BEYOND TESTS: ALTERNATIVES IN ASSESSMENT

PAPER

Submitted as partial fulfilment for

Advanced Assessment in ELT course
supervised by Fachrurrazy, M.A., Ph.D.

by
Dyah Ayu Nugraheni

NIM 130221818796

Julien Arief Wicaksono

NIM 130221810486

Ni Nengah Dita A.

NIM 120221521965

STATE UNIVERSITY OF MALANG

GRADUATE PROGRAM IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING
DECEMBER 2013

BEYOND TESTS: ALTERNATIVES IN ASSESSMENT

I. RATIONALE
Tests are one of a number of possible types of assessment. There is an
important distinction was made between testing and assessing. Tests are formal
procedures, usually administered within strict time limitations, to sample the
performance of a test-taker in a specified domain (Brown, 2004:251). Assessment
connotes a much broader concept in that most of the time when teachers are
teaching, they are also assessing (Brown 2004:251). Assessment is considered
crucial and plays a very important role in the teaching process. Assessment
includes all occasions from informal impromptu observations and comments up to
and including tests.
There are many significant reasons for why educators and learners need
assessment in the teaching-learning process. Assessment should provide some
pieces of information about learners knowledge and the way students deal with
the material being taught. That is why it is essential for the teachers to be careful
with their students in order not to discourage them from exploring the language.
OMalley and Pierce (1996:3) enumerated some of the most important purpose of
assessment:
1.

Screening and identification: identifying of some learners for particular

language learning.

2.

Placement: identifying the appropriate level of proficiency of particular

learners in order to tailor accurate learning program for them.

3.

Reclassification (or exit): determining whether the learners already acquired

certain language so that they could enter another level of proficiency.

4.

Monitoring student progress: to observe the process of gaining knowledge

5.

Program evaluation: to establish to what extent students gained the

knowledge of instructional programs.

6.

Accountability: making sure that students meet the expectations in achieving

goals and fulfilling educational standards.

All those reasons mentioned tempted scholars and educators to start

investigating and experimenting with different approaches to classroom
assessment.
Furthermore, tests, especially largest standardized tests, tend to be oneshot performances that are timed, multiple choices decontextualized, normreferenced, and that foster extrinsic motivation. Due to that reason, in the early
1990s, in a culture of rebellion against the notion that all people and all skills
could be measured by traditional tests, a novel concept emerged that began to be
labeled alternatives in assessment. In the other hand, OMalley and Pierce
(1996:4) define the alternatives in assessment as authentic assessment which is
meant as any multiple forms of assessment that reflect student learning,
achievement, motivation, and attitudes on instructionally-relevant classroom
activities.
Brown (2004:254) promotes another term which is called as performancebased assessment. Performance-based assessment was established because
standardized tests do not elicit actual performance on the part of test-takers.
Performance-based assessment is an alternative form of assessment that moves
away from traditional paper and pencil test. Performance-based assessment
implies productive, observable skills, such as speaking and writing, of contentvalid tasks (Brown, 2004:254). This kind of assessment requires learners to be
creative in accomplishing and dealing with different authentic activities with the
use of relevant abilities (OMalley & Pierce, 1996:27). In another words,
performance based assessment involves having the students a project, whether it is
oral, written or group performance.
However, performance assessment is not completely synonymous with the
concept of alternative assessment. Rather, it is best understood as one of the
primary traits of the many available alternatives to assessment (Brown, 2005:256)
The defining characteristics of the various alternatives in assessment that
have been commonly used across the profession were aptly summed up by Brown
and Hudson (1998, in Brown, 2004:252). Alternatives in assessments are:
1.

require students to perform, create, produce, or do something;

2.

use real-world contexts or simulations;

3.

are nonintrusive in that they extend the day-to-day classroom activities;

4.

allow students to be assessed on what they normally do in class every day;

5.

use tasks that represent meaningful instructional activities;

6.

focus on processes as well as products;

7.

