Black (1989) poses the question Testing, friend or foe?

Consider assessment in relation to the teaching and learning in your organisation.

Assessment in its broadest sense is part of all human activity. We constantly assess each other and
the situations in which we find ourselves. It is defined by the Oxford English dictionary as: evaluate
or estimate the nature, ability, or quality. We use the information we collect to reach important
decisions and make vital choices in life. We are equipped to make such assessments and live our
lives according to our judgements, some of which may of course lead to pivotal life changes : poor
judgement in our choice of friends and actions could lead for example to us being deprived of our
liberty by the state. Educational assessment in some guises can also affect the life experiences of
many. In a system of mass compulsory education, the judgements resulting from an assessment
regime can decide the opportunities that are available to individuals, and certainly contribute to how
those individuals view themselves within their society. Educational assessment therefore is often a
high-stakes activity which merits serious consideration.
Educational assessment is a vital part of the cycle of education. If we accept the premise that the
process of education changes the individual in some way, then educational assessment is the tool
used to attempt to measure the changes. Educational assessment takes many forms (e.g.
formal/informal; formative/summative; high stakes/ low stakes). Important insights into education
come from educational philosophy as the discipline aims to clarify the concepts and the terminology
used to debate general educational theory and pedagogical theory, which is that related to the
experiences of practitioners. Moore (1982) maintains:
All practice is theory-loaded and educational theory is logically prior to educational practice. Unless
what is done is done according to some theory, bearing in mind some desirable aim to be achieved
and the means to achieve it, it is not practice at all, merely random behaviour (p12)
In order to examine the assessment of education I will firstly explore the fundamentals of what
education does and why. There is of course an underlying assumption to the practice of education,
which is that it is worth doing in order to produce an educated person. It also assumes that people
are malleable and can be changed by the process of education. The internal aim of creating an
educated person is also linked to an external purpose. The educated man will have a role in
society. The process of education is directed towards preparing the individual to that role. Societal
context is crucial to an understanding of education. In the 17th century Locke (1693) described the
childs mind as the tabula rasa on which others would write in order to create an educated man,
for Freire, working in South America in the 1950s and 60s the educated man (Freire,1968) was one
who had the knowledge and skills to be free from oppression. The role of the individual in learning is
passive for Locke, active for Freire. The content or curriculum for the educated man to acquire
reflects what is valued by the society at the time.
The 21st Century is witnessing a spectacular pace of change at a global level and there are many
drivers for this. The most significant of these are:
- global economic change: the rise of the recently industrialized Eastern nations such as China and
India may signal the end of western hegemony. The older, more established economies of Europe
and the US wish to maintain their global position and require flexible human capital to achieve this.
At an individual level within nations there are expressions of a need for security. Social unrest
Page | 1

Teresa MacKinnon

CC BY

reflects concerns about immigration, loss of jobs through outsourcing to cheaper economies and the
desire for protectionism.
-technological developments: the rapid communication enjoyed globally through the growth of the
Internet, the emergence of new means of social interaction, the embedding of technology in all
aspects of life require new skill sets.
A consequence of technological advances is that it is easier than ever before for knowledge and skills
to be acquired, shared or constructed through access to the internet. In a speech delivered to the
RSA (Royal Society for the encouragement of the Arts, Manufacture and Commerce) Sir Ken
Robinson highlights the challenges facing education in a rapidly changing global society. He
expresses the opinion that our current model of mass education is based upon an intellectual model
of the mind which emerged from the Enlightenment. This model values learning but assumes that it
is not an activity that is suited to all, it accepts that not all can achieve and so allows for limitations
to societal access to knowledge, skills and opportunities. In this model, only the educated few
achieve to any great extent. This would not be widely accepted in todays society. It is unsurprising
therefore that, in our current socio-economic climate we need to return to examine our core
assumptions in education: what we do and why we do it, in order to clarify what todays educated
man needs in order to participate in the challenges that face us.
The matter of how we educate is also evolving. Moore identifies two major approaches towards the
practice of education. The mechanistic approach (Hobbes) sees man as a machine, the sum of his
parts. Education is the process whereby parts are added or improved. In this model, education is
something that is done to us, we are shaped by external forces which serve to change our behaviour.
The external forces (teachers/trainers) have more knowledge that we do, they transmit this to us in
order that we may improve. The second model is the organic approach (Rousseau) which sees man
as an evolving organism, affected by his experimentation with the world and others. Teachers here
have authority in a supervisory capacity, encouraging and facilitating learning. These core
distinctions relate to the nature of man. It would be fair to say that current educational theory
(constructivism) informed by empirical research leans more towards the organic approach, which is
also better suited to the reality of learning in todays connected society.
If the practice of teaching has moved on, it follows of course that the practice of educational
assessment should also reflect societal change as it is itself part of the process of education. Indeed
it has a great deal of influence on the teacher and the learner. According to Stobart (2008):
Testing is a value-laden social activity. It creates and shapes what is measured, impacts directly on
what and how we learn, can undermine or encourage effective learning
Existing educational assessment practice in mass market education draws heavily on principles of
psychometric testing. These assume the existence of psychological traits, the presence of which can
be measured using mathematical models. Psychometrics were based on a theory of intelligence as a
human trait or collection of traits which were assumed to be innate and fixed. The prime purpose of
such assessment was to differentiate using norm referencing between those who had been through
an educational process in order to determine those who had retained the most. Within an
authoritarian society it was socially acceptable for judgements about individuals to be made by what

