Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:25:50.514Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Learner Identity, Learner Agency, and the Assessment of Language Proficiency: Some Reflections Prompted by the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 March 2015

David Little  and
Gudrun Erickson
David Little
Affiliation:
Trinity College Dublin, [email protected]
Gudrun Erickson
Affiliation:
University of Gothenburg, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article starts from the assumption that education is a process of “people shaping” designed to help learners extend and perhaps in some ways modify their identity while exploiting and developing their agency. This view is harmonious with the approach to language education that the Council of Europe has developed since the 1970s, and especially with its early commitment to learner autonomy and self-assessment. The approach adopted by the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR) to the description of language proficiency clearly implicates the user-learner's identity and agency, which are also central to the CEFR's companion piece, the European Language Portfolio (ELP), in which self-assessment plays a key role. The article proposes that taken together, the CEFR and the ELP imply an assessment culture in which learning and assessment are reciprocally integrated. From the perspective thus established, the authors review some current trends in language assessment and their potential impact on learner identity and learner agency, focusing in turn on self-assessment, peer assessment, teacher assessment, and large-scale testing and assessment. The article concludes by arguing that although recent developments in language assessment pay significantly more attention to the learner than was previously the case, a great deal of work remains to be done to further increase the engagement of learner agency in processes of self-assessment and peer assessment and to align them with other forms of assessment.

Type
Research Article
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 35 , March 2015 , pp. 120 - 139
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Little, D. (2006). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Content, purpose, origin, reception and impact. Language Teaching, 39, 167–190.

This state-of-the-art article provides essential background for readers who are not already familiar with the CEFR. It describes the CEFR's content in some detail, situates it in the context of the Council of Europe's values and policy, summarizes its genesis, and discusses its impact on curricula, teaching/learning, and assessment.

North, B. (2014). The CEFR in practice (English Profile Studies 4). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Brian North was responsible for the development and scaling of the “can do” descriptors that quickly became the CEFR's best-known feature. Drawing on more than two decades’ involvement in the Council of Europe's work in language education, his book provides a detailed account of the CEFR's role as a common framework, its implications for planning and teaching, and what is involved in assessing CEFR levels. The concluding chapter considers the extent to which the CEFR is generating change, priorities for curriculum development in the future, and how the CEFR can be further exploited and developed.

Shohamy, E., & Hornberger, N. H. (eds.) (2008). Encyclopedia of Language and Education: Vol. 7. Language testing and assessment. New York, NY: Springer.

The four sections of this volume—Assessing Language Domains, Methods of Assessment, Assessment in Education, and Assessment in Society—bring together 29 contributions that between them provide an authoritative overview of current thinking in the field and confirm the common concerns and principles that shape all forms of language assessment.

Gardner, J. (ed.) (2012). Assessment and learning (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage.

This edited collection contains contributions from some of the leading scholars in the fields of learning and assessment. It offers a comprehensive overview of recent thinking on assessment in relation to learning across the curriculum and will provide a stimulating starting point for readers who wish to undertake their own exploration of the issues addressed in this article and (especially) the challenge referred to in our concluding sentence.

