{"title":"Book review: Learning-Oriented Language Assessment: Putting Theory into Practice","authors":"Janna Fox","doi":"10.1177/02655322231164565","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This edited volume provides a substantive review of learning-oriented assessment (LOA) research as it has been conceptualized in the literature and is currently playing out across diverse language teaching contexts. Although many definitions of LOA are discussed, in general they accord with Fulcher’s (Chapter 3) observation that LOA “is defined by the tasks that learners are asked to do, learner involvement in the process of doing and assessing the tasks, and the feedback provided to the learner on task performance” (p. 34). Throughout, the contributors acknowledge influential antecedents of LOA. They draw attention to the Assessment Reform Group (ARG), which reported on the negative consequences of large-scale assessment, argued for increased trust in teachers’ assessment, and reported that such formative assessment—undertaken on an ongoing basis by teachers and students for learning purposes—significantly improved overall school performance (cf. Black & Wiliam, 1998). Also from the general education literature, the contributors highlight Carless’ (2007) LOA framework and concomitant assessment principles and Pellegrino et al.’s (2001) vision of alignment as a “comprehensive, coherent, and continuous” (p. 9) system, seamlessly linking [macro-level] policy, curriculum, and large-scale external tests with [micro-level] classroom-based assessment through a collectively shared model of student learning. However, as several contributors note, a shared model of learning (which is required to maintain such alignment) has proved elusive. Within language assessment research, two other LOA frameworks are prominently featured: Jones and Saville’s (2016) systemic LOA Cycle, which extended Pellegrino et al.’s vision of alignment (see Saville, Chapter 2), and Turner and Purpura’s (2016) Working framework for LOA, which identified seven “interrelated dimensions” that, taken together, account for LOA’s “complex” and “multifaceted” nature (p. 262). Research reported in the volume is recurrently informed by these frameworks. 1164565 LTJ0010.1177/02655322231164565Language TestingBook Reviews book-review2023","PeriodicalId":17928,"journal":{"name":"Language Testing","volume":"40 1","pages":"1036 - 1039"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Language Testing","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322231164565","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This edited volume provides a substantive review of learning-oriented assessment (LOA) research as it has been conceptualized in the literature and is currently playing out across diverse language teaching contexts. Although many definitions of LOA are discussed, in general they accord with Fulcher’s (Chapter 3) observation that LOA “is defined by the tasks that learners are asked to do, learner involvement in the process of doing and assessing the tasks, and the feedback provided to the learner on task performance” (p. 34). Throughout, the contributors acknowledge influential antecedents of LOA. They draw attention to the Assessment Reform Group (ARG), which reported on the negative consequences of large-scale assessment, argued for increased trust in teachers’ assessment, and reported that such formative assessment—undertaken on an ongoing basis by teachers and students for learning purposes—significantly improved overall school performance (cf. Black & Wiliam, 1998). Also from the general education literature, the contributors highlight Carless’ (2007) LOA framework and concomitant assessment principles and Pellegrino et al.’s (2001) vision of alignment as a “comprehensive, coherent, and continuous” (p. 9) system, seamlessly linking [macro-level] policy, curriculum, and large-scale external tests with [micro-level] classroom-based assessment through a collectively shared model of student learning. However, as several contributors note, a shared model of learning (which is required to maintain such alignment) has proved elusive. Within language assessment research, two other LOA frameworks are prominently featured: Jones and Saville’s (2016) systemic LOA Cycle, which extended Pellegrino et al.’s vision of alignment (see Saville, Chapter 2), and Turner and Purpura’s (2016) Working framework for LOA, which identified seven “interrelated dimensions” that, taken together, account for LOA’s “complex” and “multifaceted” nature (p. 262). Research reported in the volume is recurrently informed by these frameworks. 1164565 LTJ0010.1177/02655322231164565Language TestingBook Reviews book-review2023
期刊介绍:
Language Testing is a fully peer reviewed international journal that publishes original research and review articles on language testing and assessment. It provides a forum for the exchange of ideas and information between people working in the fields of first and second language testing and assessment. This includes researchers and practitioners in EFL and ESL testing, and assessment in child language acquisition and language pathology. In addition, special attention is focused on issues of testing theory, experimental investigations, and the following up of practical implications.