Page | 2

Teresa MacKinnon

CC BY

was seen to be a higher authority. This is philosophically aligned with the mechanistic approach to
learning.
Gipps (1994) describes a move away from psychometrics which is seen as no longer adequate for
21st Century teaching and learning towards a broader model of assessment. The social demand for
involvement of all stakeholders in education such as parents, learners, teachers, schools, tax payers
etc. and the expectation of transparency, accessibility and fairness brings new focus upon
assessment practices. A broader definition of validity has appeared, a definition with many facets
(such as face validity, content validity, predictive etc., see Messick, 1989) all of which contribute to
an overarching construct validity which establishes whether an assessment is fit for purpose. An
interesting exploration of the validity cline is presented by Fulcher (2010, p16) Glasers paper (1963)
was a watershed in assessment practice, establishing the need to evaluate the individual
independently of the performance of others. Gipps (1994) criticises the aura of objectivity (p5)
surrounding psychometrics; the concept of uni-dimensionality is unproven (Goldstein, 1993) and
reliability can only be achieved through a mathematical process of standardisation. The main
problem presented by the use of psychometrics in assessment is that of negative washback, the
negative effects on teaching and learning of some forms of assessment. The uses to which the
results of such assessment are have to be scrutinised. Gipps states that:
the prime purpose of assessment is professional; that is assessment to support the teaching and
learning process (p3)
This purpose moves the focus from judgement for selection to judgement to inform teaching and
learning. It encourages teachers to engage fully with the philosophical issues at the heart of their
activity: what we do, why and how we do it. In such a shift, our society needs to feel confident that
the quality of the judgements reached is dependable. The Assessment Reform Group (1989) have
reviewed the research related to the practice of educational assessment and their recommendations
are helpful in pointing practitioners towards the key principles for assessment that will be fit for the
future. Their 10 research-based principles put the learning experience at the heart of assessment.
Assessment for learning according to Gardner et al (2010) can contribute considerably to the
achievement of the kinds of goals of understanding and thinking valued in education for the 21st
century (p21). The organic metaphor of Rousseaus learner Emile echoes a point raised by Sir Ken in
his speech. Standardisation is a fast food model of assessment; we need an agricultural model that
creates the conditions under which learners flourish.
It is clear from the lessons of the philosophy of education that the societal changes we are
witnessing necessitate a return to first principles for education. Assessment is necessarily vital to any
review as society is influenced by those aspects of human endeavour that are valued through
assessment. According to Hanson (1994):
The individual in contemporary society is not so much described by tests as constructed by them.
Black (1998) establishes that assessment practices are a central feature of education. He warns us
that they are not easily changed but they cannot stand still. Shepard (1991) encourages us to create
ambitious assessments that aim to detect the mental representations of important ideas, not
demonstrations of small, discrete skills practiced in isolation. (p9) The Higher Education
experience requires deep learning, an understanding of fundamental principles. White (1992) and

