1

Assessment in English language teaching in

higher education

Contents

Introduction.3
Selection of headings and criteria for the mark sheets3
Marking the scripts and giving feedback6

Introduction

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

motivate in the learning process or to undermine a learners 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 students 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. Peaflorida (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 students
language competence (Fletcher et al. 2012: 120). The marking criteria chosen to assess
the students written products focuses on Browns reasoning i.e., that achieving

language competence means achieving a unified set of interacting abilities that cannot
be tested separately (2007: 456). Following, Browns 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 students writing measure the students 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.

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
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.

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 assessors 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 students 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 students writing implemented an
analytic marking approach as opposed to the holistic one chosen for the summary
(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 selfcorrect 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
so as to incite the learners 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
ones 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 Klappers guidelines
so as to make it clear, specific, remedial, flexible and personalized also bearing in mind

10

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
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 learners 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

11

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
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 students
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), 97107

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

13

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

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]

Peaflorida, 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

21

22

23

24

Marking sheet

25

26

Feedback sheet

27

Symbols
SVD = subject-verb disagreement
Sp = spelling
Ww = wrong word
Reg = it should be regular verb
Wt = wrong tense
Wf = incorrect word form

28

UC = Upper case
WT = Wrong tense
AMB = ambiguous
Gr = grammar