Assessment in English language teaching in

higher education

2

Contents

Introduction………………………………………………………………………….3

Selection of headings and criteria for the mark sheets…………………………3

Marking the scripts and giving feedback…………………………………………6

M09ENL Coursework 3

3

Introduction

Assessment has a powerful effect on students’ learning in that it either serves to

motivate in the learning process or to undermine a learner’s confidence. The nature of

assessment in higher education can be described as performing a wide array of

purposes ranging from measuring student learning to measuring teaching effectiveness.

This report will discuss the marking of an exam script in terms of marking scheme,

criteria and feedback. All sheets and scripts are included in the Appendix and their

design is underpinned by theoretical aspects which will be mentioned in this report.

Selection of headings and criteria for the mark sheets

Each section was assessed separately according to various marking criteria which was

structured and placed under specific headings. The student’s productive work was

assessed by implementing a holistic and an analytic approach. The mark schemes

designed for assessing both Section A and Section B consist of headings which

concentrate on both language and content. Peňaflorida (2002: 350) claims that testing

writing skills does not mean checking just the level of grammar, but also the

communication and organization of ideas. The criteria for both sections were selected in

terms of both language and content because language testing in the form of a summary

and essay should include assessment criteria that investigate the level of a student’s

language competence (Fletcher et al. 2012: 120). The marking criteria chosen to assess

4

the student’s written products focuses on Brown’s reasoning i.e., ‘that achieving

language competence means achieving a unified set of interacting abilities that cannot

be tested separately’ (2007: 456). Following, Brown’s theory, the assessor did not divide

language into its component parts to assess them separately, but created a kind of

pragmatic marking criteria that would test the ability of the learner to employ language in

a natural way within a relevant context, to bring into discussion thoughts and opinions

and to assess a wide array of language functions.

As languages are made up of both content and language such as syntax and grammar,

the criterion-referenced assessment in this paper was designed to provide the student

with understanding about his strengths and weaknesses in language as well as in

content when writing in a foreign language. In addition, Klapper (2006: 265) suggests

that one main role of assessments is to monitor students’ integrated performance and

their ability to use a range of language functions. Thus, the headings and the marking

criteria chosen for assessing the student’s writing measure the student’s ‘ability to apply

knowledge of the linguistic system in the achievement of communicative goals’ (Klapper

2006: 264). Moreover, the choice for such headings and criterion is also supported by

the idea that students are different and one may excel in a certain area of a language

and encounter problems in a different area. As a result, the marking sheets include

criteria that cover and cater for wide areas of the language. This way both the student

and the teacher can ascertain the areas of difficulty which require further attention and

they can also determine the areas of strength on which the learner can build and

increase his confidence level.

5

The marking criteria presented in this paper has been adapted from three sources. For

section A, the grading criteria reflects a holistic approach and was adapted from staff

development materials entitled DOPLA Module 5 and further edited (Gravestock et al.

2000: 94). Moreover, part of the criteria inserted in the mark scheme for section A is also

taken from Wang (2009: 43) and from the course handbook of the Department of

English and Languages for the Master in English language teaching and further adapted

(2013:20-22). The marking criteria for section B reflects an analytic approach and was

adapted from a handout on assessment given as part of module M09ENG by the

Module leader, Marina Orsini-Jones and was further edited.

The headings selected for the marking scheme in both section A and B have been

adapted from Hativa (2000: 321), from Wang (2009: 43) and from the handout on

assessment which was previously mentioned. According to Hativa (2000: 321), choosing

criteria like ‘supporting evidence’, ‘clarity of writing’, ‘focus on the subject’, ‘organization’,

‘coherence of ideas’, ‘quality of academic writing’ and ‘spelling, grammar and style’

means that the teacher is developing an explicit set of grading criteria which will be

useful and which will offer learners ideas of how they can improve and in which area the

most.

The headings and the criteria mentioned in the appendix for each mark scheme were

selected because they provide learners with understanding of what skills and language

aspects the task will assess and by which standards will these aspects be tested. The

assessor specifically included the heading ‘clarity’ in both mark sheets because it is of

paramount importance, particularly in section A which required the student to read a text

6

before writing a summary. Klapper claims that assessing clarity is fundamental in criteria

assessment because it verifies ‘students’ comprehension of a text and their language

skill to distinguish main ideas from minor detail and organise them into a coherent text’.

