Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
The them e o f assessm ent is a d ifficu lt and som etim es con ten tious area am ongst CLIL
teachers. In som e respects it lies at the heart o f the qu estion o f h o w to define the level o f
co n ten t-lan gu age integration , because, ultim ately, no m atter w h at is tau gh t and h o w it is
taught, the m od e o f assessm ent determ ines h o w the learners perceive the teachers in ten
tion and, o f course, also shapes perform an ce data. In this chapter, w e are dealing w ith class
room assessm ent as o p p o sed to p rogram m e evalu ation (w h ich is addressed in C h ap ter 7).
Program m e evalu ation involves lo o k in g at a co m plete C L IL course o r an aspect o f it and
m aking a ju d g m en t regarding its effectiveness, fo r exam ple th ro u gh collection o f data on
learners perform ance o r attitudes. T h e distin ction betw een assessm ent and evalu ation is
im portan t, as each serves a d ifferent pu rpose. H ow ever, there is a p oten tial overlap w h ich
is relevant to the qu estion o f w h eth er w e are assessing content, language o r both.
P rogram m e evalu ation m igh t centre on learners language attainm ent (m an y research
reports do so) and this m igh t be an appropriate place and m eth o d to ca rry o u t discrete
language assessm ent as well.
Assessm ent processes can be broad ly d ivid ed into sum mative and form ative and this
division form s a m ajor distinction. Sum m ative assessm ent m akes a ju d g m e n t o n the capa
b ility o f the learner at that p o in t in tim e and, apart from o fferin g that ju d g m en t b a ck to the
learner, it often leads to som e fo rm o f in fo rm atio n -g ivin g to an oth er party, for exam ple
the school m anagem ent or the learn ers parents. It is therefore associated w ith testing in a
m ore form al setting o r an en d -of-u n it, fin al result, even if this is n o t obtain ed th ro u gh an
exam ination. Across the w o rld there are m an y variation s on final course and m o d u le test
ing processes, w ith a w h o le range o f criteria in use for b o th con ten t and language outcom es.
C L IL units w ill need to m irror such system s in order to retain cred ib ility as m ainstream
ed u cational program m es. This p o in t w ill be addressed again later in the chapter.
Form ative assessm ent is m ore com plex, as its in ten tion is to be directly d iagnostic
w ith a view to im m ed iately im pactin g on the learn ers next steps. It is also form ative for the
teacher, because it can alter plan nin g and practice m id -u n it (o r even m id-lesson ) and not
ju st after all the w o rk is com plete, as a sum m ative test m igh t do. F orm ative assessm ent was
advocated first b y Scriven (1967) and B lo o m (1968). In co m m o n w ith these w riters, A m es
and A m es (1984) suggested m o vin g aw ay from a n o rm -referen cin g approach; th ey a d v o
cated a task-m astery approach using a learners p erform an ce to structure goals for future
im p ro vem en t on an individual, rather than com petitive, basis. T h is focus then began to
d evelop in bo th research and practice. It inclu ded w riters on m otivatio n - for exam ple
112
D w eck (1986), w h o argued that sum m ative assessm ent dem otivated learners - and assess
m en t researchers, such as Sadler (1989), w h o argued fo r learners to be given authentic eval
uative experience, so that th ey co u ld id e n tify w o rk o f h igh qu ality and evaluate their own
progress tow ards it. C o h e n (1994) b ro u g h t a lan gu age-learn in g perspective to the issue by
reco m m en d in g form ative a ctivity alongside classroom tasks, so that the teacher could bet
ter u nd erstan d students skills and com petences.
