书评:《以学习为导向的语言评价:理论与实践》

IF 2.2 1区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Language Testing Pub Date : 2023-05-09 DOI:10.1177/02655322231164565
Janna Fox
{"title":"书评:《以学习为导向的语言评价:理论与实践》","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

这个编辑的卷提供了一个实质性的审查,以学习为导向的评估(LOA)的研究,因为它已经在文献中概念化,目前在不同的语言教学环境中发挥作用。虽然对LOA的许多定义进行了讨论,但总的来说,它们都符合Fulcher(第3章)的观察,即LOA“是由学习者被要求完成的任务、学习者在完成和评估任务过程中的参与以及向学习者提供的关于任务表现的反馈来定义的”(第34页)。在整个过程中,作者承认LOA的影响因素。他们提请注意评估改革小组(ARG),该小组报告了大规模评估的负面后果,主张增加对教师评估的信任,并报告说,这种由教师和学生为学习目的持续进行的形成性评估,显著提高了学校的整体表现(参见Black & william, 1998)。同样在通识教育文献中,作者强调了Carless(2007)的LOA框架和附带的评估原则,以及Pellegrino等人(2001)将一致性视为“全面、连贯和连续”(第9页)系统的愿景,通过集体共享的学生学习模型,将[宏观层面]政策、课程和大规模外部测试与[微观层面]基于课堂的评估无缝地联系起来。然而,正如一些贡献者所指出的那样,一个共享的学习模型(这是维持这种一致性所必需的)被证明是难以捉摸的。在语言评估研究中,另外两个LOA框架具有突出的特点:Jones和Saville(2016)的系统性LOA循环,它扩展了Pellegrino等人的一致性愿景(见Saville,第2章),以及Turner和Purpura(2016)的LOA工作框架,该框架确定了七个“相互关联的维度”,这些维度加在一起,说明了LOA的“复杂性”和“多面性”(第262页)。本卷中报告的研究经常由这些框架提供信息。1164565 ltj0010 .1177/02655322231164565语言测试书评
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Book review: Learning-Oriented Language Assessment: Putting Theory into Practice
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
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Language Testing
Language Testing Multiple-
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
9.80%
发文量
35
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.
期刊最新文献
Can language test providers do more to support open science? A response to Winke Considerations to promote and accelerate Open Science: A response to Winke Evaluating the impact of nonverbal behavior on language ability ratings Sharing, collaborating, and building trust: How Open Science advances language testing Open Science in language assessment research contexts: A reply to Winke
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1