The second principle identifies is viewing assessment as a part of the instructions afforded. The principle stresses the need to assess students based on the instructions they receive. The assessment should emanate from an integral part of what they learned and have knowledge about. Such would ensure that the process is reasonable and effective. Another principle identified by cooper relates to the authenticity of assessment. They ought to showcase the real art of reading, as opposed to tests that are set beyond the horizons of what students can relate to. Cooper insisted that the writing and reading be in the scope of the skills that needed to be impacted in the curriculums.
Furthermore, the assessments need to be reflective, in the sense that they facilitate in-depth thinking that outweighs the usual answering method. It should stir the students into critical thinking, and should involve a collaborative process that engages the students in an exchange of ideas. Furthermore, the process needs to be multidimensional. It needs to assess students across different genres involved in the pursuit of literacy (Cooper & Kiger, 2011). The assessment should not be centered on one topic or skill but should reflect the different tools involved in language. The reason is that the English language is also multidimensional. Moreover, the aspects of culture and development should be appropriate in the assessments. The art of language is in the appreciation and incorporation of relevant elements of culture. Therefore, the assessment should develop through relevant adoption of the culture that is reflected in language. Lastly, the assessment should be centered on the students’ knowledge in reading and writing. It should be based on the view of the teachers on students’ skills in reading and writing. Given so, the assessment will be able to cover what the students deem to be relevant and will be conducted with them in mind. Sometimes, the assessments do not reflect the abilities of students in learning languages and are general in nature.
Performance assessments are a good example of non-traditional ways of testing that can be ideal for the English language. Although this kind of assessment is limiting to vocabulary testing, it is perfect for reading and oral examinations. Performance assessment is more authentic and gives the students the test of their real abilities (Morrow, Shanahan & Wixson, 2013). It goes above the scope and principles of the classroom teaching and tests the students’ creativity, which is necessary for the languages. In additions, they take students through the process of real research and enable them to perfect their writing skills through research papers that are based on what authenticity.
For example, a task-oriented kind of testing is more realistic than a skill oriented one. Performance assessment in languages gives students a greater chance to express their use of language (Conklin, 2010). It is not limiting to the test on English skills that are artificial in nature. Students have a chance to explore their language in the task-driven tests. In addition, performance tests observe continuity as a principle that was established by Cooper. They do so because they reflect the students’ abilities and weakness, thereby influencing the instructions to be given and the daily learning process. The method comprises of continuous monitoring of the language skills possessed by the students. In addition, it allows for the adjustment of the curriculum based on the changes that are exhibited in language. Finally, performance assessment allows for a collaborative process that was the ideal in Cooper’s principles. Students are can intellectually interact with one another and their teachers, which facilitates learning.
In addition, formative assessment for learning can also be an ideal way of testing in languages. It is a process of evaluation that oversees the learning process during instructions. It provides a continuous assessment through constant feedback between the teacher and the students. Such a method is appropriate for reading and writing, which need constant supervision and performance feedback. Therefore, the success and failures of students can be measured on a continuous basis (Benjamin, 2013). Hence, it gives room for improvement in the skills necessary for language arts. Formative assessments are not traditional because they are opposed to the usual grading system.
The grading system is identified as undermining the possible talents and abilities students might have. Therefore, formative assessment seeks to facilitate such abilities through diagnosing the skill possessed and evaluating instruction. For example, the method would ask students to read and write about a certain book. From the results presented, the skills that need to be facilitated during instruction will be identified. The usual grading system will only grade the students for purposes of ranking.
References
Benjamin, A. (2013). Formative assessment in English language arts. New York: New Press:
Conklin, W. (2010). Differentiation strategies for language arts. Huntington Beach, CA: Shell Education.
Cooper, D., & Robinson, M. (2014). Literacy: helping students construct meaning. New York: State University of New York Press.
Cooper, J. D., & Kiger, N. D. (2011). Literacy assessment: Helping teachers plan instruction. Australia: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Morrow, L. M., Shanahan, T., & Wixson, K. K. (2013). Teaching with the common core standards for English language arts, PreK-2. New York: The Guilford Press.
