http://dx.doi.org/10.14342/smog.2013.75.

215 215

A Review of Assessment in Language Learning: How

Can You Assess L2 Performance by Young Learners?* 1

Juhyun Back (Busan National University of Education)

Juhyun Back. 2013. A Review of Assessment in Language Learning: How

Can You Assess L2 Performance by Young Learners? Studies in Modern
Grammar 75, 215-235. This paper aims to examine problematic areas in
assessing children’s language learning, suggesting key solutions to the
problems arising from different types of assessment. A critical evaluation of
a variety of alternative assessment methods provided several teaching
implications. First, assessment needs to be conducted through informal tests
in which the learners cannot notice that they are being assessed. Although
assessing young learners needs to be compatible with the more accessible
learning such as activities used everyday in their classroom, coping with
instructions for classroom activities needs to be handled with care. Asses-
sing young learners through group or pair works can be more effective to
enhance social and communicational skills than traditional tests. However,
equity in relation to their participation in the activities, their English
knowledge, and learning experience needs to be taken into serious consider-
ation. Finally, more attempts to promote teacher-student interaction through
student journals and conferencing assessment need to be made, even though
this would not be culturally preferred learning style in Korea. This paper
may thus give solutions for effective ways of assessing young learners from
multiple perspectives rather than depending on only one assessment
instrument.

[Key words: assessment of young learners, self-assessment, portfolio assessment,

project assessment, observation, peer-assessment]

* This study was supported by the Education Research Institute, Busan National
University of Education in 2013.
216 현대문법연구 75 (2013)

1. Introduction

Although assessment is important for fostering positive and construc-

tive learning, young learners can often be negatively influenced by
inappropriate assessment methods used for older learners. As Cameron
(2001) points out, children are frequently stressed by the demands of
assessment. She explains this, assessment does not ‘serve’ teaching;
instead it seems to ‘drive’ teaching by ‘forcing teachers to teach what is
going to be assessed’(Cameron, 2001: 215). The language assessment at
Korean elementary schools largely depends more on formal structured
tests rather than performance tests, which implies that a degree of
achievement by the learners is objectively ranked through scoring
learning outcomes comparatively. This may yield a negative impact on
teaching and learning methods in the sense that teaching in the
classroom has been a more test-oriented and provoke learners’ rote
learning in Korea (Nam, 2002). This is based on the belief that the
ultimate goal of teaching and learning language in the classroom should
be getting on a high score on the tests. Another problematic area is that
most of the assessment techniques used in Korean EFL contexts would
make learners feel pressured by being assessed, particularly, in paper-and-
pencil tests. Performance-based assessment has been recently required to
cope with such problems at the primary education level in the Korean
EFL context (Korean Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation, 1996). It
focuses more on developing English communicative competence, en-
couraging learner participation in their language performance, and
encouraging learners to use cognitive strategies such as critical thinking
skills and problem-solving skills (Herman, Aschbacher, & Winters 1992).
This is in line with the 7th national curriculum of Korean primary
English education in which teaching should focus on increasing learners’
intrinsic motivation in language learning. Learners are thus encouraged
to actively participate in a variety of classroom activities such as songs,
 A Review of Assessment in Language Learning (Juhyun Back) 217

games, role-plays, and chants. Although performance-based assessment

has promoted activity-based language teaching in Korea, it is still not
problem-free: young learners may often feel frustrated by tests requiring
a higher level of language skills than their real language proficiency.
There would also be imbalance between the level of the learners’
language proficiency and their development of cognitive ability. In the
real circumstances, several factors such as classroom size, cost for equip-
ment or rater training, and limitations of time and place may seriously
affect conducting performance-based assessments. Lack of objectivity,
which may be caused by rater judgements, is also another problematic
area. Assessing young learners might be more than simply using class-
room activities, which implies that it requires more careful considera-
tions into practical, technical and emotional matters.
This paper aims to examine the solutions to the potential problems
arising from the assessment of language abilities of young learners and
thus suggest several key principles that should be taken into account
when assessment is planned and performed. It, therefore, focuses on a
range of issues in assessing young learners (from the ages of six to
twelve) in the Korean TEYL context. From a critical perspective, it
evaluates a variety of alternative assessment techniques and diagnoses
the advantages and disadvantages of each. These techniques may help
both language researchers and teachers choose appropriate ways of
assessing L2 performance by children, according to different situations,
aims, and contexts. It thus contributes to maximizing assessment’s
positive impact on language learning of young learners and minimizing
any damage to learning.