C larke (2001) likens sum m ative assessm ent to the sim ple m easurem ent o f a plant, and
form ative assessm ent to the feeding process w h ich leads to grow th. In the U K , as a result o f
research into assessm ent (in clu d in g an im p ortan t study b y B lack and W iliam , 1998), the
term A ssessm ent fo r L earn in g (AfL) (in Scotland, A ssessm ent is for Learning ) was coined
to d escribe processes th o u g h t to be desirable across the cu rricu lu m . In 2002, the
A ssessm ent R eform G ro u p in E n glan d prod u ced a d o cu m en t o f ten principles for AfL,
w h ich m akes clear that b o th teachers and learners w ill ben efit from the processes described
and that form ative assessm ent sh o u ld be central to classroom practice. Som e o f the key fea
tures in this d o cu m en t are:
the sharing o f learn in g inten tions (m ean ing that teachers tell students at the
b eg in n in g o f the lessons w h at th ey w ill learn)
the use o f success criteria (m ean in g that students w ill be told w hat the task will
T his chapter w ill focus o n such form ative assessm ent approaches, as it seems to us
there is a stron g case fo r form ative assessm ent to be used on a regular basis and summative
assessm ent to be used system atically bu t rarely. T h e strength o f form ative assessment
processes, acco rd in g to the researchers discussed above, is that th ey enhance learning to an
extent w h ere th ey actively su p p o rt better sum m ative outcom es. T h e pressure on CLIL
courses to m atch first-language test results is im m en se and it is through this regular occur
rence o f focused classroom practice that C L IL teachers and learners can work towards
114
achieving such parity. W e w ill next consider w h at the specific assessm ent issues are for a
CLIL program m e, and then explore h o w w e m igh t address them . W e w ill use exam ples
from practice o f different m odes o f assessm ent and rationalize th em in term s o f the b road
er aim s o f C L IL as d em on strated b y the th eorization and T ool K it offered in C h apters 3 and
4. Finally, we w ill su m m arize b y givin g som e exem plars o f g o o d C L IL p ractice in assess
m ent w hich reflect the principles o f this chapter.
whajTlanguage do we~assess ? )
<
\~Cojn s faxdents answer irTcatalan ?~^)
I Whofc toots can we use for assessment?
How can we assess^prevloixs knowledge a^d^^progr&ssu?h?
( How can I deal with Learning difficwlties ?
D o w e som etim es assess one and n o t the other? I f so, w h ich and w h en (and,
m ore crucially, w h y and how )?
W h o assesses?
are for a
examples
H o w do w e assess?
le broad-
ters 3 and
|n assess-
W h en do w e assess?
I, as with
L a n gu ag e or content?
ific situ-
T h is cen tral d ilem m a was su m m arized early in an article b y Sh ort (1993), in which she
collect
explored alternatives to standard testing in C LIL. Short also raised the tw o essential ques
imongst
tion s w h ich lie b eh in d teacher u n certain ty about assessm ent, b o th the what question and
especially the how question:
The m a n y varieties o f alternative a sse ssm e n t include perform ance-based tests, portfo
lios, journals, projects, and observa tio n checklists. A lth o u g h th e se m easures allow better
d e m o n stra tio n o f stu d e n t know le dge, th e y can n o n e th e le ss co n fo u n d teachers o f lan
g u a g e m in o rity students. C o m p lic a tio n s arise first because teachers m ust determine
w h e th e r th e la n g u a g e or th e content is b e in g asse sse d in th ese alternative measures.
T he n te ache rs m u st d istin g u ish betw een th e la n g u a g e and content know led ge of the
stu d e n ts and decide if one is interfering w ith th e d e m o n stra tio n o f the other.
(Short, 1993: 633).
H ere we see that the tw o questions are linked: firstly - as m entioned as a key question
in the previous section - should we assess language or content? Secondly, what methods can
w e use w hich w ill give us reliable assessment inform ation - that is, w ill one element (content
or language) im pede the other?
T h e how is the bigger question and w ill righ tly o ccu p y a larger prop ortion o f the
chapter, b u t w e w ill address the first im m ediately. C L IL units w ill all contain clear objec
tives, po ssib ly fashioned aro u n d the 4CS. Even if a different approach is taken by the CLIL
ey meet
planners, th ey w ill still at som e p o in t have had to co n stru ct statem ents regarding the con
sesscon-
tent (concepts, kn o w led ge and po ssib ly skills) w h ich is to be covered by the unit and one
ide this
o r m ore statem ents regarding language. T h e lan guage objectives m ay relate sim ply to com
emands
m u n ica tin g the conten t effectively, or th ey m ay in clu d e n otion s (such as specialist vocabu
lary from the unit) o r fu n ctio n s (such as the ability to discuss effectively) or even be
fo rm -fo cu sed (for exam ple, co n cern in g effective use o f the past tense). The teacher design
ing the u n it w ill k n o w w h at she o r he w ishes to teach and w hat the overall purpose o f the
C L IL m o d u le is. Therefore, the answ er to the language or conten t question is determined
d,
b y the relative p rio rity w ith in those objectives. It is im portan t to have a clear head about
that p riority; w e have taken a p o sition in this b o o k that the content should always be the
d o m in a n t elem ent in term s o f objectives, even th ou gh w e intend that language will be
learn ed securely alongside the co n ten ts concepts and skills. W ith this perspective in mind,
n6
we w ill tu rn n o w to the secon d qu estion, assum ing that it is con ten t first and forem ost that
is bein g assessed. H ow ever, as w e discuss later o n in the chapter, m an y o f the principles
involved in assessing conten t can also be applied to the assessm ent o f language, so even
p ractition ers w ith different p riorities sh o u ld fin d the in form ation useful.