tap into higher-level thinking and problem-solving skills;

8.

provide information about both the strengths and weaknesses of students;

9.

are multiculturally sensitive when properly administered;

10. ensure that people, not machines, do the scoring, using human judgments;
11. encourage open disclosure of standards and rating criteria; and
12. call upon teachers to perform new instructional and assessment roles.
A. Purposes and Uses of Alternatives in Assessment
Unlike standardized testing, which usually produces a score that may not
be meaningful by itself, information from alternative in assessment is easy to
interpret and understand (Hamayan, 1995:215). Alternative assessment lends itself
well to both purposes, especially the latter since the teacher has a measure of
control when using it.
1. Evaluating the learners
Alternative assessment provides us within insight into individual students
language proficiency that cannot be obtained from standardized test. Through
alternative assessment, it is possible to get a sense of how the learners manages a
conversation with a peer, expresses him- or herself in writing, or is able to
conduct an experiment in science while working with English-speaking peers in
the classroom. Because most alternative assessment is ongoing over the period of
a year (or at least a semester), the picture that emerges about the learner and his or
her language proficiency reflects the developmental processes that take place in
language learning over time. Thus, through alternative assessment, it is possible to
focus on the process as well as the product learning.
2. Evaluating the instruction
Because of changing outlook on assessment from one that is learner-centered
to one that is more responsive to the entire learning environment, alternative
assessment procedures are being successfully use to assess not only the learner but
also the classroom and the instruction. Although the sole focus of many
assessment initiatives continues to be on the learner, many educators have called
for a closer link between instruction and assessment. Assessment be part of a
feedback loop that allows teachers to monitor and modify instruction continually
in response to result of students assessment. This process encourages the teachers
to use the results to draw conclusions about instruction and not just about the
learners.
(Himayan, 1995:216)
3

II. ALTERNATIVES IN ASSESSMENT

This chapter discusses some alternatives in assessment which are used in
the classroom.
A. Portfolios
A very interesting form of assessing students performance is portfolio
assessment. Portfolio is a systematic collection of student work that is analyzed to
show progress over time with regard to instructional objectives (OMalley and
Pierce, 1996:5). According to Genesee and Upshur as cited in Brown (2004:256),
a portfolio is a purposeful collection of students' work that demonstrates their
efforts, progress, and achievements in given areas. Brown (2004:256) states
portfolios include materials such as:
1.

essays and compositions in draft and final forms;

2.

reports, project outlines;

3.

poetry and creative prose;

4.

artwork, photos, newspaper or magazine clippings;

5.

audio and/or video recordings of presentations, demonstrations, etc.;

6.

journals, diaries, and other personal reflections;

7.

tests, test scores, and written homework exercises;

8.

notes on lectures; and

9.

self- and peer-assessments: comments, evaluations, and checklists.

Gottlieb (1995, in Brown, 2004:257) suggested a developmental scheme

for considering the nature and purpose of portfolios by using the acronym
CRADLE (Collecting, Reflecting, Assessing, Documenting, Linking, and
Evaluating).
a) Collecting
As Collections, portfolios are an expression of students' lives and identities.
The appropriate freedom of students to choose what to include should be
respected, but at the same time the purposes of the portfolio need to be clearly
specified.

b) Reflecting
Reflective practice through journals and self-assessment checklists is an
important ingredient of a successful portfolio.
c) Assessing
Teacher and student both need to take the role of assessment seriously as they
evaluate quality and development over time.
d) Documenting
We need to recognize that a portfolio is an important Document in
demonstrating student achievement, and not just an insignificant adjunct to
tests and grades and other more traditional evaluation.
e) Linking
A portfolio can serve as an important link between student and teacher, parent,
community, and peers; it is a tangible product, created with pride that identifies
a student's uniqueness.
f) Evaluating
Finally, evaluation of portfolios requires a time-consuming but fulfilling
process of generating accountability.
Furthermore, Brown (2004:257-259) suggests a number of steps and
guidelines in successful portfolio development as follows:
1.