2. The Definitions of Evaluation, Assessment, and Testing

These three terms do not mean the same thing, but are frequently
used interchangeably, which can cause some confusion (Loannou-
218 현대문법연구 75 (2013)

Georgiou & Pavlou, 2003). Covering a whole range of issues beyond the
language education area, ‘evaluation’ is ‘a broader notion than assess-
ment, and the process of systematically gathering information in order
to make judgement’ (Rea-Dickens & Germaine, 1982: 22), so we can
decide to what extent a language programme satisfies its goals (Loannou
-Georgiou & Pavlou 2003). Assessment is concerned with all of the
methods used to collect information about children's learning skills,
performance, understanding, attitude, and motivation and thus provides
one type of information that can be used in evaluation (Cameron, 2001).
It can be accomplished through a variety of methods or techniques
including both informal and formal, one of which is ‘testing’ (Loannou-
Georgiou & Pavlou, 2003). With the specific objectives of discovering to
what degree a child has achieved a part of language learning, a test, for
example, checks to what extent a child understands a written text using
tasks or exercises.

3. Why Do We Assess Young Children?

3.1. What Are the Problems in Assessing Young Learners?

Factors such as age, content of language learning, method of teaching,

aims, and learning theories need to be taken into consideration in
assessment practices for young learners (Cameron, 2001). In terms of
‘content of language learning,’ children at the age from five or six to
twelve have more problems with metalanguage like the forms of plural
and singular (Lindfors, 1987). In relation to tasks given in school,
Lindfors (1987:157) comments,

(1) It is not surprising that this kind of ability required by the grammaticality
task develops later, for that task “disembeds” language from its context of
use and requires reflection on language as an entity with no real connection
with the child’s life.
 A Review of Assessment in Language Learning (Juhyun Back) 219

Thus, in providing tasks for the language assessment of children, it

is noted that the contents of these tasks need to be more concerned with
their real-life situations so that children can interpret and translate
words effectively in speech and writing (Malakoff & Hakkuta, 1991).
With respect to the ‘method of teaching,’ another difficulty that young
learners may have is their understanding of the instructions for many
games, songs, and drawings. Cameron (2001: 211) notes that:

(2) Often the instructions to an activity may be more complex than the activity
itself: a simple board game may require complicated instructions about
taking turns or penalties for landing in certain space

This complexity may discourage students’ participation in these

activities and thus, it is very hard to control the class, to focus on the
learners’attention, and to assess effectively. Therefore, in order to help
the children understand gradually, instructions supported with these
sorts of visual aids like pictures relevant to key stages need to be used.
Also, teachers need to simplify the instructions by paraphrasing the
words and expressions used for giving instruction. The final solution is
that teachers can make a short rehearsal by modeling them using a few
learners.

3.2 Important Principles that should be Taken into Account when

Planning Assessment

3.2.1 Issues of Motivation

Assessing the second language performance by young learners needs

to avoid focusing on errors or areas of weakness. When assessment serves
to highlight these errors or areas of weakness, this results in a negative
washback effect from assessment to learning, which discourages the
learners. On the other hand, ‘assessment can also help children to focus
220 현대문법연구 75 (2013)

on area that they need more work on before they can achieve a short-term
goal’ (Loannou-Georgiou & Pavlou, 2003: 6). However, highlighting errors
or areas of weakness may be inevitable to diagnose what children do
well and cannot do yet or what they need to work on more, and thus
teachers would have the difficulty of giving feedback for weaknesses that
children have in their language performance in the results of assessment.
Further studies are needed in this area. When they are aware of their
progress in a given time, they may be motivated and encouraged by seeing
themselves getting closer to their goal of learning. In addition, they may
have a sense of accomplishment from their positive assessment results,
which may encourage them to keep up their good work. This may suggest
that it is important to pitch assessment activities to the level of children.

