|
|
|
| 2019年度 異文化言語教育評価論 |
p.33 2.3.2~
■
The Dynamic Assessment Paradigm
The
Static Assessment/ Summative examination of learning is fearful, stressful,
and unpleasant.
Dynamic Assessment (DA) for learning is based on a
constructivist process-oriented approach. In particular, Vigotsky’s zones of
proximal development (ZPD).
Importance of
collaboration with peers for learners’ development.
Goal: The assessment becomes the process of seeking and interpreting
evidence for use by learners and their teachers.
In
DA,
1.
teaching, learning, and assessment are
interwoven,
2.
the feedback becomes part of assessment,
and 3. more indirect intervention may be required.
Assessment portfolio is useful
for DA.
However, a question, whether
it is suited to an understanding of assessing communicative competence, remains.
■
Static or Dynamic
|
Static |
Dynamic |
|
The lack of 1.
collaboration, 2.
intervention, and
3. feedback. |
Portfolios are challenging in 1.
the validity and reliability 2.
how to interpret the grades |
However, there is a notion that they are not
completely separated, but just different and based on different assumptions
about what we want to measure (East, 2008a, p.9).
 |
The appearance of
“Performance-based assessment”
1. More direct and more accurate testing
because students are assessed as they perform actual or simulated real-world
tasks
2.
Learners are measured in the process of performing the target linguistic
acts.
■
Task-based or Construct based
Performance-based assessment ≒ task-based language
assessment (TBLA)
|
TBLA (outcome/completion) |
Construct (performance) |
|
〇 real-life language
use in classroom (Authenticity) ・Outcome is
important rather than the language used to get there. ・suitable
grammatical structures are not necessarily important ・preparation, repetition
and completion |
・performances (proficiency) are also important to complete a task △ Implicit ・ “Constructing
alignment” between the linguistic proficiency outcomes through instructions
(construct), and the measurement (task) |
A
question, whether task completion becomes a sufficient criterion on which to
judge speaking proficiency, remains.
■
Single or Paired Performance
|
Single (candidate-examiner) |
Paired (candidate-candidate) |
|
△ Time and resource
consuming 〇 Flexible 〇 Provide the
examiners with opportunities to show well a range of how well they can speak
the language △ Basically one-sided test (from the examiner to
the candidate) △ Consequently, grammatical structure checking △ Candidates
can prepare for the test in advance △ Not
a normal conversation |
〇 equal interlocution 〇 wide range of interactional
patterns 〇 reflecting usual interactions 〇 positive washback
on classroom practices = feedback loop between teaching and testing 〇 less anxiety △ More time and
resource consuming △ Impact
that one candidate can have on another = interlocutor effects △ Difficulty
in measuring and scoring reliably in paired interactions |
Discussion: Although there remains some problems both in
single assessment and paired assessment for speaking, which do you think is
suitable for the assessment, single or paired?