State objective clearly.

2.

Give guidelines on what materials to include.

3.

Communicate assessment criteria to students.

4.

Designate time within the curriculum for portfolio development.

5.

Establish periodic schedules for review and conferencing.

6.

Designate an accessible place to keep the portfolio.

7.

Provide positive washback-giving final assessment.

As cited in Brown (2004:257), some experts (Genesee & Upshur, 1996;

O'Malley & Valdez Pierce, 1996; Brown & Hudson. 1998; Weigle, 2002) claim
that portfolio can give many potential benefits for students. They are:
1.

foster intrinsic motivation, responsibility, and ownership;

2.

promote student-teacher interaction with the teacher as facilitator;

3.

individualize learning and celebrate die uniqueness of each student;

4.

provide tangible evidence of a student's work;

5.

facilitate critical thinking, self-assessment, and revision processes;

6.

offer opportunities for collaborative work with peers; and

7.

permit assessment of multiple dimensions of language learning.

Below is an example of scoring rubric for students portfolios

Points

Required
items

Concepts

Reflection/Critique

Overall
Presentation

90100

All
required
items are
included,
with a
significant
number of
additions.

Items clearly
demonstrate that the
desired learning
outcomes for the term
have been achieved. The
student has gained a
significant
understanding of the
concepts and
applications.

Reflections illustrate
the ability to
effectively critique
work, and to suggest
constructive
practical
alternatives.

Items are
clearly
introduced,
well
organized, and
creatively
displayed,
showing
connection
between items.

75-89

All
required
items are
included,
with a few
additions.

Items clearly
demonstrate most of the
desired learning
outcomes for the term.
The student has gained a
general understanding of
the concepts and
applications.

Reflections illustrate
the ability to critique
work, and to suggest
constructive
practical
alternatives.

Items are
introduced and
well
organized,
showing
connection
between items.

60-75

All
required
items are
included.

Items demonstrate some

of the desired learning
outcomes for the term.
The student has gained
some understanding of
the concepts and
attempts to apply them.

Reflections illustrate
an attempt to
critique work, and to
suggest alternatives.

Items are
introduced and
somewhat
organized,
showing some
connection
between items.

40-59

A
significant
number of
required
items are
missing.

Items do not
demonstrate basic
learning outcomes for
the term. The student has
limited understanding of
the concepts.

Reflections illustrate
a minimal ability to
critique work.

Items are not

introduced and
lack
organization.

No work
submitted

Figure 1. The Example of Students Portofolio Rubric

(Taken from Pierette Pheeney, in The Science Teacher, October 1998)

Figure 2. The example of Portofolio Evaluation Summary

(Taken from OMalley & Pierce, 1996:48)
B. Journals
A journal is a log (or "account") of one's thoughts, feelings, reactions,
assessments, ideas, or progress toward goals, usually written with little attention
to structure, form, or correctness (Brown, 2004:260).Most classroom-oriented
journals are what have now come to be known as dialogue journals. They imply
an interaction between a reader (the teacher) and the student through dialogues or
responses.
Below is a dialogue journal sample

Figure 3. An Example of a Dialogue journal

(Taken from Brown 2004:260-261).
Journals obviously serve important pedagogical purposes: practice in the
mechanics of writing, using writing as thinking process, individualization, and
communication with the teacher.
Brown (2004:262) states a number of general steps and guidelines that
must be considered by the teachers for making journal as an assessment.
1. Sensitively introduce students to the concept of journal writing.
2. State the objective(s) of the journal.
a. Language-learning logs.
b. Grammar journals.
c. Response to readings.
d. Strategies-based learning logs.
e. Self-assessment reflection.
f.

Diaries of attitudes, feelings, and other affective factors.

g. Acculturation logs.
3. Give guidelines on what kinds of topics to include.
4. Carefully specify the criteria for assessing or grading journals.