3.2.2 The Role of Assessment in Teaching and Learning

Assessment needs to be interdependent of learning. This implies that

assessment should motivate language learning effectively. An important
role of conducting assessment is thus to help teachers monitor their
performance and design better future lesson plans, as well as contribute
to the learners’ learning process for both an individual learner and the
whole class (Loannou-Georgiou & Pavlou, 2003). The relationship
between teaching and assessment should also be inter-supportive; the
information from assessment can be useful for teachers to discover more
effective and successful teaching methodologies, materials or techniques.
Assessment may help teachers to evaluate their own work and discover
how successfully the lesson has been carried out, how useful the
materials and tasks the teacher prepared for the lesson were, and
whether any damages caused by the assessment were brought to the
children. It is also noted that assessment needs to avoid ‘disrupting’ or
invading learning (Cameron, 2001). Furthermore, assessment needs to
 A Review of Assessment in Language Learning (Juhyun Back) 221

work as a diagnostic tool that provides feedback to the teacher about

the suitability of the curriculum and instructional materials, the
effectiveness of the teaching methods, and the strengths and weaknesses
of the students (Rea-Dickins & Rixon, 1997). In doing this, a teacher
needs to pay constant attention to what young learners know and the
difficulties they have in the process of language learning (Brown, 2001).

3.2.3 Integration between Learning Activities and Assessment

Cameron (2001: 220) argues that assessment should be ‘congruent’

with learning, which implies,

(3) Assessment should fit comfortably with children’s learning experience. On

the whole, it is fairer to assess children on the basis of what they have
been taught and how, using assessment activities that are familiar to children
from their classroom experience.

This requires assessment to be like teaching and learning, and more

interactional rather than isolated. According to McNamara (1996),
assessment through activities in pairs or in groups can help young
learners to develop social interaction skills and ease adequate speaking
assessment at discourse level. This is in line with recent trends in
EFL/ESL teaching methodology that bring a considerable emphasis on
the need to develop the learners' cooperative learning skills. This may
lead the learners to their positive contribution to team work. However,
they do not often have enough English proficiency, and thus certain
tasks for assessment can be too demanding for young learners. This
might decrease learners’ motivation and often cause their ‘off-task’
(Cameron, 2001). It is thus noted that the level of language proficiency
should be taken into consideration to evaluate young learners’ language
performance through group works. In doing this, teachers need to avoid
metalanguage or abstract words to give instructions for the activities.
222 현대문법연구 75 (2013)

Instead, teachers can make the learners understand whatever activity is

being attempted by modeling how the activities are performed for the
leaners.

3.2.4 Psychological and Emotional Issues of Young Language Learners

It would be better not to let young learners (up to the age of twelve)
notice that they are being assessed and teaches are advised not to tell
or record the grade of the learners in front of class. This is based on
the belief that young learners are far more sensitive and susceptible to,
and more intimidated by, being assessed than adult learners when they
are conscious of being tested (Brown, 2001). The results from Rea-
Dickins, and Rixo’s (1999) study showed that a majority of TEYL
institutions still provide young learners with more formal tests called
‘paper and pencil tests’ than games, songs, and drawings for assessment,
completely separating the areas of assessing from learning. In Korea and
other Asian countries, this can be explained by the culture-embedded
assumptions: although formal tests might increase learner anxiety, most
parents from Confucian heritage Cultures (CHC) may prefer formal tests
in a belief that they can guarantee accuracy and validity rather than
performance-based assessments with classroom activities. However,
concurrent with the notion of communicative language teaching, many
teachers increasingly have a favourable attitude toward rather informal,
or performance-based assessment; Choi (1999) claimed that assessing
young learners through classroom activities positively affected the
learners’ attitude toward their language learning.
It is notable that the learners may not notice that they are being
assessed when assessment is carried out through classroom activities.
Although assessing young learners through classroom activities may
benefit by minimizing the possible damage that it may bring to young
 A Review of Assessment in Language Learning (Juhyun Back) 223

