Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Task-Based Language Teaching
- Cambridge Handbooks In Language And Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Task-Based Language Teaching
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface The Origins and Growth of Task-Based Language Teaching
- Part I The Rationale for Task-Based Language Teaching
- Part II Tasks and Needs Analysis
- Part III The Task Syllabus and Materials
- Part IV Methodology and Pedagogy
- Part V Task-Based Language Teaching with School-Age Children
- Part VI The Teacher in Task-Based Language Teaching
- Part VII Task-Based Assessment and Program Evaluation
- 13 Task-Based Language Assessment
- 14 Evaluating Task-Based Language Programs
- 14A Comparing the Effectiveness of Task-Based Language Teaching and Presentation-Practice-Production on Second Language Grammar Learning
- 14B Examining High-School Learners’ Experience of Task Motivation and Difficulty in a Two-Week Spanish Immersion Camp
- 14C Designing a Classroom-Based Task-Based Language Assessment Framework for Primary Schools
- Part VIII Research Needs and Future Prospects
- Index
- References
13 - Task-Based Language Assessment
from Part VII - Task-Based Assessment and Program Evaluation
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 November 2021
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Task-Based Language Teaching
- Cambridge Handbooks In Language And Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Task-Based Language Teaching
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface The Origins and Growth of Task-Based Language Teaching
- Part I The Rationale for Task-Based Language Teaching
- Part II Tasks and Needs Analysis
- Part III The Task Syllabus and Materials
- Part IV Methodology and Pedagogy
- Part V Task-Based Language Teaching with School-Age Children
- Part VI The Teacher in Task-Based Language Teaching
- Part VII Task-Based Assessment and Program Evaluation
- 13 Task-Based Language Assessment
- 14 Evaluating Task-Based Language Programs
- 14A Comparing the Effectiveness of Task-Based Language Teaching and Presentation-Practice-Production on Second Language Grammar Learning
- 14B Examining High-School Learners’ Experience of Task Motivation and Difficulty in a Two-Week Spanish Immersion Camp
- 14C Designing a Classroom-Based Task-Based Language Assessment Framework for Primary Schools
- Part VIII Research Needs and Future Prospects
- Index
- References
Summary
This case study discusses an online second language teacher education course, designed for teachers, teacher educators, directors of studies and course designers, created and run by the authors, who are both members of a language services cooperative in Barcelona. Information about the cooperative is given, and the events leading to the start of the project are described. Having outlined Long’s (2015) approach to task-based language teaching (TBLT), which serves as the model for the course, we describe the course itself, and the components of its twelve sessions. We go on to explain how we wrote the course and how, once complete, it was marketed. The first implementation of the course is then described, including details of the participants’ working roles; their highest qualifications; their engagement with course activities; the completion rates; and feedback. We then explain how the second implementation reflected changes we made to the course as a result of our reflections and feedback. Finally, we discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the course, paying particular attention to loop input (Woodward, 2003) and to the principle of faithfully reflecting TBLT processes so that the course practices what it preaches.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Task-Based Language Teaching , pp. 507 - 528Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Further Reading
East, M. (2015). Coming to terms with innovative high-stakes assessment practice: Teachers’ viewpoints on assessment reform. Language Testing, 31(1), 101–20.Google Scholar
Norris, J. (2009). Task-based teaching and testing. In Long, M. and Doughty, C., eds. The handbook of language teaching. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 578–94.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2018). Task-based language assessment: Aligning designs with intended uses and consequences. JLTA Journal, 21, 3–20.Google Scholar
Van Gorp, K. and Deygers, B. (2014). Task-based language assessment. In Kunnan, A., ed. The companion to language assessment. Cambridge: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 578–93.Google Scholar
Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve student performance. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
References
ACTFL. (1999). American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages Proficiency Guidelines. Alexandria, VA: ACTFL.Google Scholar
Adair-Hauck, B., Glisan, E., Koda, K., Swender, E., and Sandrock, P. (2006). The Integrated Performance Assessment (IPA): Connecting assessment to instruction and learning. Foreign Language Annals, 39, 359–82.Google Scholar
Adair-Hauck, B., Glisan, E., and Troyan, F. (2014). Implementing Integrated Performance Assessment. Alexandria, VA: ACTFL.Google Scholar
Alanen, R., Huhta, A., and Tarnanen, M. (2010). Designing and assessing L2 writing tasks across CEFR proficiency levels. In Bartning, I., Martin, M., and Vedder, I. eds. Communicative proficiency and linguistic development: Intersections between language testing and SLA research. EUROSLA Monograph, pp. 21–56.Google Scholar
Alderson, J. C. (2009). Air safety, language assessment policy, and policy implementation: The case of aviation English. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 29, 168–87.Google Scholar