5. Provide optimal feedback in your responses.

6. Designate appropriate time frames and schedules for review.
7. Provide formative, washback-giving final comments.
C. Conference and Interviews
Conferences have been a routine part of language classrooms especially of
courses in writing. Brown (2004:264) considers conferencing as a standard part of
the process approach to teaching writing, in which the teacher, in a conversation
about a draft, facilitates the improvement of the written work. Such interaction has
the advantage of one-on-one interaction between teacher and student and the
teacher's being able to direct feedback toward a student's specific needs.
However, conferences are not limited to drafts of written work. Brown
(2004:265) lists some possible functions and subject matter for conducting
conference, they are:
1.

commenting on drafts of essays and reports;

2.

reviewing portfolios;

3.

responding to journals;

4.

advising on a student's plan for an oral presentation;

5.

assessing a proposal for a project;

6.

giving feedback on the results of performance on a test;

7.

clarifying understanding of a reading;

8.

exploring strategies-based options for enhancement or compensation;

9.

focusing on aspects of oral production;

10. checking a student's self-assessment of a performance;

11. setting personal goals for the near future; and
12. assessing general progress in a course.
Furthermore, Brown (2004:265) states conferences must assume that the
teacher plays the role of a facilitator and guide, not of an administrator, of a
formal assessment. In this intrinsically motivating atmosphere, students need to
understand that the teacher is an ally who is encouraging self-reflection and
improvement.

Another kind of conference is interview. Interview is intended to denote a

context in which a teacher interviews a student for a designated assessment
purpose. Interviews, according to Brown (2004:265-266) may have one or more
of several possible goals, in which the teacher:
1.

assesses the student's oral production;

2.

ascertains a student's needs before designing a course or curriculum;

3.

seeks to discover a student s learning styles and preferences;

4.

asks a student to assess his or her own performance; and

5.

requests an evaluation of a course.

The following guidelines is developed by Brown (2004:266) to help to

conduct the conference and interview efficiently.

1.

Offer an initial atmosphere of warmth and anxiety-lowering (warm-up).

2.

Begin with relatively simple questions.

3.

Continue with level-check and probe questions, but adapt to the interviewee
as needed.

4.

Frame questions simply and directly.

5.

Focus on only one factor for each question. Do not combine several
objectives in the same question.

6.

Be prepared to repeat or reframe questions that are not understood.

7.

Wind down with friendly and reassuring closing comments.

10

Figure 4. Interview Scoring Rubric

(Taken from Pierette Pheeney, in The Science Teacher, October 1998)
D. Observation
All teachers, whether they are aware of it or not, observe their students in
the classroom almost constantly. One of the objectives of such observation, as
stated in Brown (2004:269), is to assess students without their awareness (and
possible consequent anxiety) of the observation so that the naturalness of their
linguistic performance is maximized.
In order to carry out classroom observation, Brown (2004:268) claims that
it is important to take the following steps.
1. Determine the specific objectives of the observation.
2. Decide how many students will be observed at one time.
3. Set up the logistics for making unnoticed observations.
4. Design a system for recording observed performances.

11

5. Do not overestimate the number of different elements you can observe at one
time, keep them very limited.
6. Plan how many observations you will make.
7. Determine specifically how you will use the results
Recording the observations can be done in the form of anecdotal records,
checklists, or rating scales.
1. Anecdotal records
Anecdotal records should be as specific as possible in focusing on the objective
of the observation, but they are so varied in form that to suggest formats here
would be counterproductive. Their very purpose is more note-taking than
record-keeping.
2. Checklists
Checklists are a viable alternative for recording observation results. Checklists
can also be quite simple, which is a better option for focusing on only a few
factors within real time.
3. Rating scales
One type of rating scale asks teachers to indicate the frequency of occurrence
of target performance on a separate frequency scale (always = 5: never = 1).
Another is a holistic assessment scale that requires an overall assessment
within a number of categories (for example, vocabulary usage, grammatical
correctness, fluency).