learners, there would still be on-going issues on its applicability in real

practice, particularly, in a Korean TEYL context. Choi (1999) pointed out
several problematic areas in adopting performance-based assessment;
validity inference drawn from test taker, and time and cost in relation
to development of assessment tools.
We have discussed a range of considerations taken into assessing
young language learners as well as some problematic areas in assessing
their L2 performance, from which we have examined several key
solutions for the assessment of children. It seems clear that integrating
assessment with classroom activities would have a more positive effect
on enhancing learning and teaching, congruent with a more learner-
centered and communicative language teaching approach rather than
solely relying on formal tests. Taking all of the issues discussed above
into account, this paper suggests various assessment techniques and
thus investigates what is more suitable for young language learners and
how far they can be adopted in the language classroom.

4. How Do We Assess Children?

Prior to examining alternative assessment techniques, we will look at

the relations between tasks, performance, and proficiency. In testing a
task-based second language performance, we need to consider that the
task variations may clearly have a major impact on the nature of the
performance that results and can, therefore, influence someone’s judged
proficiency (Skehan, 1998). For instance, the task which draws upon
familiar material seems to make learners produce greater fluency and
tasks with inherent structure are more likely to lead learners to focus
on accuracy by giving some sort of scaffold (Skehan, 1998). In using
many tasks as tests, the range of the task variations therefore need to
be considered.
224 현대문법연구 75 (2013)

4.1. Teacher Assessment

4.1.1. Traditional Tests

Although there are several advantages to using traditional tests such

as multiple-choice questions, true-false questions, and cloze-tests, which
are easy to mark and prepare and are relatively objective, they are not
particularly suited to assessing young learners (Pinter, 2006). The main
reason for arguing this is that children may feel stressed and inti-
midated by explicit test results. Furthermore, when test results appear
as a grade or mark, they may not always show us much about what
children can actually do (Loannou-Georgiou & Pavlou, 2003). However,
traditional test may be still the preferred type of assessment in Korean
EFL context; most parents in Korea tend to expect teachers to show
grades or marks, as they believe that assessment should be scored. This
can be partly explained by the culture-related assumption that parents
from collectivistic cultures, in which teacher-centered is still prevailing,
may prefer ‘learning by listening and reflection’ and tend to focus more
on ‘the results’ rather than ‘learning process’ (Cortazzi and Jin, 1997: 85).
Also, in large classrooms in Korea, traditional tests is most widespread
and easy to conduct. It is also more likely to guarantee the objectivity
from learning outcome than other types of assessment, although this
assessment technique does not support CLT approach. However, how
should learning progress be assessed? To monitor young learners’
progress from tests, testers need to be thus complemented with infor-
mation derived from other assessment techniques.

4.1.2 Structured Assessment Activities

Structured assessment activities are aimed at assessing knowledge,

skills, (including communication skills), and attitudes, as well as
 A Review of Assessment in Language Learning (Juhyun Back) 225

applying them to new situations (Loannou-Georgiou & Pavlou, 2003).

Certain activities like drawing, miming, cutting and pasting, which do
not require verbal performance, are useful for assessing receptive skills.
For example, ‘drawing’ makes children answer the questions, by
showing their understanding of the language without producing their
language. It can be a useful assessment tool for shy learners or learners
lacking oral skills. In designing theses sorts of tasks, it is noted that
children enjoy stories and play, and respond better to pictures, attractive
typography, and colourful materials (Hughes, 2003). These techniques
can benefit enhancing the learners' motivation rather than teacher
explanations. Teachers also need to make individual tasks brief and
various, for young learners have a very short attention span (Hughes,
2003). Taking it into consideration that children enjoy them and do not
feel threatened by them, these sorts of activities can be very appropriate
for children as an informal and learner-centred method of assessment.