A sse ssin g content
Assessing conten t is poten tially ve ry challenging. G enesee and U p sh u r are clear:
G en erally speaking, the sa m e content objectives sh o u ld be used to a sse ss th e achieve
m e n t o f second la n g u a g e and native speakers alike - low er sta n d a rd s o f achievem ent
sh o u ld not be esta b lish ed for second la n g u a g e speakers.
(Genesee and Upshur, 1996: 47)
a b ility to m an ipu late the content, u sin g h igher-level th in kin g skills such as
interpretation , analysis, synthesis o r application . T h is w ill also reflect objectives
regarding co gn itio n (refer to C h ap ter 4 fo r som e concrete exam ples), w h ich are
best assessed th ro u gh conten t assessm ent, as w ith o u t it th ey becom e sim p ly
abstract skills
A lon gsid e this, and in accordance w ith the principles o f A fL o r its equivalent, is an
u n d erstan d in g that assessm ent sh ou ld n o t always be o f individuals, b u t w ill som etim es be
o f grou ps o f learners. A lth o u g h it m ay be d ifficu lt to d ecide w h o has contributed what and
w h o kn ow s w hat, this is seen as less im p ortan t, given that there are oth er gains to be made
th ro u gh collaborative w ork. T h e final o u tp u t m ay be m ore than the sum o f all the parts
w ith m ore sophisticated use o f language after gro u p n egotiation and editing. Research,
d ivid ed betw een m em bers o f a gro u p and th en shared, can also contribute to this refine
m ent. In add ition, such tasks po ten tially raise different areas for assessment, such as team
w o rk, p roject m an agem en t and cap acity fo r self-assessm ent.
W ho should assess?
T h e p o ssib ility o f expan d in g assessm ent b eyo n d the teacher loo kin g solely at individ
ual learners links p artially to the question o f who assesses. Clearly, teachers wish to retain
the m ajo r role in this, b u t w e can consider the fo llo w in g factors in establishing the possible
range o f teacher, self- and peer-assessm ent m eth od s available:
u8
Assessm ent can be co llabo rative w ith in the w h o le-cla ss setting if the
teacher show s a n o n y m o u s extracts fro m w o r k an d invites co n stru ctive
am endm ents.
Self- and peer-assessm ent can be used as a platform to elicit com m ents about the
learning process b y asking w h y the judgm ents are as th ey are. This, w hen well
established, can lead to insights into cogn ition, w h ich is the m ost difficult C to
assess.
Cultural content can be som ethin g w hich learners feel adds interest and w hich can
be peer-assessed throu gh a m ore subjective system such as, for younger learners
three stars and a wish, or an equivalent age-appropriate m echanism (this involves
the assessor finding three aspects to praise and one to suggest for developm ent).
Peer-assessm ent can lead to better self-assessm ent. I f a learner has form u lated
ideas ab o u t a piece o f w o rk su fficien tly w ell to co m m u n icate and ju stify those
ju d gm en ts to an other learner, she o r he w ill be m ore able to lo o k at her or his
o w n w o rk in the sam e objective m anner.
T h e p o in ts above all dem on strate that relying o n teacher assessm ent alone cou ld
im poverish a C L IL classroom . W e w ill state again that a teacher w ill still be the m ain asses
sor, bu t there are n u m erou s possibilities to v a ry this in appropriate circum stances. In co n
sidering h o w and w here to add this variety, it is also necessary to w eigh up h o w w ell learners
can assess fro m a lin gu istic perspective: is th eir lan guage cap ability sufficient to m ake valid
judgm ents? W ill a teacher need to re-assess everything? C o llabo rative assessm ent in a
w hole-class co n text m an aged b y the teacher w ill always give an in d icatio n as to student
capacity for the process.
120
then there is also a clear m otive fo r that language assessm ent. If it is sim p ly m ade as a
correction o f a detail o f lan guage accuracy, then it w ill in evitably halt the flo w o f content
co m m u n icatio n and co u ld frustrate learners. It is im p ortan t to be clear that this does not
m ean w e sh o u ld ign ore all errors and never assess language, b u t w e can create specific
o p p o rtu n ities to d o this rather than offer con tin u al corrective feedback w h ich u nd erm in es
conten t confid en ce. T h e language clin ic is a potentially useful version o f this practice: from
tim e to tim e, the teacher gathers language errors w h ich need to b e addressed as a class and
hold s a lan gu age clin ic in a lesson, explain in g to learners that this is a necessary step to su p
p o rt better com m u n ica tion o f content.