Page | 3

Teresa MacKinnon

CC BY

Entwistle (1992) warn us against the dangers of assessment leading to shallow learning; where
possible we should use assessment that follows Vygotskys ideas, allowing the use of auxiliary tools
in the process of assessment to increase the emphasis on problem solving (Gipps,p27)
Contextualised, authentic performances will have fewer negative washback effects. The
constructivist model requires demonstration of the understanding the learner has brought to the
task, alongside the strategies and approaches they have used (Glaser, 1990). Brown (et al, 1993)
view the learner as an apprentice. What is clear to me therefore is that, in reviewing the assessment
processes used within my own context I will need to help the Centre to:
-identify the learning theory which we espouse
-make explicit the purpose of our teaching
-ensure that our assessment processes are fit for that purpose
The Language Centre is a service unit of the University of Warwick. Language learning is currently
enjoying increasing interest in Higher Education in the UK. Numbers of students opting to study
languages as part of our institution-wide language programme have been increasing year on year
over the last decade. The drivers for change are largely economic as large global companies
increasingly require employees with the skills to work within international teams and willing to
relocate in order to progress in their career. The Centre is staffed by a multi-national team who
themselves come from a wide variety of cultures and are experienced in living and working in a
foreign culture.
After a series of internal discussions aimed at increasing consistency between languages in order to
maximise equitable student experience, the Language Centre finds itself at a point where the
fundamental operating principles of our teaching mission must be scrutinised. Although we have
made progress on agreeing a superficial appearance of consistency, (skills weightings, assessment
process and timings), a focus upon assessment gives the opportunity to engage in shared reflection
and question what we value and wish our students to learn. More importantly we need to examine
and compare why we do what we do, and return to first principles to ensure that what we put in
place is in harmony with our core mission, that of producing lifelong language learners with the
knowledge and skills they require in order to operate in a multi-lingual world. As such, the Language
Centre is a particular instance of a wider general phenomenon, finding a need to re-evaluate its
position to ensure that it is fit for purpose.
The Language Centre context has a number of constraints which must be taken into account. Many
of our tutors are employed on a part-time basis and do not consider that they have the time to
invest in time consuming exam design, therefore a pragmatic approach is taken towards test
development. Tutors replicate what they consider to be acceptable, influenced by existing
summative assessments that they have seen, even those these may be designed for a different
purpose. Many have little interest in learning theories or the acquisition of the technical skill
development such as IT skills for the creation of teaching assessments. The tests used therefore
illustrate some of the features identified by Black (1998, p111) specifically there has been little
review or discussion with peers and therefore little reflection on the assessment process. Many of
our stakeholders also believe that testing is a foe. Language Centre results can be high stakes for a
finalist, complaints about assessment a headache for our Director.

Page | 4

Teresa MacKinnon

CC BY

The nature of our teams composition brings with it additional challenges to this desire for
convergence. Our multi-national group have a wide range of backgrounds and expectations borne
of their own learning experiences. Their values will of course be influenced by their own experiences
of education. Broadly speaking most of these tutors will embrace a communicative approach to
language teaching influenced by the work of Chomsky (1957) and Hymes notion of communicative
competence (1971) but generally the teaching includes a very loose collection of techniques which
value use of the target language in the classroom. Emphasis on error correction and tutor role varies
considerably and many practitioners reflect little upon the learning theory that underpins their
practice. Macaros 4 way stretch diagram (Macaro, 2004) illustrates the range of language tutor
attitudes towards their practice:

The horizontal axis represents the polarisation between theories of language input. Implicit input
arises from natural exposure and sub-conscious processing, explicit from teaching and conscious
processing. The vertical axis represents the concept of how language input is processed. Nativist
implies that language learning is an innate skill, interactionist that language is a specialised form of
knowledge that is acquired through interaction with the environment. Engaging in a comprehensive
revision of our course content through collaboration, if done in a supportive environment, will help
individuals to connect with their deeply held but often unconscious beliefs. In this way assessment
could be the friend that we need. Senior tutors and module leaders are responsible for the content
of individual courses. In course design the tutor team needs to have reflected upon the sorts of
issues presented in the Framework document and related them to the courses for which they are
responsible (Framework, p44):

Can I predict the domains in which my learners will operate and the situations which
they will have to deal with? If so, what roles will they have to play?
What sort of people will they have to deal with?
Page | 5

Teresa MacKinnon

CC BY

 What will be their personal or professional relations in what institutional frameworks?