Klapper also states that the level of clarity of second language learners has to be

assessed in order to understand how they process factual content and how clear they

express it using second language (2006: 282).

Marking the scripts (method and theoretical underpinning) and giving feedback

The main purpose of foreign language assessment, particularly written assessment is

not to count how many errors a student does. Instead, it is concerned with providing

learners with opportunities and motivation to develop their ‘linguistic and sociocultural

range and proficiency’ (Nott 2008). Thus, the scripts were marked for both language and

content because achieving linguistic competence in a foreign language means achieving

a balance between function and form i.e., between communication and accuracy.

The assessor decided to mark the scripts using a communicative approach, placing

more emphasis on the relevance and coherence of what is written according to the task

requirements than on how well the student uses English syntax and accurate spelling.

Hedge (2000: 384) suggests that teachers should include more communicative criteria

when assessing writing tasks so as to understand the learners’ developing strengths in

expressing a coherent message.

7

The marked scripts were designed in such a way so that the content part would weigh a

little more than the language part. This choice is based on the theory of interlanguage

development, which relies on the idea that errors represent an essential part of learning.

Moreover, the way in which the scripts were marked reflect the assessor’s belief that

incorrect forms in spelling and punctuation and some examples of wrong verb forms

may simply indicate mistakes, not errors, which may also be due to stress caused by the

idea of undergoing assessment (Klapper 2006: 248). Such mistakes or slips do not

reflect deficient knowledge and the student who wrote the scripts was not penalised too

much for writing them.

The assessor applied a criterion-referenced mark scheme because it concentrates on

measuring achievements and on evaluating changes in linguistic performance as a

result of the student’s learning experience (Brown 2007: 467). Moreover, the choice for

a criterion-referenced assessment instead of a norm-referenced one is that the former

evaluates how the learner performed and if he achieved the learning objectives and

performance outcomes in a particular module. Thus, the mark schemes were designed

to assess student performance which is compared to a pre-established criteria

associated with achievement. Another reason for choosing to implement this criterion in

the mark schemes is that such a criterion is helpful for both teachers and students to

see in which language area they are successful and in which they are not (Brown 2007:

467-468).

For the essay (Section B), the person assessing the student’s writing implemented an

analytic marking approach as opposed to the holistic one chosen for the summary

8

(Section A). The analytic marking was selected for section B because the nature of

academic essays provides learners with more opportunities to treat a complex topic

using a wide range of ideas from their background knowledge and also varied

structures. In this analytic approach, the sub-components of writing are marked

separately and content along with its sub-skills outweighs language. The assessor

chose this approach so that the student can see the criteria on which he is assessed

and the marks allocated and awarded to each sub-skill (Klapper 2006: 267).

While marking the scripts, the assessor made use of some marking tools available in the

word-processing package and focused on on-screen editing using the Insert Comment

icon and establishing a system of annotations which is provided in the Appendix along

with all mark sheets and feedback form. The most common type of marking employed to

mark the scripts was to underline incorrect parts and to encourage the learner to self-

correct by checking the dictionary or other materials relevant to grammar and spelling.

Brown (2007: 451) suggests that the person who assesses should not give all the

correct answers particularly if the student made second-order mistakes which can be

corrected by himself if he receives input concerning the nature of the problem. In his

view, the assessor should just describe the nature of the mistake and prompt the learner

to become autonomous and self-reliant in his learning.

In order to mark effectively and provide clear and concise feedback, the assessor

established a system of symbols which are presented in the Appendix. The student will

prior receive a list with all the symbols. Such symbols were used in the marking process

9

so as to incite the learner’s inquisitiveness rather than reading passively the correct

forms provided by the teacher (Ellis 2009: 103).

While providing feedback, the person assessing the scripts took into account the fact

that receiving feedback for a written assignment may be a daunting experience for most

learners. As a result, the comments which were written on the scripts point to parts that

were good and parts that require some improvement. It is believed that feedback about

one’s linguistic performance should promote learning and have a ‘positive washback’

(Klapper 2006: 240). The assessor took this aspect into consideration and provided

feedback that would wash back to the learner in the form of strengths and weaknesses.

