontwikkelingsdoelen en eindtermen. Informatiemap voor de onderwijspraktijk: gewoon basisonderwijs. Brussels: Afdeling Informatie en Documentatie.Google Scholar
Devlieger, M. and Goossens, G. (2007). An assessment tool for the evaluation of teacher practice in powerful task-based language learning environments. In Van den Branden, K., Van Gorp, K., and Verhelst, M., eds. Tasks in action: Task-based language education from a classroom-based perspective. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 92130.Google Scholar
Duran, G. and Ramaut, G. (2006). Tasks for absolute beginners and beyond: Developing and sequencing tasks at basic proficiency levels. In Van den Branden, K., ed. Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 47105.Google Scholar
François, S. (2005). Naar een nieuwe taakgerichte taalmethode voor het basisonderwijs: behoeftenonderzoek. Unpublished research report. Leuven: Centre for Language and EducationGoogle Scholar
Graham, S. and Perin, D. (2007a). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 445–76.Google Scholar
Graham, S. and Perin, D. (2007b). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescent middle and high school. Washington DC: Alliance for Excellence in Education.Google Scholar
Graham, S. and Perin, D. (2007c). What we know, what we still need to know: Teaching adolescents to write. Scientific Studies in Reading, 11, 313–36.Google Scholar
Harding, L., Alderson, J. C., and Brunfaut, T. (2015). Diagnostic assessment of reading and listening in a second or foreign Language: Elaborating on diagnostic principles. Language Testing, 32, 317–36.Google Scholar
Hattie, J. and Yates, G. C. R. (2014). Visible learning and the science of how we learn. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jones, N. and Saville, N. (2016). Learning oriented assessment. A systematic Approach. Studies in Language Testing 45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lokale inburgerings- en integratiemonitor (2019). Retrieved from: www.statistiekvlaanderen.be/nl/monitor-lokale-inburgering-en-integratie.Google Scholar
National Reading Panel (2000). Reports of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. Rockville, MD: NICHD Clearinghouse.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2009). Task-based teaching and testing. In Long, M. H. and Doughty, C. J., eds. The handbook of language teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 578–94.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2016). Current uses of task-based language assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 230–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rea-Dickins, P. (2006). Currents and eddies in the discourse of assessment: a learning-focused interpretation. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 163–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadler, R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science 18, 119–44.Google Scholar
Samuda, V. and Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., Chambers, B., Cheung, A., and Davis, S. (2009). Effective reading programs for the elementary grades: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1391–466.Google Scholar
Slavin, R. E. (2013). Effective programmes in reading and mathematics: Lessons from the best evidence encyclopaedia. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 24, 383–91.Google Scholar
Turner, C. E. and Purpura, J. E. (2015). Learning-oriented assessment in the classroom. In Tsagari, D. and Banerjee, J., eds. Handbook of second language assessment. Boston, MA: DeGruyter Mouton, pp. 255–73.Google Scholar
Van Avermaet, P., Colpin, C., Van Gorp, K., Bogaert, N., and Van den Branden, K. (2006). The role of the teacher in task-based language teaching. In Van den Branden, K., ed. Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 175–96.Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K. (2006a). Introduction: Task-based language teaching in a nutshell. In Van den Branden, K., ed. Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 116.Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K. (2006b). Training teachers: Task-based as well? In Van den Branden, K., ed. Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 217–48.Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K. (2010). Handboek Taalbeleid Basisonderwijs. Leuven: ACCO.Google Scholar
Van Gorp, K. (2018). Task-based language assessment for L1 and L2 speakers in primary education. Designing a useful task-specification framework. In McE, J.. Davis, J. Norris, Malone, M., McKay, T., and Son, Y. A, eds. Useful assessment and evaluation in language education. Washington DC: Georgetown University, pp. 131–48.Google Scholar
Van Gorp, K. and Deygers, B. (2014). Task-based language assessment. In Kunnan, A. J., ed. The companion to language assessment. Volume II Approaches and development. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 578–93.Google Scholar
Van Gorp, K. and Versteden, P. (2020). Advising linguistically diverse schools on developing a school-wide language policy. In Beerkens, R. M., Le Pichon-Vorstman, E., ten Thije, J. D., and Supheert, R. G. J. L., eds. Enhancing intercultural communication in organizations: Insights from project advisors. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 83–92.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×