What objects will they need to refer to?
What tasks will they have to accomplish?
What themes will they need to handle?
Will they have to speak, or simply listen and read with understanding?
What sort of things will they be listening to or reading?
Under what conditions will they have to act?
What knowledge of the world or of another culture will they need to call on?
What skills will they need to have developed? How can they still be themselves
without being misinterpreted?
For how much of this can I take responsibility?
If I cannot predict the situations in which the learners will use the language, how can
I best prepare them to use the language for communication without over-training
them for situations that may never arise?
What can I give them that will be of lasting value, in whatever different ways their
careers may later diverge?
How can language learning best contribute to their personal and cultural development
as responsible citizens in a pluralist democratic society?
Some of the answers to these questions will have commonality between languages and levels,
others will be specific to levels and therefore facilitate a necessary discussion about progression.
In assessing our students at the end of our language courses we aim to identify their achievements
relative to an external set of language proficiency descriptors enshrined within the Common
European Framework of Reference for Language. These broad categories of language performance,
A1-C2, were not in themselves devised for language assessment but rather to describe typical
features of language proficiency in order to support the European Unions needs for ease of
integration within the European community and mobility of human resource. The criterionreferenced statements which underpin them were created by the ALTE project as a series of can-do
statements which serve now to operationalise the broader CEFR bands. These have been used by
many examination awarding bodies as the backbone of their test specifications for test creation and
have gained international acceptance. The can-do statements have been rigorously validated
through both qualitative analysis and empirical methods (Jones, 2001). As the statements exist in
many languages and they have been adjusted to limit translation effects but still a number of
group effects have been identified which reveal limitations to the suitability of the statements to
some learners. The author admits therefore that some of scales measure more precisely than others
and professional judgement is needed to select those which are most reliable and valid to certain

Page | 6

Teresa MacKinnon

CC BY

groups of learners and learning contexts. The application of the CEFR to course design and
assessment can be problematic and this is clearly acknowledged in section 3.8. (Framework p38)
Where a scale is to be applied it is important to be explicit about its purpose. If the scale is to be
applied for summative assessment purposes then further clarification will be required to ensure that
there is clarity not only of what the user can do but crucially how well they can function. This points
therefore to the importance of shared professional judgement.
From a management perspective the results of our achievement assessments also have a further
purpose, that of evaluating the effectiveness of our teaching. This is not the primary focus of our
assessment but it is likely that our stakeholders, particularly students will compare the grades
achieved across languages and levels in order to decide which courses are easier and make choices
on this basis. This is one reason why management would indeed need to ensure that courses are
delivering a comparable level of challenge for all students. Furthermore, management has a
responsibility to ensure that the Centres reputation is not damaged by accusations of relative
difficulty or ease of language components contributing to the degree classification. It is vital
therefore that we are confident about the basis on which we make our assessment judgements.
Avoiding teacher bias in teacher led assessment is important but research offers ways of countering
these. (Wood, 1991, Black, 1998) which could be achieved through the sharing of exemplar
materials.
The assessments we use are written by our tutors and the results obtained contribute to varying
degrees to an undergraduate degree classification, they are therefore high-stakes assessments for
our main stakeholders, our students. It is right therefore that a good deal of thought should be
invested in ensuring that they accurately assess student achievement in their language learning and
that any judgements which result from them are justifiable and fair. The recent establishment of a
defined senior tutor role within each of the main languages taught, with responsibility for checking
the teacher generated assessments has been a necessary step forward towards establishing quality
control. Gradually an agreed assessment format is emerging. However the focus for the scrutiny of
exam papers tends to lie mainly with accuracy, proof reading and in some instances content and face
validity rather than a more in-depth understanding of construct validity. This focus risks those
involved experiencing assessment as a foe: drafting assessments without policy guidelines or test
specifications generates awkward discussions with fellow professionals, highlights cultural
differences in emphasis, creating a dynamic that is one of imposed hierarchy rather than true
sharing of ideas. This militates against the establishment of a cohesive, shared professional
judgement. It is my intention therefore to draw together the research which we need to consider in
order for us to engage more productively in a debate which could lead to a shared policy on our
assessment of achievement at the Language Centre.
Assessing language learning is a highly complex process and is still beset with areas of dispute.
Pupura (2004) points to a shortcoming of language assessment practice which pays little attention to
empirical evidence of actual language usage from research into SLA (second language acquisition):
...testers can be criticized in many cases for perpetuating the testing of grammar with discrete-point
tasks of grammatical form; for constructing scoring rubrics with descriptions of grammatical
development that have little support from SLA findings... (Pupura, 2004: 37)