4.1.3. Projects

Projects are specifically appropriate for assessing a ‘mixed-ability

group’ as they lead to the integration of language skills and encourage
students’ creativity (Loannou-Georgiou & Pavlou 2003). However,
assessing and managing both group work and individual contributions
to a whole group can be more demanding; many difficulties of timing
and organizing may often result. In the assessment of group work,
‘children usually enjoy working in groups, assessment of group work
may feel safer than individual exposure’(Loannou-Georgiou & Pavlou,
2003: 16), and teachers can possibly evaluate children’s social skills
through group assessment. Another advantage of this tool is that it
integrates four language skills (Pinter, 2006). Nonetheless, group
assessment has a range of limits of balancing between the work of
226 현대문법연구 75 (2013)

individual and that of the group. It may not be easy to assess individual
work when some children do not contribute to the group work. This
indicates that how to make them actively participate in the group work
is also a difficult issue and teachers should increase efforts to encourage
them to work for collaborative learning by giving praise and general
feedback (Pinter, 2006). To do this, two possible suggestions in practice
are given: teachers or test takers need to set up a range of criterion to
increase reliability of assessment for the level of group rather than
individual. Another possible solution is that teachers try to make a
comfortable environment in which the learners are motivated to
participate in pair or group works actively. Rotating the role of the
group's leader amongst the learners can be attempted to indicate the
rationale of group work clearly.

4.1.4. Observation

Observation is one of the most useful assessment techniques for

children in a sense that it can be carried out without disturbing them,
thus allowing them to be naturally assessed in the process of their
activities in classroom (Cameron, 2001; Pinter, 2006). The result is that
children are unlikely to be nervous while being assessed by observation.
Making notes soon after the lesson and keeping them on file is also
important in using observations for assessment purpose. As a very
specific and goal-directed way of looking at the particular aspects of
language, teachers’ observation can be planned in advance for assess-
ment purposes and can help teachers adjust the feedback from their
observation. However, assessing all the students by a teacher in large
class may not be an easy in Korean EFL context. Making the whole class
into several groups can be a possible solution, but assessing each group
needs to be systematically planed. Teachers need to be prepared to
 A Review of Assessment in Language Learning (Juhyun Back) 227

make notes in the leaning process of the learners. Teachers can also
interview each student to discover their learning difficulties rather than
simply check their problems. Such interviews may provide teachers
opportunities to monitor a student's communicative abilities, emotional
state and social skills, learning attitudes, progress of learning, and strengths
and weaknesses (Smith, 1995; Allerson & Grabe, 1986). Although this
can be rather time-consuming in a large classroom, I suggest that
teachers be open to freely interact with the learners by maintaining a
good relationship with them as facilitators of learning by children. The
learners would consider teacher as an authority figure in Korea where
hierarchical relationship between teachers and students may lead the
learners to listen to teachers rather than expressing their opinions or
ideas. (Cortazzi & Jin, 1997). It is noted that Korean students who are
familiar with teacher-dependent, ‘spoon-fed’learning need to assimilate
more of the interactive learning styles of learner-centered learning and
teaching context.

4.1.5. Conferencing

Conferences are generally carried out through the form of a convert-

sation or discussion between the teacher and individual or a group of
several learners about school work (Genesee & Hamaya, 1994). Conferences
can be more effective when they follow observations. They are suitable
for student-centered, interactive and collaborative approach. While
having an informal and friendly chat with teachers, young learners may
feel comfortable enough to freely express themselves on their own
(Loannou-Georgiou & Pavlou, 2003; Pinter, 2006). The con- ference
should be about work or tasks that students perform in front of the
teacher – for instance, the learners could read out a short story and
thereby demonstrate their understanding, or if miscue analysis is used,
228 현대문법연구 75 (2013)

the points where they misunderstood (Goodman, Watson, & Burke,

1987; Reardon, 1991). In particular, using conferences is effective to
assess the oral and written language abilities of young learners as well
as check the learning processes and strategies employed by the student
(Tambini, 1999); how to communicate with peers or teachers can be
evaluated and discussion on drafts of the essays can be also involved
in conferences. However, it may be often hard to assess minority students
who are reluctant to participate publicly and actively in any activities
involving native speakers (Goodman, Watson, & Burke, 1987). This issues
of ‘equity’ or fairness need to be, again, taken seriously, as assessment
may have a powerful impact on children's lives as well as language
learning (Gipps, 1994).
Teachers need to be careful not to depend too much on verbal
interaction, for it discourages students unskilled with proficiency in
English to fully participate. Alternative assessment is often required.