Figure 5.The Example of Observation Check List

(Taken from Brown, 2005:269)

12

E. Self- and Peer-Assessments

An autonomous student can independently monitor and assess himself in
order to pursuit all keys to success. Thus, intrinsic motivation will be developed
from a self-propelled desire to excel a successful acquisition of any set of skills. In
the other hand, peer-assessment needs a cooperative learning instead of those two
principles in self-assessment (Brown, 2004:270).
According to Brown (2004:271-276), there are at least five types of selfand peer-assessment.
1. Assessment of (a specific) performance
In this category, a student typically monitors him or herself in either oral or
written production and renders some kind of evaluation of performance. The
evaluation takes place immediately or very soon after the performance.
2. Indirect assessment of (general) competence
Indirect self- or peer-assessment targets larger slices of time with a view to
rendering an evaluation of general ability, as opposed to one specific,
relatively time-constrained performance.
3. Metacognitive assessment (for setting goals)
The purpose of this type assessment is setting goals and maintaining an eye
on the process of their pursuit. Personal goal-setting has the advantage of
fostering intrinsic motivation and of providing learners with that extra-special
impetus from having set and accomplished one's own goals.
4. Socio affective assessment
This type of self- and peer-assessment comes in the form of methods of
examining affective factors in learning. It requires looking at oneself through
a psychological lens and may not differ greatly from self-assessment across a
number of subject-matter areas or for any set of personal skills.
5. Student-generated tests
This last type of assessment that is not usually classified strictly as self- or
peer-assessment is the technique of engaging students in the process of
constructing tests themselves. Student-generated tests can be productive,
intrinsically motivating, autonomy-building processes.

13

Figure 6. The Example of Indirect Self-Assessment Rating Scale

(Taken from Brown 2004:272)

Figure 7. Example of Self-Assessment of Oral Language

(Taken from OMalley & Pierce, 1995:70)

Figure 8. Example of Peer Assessment Oral Presentations

(Taken from OMalley & Pierce, 1995:70)
14

Furthermore, Brown (2004:276-277) provides four guidelines that will

help teachers bring self- and peer-assessment as an intrinsically motivating task
into the classroom successfully. The four guidelines are:
1. Tell students the purpose of the assessment
It is essential that you carefully analyze the needs that will be met in offering
both self- and peer-assessment opportunities, and then convey this
information to students.
2. Define the task(s) clearly
Make sure the students know exactly what they are supposed to do.
Guidelines and models will be of great help in clarifying the procedures.
3. Encourage impartial evaluation of performance or ability
One of the greatest drawbacks to self-assessment is the threat of subjectivity.
Clear assessment criteria can go long way toward encouraging objectivity.
4. Ensure beneficial washback through follow-up tasks
Systematic follow-up can be accomplished through further self-analysis,
journal reflection, written feedback from the teacher, conferencing with the
teacher, purposeful goal-setting by the student, or any combination of the
above.
Brown (2004:277-278) lists a variety of tasks within each of the four skills
for self- and peer-assessment.
Listening Tasks
Listening to TV or radio broadcasts and checking comprehension with a partner
Listening to bilingual versions of a broadcast and checking comprehension
Asking when you don't understand something in pair or group work
Listening to an academic lecture and checking yourself on a "quiz" of the content
Speaking Tasks
Filling out student self-checklists and questionnaires
Using peer checklists and questionnaires
Rating someone's oral presentation (holistically)
Detecting pronunciation or grammar errors on a self-recording

15

Reading Tasks
Reading passages with self-check comprehension questions following
Reading and checking comprehension with a partner
Taking grammar and vocabulary quizzes on the Internet
Conducting self-assessment of reading habits
Writing Tasks
Revising written work on your own
Revising written work with a peer (peer editing)
Proofreading
III.

SUMMARY
The table below is a summary of all six of the alternatives in assessment
with regard to their fulfillment of the major assessment principles.

