Assessment

My experience with assessing schoolwork was initially simple; I would check the work of the students I was teaching or tutoring, note and monitor the areas they excel at or are struggling with, and provide feedback to help them improve their English skills. After taking a course on assessment and assessment methods, I can confidently say that I have a better understanding of what and how I would assess my students. With the context of what I would like to focus on teaching being English, it is important to ascertain to state what the purpose of my assessment will be, such as identifying what areas of English the students already know and building up from that. After completing the LTS program, I have a better understanding on having to create a follow-up report on what skills were assessed, what tools and methods were used, and the conclusion to be followed. The type of assessment helped lay the foundation of how I would go about assessing; whether it was formal or informal, formative or summative, and the type of assessment test I would be using for the students. This is further expanded through Assessment Use Arguments (AUA) and the five criteria for assessment (Brown & Abeywickrama, 2019), and the benefits and drawbacks of the assessment task (Bachman & Damböck, 2017). 

Of the three artifacts I have chosen, two are from LT 549 and one is from LT 539. LT 549 was Measuring Language Ability, where in addition to having to complete 10 modules about DMLLS, we were taught the foundations of assessment, the design of assessments, and integrating those in the classrooms. 

When using English, context plays an important role in understanding the interpretation of what someone has said or written, and how that is implied to the listener or reader. The artifacts I selected from LT 549 were based on my best works for assessing English writing and speaking and I believe the assessments will benefit the learners afterward. The first artifact from LT 549 was an Assessment Creation Activity that focused on assessing writing from adult English learners at a Japanese university. The concepts and frameworks for this assessment were collaborated from Brown and Abeywickrama (2018). The assessment was formal (daily/weekly work and progress check-ins), formative (focusing on developing students writing abilities and creative positions and awareness of topics), criterion-referenced (students are not measured by rank but by completion of work), diagnostic assessment that looked to measure their abilities in writing and where they could improve later on (Brown & Abeywickrama, 2019). For the assessment task, the learners had to write their own opinions of what they believed in more based on the context: for example, which side did they believe in more between Team Captain America or Team Iron Man from the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) or who/what is considered good or evil from the manga series One Piece. I chose this artifact as part of my reflection because I felt that there was great significance in having English learners, especially Japanese English learners, build up creative and cognitive thinking skills due to the benefits of having them write their own reflections on what they believe is right or wrong. The assessment is reliable because it is ambiguous and allows for any answer, that is within the appropriate boundaries, to be written in, and the assessment is practical and simple enough that it can be revised to fit a variety of different formats. Having similar experiences with learning a second language, I recognize that some students have fears of rejection or making a mistake when answering a question. Therefore, I would rather focus on students receiving positive feedback and understanding the practicality and reliability than worrying about the consequences of their answers. It also will benefit the students if they can recognize various interests that they have and create opportunities to assess their work and creativity with their writing.

LT 539 was Design for Language Learning Pronunciation where we reviewed the English IPA, looked at the areas of the mouth where sound is created and articulated, and created lessons and activities that focused on the communicative framework for teaching pronunciation. My second artifact from LT 549 was another Assessment Creation Activity that focused on speaking as the main English assessment. The context and the format of the assessment are similar to the previous artifact, with the expectation being the assessment was informal, as the teacher is not recording their performances or checking their results for a score but rather to provide feedback. The task was to create a dialogue about what they would be bringing with them on a trip or where they would be going. Then they would play the telephone game with their group (each person whispers something to the next person’s ear, where they have to paraphrase what was said to the next person until they reach the end of the group line). The purpose was to have students improve their speaking skills and listen to what was first stated. They then paraphrase as best as they can to the next person until they reach the end, with the instructor assessing each group's paraphrased statement and seeing how close it resembles the original dialogue. I felt that this artifact was an excellent addition to this reflection portfolio because it is modeled for students to work on communication skills and paraphrase what was relayed to them. It also allows the instructor to assess what was lost in translation and look for areas of improvement with each student or group. The feedback I received for this activity helped me recognize when assessing English listening, to decide upon whether to monitor group communication or individual speaking. 

This artifact from LT 539 was selected because it showcases the report that was completed after assessing a visiting scholar’s English pronunciation and what areas we could improve after that point on. My final artifact demonstrates the application of assessment from LT 539 with the artifact being a tutoring practice follow up-report done in collaboration with fellow LTS cohort Kaleb Stubbs. For our report as part of the pronunciation course, we assessed the pronunciation skills of Nozomi Kakikawa, a Japanese scholar attending UO from Tamagawa University in Japan. We had three sessions with her; a 10-15 minute discussion where we talked and listened to her pronunciation, noting areas of her English, and the second and third focusing on segmental and suprasegmental features from Celce et al. (2010) respectively. The reason this artifact was selected for this portfolio was that we planned the following sessions from the assessment of her pronunciation and what we felt was necessary in terms of what washback was provided for her. During the time of these sessions, we had a better understanding of how to incorporate segmental and suprasegmental features into lessons, and from the framework provided by Celce et al. (2010), we came up with lesson plans that allowed us to tutor her efficiently. Our second session focused on segmental features we had observed such as the pronunciation of vowels and the manner and placement of articulation. The final session focused on suprasegmental features from Celce et al. (2010), which were the area stress on words and demonstrating the use of pitch contour changes and how it can change the behavioral context in the sentence and the tone in a conversation. This was demonstrated through a section of a lesson plan that I had created for the course (from the Design area in the portfolio). Nozomi appreciated the feedback for both sessions and we were able to notice the results afterward from practicing and comprehending what had to be worked on, and assessing why these areas are important when having to work on English pronunciation. Having completed these sessions while simultaneously taking LT 549 and analyzing what would be beneficial in terms of assessment for Nozomi helped me realize how significant the 5 criteria for assessment are (Brown & Abeywickrama, 2019) and how I would be able to implement them in any setting of teaching, from one-on-one tutoring to large classrooms.