W h en lo o k in g at how to assess language, w e sh o u ld note that - as w ith con ten t language can be assessed th ro u gh a va riety o f approaches. B row n and H u d so n present the
fo llo w in g as types o f assessment:
... (a) selected -re spo nse (in clu d in g true-false, m atching, and m ultiple-choice a s s e s s
m ents); (b) c o n stru c te d -re sp o n se (in c lu d in g fill-in, sh o rt-a n sw e r, and pe rfo rm a n ce
asse ssm e n ts); and (c) p e rso n a l-re sp o n se (in clu d in g at least conference, portfolio, and selfan d peer assessm en ts).
(B row n and H udson , 1998: 658)
This links back to the Short article in w hich she also lists assessment instrum ents w hich
offer a better range o f opportu nities for C LIL students to dem onstrate understanding:
... skill checklists a nd re a d in g/ w ritin g inventories, anecdotal records a nd teacher o b se r
vations, stu d e n t self-evaluations, portfolios, p erfo rm ance -b a se d tasks, e ssa y w riting, oral
reports, a n d interview s.
(Short, 1993: 629)
la n g u a g e
assessm en t,
th e
E u ro p e a n
L an gu a ge
P o rtfo lio
sch em e
iade as a
: content
assessm ent and to levels o f w o rk and ages o th er than those directly referred to.
does not
! specific
(ermines
ice: from
Sh arin g th e o bjectives an d o fferin g success criteria are im p o rtan t first steps towards
^lass and
p to sup-
th e y have co m p le ted it. It is im p o rta n t to use co n crete statem ents in fram in g these
[intent -
in ten tio n s, n o t ju st b ecau se o f the p o te n tial lin g u istic co n strain ts contain ed in a CLIL
(sent the
assess-
can b e referen ced m o re fu lly to p re vio u s k n o w led g e i f th e lin gu istic know ledge can
irmance
a cco m m o d a te this. T h e p rim a ry-a g e stru ctu res o f W A L T (w e are learning to) and W ILF
ind self-
1998: 658)
I
[s which
w ith o ld er learners. W e m a y b e add ressin g so m eth in g as sim p le as: T oday w e are learning
g:
to see th e d ifferen ces b etw e en the lan dscapes o f La R e u n io n an d the Isle o f Skye, so we
r obserng, oral
statem ents con crete. T h ese basic co n ce p ts can b e ad o p ted in a less p rim a ry form for use
can d ecid e w h ich pictu res sh o w w h ich p lace . O r w e m a y be h an d lin g m ore advanced
co n cep ts su ch as: B u ild in g o n last w e ek s w o rk o n zo n a l soils an d h o w N orth w est Europe
an d a tro p ica l e n viro n m en t su ch as La R e u n io n sh o w d ifferences, w e are loo k in g m ore
clo sely at in trazo n al soils an d a feature called p o d so l in the tro p ica l region. B y the end o f
993:629)
this w e e k s w o r k y o u w ill have a clear v ie w o f th e soil ch aracteristics o f that area and why
aching
th ey m ig h t d iffer fro m lo ca l soils. In b o th cases, stu d ents start the lesson kn o w in g what
hemes,
th e y are g o in g to learn , an d in b o th cases the C L IL teach er w ill n eed to use som e visual
is still
meth-
W h eth er it is pictu res o f tw o en viro n m en ts, m ap s o f loca tio n s, k ey vo cab u lary or dia
1 terms
gram s, th o se statem ents are b etter su p p o rte d b y these visu a l elem ents than i f they were
cheme
fferent
d u c tio n o f a presen tatio n . T h e exam p le given o n p age 122 (P rep arin g a presentation ) acts
ve of a
o n several levels, cla rify in g co n ten t (as in the th ird b u lle t p o in t), the presentation conven
psome
tio n s an d th e q u a lity exp ectatio n s. T h e su b ject o f this task w as Aspects o f the weather sys
tems in the Pacific Ocean, so th e ch ecklist o f p o in ts in clu d ed explanation o f the
th erm o clin e an d the features o f El N in o / La N in a. T h e set o f bu llet points here acts as an
overall ch ecklist fo r stu d ents w h e n th e y have co m p leted th e task, m akin g the assessment
process m o re overt:
so far,
exem-
pf difmake
122
T he grid in the exam p le D ra w in g and p ain tin g a lan dscape acts as a checklist for a
final task, co n solid atin g a u nit. T h is is a g o o d exam p le o f w h ere success criteria refer to a
n on -lin guistic o u tco m e, b u t con tain w ith in th em a reference to m u ch o f the key v o ca b u
lary o f the u nit, so ch eckin g co m p reh en sio n and even lan gu age - if the piece o f w ork
m atches all criteria, the teacher can b e sure that the con ten t and the language o f the unit
have been established. T h e lan gu age does n o t need to be p rod u ced fo r this process and
therefore a discussion w ith the student ab o u t the finished p ain tin g w o u ld reveal her or his
capacity to use the lan gu age effectively, b u t teachers can d ecide to w h at degree receptive
and prod u ctive com peten ce are desirable o r required.
and/or m ore able peers. It is therefore p art o f the form ative structure.