4.2. Self-assessment and Autonomous Learning

4.2.1. Portfolio Assessment

A language portfolio offers a larger picture of a child’s work and

development than any other assessment techniques as ‘a collection of
samples of work produced by the child over a period of time’ (Loannou
-Georgiou & Pavlou, 2003). Student portfolios may thus help ‘show the
depth, breadth, and development of the student's abilities in a variety
of modes’ (Pierce & O'Malley, 1992: 2). In particular, as Cameron (2001:
92) argues,

(4) It can link assessment with teaching and with metacognitive development
through including pupils in the evaluation of performance, thus improving
skills in pupils’self-assessment.
 A Review of Assessment in Language Learning (Juhyun Back) 229

Arter and Spandel (1992:36) argue that portfolios must include

‘student participation in selection of portfolio content; the guidelines for
selection; the criteria for judging merit; and evidence of student
reflection.’ In fact, it is not surprising that they know they are being
tested, but this assessment can be much less damaging to children than
other formal assessment for its short testing time, which gives direct,
numerical results. Together with conferencing or observation, a portfolio
also may require active interaction and cooperation between the teacher
and the learner in identifying the student's works and a leaner’s
progress over time needs to be traced and monitored.
In terms of disadvantage of this sort of assessment, there is a
limitation in applying the portfolio approach to oral skill development
because of the difficulty of collecting samples of speech, and it is thus
more suited to gathering written texts (Wolf, 1989). However, recent
development of technology may help to collect and store the samples.
We need to find more accessible techniques such as computer-based
portfolios with recorded samples of speech in order to get children more
involved in the process of recording progress and achievement for oral
assessment.

4.2.2. Student Journals

Student journals are useful in assessment and instructions when

teachers actively interact with learners by responding to the learners’
writing journals (Genesee & Hamayan, 1994). There should be no limits
on what students write about so that the journal should not be like
writing assignments such as essays or reports. Despite such benefits,
they are not commonly used in the real second language practice in
Korea because journals as an assessment should include assessing
writing skills and strategies for their academic achievement, specifically
230 현대문법연구 75 (2013)

for grade level students (over eight years old). It is critical to avoid
giving direct evaluative feedback about students’ writing skills in their
journals in order to enhance their spontaneity in this kind of writing;
instead, comments should put more weight on communication and be
both supportive and indirectly evaluative. Most of all, journals can be
effectively used to assess students’writing skills and strategies, providing
a continuous record of writing development. However, like using
observation, using journals for assessment is not often possible in a large
classroom: it would be time-consuming if one teacher assesses writing
abilities of all the leaners in the large classroom.

4.2.3. Learner-developed Assessment Tasks

Children can be involved in the content of an assessment task or they

can even create a task on their own (McNamara & Deane, 1995). This
may encourage them to build responsibility and maturity when children
discuss the content of the task with teachers in that they should think
about what they are supposed to know (Loannou-Georgiou & Pavlou,
2003). The children’s involvement in preparing the assessment task can
make the assessment procedure more personalised and less threatening.
However, many young learners would feel stressed when they do not
have enough English knowledge and learning experience. Notably,
using this assessment techniques may not be appropriate for learners at
lower level of language proficiency. They would feel intimidated by
expressing themselves because they know they are being tested, even
though these assessments are quite learner-centered and autonomous.

4.2.4. Take-home Tasks

Children can do take-home tasks (which are usually integrative) at home

with deadline after discussion with teachers (Loannou-Georgiou & Pavlou,
 A Review of Assessment in Language Learning (Juhyun Back) 231

2003). Take-home assessment tasks promote learners’ autonomous

learning because children themselves have the responsibility of managing
all things for completing the tasks on their own, such as time management
for the deadline, or how to go about completing the tasks. However, when
the learners’ friend or their parents are intervened in the tasks by helping
them to complete the tasks, students’ autonomous learning may be
discouraged. I believe that this technique may seem inappropriate and
unreliable because it may not yield accurate judgments of students'
language abilities, and weaknesses and strengths, and progress of learners
would not be accurate.

