Assessments are used at all stages of instructional programming. A formative assessment determines the knowledge and skills a student brings to the classroom and informs instruction. A summative assessment evaluates the effectiveness of that instruction and helps guide future instruction.
In a "testing culture," the focus of assessment is often to sort and rank students for placement purposes. It is sometimes mistakenly assumed that English proficiency is a prerequisite to cognitively demanding tasks and consequently, English learners are sometimes mistakenly placed in lower level classes (Lachat, 1999; Cohen, 1994).
In contrast, an “assessment culture” aims to build on students’ existing strengths and to develop a variety of thinking skills through diverse types of activities. It emphasizes what students can potentially do, not just what they already know. Assessments replicate, as closely as possible, the kinds of skills that students really need in order to achieve in a mainstream English classroom and in the outside world. One example of this type of skill is the ability to navigate multiple pragmatic and cultural contexts in an increasingly multilingual and multicultural society (Hill, 2002).
Schools should strive to provide basic English instruction for their English learners without sacrificing cognitively demanding content instruction that challenges the student’s problem solving skills. This can be a difficult task and requires the collaboration of EL and content instruction teachers.
Language assessments are often based on the decontextualized, rather than contextualized or scaffolded, competence of a student. In these cases, a student may perform well on a test of isolated grammar points but still be unable to comprehend instruction or even carry on a conversation in the target language. It is important that the range of language proficiency assessments take into account the range of language activities and skills, and not over-generalize a student’s proficiency based on a limited language sample.
Neither aptitude nor intelligence nor language proficiency can be measured by a single instrument. When considering the spectrum of skills and cultural knowledge possessed by a single student, we recognize that no single test can give a comprehensive picture of the student’s proficiency in language or any other area. The results of a test are interpreted in the context of: the student in question, the teacher or evaluator, and the surrounding educational environment (Gardner, 1982). We avoid interpreting a test as a fixed, objective truth incapable of error. Cultural biases as well as the particular weaknesses of a given test (such as awkwardly worded questions) will detract from the validity of the assessment, underscoring the need for a multidimensional and varied system of evaluation (Gardner, 1982; Hill, 2002). This is particularly true with respect to assessment used to determine a student’s placement or course of instruction.
The concerns characterizing traditional standardized tests include the existence of cultural biases and irrelevance to the daily realities of a student’s life. This can also hold true for tests based on in-class instruction. Researchers argue in favor of problem-based learning, wherein students apply the concepts and skills outlined by state frameworks to real-life applications or problems. Problem-based learning is particularly meaningful when it holds transformational power over student’s lives or the capacity to address challenges in the student’s community (Freire & Macedo, 1987). It requires an exploration of the skills and socio-cultural backgrounds of students from diverse backgrounds. In addition, educators can use real-life problems and questions to inspire and motivate these students. Schools should capitalize on meaningful and relevant topics of student interest to shape and guide instruction in both language and content to promote the achievement of all students.