In o u r first geographical exam ple on page 121 (com p arin g the islands o f La Reunion
SbotI
and Skye), learners m igh t have a grid system w ith ind ivid ual colu m ns for each o f ten pho
tographs and rows, labelled sim ply w ith item s w h ich m igh t be visible in the photographs,
such as a volcano, a sparrowhawk, a whiteye, the Cuillin Ridge. Learners tick any items from
the list that th ey see in each p h o to in turn. This establishes som e specialist vocabulary
klist for a
refer to a
r vocabu! o f work
f the unit
scess and
ler or his
receptive
kn ow led ge d em an ded b y the topic, and is at a basic level o f com prehension. O nce complete,
the grid can be used for a further task involvin g pair w ork, in w hich learners produce a
short, oral d escription o f a p h o to grap h and th en com e to a decision about where it has been
taken. A t the sim plest level, this m ay be betw een tw o locations, b u t a com parison o f three
environ m en ts (perhaps the tw o islands and the school locality for the younger children)
m akes it a m ore co m p lex and m ore cogn itively challen gin g task. T h e teacher can eavesdrop
d u rin g this stage o f the w o rk to listen for correct location decisions and to evaluate language
use b eyo n d the sin gle-w ord structure w h ich m igh t result from learners referring to the grid.
T h e language fo r learning (see C hapters 3 and 4) dem ands the fuller sentence structure
w hich accom panies a description:
124
a m o re
c o m p le x level, to
b e a sse m b le d
easily, w ith
th ou gh t (rather than lan gu age) h igh ligh ted at that stage, an d th en fo r th at assem bled
in form ation to be used to stim ulate lan gu age p ro d u ctio n o n ce th e co n cep ts are secu rely
in place.
In the assessm ent o f conten t co m preh en sio n th ro u gh receptive tasks, a m ajo r learning
tool, and so also a m ajo r assessm ent too l, is reading. N aturally, at p rim a ry level, this has to
be restricted and carefu lly p lanned, and m ay involve listening rather than reading, especial
ly w ith the you n ger ages. B ut fro m late p rim a ry onw ards, visual texts o f all types (see
C hapter 5) are an integral part o f C L IL classroom s. M an y task types involve sim p ly reading
- for exam ple, m atch in g pictures to vocabulary, heads and tails sentence halves, true/false
decision tasks, gap-fill w here the m issing item s are given in a box, d ecision tasks w here two
versions are given and the correct one has to be chosen and, in m ore practical subjects, fo l
low in g in stru ction s to create an ou tco m e. M ost w ritin g tasks also b egin w ith reading, as w e
will see later in this section.
M a tc h in g inform ation
T h e assessm ent in stru m en t w h ich involves m atch in g in fo rm a tio n , fo r exam p le b y
heads an d tails (jo in in g tw o halves o f several d efin itio n s o r sentences), also serves
m ore th an o n e p u rp o se sim u ltan eou sly. In this ty p e o f learn in g/assessm ent task, d e m o n
strating co m p re h e n sio n sh o u ld alw ays in volve real d ecisio n s based o n co n cep t u n d er
stan d in g an d n o t o n o th er elem ents, su ch as lin gu istic fo rm s. In the exam p le Id en tifyin g
co ord in ates - a sim ple task at C L IL b eg in n er level - the 11 target sentences o ften have
the sam e sentence stru ctu re. T h is m eans th at, w h e n p a irin g th e sentence halves, learners
are faced w ith b etw een tw o an d six p o ssib le tail m atch es fo r each head, each o f w h ich
w o u ld p ro d u ce a stru ctu ra lly so u n d sentence. O n ly the sim plest p air o f sentences is o p en
to a straig h tforw ard 50/50 ch o ice (th ey bein g th e first an d the fifth sentences). Learners
m ust th erefore fo cu s o n m ea n in g in o rd er to m atch th e co rrect tail to each head. T h e
assessm ent is d esign ed to be carried o u t in pairs, so o fferin g the teach er a n o th er o p p o r
tu n ity to listen to d ia lo g u e an d assess to w h a t extent learn ers u n d erstan d in g seem s to be
based on co n cep t k n o w led ge , as w ell as w h eth er th e learn ers have in tern alized the
language n eed ed to exp lain that u n d erstan d in g. A d d itio n ally, o th er elem en ts can be e v a l
uated, such as the p ro n u n cia tio n o f k e y vo cab u lary. T h e in ten tio n sign alled in the task
ru b ric is fo r the p air w o rk to be fo llo w e d b y a plenary, d u rin g w h ich the ratio n a liza tio n
o f choices can be tested in o p en class d iscu ssion . For th ose w h o w ere less sure eith er o f
their choices o r o f th e reason fo r th eir ch oices, this w ill o ffer a n o th e r ch an ce to co n s o li
date learning.