4.3. Peer Assessment

Peer-assessment may have a positive effect on making a good

classroom atmosphere in the sense that children can be friendlier with
their peers while discussing with them. They can foster social skills by
learning how to respect and accept each other in a classroom com-
munity. They also can learn a lot by exchanging and sharing informa-
tion and knowledge with each other. However, considerable care is
needed to deal with personality and maturity problems of self-centered
or immature children in group or pair work.
Another consideration is that many teachers in Asian countries believe
that active participation and meaningful feedback in Confucian Heritage
Cultures might be constrained by fear of mistakes, norms of face and
politeness, and is also based on the belief that peer feedback lacks
reliability (Roskam, 1999). A further study is needed to see to what
extent these cultural factors can affect assessing children's language
performance. Nevertheless, in order to enhance both social and
communicational skills as well as linguistic ability, language teachers in
Korea may to guide learners to be familiar with sharing feedback from
232 현대문법연구 75 (2013)

and opinions about each other's works by creating enjoyable

atmosphere.
So far a range of assessment methods are categorised into the three
different groups: teacher assessment, self-assessment, and peer assess-
ment. First, the teacher assessment involves traditional tests, structured
assessment activities, projects, observation, and conferencing. The major
types of self-assessment are portfolio assessment, learner-developed
assessment, student journals, and take-home tasks. These assessment
instruments can work as compensative strategies when combined
together in that there may not be one ideal, reliable type of assessment
which can measure children’s knowledge and skills in English.

5. Conclusions

To determine more suitable ways of assessing L2 language perfor-

mance by young learners, this paper examined a range of problems the
learners may have in their learning, as well as difficult areas in the
process of assessing them. It is first noted that the learners may have
difficulty with metalanguage and coping with instructions for classroom
activities and this should be taken into consideration in terms of content
of learning. Therefore, teachers need to help the learners understand
better texts for learning and assessment by supporting instructions with
visual aids and by using texts related to children's lives.
It gives several important principles to maximize the positive
washback effect from assessment both to teachers and to children – in
the latter case what to avoid in order to not emotionally frustrate
children or to discourage their learning. Notably, it seems clear that
assessment can motivate the learners’ learning, support learning and
teaching, be collaborative, and be interactional rather than isolated. It is,
in particular, noted in Korean EFL context, where learners are more
 A Review of Assessment in Language Learning (Juhyun Back) 233

familar with more teacher-centered learning, that more attempts to

promote student-teacher interaction should be made. Thirdly, it is very
important not to tell children that they are being assessed in consider-
ation of their emotional attitudes toward assessment. It is considered
that teachers attempt to provide a comfortable learning environment in
which young learners can actively participate in the classroom activities,
and interact with teachers or peers. Although not all the learners may
not participate in the group or pair works, alternative strategies to sort
out the problem of ‘equity’ should be attempted.
By matching why and how to assess young learners, finally, a variety
of alternative assessment techniques commonly used were discussed and
the advantages and disadvantage of each method or technique were
given, presenting several solutions to compensate for their drawbacks
and increase the positive effects of these methods.
Considering children's difficulties in learning, the critical principles
discussed above, and several benefits or limitations that young learners
have (such as preferences for play and stories, better responses to
pictures and colour, and a short attention span (Hughes, 2003), more
accessible learning through social relationships), testing informal, less
threatening and more enjoyable methods are recommended for testing
children. Consequently, to assess L2 performance by children effectively,
language educators for young learners in Korea need to make more
attempts to combine a range of different, but complementary assessment
activities, such as observation, conferencing, students’ journals, port-
folios, and peer-assessment across different specific goals of assessment.