REFERENCES

AERA/APA/NCME. (2014). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (2014). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
Ahearn, L. M. (2001). Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology, 20, 109–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alderson, C., Clapham, C., & Wall, D. (1995). Language test construction and evaluation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. New York, NY: Verso.Google Scholar
Assessment Reform Group (ARG). (1999). Assessment for learning: Beyond the black box. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge, School of Education.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language assessment in practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). Maidenhead, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.Google Scholar
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2012). Assessment for learning in the classroom. In Gardner, J. (ed.), Assessment and learning (2nd ed., pp. 11–32). London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
Butler, Y. G., & Lee, J. (2010). The effects of self-assessment among young learners of English. Language Testing, 27, 5–31.Google Scholar
Center for Advanced Language Proficiency Education and Research (CALPER). (n.d.). Dynamic assessment. Retrieved from http://calper.la.psu.edu/dyna_assess.phpGoogle Scholar
Cambridge English. (n.d.). Learning oriented assessment. Retrieved from http://www.cambridgeenglish.org/research-and-validation/fitness-for-purpose/loa/Google Scholar
Carless, D. (2007). Learning-oriented assessment: Conceptual basis and practical implications. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44, 57–66.Google Scholar
Carless, D. (2009). Learning-oriented assessment: Principles and practice and a project. In Meyer, L. H., Davidson, S., Rees, M., Fletcher, R. B., Johnston, P. M. & Anderson, H. (eds.), Tertiary assessment & higher education student outcomes: Policy, practice & research. Wellington, New Zealand: AkoAotearoa—The National Centre for Tertiary Teaching Excellence.Google Scholar
Council of Europe. (1992). Transparency and coherence in language learning in Europe: Objectives, evaluation, certification. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Council of Europe. (2009). Relating language examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR): A manual. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Council of Europe. (2011a). European Language Portfolio (ELP): Principles and guidelines, with added explanatory notes. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Council of Europe. (2011b). Manual for language test development and examining, for use with the CEFR. Produced by ALTE on behalf of the Language Policy Unit of the Council of Europe. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Dam, L. (1995). Learner autonomy 3: From theory to classroom practice. Dublin, Ireland: Authentik.Google Scholar
Dam, L., & Legenhausen, L. (2010). Learners reflecting on learning: Evaluation versus testing in autonomous language learning. In Paran, A. & Sercu, L. (eds.), Testing the untestable in language education (pp. 120–139). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dam, L., & Legenhausen, L. (2011). Explicit reflection, evaluation, and assessment in the autonomy classroom. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 5, 177–189.Google Scholar
EALTA. (2006). EALTA guidelines for good practice in language testing and assessment. Retrieved from http://www.ealta.eu.org/guidelines.htmGoogle Scholar
Erickson, G. (2010). Good practice in language testing and assessment: A matter of responsibility and respect. In Kao, T. & Lin, Y. (eds.), A new look at teaching and testing: English as subject and vehicle (pp. 237–258). Taipei, Taiwan: Bookman Books.Google Scholar
Erickson, G., & Åberg-Bengtsson, L. (2012). A collaborative approach to national test development. In Tsagari, D. & Csépes, I. (eds.), Collaboration in language testing and assessment (pp. 93–108). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Erickson, G., & Gustafsson, J.-E. (2005). Some European students’ and teachers’ views on language testing and assessment. A report on a questionnaire survey. European Association for Language Testing and Assessment. Retrieved from http://www.ealta.eu.org/resources.htmGoogle Scholar
Holec, H. (1979). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe. Republished 1981, Oxford, UK: Pergamon.Google Scholar
James, M., & Pedder, D. (2006). Professional learning as a condition for assessment for learning. In Gardner, J. (ed.), Assessment and learning (pp. 27–43). London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
Janne, H. (1977). Organisation, content and methods of adult education. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Jenkins, R. (2014). Social identity (4th ed.). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kozulin, A. (1998). Psychological tools: A sociocultural approach to education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kramsch, C. (2013). Afterword. In Norton, B., Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation (pp. 151–161). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P. (2009). Dynamic assessment: The dialectic integration of instruction and assessment. Language Teaching, 42, 355–368.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P. (2013). Sociocultural theory and L2 learner autonomy/agency. In Benson, P. & Cooker, L. (eds.), The applied linguistic individual: Sociocultural approaches to identity, agency and autonomy (pp. 17–31). Sheffield, UK: Equinox.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J., & Poehner, M. (2008). Dynamic assessment. In Shohamy, E. & Hornberger, N. H. (eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd ed., Vol. 7, pp. 273–284). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2011). Dynamic assessment in the foreign language classroom: A teacher's guide. Philadelphia, PA: The Pennsylvania State University, Center for Advanced Language Proficiency Education and Research.Google Scholar