Alderson, J. C. (2010). A survey of aviation English tests. Language Testing, 27, 51–72.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F. (2002). Some reflections on task-based language performance assessment. Language Testing, 19(4), 453–76.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F. and Damböck, B. (2018). Language assessment for classroom teachers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F. and Palmer, A. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F. and Palmer, A. (2010). Language assessment in practice: Developing language assessments and justifying their use in the real world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Berben, M., Callebaut, I., Colpin, M., François, S., Geerts, M., Goethals, M., and Vanoosthuyze, S. (2008), eds. TotemTaal: Inleiding en evaluatie 5. Mechelen, Belgium: Wolters Plantyn.Google Scholar
Bond, L. A. (1996). Norm-and criterion-referenced testing. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 5(2), 120–25.Google Scholar
Brindley, G. (1994). Task-centered assessment in language learning: The promise and the challenge. ERIC Document # ED 386 045.Google Scholar
Brown, J. D., Hudson, T. D., Norris, J. M., and Bonk, W. (2002). Investigating task-based second language performance assessment. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar
Butler, Y. G. and Zeng, W. (2014). Young foreign language learners’ interactions during task-based paired assessments. Language Assessment Quarterly, 11(1), 45–75.Google Scholar
Byrnes, H. (2002). The role of task and task-based assessment in a content-oriented collegiate foreign language curriculum. Language Testing, 19(4), 419–37.Google Scholar
Byrnes, H., Maxim, H., and Norris, J. M. (2010). Realizing advanced FL writing development in collegiate education: Curricular design, pedagogy, assessment. Cambridge: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Carless, D. (2007). The suitability of task-based approaches for secondary schools: Perspectives from Hong Kong. System, 35(4), 595–608.Google Scholar
Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks. (2000). CLB 2000: Theoretical framework. Ottawa: Centre for Canadian Language BenchmarksGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C. A., Enright, M. K., and Jamieson, J. M. (2008), eds. Building a validity argument for the Test of English as a Foreign Language. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Colpin, M. and Gysen, S. (2006). Developing and introducing task-based language tests. In Van den Branden, K., ed., Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 151–74.Google Scholar
Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
East, M. (2012). Task-based language teaching from the teachers’ perspective: Insights from New Zealand. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
East, M. (2016). Assessing foreign language students’ spoken proficiency: Stakeholder perspectives on assessment innovation. Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
Eckes, T. and Althaus, H. J. (2020). Language proficiency assessments in college admissions. In Oliveri, M. E. and Wendler, C., eds. Higher education admission and placement practices: An international perspective. Cambridge: University of Cambridge, pp. 256–75Google Scholar
Elder, C., Pill, J., Woodward-Kron, R., McNamara, T., Manias, E., Webb, G., and McColl, G. (2012). Health professionals’ views of communication: Implications for assessing performance on a health specific English language test. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 409–19.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, J., Chouissa, C., Dugovičová, S., and Virkkunen-Fullenwider, A. (2011). Guidelines for task-based university language testing. Graz: European Centre for Modern Languages.Google Scholar
Gysen, S. and Van Avermaet, P. (2005). Issues in functional language performance assessment:The case of the Certificate Dutch as a Foreign Language. Language Assessment Quarterly, 2(1), 51–68.Google Scholar
Haertel, E. H. (1999). Performance assessment and education reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 80 (9), 662.Google Scholar
Hamp-Lyons, L. (2000). Fairnesses in language testing. In Kunnan, A. J., ed. Fairness and validation in language assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 30–34.Google Scholar
Hattie, J. (2009). The black box of tertiary assessment: An impending revolution. In Meyer, L. H., Davidson, S., Anderson, H., Fletcher, R., Johnston, P. M., and Rees, M., eds. Tertiary assessment and higher education student outcomes: Policy, practice and research. Wellington, NZ: Ako Aotearoa, pp. 259–75.Google Scholar
Herman, J. L. (1992). A practical guide to alternative assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
Khattri, N., Reeve, A., and Kane, M. (1998). Principles and practices of performance assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lewis, C. and Kingdon, B. (2016). CELBANTM: A ten-year retrospective. TESL Canada Journal, 33, 69–82.Google Scholar
Linn, R. L. and Burton, E. (1994). Performance‐based assessment: Implications of task specificity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 13(1), 5–8.Google Scholar
Lockwood, J. (2015). Language for specific purpose (LSP) performance assessment in Asian call centres: Strong and weak definitions. Language Testing in Asia, 5(3).Google Scholar
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. and Crookes, G. (1993). Units of analysis in syllabus design: The case for task. In Crookes, G. and Gass, S., eds. Tasks in a pedagogical context: Integrating theory and practice. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 9–54.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. and Norris, J. M. (2000). Task-based teaching and assessment. In Byram, M., ed. Encyclopedia of language teaching. London: Routledge, pp. 597–603.Google Scholar