Page | 7

Teresa MacKinnon

CC BY

In the absence of a corpus of learner usage data to analyse we could also be accused of creating our
assessments without clearly identifying the language use that is appropriate at each level of
teaching. Few of our modules have detailed schemes of work and defined content syllabi, at best
there is a course book and a set of lesson plans which complements the general level descriptors
published on our website. However we do have some highly experienced language tutors who have
built an in depth understanding of the challenges experienced by learners at various stages of their
linguistic development. We could incorporate this expertise as we formulate our picture of language
progression.
It is widely recognised that language proficiency encompasses several domains of expertise and
these are often described in a simplistic form as listening, reading, writing and speaking skills.
Language assessment in schools has followed a separate skills approach to assessment in order to
help establish uni-dimensional aspects of language use which are easier to measure. Within each of
these skill areas there is of course plenty of scope for assessment as each encompasses a wide range
of sub skills. The following examples illustrate the richness of the territory for assessment. Richards
(1983) offers 33 sub skills for general listening (fig.1):

Page | 8

Teresa MacKinnon

CC BY

Figure 1

Grabe and Stoller (2002, page 16) offer 22 reading abilities:

specifying a purpose for reading

planning what to do/what steps to take
previewing the text
predicting the contents of the text
checking predictions
posing questions about the text
finding answers to the questions
connecting text to background knowledge
summarising information
making inferences
connecting one part of the text to another
paying attention to text structure
rereading
guessing the meaning of a new word from context
using discourse markers to see relationships
checking comprehension
identifying difficulties
taking steps to repair faulty comprehension
critiquing the author

Page | 9

Teresa MacKinnon

CC BY

critiquing the text

judging how well objectives were met
reflecting upon what has been learned from the text

Bachman and Palmers (1996) areas of language knowledge illustrates the breadth of the field of
knowledge required for communicative competence (fig.2)

Figure 2

Such multiple facets of language use are of course appropriate to differing extents at different levels
of language learning. For example the amount and nature of organisational knowledge expected
from a beginner will be markedly different from that of an intermediate language learner who has a
wider experience of the foreign language. It is then the task of the tutor to justify the selection of
areas for assessment in line with the expected outcomes of the module and the teaching and
learning that has taken place. However there are limitations to the separate skills approach to
assessment of language acquisition in my opinion. Such assessment assumes that discrete elements
of learning fit together to make a whole, as identified by Gipps as a building blocks theory, a
manifestation of a behaviourist, mechanistic approach to learning . Frederiksen (1984) warns that:
Efficient tests tend to drive out less efficient tests, leaving many important abilities untested (p201)
Firstly they neglect the real context of language use where listening for example is rarely an activity
which is separated from the application of another skill such as speaking. Therefore to an extent
they undermine the communicative approach by failing to take account the true context and

Page | 10

Teresa MacKinnon

CC BY

authenticity of language use outside the classroom setting. Secondly, they can produce a negative
backwash on teaching which becomes too focussed upon the individual components considered
easy to measure. Such surface learning fails to support the tutor in developing effective language
users. All assessment is of course a matter of compromise. (Weir, 1993) In the context of mass
school examinations such compromise can be seen to be justifiable. It is vital for examinations in this
context to be seen to be fair and manageable. Young people with limited experience may find the
bite size approach motivating and rewarding, encouraging them to continue with their studies at a
time when numbers of language examination entries are falling rapidly, thus it creates a positive
backwash. However, with a more sophisticated and assessment-aware target group such as our
Language Centre students it will be necessary, particularly at the higher levels to develop more
complex skills which integrate multiple skill use and demand the generalisation of learning in
accordance with the nature of teaching within Higher Education, including the responsibility to
develop deep learning. Assessment of such complex functioning is much more challenging. Typically
in an H.E. context such assessment happens through essay writing, a form of performance which
demands a wide range of skills and knowledge. However, it is notoriously difficult to make such
assessments reliable and their validity is increasingly under scrutiny. New opportunities for
assessment are presenting themselves in our context. For example there is increasing use of
technologies for capturing communication. The use of technologies in education is continuing to
normalise the pedagogy of active learning (Mayes et al, 2009) and there is a need to recognise this in
our assessment processes. At the same time we have to be aware that a quick win such as moving
to increased use of multiple-choice computer marked assessment may have a negative washback if it
increases surface, rote learning (Black, 1989, p26) However, until we have agreed a shared
understanding of what we value as language educators of non-specialist learners, that is to say our
purpose, we cannot define new assessment practices. And ensure that they are fit for purpose.
Hughes (2008) contends that good assessment can improve poor teaching.
Placing my own Language Centre context in the wider context of assessment literature and
educational philosophy has clarified for me that we need to address the following issues:
The features of summative assessment for language learners at the Language Centre should uphold
the following research supported principles:

As our learners are non-specialists, we are supporting them in extending their portfolio of
skills by adding a language, presumably we would like them to become lifelong language
learners and integrate into a global working environment. We would therefore uphold the
principles established by the Assessment for Learning movement. The assessment process
must support positive backwash on the language learning experience (Gipps, 1994,
Hughes,2008)
We need to achieve clarity on formative and summative assessment. Formative assessment
should inform and shape our teaching, summative provides an achievement mark for the
end of the course and transfer possibly to a new teacher. It is possible that, for our purposes
we wish to reflect in a proportion of the final summative mark an element that arises from
the engagement in the process of language learning. Black (1989) suggests a rationale.
(p121) In order to be valid, our summative assessment must reflect adequately a range of
content and skills that have been developed during study of the course (Weir, 1993) and
should be as effective as possible in relation to the purpose (Black, 1989, p30)

Page | 11

Teresa MacKinnon

CC BY

Our assessment practices should support a learning theory that adequately prepares our
learners for the reality of our socio-economic context. (Mayes et al, 2009, p197)
The specification for test design and the criteria applied to marking must adequately and
clearly represent the stated course objectives and CEFR outcomes (Weir 1993), should use
direct testing as far as possible (Weir 1993, Hughes 2008), should be criterion referenced
(Hughes, 2008)
The assessment criteria must be transparent with students given adequate preparation of
the relevant skills (Black, 1998).These criteria must be referenced with empirical data and
exemplification materials. The resultant process should be manageable (Hughes, 2008)

The risks emerging from our current situation are those of stasis and regression. Where no clear
guidance is offered towards a suitable development model for our teaching and assessment there is
a real risk that our tutors will return to entrenched positions in order to maintain standards, an
expression that reflects perhaps a lack of confidence in a shared understanding of what a good
standard of linguistic proficiency may be. A supportive community of practice (Wenger, 2000)
approach perhaps starting with a small, research-aware working group which draws on the expertise
of those experienced in language assessment which crosses languages and levels and documents
what is agreed will be a substantive step towards ensuring the quality of the language learning
experience facilitated. Fulcher outlines an approach (2010, p60) which could be useful.
By acknowledging that testing is at the heart of student experience, agreeing the purpose of our
assessment processes and its role within the learning process, assessment, although challenging, can
be helpful to us. Informed debate directed within a framework of established boundaries which
present the Language Centres theory of language learning. This will allow tutors freedom to design
assessments according to a specification agreed across languages related to the CEFR. They will be
transparent, understood by all stakeholders and supporting the development of lifelong language
learning principles. If this is possible we will have established that testing has been both friend and
foe, and yet when integrated fully within the learning design it takes a neutral position, part of the
amoury of teachers to ensure that they engage fully with learning needs of all students.

References:
Bachman, L.F. and Palmer, A.S., (1996) Language Testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brown, A et al, (1993) Distributed expertise in the classroom, in Salomon, G., (ed.) Distributed
cognitions New York, Cambridge University Press.
Black, P. (1998) Testing: Friend or Foe? Theory and Practice of Assessment and Testing, London:
Falmer. [available online via University of Warwick NetBooks]
Chomsky, N., (1957) Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Council of Europe, The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages available for
download http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/cadre_en.asp