Nott (2008) shares the same opinion as Klapper and claims that developing feedback

which praises for strengths and which gives constructive criticism of weaknesses is an

effective way to foster some principles of second language acquisition like intrinsic

motivation and learner autonomy. The structure of the feedback and the feedback itself

are meant to serve as a learning device through which the learner can be provided with

a diagnosis consisting in strengths and weaknesses according to different language

areas. Moreover, the feedback provided by the assessor followed Klapper’s guidelines

so as to make it clear, specific, remedial, flexible and personalized also bearing in mind

that some language aspects should not be overtly explained by the teacher leaving the

learner at times the chance to self-correct (2006: 251-252).

According to Ellis (2009: 102) a teacher can use either direct or indirect written

corrective feedback. The marked scripts included in this paper tackle both approaches

10

with more emphasis on the indirect one. Sometimes, the assessor uses the direct

feedback approach and provides the correct answer by writing it close to the erroneous

one. This is done in cases when there are errors affecting the coherence of the

message. In contrast, the indirect feedback approach indicates some spelling or word

forms mistakes, which do not interfere with the intelligibility of the utterances. This

indirect feedback approach was used by simply underlining minor errors. Furthermore,

Ellis suggests that the indirect written corrective feedback serves as ‘guided learning’

and prompts learners to reflect on their writing.

The feedback sheet includes some written comments, besides a diagnosis of strengths

and weaknesses so as to cater for the learner’s individual needs and to serve as

formative assessment. Moreover, the feedback sheet and the marked scripts include

comments on content planning and style and also on minor points of language. The

comments at the end start with strong features which deserve praise and are followed

by comments on weaker features supplemented by what type of remedial action should

be approached. Furthermore, the diagnosis of mistakes presented in the feedback sheet

is meant to be constructive and as Nott (2008) suggests, it should not concentrate on

more than three areas. The constructive feedback received by the student focuses on

content, paragraph structure and on spelling.

In conclusion, assessment can be approached in various ways and it is perceived as a

significant feature of teaching and learning a foreign language. Irrespective of the

methods selected, the assessors need to bear in mind that the manner in which they

assess and provide feedback contributes to shaping further teaching and learning. In

11

this report, the scripts were marked according to various theories which were presented

and the feedback was formulated so as to answer in the best interest of the student’s

language needs.

12

Reference List

Brown, H.D. (2007) Teaching by Principles. An Interactive Approach to Language

Pedagogy.3rd edn. San Francisco: Pearson Longman

Coventry University, Faculty of Business, Environment and Society (2013) MA in

ELT Course Handbook

Ellis, R. (2009) ‘A typology of written corrective feedback’. ELT Journal 63 (2), 97-

107

Fletcher, R.B., Meyer, L.H., Anderson, H., Johnston, P., and Rees, M. (2012)

‘Faculty and Students Conceptions of Assessment in Higher Education’. High

Educ Springer 64, 119-133

Gravestock, P., Gray, C., Klapper, J. and McCulloch, R. (1997) Development of

Postgraduate and Language Assistants. (DOPLA). HEFCE/FDTL

Hativa, N. (2000) Teaching for Effective Learning in Higher Education.

Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers

Hedge, T. (2000) Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford:

Oxford University Press

13

Klapper, J. (2006) Understanding and developing good practice. Language

Teaching in Higher Education. CILT

Nott, D. (2008) Marking students’ written work: principles and practice. [online]

available from <https://www.llas.ac.uk/resources/gpg/2956#toc_2> [30th April

2014]

Peňaflorida, A.H. (2002)’Nontraditional Forms of Assessment and Response to

Student Writing: A Step Toward Learner Autonomy’. in a Methodology in

Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice. ed. by Richards, J.C., and

Renandya, W.A. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

14

Appendix

Marked scripts

Section A

15

16

17

Section B

18

19

20

M09ENL Coursework 3

21

22

23

24

Marking sheet

25

26

Feedback sheet

27

28

Symbols

SVD = subject-verb disagreement

Sp = spelling

Ww = wrong word

Reg = it should be regular verb

Wt = wrong tense

Wf = incorrect word form

UC = Upper case

WT = Wrong tense

AMB = ambiguous

Gr = grammar