Lynch, B. K. (2001). The ethical potential of alternative language assessment. In Experimenting with uncertainty: essays in honour of Alan Davies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 228–39.Google Scholar
McNamara, T. (1997). ‘Interaction’ in second language performance assessment: Whose performance? Applied linguistics, 18(4), 446–66.Google Scholar
McNamara, T. and Roever, C. (2006). Language testing: The social dimension. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Messick, S. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Educational Researcher 23, 13–23.Google Scholar
Messick, S. (1996). Validity and washback in language testing. Language Testing, 13(3), 241–56.Google Scholar
Mislevy, R., Steinberg, L., and Almond, R. (2002). Design and analysis in task-based language assessment. Language Testing, 19(4), 477–96.Google Scholar
Moss, P. A. (1992). Shifting conceptions of validity in educational measurement: Implications for performance assessment. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 229–58.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2000). Purposeful language assessment. English Teaching Forum, 38(1), 18–23.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2002). Interpretations, intended uses and designs in task-based language assessment. Language Testing, 19(4), 337–46.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2008). Validity evaluation in language assessment. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2009). Task-based teaching and testing. In Long, M. and Doughty, C., eds., Handbook of language teaching. Cambridge: Blackwell, pp. 578–94.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2016). Current uses for task-based language assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 230–44.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2018). Task-based language assessment: Aligning designs with intended uses and consequences. JLTA Journal, 21, 3–20.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M., Brown, J. D., Hudson, T. D., and Bonk, W. (2002). Examinee abilities and task difficulty in task-based second language performance assessment. Language Testing, 19(4), 395–418.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M., Brown, J. D., Hudson, T. D., and Yoshioka, J. K. (1998). Designing second language performance assessment. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M., Davis, J., and Timpe-Laughlin, V. (2017). Second language educational experiences for adult learners. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Popham, W. J. (1993). Educational testing in America: What’s right, what’s wrong? A criterion-referenced perspective. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12(1), 11–14.Google Scholar
Purpura, J. E. and Turner, C. E. (2014). Learning-oriented assessment in language classrooms: Using assessment to gauge and promote language learning. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. and Ross, S. (1996). The development of task-based assessment in English for academic purpose programs. Applied Linguistics, 17, 455–76.Google Scholar
Ryan, D. G. and Frederiksen, N. (1951). Performance tests of educational achievement. In Lindquist, E. F., ed. Educational measurement. Washington DC: American Council on Education, pp. 455–94.Google Scholar
Shepard, L. A. (1993). Evaluating test validity. Review of research in education, 19(1), 405–50.Google Scholar
Shohamy, E. (1995). Performance assessment in language testing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 15, 188–211.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Timpe-Laughlin, V. (2018). Pragmatics in task-based language assessment: Opportunities and challenges. In Taguchi, N. and Kim, Y., eds. Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 287–304.Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K. (2006), ed. Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., and Norris, J. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Introducing the reader. In Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., and Norris, J., eds. Task-based language teaching: A reader. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K., Depauw, V., and Gysen, S. (2002). A computerized task-based test of second language Dutch for vocational training purposes. Language Testing, 19(2), 438–52.Google Scholar
Van Gorp, K. and Deygers, B. (2014). Task-based language assessment. In Kunnan, A., ed. The Companion to Language Assessment. Cambridge: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 578–93.Google Scholar
Wajda, E. (2011). New perspectives in language assessment: The interpretivist revolution. In Pawlak, M., ed. Extending the boundaries of research on second language learning and teaching. Berlin: Springer, pp. 275–85.Google Scholar
Wall, D. and Horák, T. (2006). The impact of changes in the TOEFL examination on teaching and learning in Central and Eastern Europe: Phase 1, the baseline study. ETS Research Report Series, MS-34.Google Scholar
Weaver, C. (2013). Incorporating a formative assessment cycle into task-based language teaching. In Shehadeh, A. and Coombe, C., eds. Researching and implementing task-based language learning and teaching in EFL contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamin, pp. 287–312.Google Scholar
Weideman, A. (2006). Assessing academic literacy: A task-based approach. Language Matters, 37, 81–101.Google Scholar
Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve student performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
Wolf, M. K., Lopez, A., Oh, S., and Tsutagawa, F. S. (2017). Comparing the performance of young English language learners and native English speakers on speaking assessment tasks. English language proficiency assessments for young learners. New York: Routledge, pp. 171–190.Google Scholar
- 6
- Cited by