Page | 12

Teresa MacKinnon

CC BY

Entwistle, N., (1992). The impact of teaching on learning outcomes in higher education, Sheffield
CVCP, Staff development unit.
Frederiksen, N., (1984). The real test bias: Influences of testing on teaching and learning. American
Psychologist, 39, 3, March pp193-202.
Fulcher, G and Davidson, F. (2010) Language testing and Assessment London: Routledge
Gardner, J., Harlen, W., Hayward, L., Stobart, G., Montgomery, M. (2010) Developing Teacher
Assessment, Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Open University Press
Grabe, W. And Stoller, F., (2002) Teaching and researching reading. London: Pearson
Glaser, R., (1990) Towards new models for assessment, International Journal of Educational
Research 14,5, pp 475-83.
Gipps, C (1994) Beyond Testing: Towards a Theory of Educational Assessment, London: Falmer
Goldstein, H., (1993) Assessing group differences Oxford Review of Education, 19, 2, pp1412-50
Hughes, A., (2008) Testing for language teachers, Cambridge: CUP
Hymes, D., (1971) On communicative competence. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania
Press.
Jones, N., Background to the validation of the ALTE can do project and the revised Common
European Framework in Research Notes Issue 2 2002 pp11-13.
Macaro, E., (2003) Teaching and Learning a Second Language. London: Continuum.
Mayes et al., (2009) Transforming Higher Education through technology-enhanced learning York:
HEA
Messick, S., (1989) Validity in Linn, R (ed.) Educational Measurement (3rd edition) American Council
on Education, Washington: Macmillan.
Moore, T.W., (1986) Philosophy of Education. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul
Purpura, J. (2004). Assessing grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J.C., (1983) Listening comprehension: approach, design, procedure. TESOL Quarterly,
17(12):219-40.
Shepard, L., (1991) Pyschometricians beliefs about learning, Educational Researcher, 20, 7.
Stobart, G. and Gipps, C. (1997) Assessment: A Teachers Guide to the Issues. London: Hodder and
Stoughton.
Stobart, G. (2008) Testing Times: the Uses and Abuses of Assessment London: Routledge.
Taylor, L and Jones, N., Cambridge ESOL exams and the Common European Framework of Reference
(CEFR) in Research Notes Issue 24 May 2006 pp25
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weir, C., (1990) Communicative Language Testing London: Prentice Hall

Page | 13

Teresa MacKinnon

CC BY

Weir, C., (1993) Understanding and developing language tests London: Prentice Hall
Weir, C and Shaw, S. (2005) Establishing the Validity of Cambridge ESOL Writing Tests: towards the
implementation of a socio-cognitive model for test validation in Research Notes Issue 21, August
pp10-14
Wenger, E., (2000) Communities of Practice and social learning systems. In Organization, 7 (2),
pp225-246.
White, R.T., (1992) Implications of recent research on learning for curriculum and assessment,
Journal of curriculum studies, 24,2, pp153-64.
Bibliography.
Arnold, J. ed., (1999) Affect in Language Learning. Cambridge: CUP.
Bamber, V., Trowler, P., Saunders, M., and Knight, P (2009) Enhancing Learning, Teaching,
Assessment and Curriculum in Higher Education, Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Open University Press
SRHE
Black, P et al Testing, Motivation and Learning (2002) Cambridge: CUP
Bridges, G., Demonstrating cognitive validity of IELTS Academic Writing Task 1 in Research Notes
Issue 42 November 2010 pp2433
Canale, M., The Measurement of Communicative Competence in Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics (1987), 8: 67-84 Cambridge University Press
Chappelle, C et al., Towards a computer-delivered test of productive grammar ability in Language
Testing 27(4) 443469
Klapper, J., (2006) Understanding and developing good practice London: CILT
Krashen, S., (1981) Second language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon
press.
Krashen, S., (1985). The input hypothesis: issues and implications. London: Longman.
Luoma, S., (2004) Assessing speaking Cambridge: CUP
Nunan, D., (1988) The Learner-Centred Curriculum: A study in second language teaching. Cambridge:
CUP.
Pinker, S., (1994) The Language Instinct. London: Penguin.
Vandergrift, L., (2007) Teaching students how to listen: Effects on listening achievement. Paper
presented at the Annual meeting of the Association of Applied Linguistics. Abstract available online
at http://www.arts.uottawa.ca/eng/sshrc.html

Page | 14

Teresa MacKinnon

CC BY