t allows
y, w ith
fembled
securely
Join the follow ing heads with the correct tails (working in pairs, and later
in a plenary):
The horizontal axis is called . . .
The point ( - 2 , - 3 ) is . . .
. . . the x-axis.
. . . 2 units to t he right, and 3 units up.
lie/false
ere two
. . . t he y-axi s.
. . . on t he x-axis.
. . . on the y-axis.
earning
s has to
special>es (see
reading
cts, fol-
jple by
serves
ernonunderitifying
n have
sarners
which
iS open
:arners
d. The
appors to be
ed the
e evalle task
zation
her o f
rnsoli-
T h o se p rod u ctive tasks w h ich elicit con ten t from students either o rally o r in w ritten
fo rm at are clearly the m ore d ifficu lt assessm ent instrum ents to structure, because they
require n o t ju st reco gn itio n o f k ey language, b u t also accurate m em o ry fo r it. Students need
n o t o n ly to u nd erstan d the topic, b u t to be able to use lan guage in a w a y w h ich co m m u n i
cates that und erstan d in g, and this w ill rarely be in sin gle-w ord fo rm (except in a sim ple
labelling task). O ften the m aterial fo r labelling is given either in an acco m p an yin g text or
in a b o x (and so it is anoth er exam p le o f the reading-based tasks described in the previous
section), b u t there w ill be tim es w h en the teacher w ill w ish to establish w h eth er the class
has p rop erly internalized the key vo ca b u lary and the associated concepts. In this case, the
teacher w ill use an open labelling task for this pu rpose, such as that sh ow n in the exam ple
Labelling a d iagram on page 126.
B eyo n d su ch sim ple labelling, students use o f speakin g/w ritin g to express u nd er
stan d in g needs to be scaffolded. W ith p rim a ry-a ge ch ildren, learners early in a secondarylevel C L IL u nit, o r C L IL b egin n ers in secon d ary ed u catio n , this scaffo ld in g is best achieved
126
b y u sin g a m o d ellin g approach . D ia gra m m a tic structures are still the m o st useful ways
o f starting a w ritin g process, as th ey requ ire k e y vo ca b u la ry an d an u n d erstan d in g o f
processes, b u t d o n o t necessarily need co n n ected text. A b ra n ch ed o r statem ent k ey w h ich
uses yes/no qu estion s to lead the reader to the correct d efin itio n of, fo r exam p le, an a n i
m al, is an exam p le o f a real-p u rp o se co m p re h en sio n task w h ich can also be used as a
m o d el fo r the co n stru ctio n o f a d ifferent key. A sim ilar w ay o f eliciting key vocabulary is
to use a V en n d iag ram fo r classification w ith visuals as a source. B y locating the items into
separate or jo in t sectio n s o f th e V e n n d iag ram (w h ich co u ld consist o f betw een tw o and
five circles w ith a ran ge o f overlap p ossibilities), learners are d em on strating a conceptual
u n d erstan d in g, b u t w ith o u t the m ore co m p le x lan gu age w h ich a branch ed key requires.
