This paper presents a comprehensive framework for researching classroom-based assessment (CBA) processes, and is based on a detailed empirical study of two Australian school classrooms where students aged 11 to 13 were studying Indonesian as a foreign language. The framework can be considered innovative in several respects. It goes beyond the scope of earlier models in addressing a number of gaps in previous research, including consideration of the epistemological bases for observed assessment practices and a specific learner and learning focus. Moreover, by adopting the broadest possible definition of CBA, the framework allows for the inclusion of a diverse range of data, including the more intuitive forms of teacher decision-making found in CBA (Torrance & Pryor, 1998). Finally, in contrast to previous studies the research motivating the development of the framework took place in a school-based foreign language setting. We anticipate that the framework will be of interest to both researchers and classroom practitioners.
AljaafrehA.LantolfJ. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the Zone of Proximal Development. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465–483.
2.
BlackP.WiliamD. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74.
3.
BrindleyG. (1998). Outcomes-based assessment and reporting in language learning programmes: A review of the issues. Language Testing, 15, 45–85.
4.
BrindleyG. (2001). Outcomes-based assessment in practice: Some examples and emerging insights. Language Testing, 18(4), 393–407.
5.
ClarkeS. (1998). Targeting assessment in the primary classroom. Strategies for planning assessment, pupil feedback and target setting. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
6.
ClarkeS.GippsC. (2000). The role of teachers in teacher assessment in England 1996–1998. Evaluation and Research in Education, 4, 38–52.
7.
CoughlanP.DuffP. (1994). Same task, different activities: Analysis of SLA from an activity theory perspective. In LantolfJ.AppelG. (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 173–194). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
8.
CummingJ. J.MaxwellG. S. (2004). Assessment in Australian Schools: Current practices and trends. Assessment in Education, 11, 89–108.
9.
DavisonC. (2004). The contradictory culture of teacher-based assessment: ESL teacher assessment practices in Australian and Hong Kong secondary schools. Language Testing, 21(3), 305–334.
10.
DavisonC.LeungC. (2009). Current issues in English language teacher-based assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 43(3), 393–415.
DuffP. A.UchidaY. (1997). The Negotiation of teachers’ Sociocultural Identities and Practices in Postsecondary EFL Classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 451–486.
13.
GippsC. (1994). Quality in teacher assessment. In HarlenW. (Ed.), Enhancing quality in assessment (pp. 71–86). London: Paul Chapman.
14.
HarlenW. (1994). Issues and approaches to quality assurance and quality control in assessment. In HarlenW. (Ed.), Enhancing quality in assessment (pp. 11–25). London: Paul Chapman.
15.
Heurta-MaciasA. (1995). Alternative assessment: Responses to commonly asked questions. TESOL Journal, 5, 8–11.
16.
HillK. (2010). Classroom-based assessment and the issue of continuity between primary and secondary school languages programs. Babel, 45(1), 5–12.
17.
HornbergerN. H. (1994). In CummingA. (Ed.), Alternatives in TESOL research: Descriptive, interpretive and ideological orientations. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 673–703.
18.
JamesM. (2006). Assessment, teaching and theories of learning. In GardnerJ. (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp. 47–60). London: Sage Publications.
19.
LeungC. (2005). Classroom teacher assessment of second language development. In HinkelE. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 869–888). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20.
LeungC. (2007). Dynamic assessment: Assessment for and as teaching?Language Assessment Quarterly, 4(3), 257–278.
21.
LeungC.MohanB. (2004). Teacher formative assessment and talk in classroom contexts: Assessment as discourse and assessment of discourse. Language Testing, 21(3), 335–359.
22.
LeungC.TeasdaleA. (1997). What do teachers mean by speaking and listening? A contextualised study of assessment in multilingual classrooms in the English National Curriculum. In HuhtaA.KohonenV.Kurki-SuonioL.LuomaS. (Eds.), Current developments and alternatives in language assessment: Proceedings of LTRC 96 (pp. 291–326). Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.
23.
LynchB. K. (2003). Language assessment and programme evaluation. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
24.
MavrommatisY. (1997). Understanding assessment in the classroom: Phases of the assessment process – The assessment episode. Assessment in Education, 4, 381–400.
25.
McNamaraT. (2001). Language assessment as social practice: Challenges for research. Language Testing, 18(4), 333–350.
26.
MehanH. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
27.
MoniK. B. (1999). Constructions of literacy assessment in two year 8 English classrooms. Unpublished PhD thesis, Education, University of Queensland.
28.
MorganD. L. (2002). Focus group interviewing. In GubriumJ. F.HolsteinJ. A. (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp. 141–159). London: Sage Publications.
29.
NassajiH.SwainM. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9, 34–51.
30.
NewmanD.GriffinP.ColeM. (1989). The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in schools. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31.
NichollsJ. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
32.
Rea-DickinsP. (2001). Mirror, mirror on the wall: Identifying processes of classroom assessment. Language Testing, 18(4), 429–462.
33.
Rea-DickinsP. (2006). Currents and eddies in the discourse of assessment: A learning focused interpretation. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 164–188.
34.
RitchieJ.SpencerL. (2002). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In HubermanA. M.MilesM. B. (Eds.), The qualitative researcher’s companion (pp. 305–330). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
35.
SadlerD. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144.
36.
StraussA. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
38.
ThomasS.OldfatherP. (1997). Intrinsic motivations, literacy and assessment practices: ‘That’s my grade. That’s me.’Educational Psychologist, 29, 107–123.
39.
TorranceH.PryorJ. (1998). Investigating formative assessment: Teaching, learning and assessment in the classroom. Buckingham: Open University Press.
40.
TunstallP.GippsC. (1996). Teacher feedback to young children in formative assessment: A typology. British Educational Research Journal, 22(4), 389–404.
41.
Van LierL. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning. A sociocultural perspective. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
42.
Victorian Curriculum & Assessment Authority (2008). Framework of essential learnings: Languages other than English. Melbourne: Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority.
43.
WiliamD. (2001). An overview of the relationship between assessment and the curriculum. In ScottD. (Ed.), Curriculum and assessment (pp. 165–181). Westport, CT: Ablex.
44.
YinM. (2010). Understanding classroom language assessment through teacher thinking research. Language Assessment Quarterly, 7(2): 175–194.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