Figure 9. A Comparison Table of the Six Alternatives in Assessment

(Taken from Brown 2004:278)
Below are the explanation of the figure above:
1. Portfolios
It is clear that portfolios get a relatively low practicality rating because of the
time it takes for teachers to respond and conference with their students.
Nevertheless, following the guidelines suggested previously for specifying the
criteria for evaluating portfolios can raise the reliability to a respectable level,
and without question the washback effect, the authenticity, and the face
validity of portfolios remain exceedingly high.
2. Journals
Practicality remains low; reliability may reach only moderate level. Content
and face validity are very high if the journal entries are closely interwoven with
curriculum goals. In the category of washback, the potential in dialogue
journals is off the charts.

16

3. Conference
Practicality is low because of time consuming, reliability is low also because of
the purpose is to offer individualized attention, which will vary greatly from
student to student. Face validity is high due to their individualization nature.
Content validity should also be upheld. Washback and authenticity is high.
4. Interview
Practicality is mod because of time consuming, reliability is mod also because
of the purpose is to offer individualized attention, which will vary greatly from
student to student. Face validity is high due to their individualization nature.
Content validity should also be upheld. Washback and authenticity is mod
unless the results of the interview are clearly folded into subsequent learning.
5. Observation
Practicality and reliability are moderate, especially if the objectives are kept
very simple. Face validity and content validity are likely to get high marks
since observations are likely to be integrated into the ongoing process of a
course. Washback only moderate if you do little follow up on observing.
Authenticity is high because, if an observation goes relatively unnoticed by the
student, then there is little like hood of contrived contexts or playacting.
6. Self- and Peer-Assessment
Practicality can achieve moderate level with such procedure as checklist and
questionnaires, while reliability risks remaining at a low level, given the
variation within and across learners. Face validity can be raised from what
might otherwise be a low level. Adherence to course objectives will maintain a
high degree of content validity. Authenticity and washback both have very high
potential because students are centering on their own linguistic needs and are
receiving useful feedback.
(Brown, 2005:256-278)
However, when we compare some alternatives in assessment which are
mentioned above with the formal standardized test, the formal standardized test
are almost by definition highly on practical, reliable instruction. They are
designed to minimized time and money on the part of test designer and test-taker,
and to be accurate in their scoring (Brown, 2004: 252). On other hand, alternatives
in assessment require considerable and efforts on the part of the teacher and
student (Brown, 2004:252). This relationship can be shown in Figure 10.

17

Figure 10. Relationship of practicality/reliability to washback/authenticity

(Taken from Brown, 2004:253)
The figure appears to imply that large-scale multiple-choice tests cannot
offer much washback or authenticity, nor can portfolios and such alternatives
achieve much practicality or reliability.

18

REFERENCES
Brown, J.D. & Hudson, T. 1998. The Alternatives in Language Assessment. In
Brown, H. D. 2004. Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom
Practices. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Brown, H. D. 2004. Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom
Practices. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Genesee, F. & Upshur, J. A. 1996. Classroom-based evaluation in second
language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. In Brown,
H. D. 2004. Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom
Practices. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Gottlieb, M. 1995. Nurturing student learning through portfolios. TESOL Journal,
5, 12-14. In Brown, H. D. 2004. Language Assessment: Principles and
Classroom Practices. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Himayan, E.V. 1995. Approaches to Alternative Assessment. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics Journal, (online), 15: 216-226,
(https://resources.oncourse.iu.edu/access/content/user/fpawan/L540%20_
%20CBI/Hamayan_95_alt-assess.pdf), retrieved on December 08, 2013.
OMalley, M., & Pierce, V.L. 1996. Authentic Assessment for English Language
Learners. Practical Approaches for Teachers. New York: Addison
Wesley.
Pheeney, P. 1998. Sample Student Portfolio Rubric & Interview Scoring Rubric,
(online), http://drscavanaugh.org/workshops/assessment/sample.html,
retrieved on December 04, 2013.
Weigle, Sara Gushing. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. In Brown, H. D. 2004. Language Assessment: Principles
and Classroom Practices. White Plains, NY: Longman.