In this way, the essential d escriptive o r d efinitive term s can be tested along w ith the under
stan d in g o f h o w th ey lin k and differ, w ith o u t the need fo r o th er language w hich might
d ivert atten tion. T h is w o rks especially w ell as a gro u p task, because it involves an initial
b ra in sto rm in g o f relevant ideas, w h ich sh o u ld in ev ita b ly p rod u ce a m ore com prehensive
o u tco m e i f shared b y a n u m b er o f students. T h is w ill th en lead to a group reasoning
process in ord er fo r d ecisions to be m ad e ab o u t the p lacem en t o f the assem bled ideas onto
the d iagram . T h e need to state the reasons fo r the d ecisions o u t lo u d supports the deep
er co n cep t co m p reh en sio n o f in d ivid uals and o f the g ro u p collectively. H owever, for the
p ro d u ctio n o f longer, co n n ected texts, a sim ple task b r ie f w h ich begins w ith instructions
to describe, explain o r - at a h igh er level - ju stify is rarely su fficient to elicit a response
w h ich w ill tru ly represent as full an u n d erstan d in g as learners m ay actually possess (except
w ith m o re lin gu istically advan ced students). U sing a heard text as the m odel (such as a
sh o rt clip o f a d o cu m en ta ry) is a m ore d em an d in g b rid g in g task w h ich w ill ultim ately
a llo w learners to p ro d u ce a fuller, rich er text. T h is is because the task requires the infor
m atio n to be cap tu red as it is sp oken and in co n text rath er th an th ro u gh m ultiple readings
carried o u t at the stu d en ts o w n speed. W atch in g a d o cu m e n ta ry gives an exam ple o f a
h eard -text b rid g in g task.
Watch the video and list the sources o f C 02emissions that appear in it.
While listening, read the transcription o f the video and complete the gaps.
En e r g y - d ep e n de n t .............appliances are part o f our modern w a y of life. Most
o f t h e e ne rg y t h e y use comes from burning g a s , .............. wh ic h emit carbon
dioxide, C 0 2, into t h e a t m o s p h e r e , .............t h e planets climate . . .
Source: J. M iquel M ontesinos (2008)
Link to worksheet [Accessed 27 A pril 09]: http://www.xtec.cat/cirel/pla_le/nile/
m iquel_m ontesinos/students_worksheets.pdf
A n o th er varian t o n this is a task w h ich requires learners to take notes or fill in a dia
gram o r grid, w hilst listening to the teacher give a presentation w hich consolidates and
synthesizes p revio u sly learned m aterial from the unit. Shorter w ritin g or speaking tasks are
appropriate on ce the m od ellin g is p artially o r w h o lly rem oved. T h e exam ple task Thinking
ab o u t a p rob lem scaffolds the lan gu age o f co n clu sio n bu t not the actual mathematical
reasoning - this needs to com e fro m the students, either ind ivid ually or in groups.
128
Science investigations offer o pportu n ities fo r short pieces o f w ritin g or speaking from
notes. O nce the language o f report has been established, the scaffolding can be at least
partly w ithdraw n. This is a goo d exam ple o f the integration o f teaching, learning and
assessment, as there w ill be a series o f stages involved in the w h o le process.
1
First o f all, m odellin g or instruction -giving w ill set out the objectives and will
establish the success criteria (not for the investigation, but for the reporting o f it).
2 D u rin g this process, scaffolding w ill take place as the teacher circulates and
encourages pairs or groups to discuss w hat they are d oin g. A t this stage, the
teacher w ill sam ple in d ivid uals and grou ps u nderstan din g o f the concepts
b eh in d the investigative w ork, as w ell as their ability to see what is happenin g
and why as the investigation proceeds.
3 T h e teacher w ill also b ecom e aware d u rin g the m od ellin g stage o f any really
specific language needs w hich m igh t prevent accurate and full reportin g o f the
investigation.
4 As an assessm ent op p o rtu n ity, the reportin g stage w ill be divided into tw o
sections. Firstly, the pairs/groups w ill create the report using peer scaffolding.
In dividuals w ill w rite this fo rm ally or m ake notes for an oral report. T h e teacher
w ill then either see the w ritten reports and assess them o r w ill listen to oral
reports and offer feedback. In either case, the assessm ent w ill still be form ative
and so fo rm p art o f the o n g o in g teaching and learning process.
C lear learn in g objectives are needed before an assessment focus can be chosen.
L earning objectives/outcom es sh o u ld use a form at w h ich acknowledges the
d ifferent areas o f learn in g in the classroom (such as the 4CS approach) - this
w ill u su ally in clu d e content/skills first, then language in som e form. In a CLIL
classroom there are likely to be m ore possible angles o f assessment at any one
p o in t because o f the integrative nature o f content and language. Therefore, even
m ore than in first-language lessons, w e cann ot always assess everything.