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Legenhausen, L. (2003). Second language acquisition in an autonomous learning environment. In Little, D., Ridley, J., & Ushioda, E. (eds.), Learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom: Teacher, learner, curriculum and assessment (pp. 65–77). Dublin, Ireland: Authentik.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy 1: Definitions, issues and problems. Dublin, Ireland: Authentik.Google Scholar
Little, D. (1996). Strategic competence considered in relation to strategic control of the language learning process. In Holec, H., Little, D., & Richterich, R., Strategies in language learning and use. Studies towards a Common European Framework of reference for language learning and teaching (pp. 9–37). Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Little, D. (2005). The Common European Framework and the European Language Portfolio: Involving learners and their judgements in the assessment process. Language Testing, 22, 321–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, D. (2006). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Content, purpose, origin, reception and impact. Language Teaching, 39, 167–190.Google Scholar
Little, D. (2009). The European Language Portfolio: Where pedagogy and assessment meet. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe. Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/elp/elp-reg/Publications_EN.aspGoogle Scholar
Little, D. (2011). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 44, 381–393.Google Scholar
Matsuno, S. (2009). Self-, peer-, and teacher-assessments in Japanese university EFL writing classrooms. Language Testing, 26, 75–100.Google Scholar
Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. London, UK: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children's thinking: A sociocultural approach. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Messick, S. A. (1989). Validity. In Linn, R. L. (ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). New York, NY: American Council on Education/Macmillan.Google Scholar
Moeller, A. J., Theiler, J. M., & Wu, C. (2012). Goal setting and student achievement: A longitudinal study. The Modern Language Journal, 96, 153–169.Google Scholar
Moss, P., Girard, B., & Haniford, L. (2006). Validity in educational assessment. Review of Research in Education, 30, 109–162.Google Scholar
North, B. (2014). The CEFR in practice (English Profile Studies 4). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation (2nd ed.). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Oskarsson, M. (1978). Approaches to self-assessment in foreign language learning. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe. Republished 1980, Oxford, UK: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Poehner, M. E. (2009). Group dynamic assessment: Mediation for the L2 classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 471–491.Google Scholar
Saito, H. (2008). EFL classroom peer assessment: Training effect on rating and commenting. Language Testing, 25, 553–581.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. In Hulstijn, J. H. & Schmidt, R. (eds.), Consciousness in second language learning (Thematic issue). AILA Review, 11, 11–26.Google Scholar
Shohamy, E. (2001). The power of tests: A critical perspective on the uses of language tests. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education/Longman.Google Scholar
Tan, K. H. K. (2004). Does student self-assessment empower or discipline students? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29 (6), 651–662.Google Scholar
Taras, M. (2005). Assessment—summative and formative—some theoretical reflections. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53, 466–478.Google Scholar
Trim, J. L. M. (1978). Some possible lines of development of an overall structure for a European unit/credit scheme for foreign language learning by adults. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Trim, J. L. M. (1984). The place of testing, assessment and evaluation in communicative language learning systems development. In van Ek, J. A. & Trim, J. L. M. (eds.), Across the threshold: Readings from the modern languages projects of the Council of Europe (pp. 161–167). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.Google Scholar
van Lier, L. (2010). Foreword: Agency, self and identity in language learning. In O'Rourke, B. & Carson, L. (eds.), Language learner autonomy: Policy, curriculum, classroom (pp. ix–xviii). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wells, G. (2009). The meaning makers: Learning to talk and talking to learn (2nd ed.). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wertsch, J. V., Tulviste, P., & Hagström, F. (1993). A sociocultural approach to agency. In Forman, E. A., Minick, N., & Stone, C. A. (eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children's development (pp. 336–356). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zhao, H. (2010). Investigating learners’ use and understanding of peer and teacher feedback on writing: A comparative study in a Chinese English writing classroom. Assessing Writing, 15, 3–17.Google Scholar