References

Arter, J. A. and V. Spandel. 1992. Using Portfolios of Student Work in Instruction

and Assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 11, 36-44.
234 현대문법연구 75 (2013)

Allerson, G. and W. Grabe. 1986. Reading Assessment. In F. Dubin, D. Eskey.,

and W. Grabe (eds). Teaching Second Language Reading for Academic
Purposes. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Brown, H. D. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language
Pedagogy. Michigan: Longman.
Cameron, L. 2001. Teaching Languages to Young Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Choi, Y-H. 1999. Yenge ssuki kyoyuklon (Teaching English Writing) In Y-S Kim.
Y.-H. Choi, S.-H. Kim, Y.-I. Mun, K.-A. Cha, J.-Y. Nam, S.-Y. Kim (eds).
Yengekwa kyoyuklon: Ilonkwa silcey (Principles in English Teaching : Theory and
Practice), 593-697. Seoul: Hankuk Munwhasa.
Cortazzi, M. & L. Jin. 1997. Communication for Learning across Cultures. In D.
McNamara and R. Harris (eds). Overseas Students in Higher Education: Issues
in Teaching and Learning, 76-90. New York: Routledge.
Genesee, F. & E. V. Hamayan. 1994. Classroom-Based Assessment. In F. Genesee
(ed). Educating Second Language Children, 212-237. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Gipps, C. V. 1994. Beyond Testing: Towards a Theory of Educational Assessment.
London: The Falmer Press.
Goodman, Y. M., D. J. Watson and L. B. Burke. 1987. Reading Miscue Inventory
Alternative Procedures. New York: Richard C. Owen.
Herman, J.L., P. R. Aschbacher and L. Winters. 1992. A Practical Guide to
Alternative Assessment. Alexandria, VA.: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Hughes, A. 2003. Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Kwuklipkwaceng Phyengkawen (Korean Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation)
1996. Swuhayngphyengkauy Ilonkwa Silcey (Theory and Practice in Performance
-based Assessment). Seoul: Daehan Gyohwaseo.
Lindfors, J. 1987. Children’s Language and Learning. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Loannou-Geogiou, S & P. Pavlou. 2003. Assessing Young Learners. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Malakoff, M., and K. Hakuta. 1991. Translation Skill and Metalinguistic Awareness
in Bilinguals. In E. Bialystok (ed). Language Processing in Bilingual Children,
141-167. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McNamara, T. 1996. Measuring Second Language Performance. London: Longman.
 A Review of Assessment in Language Learning (Juhyun Back) 235

McNamara, M. J. and D. Deane. 1995. Self-assessment activities: Towards

Autonomy in Language Learning. TESOL Journal 5, 17-21.
Nam, M.-H. 2000. Swuhayngphyengka (Performance-based Assessment). Seoul:
Munumsa.
Pierce, L. V. and J. M. O'Malley. 1992. Performance and Portfolio Assessment for
Language Minority Students. Washington, D.C.: National Clearinghouse for
Bilingual Education.
Pinter, A. 2006. Teaching Young Language Learners. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Rea-Dickins, P. and K. Germaine. 1992. Evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Rea-Dickins, P. and S. Rixon. 1999. Assessment of Young Learners' English:
Reasons and Means. In A. Rixon (ed). Young Learners of English: Some
research Perspectives. Harlow: Pearson Educational Limited.
Reardon, S. J. 1991. A College of Assessment and Evaluation in Primary Grade
Classrooms. In B. Harp (ed). Assessment and Evaluation in Whole Language
Programs, 87-108. Norwood, MA.: Christopher-Gordon.
Roskam, T. 1999. Chinese EFL Students' Attitudes To Peer Feedback and
Peer Assessment in an Extended Pairwork Setting. RELC Journal 30,
79-123.
Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Smith, K. 1995. Assessing and Testing Young Learners: Can We? Should We? in
We? In D. Allan (ed). Entry Points: Papers from a Symposium of the Research,
Testing and Young Learners Special Interest Groups. 1-10. IATEFL, Cambridge.
Tambini, R. F. 1999. Aligning Learning Activities and Assessment Strategies in
the ESL Classroom. The Internet TESL Journal 5. Available online at
http://iteslj.org/Aricles/Tambini-Aligning.html.
Wolf, D. P. 1989. Portfolio Assessment: Sampling Student Work. Educational
Leadership 46, 35-39.

Received: October 11, 2013

Revised version: October 31, 2013
Accepted: December 3, 2013
email: jhback@bnue.ac.kr