r^cr
Beginning
Developing
D iso rg a n iz e d
Accomplished
Excellent
a n d difficult
difficult to
b u t ea sy to
to fo llo w
fo llo w
fo llo w
Pictures and
graphics
Sm a ll and
B ig bu t difficult
Sm a ll but ea sy
B ig a nd ea sy to
im p o ssib le to
to un d e rsta n d
to un d e rsta n d
u n d e rsta n d
Texts
Sm a ll and
B ig but difficult
Sm a ll bu t ea sy
B ig and ea sy to
im p o ssib le to
to un d e rsta n d
to un d e rsta n d
u n d e rsta n d
un d e rsta n d
un d e rsta n d
Content
D o e s not cover
Covers so m e o f
C overs m o st o f
All topics
th e appropriate
the appropriate
covered. A lso
topics
topics
topics
inte resting
facts
Speech
M atching
between
speech and
images
Beginning
Developing
Accomplished
Excellent
Speech has
Speech is
O n ly a fe w
Speech and
n o t h in g to do
item s o f the
slides m atch
w ith slides
different fro m
perfectly
slides
reflected in the
slides
Language
M any
A fe w errors
O n ly o n e or
Pron un ciation
tw o errors
and g ra m m a r
a nd
are perfect
g ra m m a tic a l
errors
Communication
The speech is
The speech is
The speech
The speech is
read all th e
read m o st o f
is read
no t read
tim e
th e tim e
so m e tim e s
Timing
O n ly o ne
O ne m em ber
O ne m em ber
The tw o
between team
members
m em ber
sp e a ks m o st o f
sp e a k s m ore
m e m b e rs share
sp e a ks
th e tim e
th a n th e o th er
speech equally
We shou ld fam iliarize the learners w ith the assessm ent m easures and success
criteria, expressed in a stu d en t-frien d ly form at.
I f the assessm ent is orally based, w ait tim e is crucial, as in CLIL contexts we
sh o u ld be asking students to thin k, and th in kin g takes tim e and the expression
o f that th in k in g takes longer.
Students need to be able to take som e respon sibility for their ow n assessment,
b o th in term s o f self- and peer-assessm ent. T h is w ill enhance their longer-term
learn in g potential.
References
A lberich, J. (2007) English through Science [O nline lesson plans and w orksheets]. Available at:
http://www.xtec.cat/cirel/pla_le/nottingham /joan_alberich/index.htm [Accessed 29
A p ril 09].
Am es, C . and Am es, R. (1984) Systems o f student and teacher m otivation: Toward a qualitative
definition, Journal o f Educational Psychology, 76, 4, 535-56.
Assessm ent Reform G roup (2002) Assessment for Learning: 10 Principles. Research-based principles
to guide classroom practice [O nline], Available at: http://www.qca.org.uk/libraryAssets/media/
4031_afl_principles.pdf [Accessed 27 A pril 2009].
Black, P. and W iliam , D. (1998) Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assess
m ent, Phi Delta Kappa, [Online] 80, 2. Available at: http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/
kbla9810.htm [Accessed 28 A pril 2009].
B loom , B. S. (1968) Learning for Mastery. The Evaluation Comment, Los Angeles: University of
California.
Brow n, J. D. and H udson, T. (1998) T h e Alternatives in Language Assessm ent, TESOL Quarterly,
32, 4, 653-75.
Clarke, S. (2001) Unlocking Formative Assessment: Practical Strategies for Enhancing Pupils Learning
in the Primary Classroom, London: H odder and Stoughton.
C ohen, A. (1994) Assessing Language Ability in the Classroom (Second edition), Boston: Newbury
House/Heinle and Heinle.
Common European Framework o f Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (2001)
Cam bridge: C am bridge U niversity Press.
D w eck, C . S. (1986) M otivational processes affecting learning American Psychologist, 4 1 ,1040-8.
Genesee, F. and Upshur, J. A. (1996) Classroom-Based Evaluation in Second Language Education,
Cam bridge: C am bridge U niversity Press.
Pinker, S. (1994) The Language Instinct: How the M ind Creates Language, N ew York: Harper Collins.
Sadler, D. R. (1989) Form ative assessment and the design o f instructional systems, Instructional
Science, 18,119-44.
Scriven, M . (1967) The m ethodology o f evaluation, in Stake, R. E. (ed.) (1967) Curriculum
Evaluation (Am erican Educational Research Association M onograph Series on Evaluation, 1),
Chicago: Rand McNally.
232
Serra, C. (2007) Assessing CLIL at prim ary school: A longitudinal study, International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10, 5, 582-602.
Short, D. (1993) Assessing integrated language and content instruction, TESOL Quarterly, 27, 4,
627-56.
Vygotsky, L. (1978) M ind in Society, Cam bridge, M A: Harvard U niversity Press.
Zangl, R. (2000) M o nitoring language skills in Austrian prim ary (elem entary) schools: A case
study, Language Testing, 17, 250-60.