Assessment and grading are traditional indispensable staples of teaching and learning; it encompasses any subject and all the aspects of our work. Ideally it is supposed to show a student’s progress and our own ability to teach. In a simplified way, it goes like this: we “give” a topic, students do exercises and homework, regurgitate all the new knowledge in the classroom with various success. They get daily marks for every exercise fulfilled which produces an overall impression about the new material for us and for them. When we feel confident that our classes imbibed enough we may conduct a test; if the result is satisfactory, we continue with the new themes as per the national curriculum and the lesson plans. If the result is lower than expected or plain low, we may try to revise the topic and have a new test later. While at the end of a term or semester students perform interim tests which help us assess their progress and note the areas of concern, at the end of every academic year or course they usually take a more serious, more complicated examination designed to show their current growing level. We know that there is always room for improvement, and a place for surprises. The strongest student may suddenly fail a test while the weakest one may demonstrate decent results. Yet more often than not our expectations are up to the mark, pun intended.
All through my long career in ELT, I often had the same uncomfortable feeling connected to the traditional ways of assessment. One aspect stems from the requirement to use the same criteria with the whole class or group. Any test or examination paper consists of several parts which reflect the topics learned during the year. Task A, 10 points. It is easy to calculate how to grade the answers by the number of correct answers. Once we are done checking we see the arithmetic mean, the average score, and grade the whole test accordingly. There are usually guidelines, like 64% means “Satisfactory”, 75-84% “Good”, 85%+ “Excellent”. The system works well for exams and for the final grades. However after every routine test I would often notice the same glaring peculiarity – and work out various ways to deal with it.
Imagine any standard test with four sections designed to show the students’ progress with the four traditional skills. Several students would pass any test with flying colors. A good part would show decent results, with a few mistakes. Naturally someone may fail. And then there are those who mysteriously manage to produce all the correct answers in one or two sections yet fail miserably in some others. To illustrate, one student may hear really well and reproduce any dialogue, monologue, insert all the words, have no problems with multiple choice tasks. Yet their grammar skills may be practically non-existent, their writing skills quite abominable, and their speaking or reading rather halting. Thus, though at least one section of their test is perfect or close, we are obliged to give them an F or a D as an overall mark. In other words, we grade their work for what they did NOT manage to do, rather than allotting an extra mark for what they DID do.
I worked out a system which allowed me to alleviate the situation, and thus to motivate such students. I would always mark the “good” section as done according to the criteria, and always give them a good grade for that one (or two). I would also explain to them that while that other part of the test is still a clear F (fail), they are really good at something else. This involves some extra work on the part of the teacher because it means an individualized approach to every student not only in the way we “give” the new material, but also in the ways we assess their progress. The results, the growing motivation, the desire to excel in those difficult aspects, and the parental support have always been extraordinary. A kind word goes a long way; our support is really appreciated.
As an only teacher with a Ph.D. degree among the staff of one hundred, a teacher trainer and lecturer, I was allowed quite a lot of leeway. As long as I did not demand any extra pay I was free to use any means of assessment I deemed necessary, including the newest technology like My EnglishLab and several others. Naturally I shared my methods with my colleagues at various courses, workshops and seminars at many regional and national events. Most teachers would agree that my approach was quite sensible and that it brought about good results. However only a few would use the same approach during a school year. It involves a lot of unpaid extra work, at least when you first begin using it. Some would oppose any new method of assessment including the use of ICT in the classroom. My experience shows that a resistance to anything new does not depend on a person’s age, religion or race. Rather it is the way some teachers see themselves as “the chief authority”, and their class remains just one almost faceless mass, not individuals with different abilities and needs.
Nina MK, Ph.D.