Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Self-Assessment For Autonomous Language Learners: January 2000
Self-Assessment For Autonomous Language Learners: January 2000
net/publication/28057303
CITATIONS READS
85 3,033
1 author:
David Gardner
The University of Hong Kong
61 PUBLICATIONS 1,010 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by David Gardner on 20 December 2013.
September 1999
Abstract
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 4. Levels of learner involvement
2. Benefits and pitfalls 5. Conclusion
3. The role of teachers/counsellors References
in the process Appendix: A generic self-assessment
1. Introduction
This paper discusses the use of self-assessment as a tool in the toolkit of
autonomous language learners. There is some diversity in the way the terms
‘self-assessment’ and ‘autonomous learners’ are used in the literature, particu-
larly the latter. It may be wise, therefore, to start by defining how these terms
will be used in this paper. Assessments for autonomous learners may cover a
50 Links & Letters 7, 2000 David Gardner
BENEFITS
Individualisation
{
Reflection
Motivation
}
Evaluation
learner
Monitoring teacher
Support
Accreditation
Justification } institution
Unreliability
The jury is still out on whether self-assessment is reliable but there has been
considerable discussion. Dickinson (1987: 136) suggests “it is likely that
teachers and other specialists will be more reliable in their assessment and
make accurate assessments more often than the learners”. It should be noted,
Self-assessment for autonomous language learners Links & Letters 7, 2000 53
Changing roles
Self-assessment indicates a change in the roles of learners and teachers. The
degree to which there is a change will depend on the degree to which learn-
ers are already autonomous. Less autonomous learners (and teachers who are
not used to dealing with autonomous learners) will need relatively more sup-
port. A lot of the issues in this category are related to perceptions which are
potentially negative.
Firstly, there is the perception of worth. Assessments are only useful if they
are accepted as valid. Many learners, and perhaps also teachers, administra-
tors and the public, expect tests to be prepared and administered by teach-
ers. They may find unacceptable tests which are self-administered suspecting
that it will be easy to cheat and thus consider them worthless. Awareness of
the usefulness of self-assessment needs to be raised if their face validity is not
to be compromised.
Secondly, is the potential of self-assessment to upset the perceived balance
of power. Both teachers and learners may feel that assessment is a teacher's job.
Learners may resist the extra work and may also lose respect for their teachers
if they perceive self-assessment as a ruse to off-load part of the teachers' bur-
den on them. Teachers may see self-assessment as a threat to their jobs or at
least a loss of power. Alternatively, it may simply be perceived as a change in
the status quo as was the case in the study conducted by Thomson (1996).
Thirdly, learners may feel unequipped or unwilling to produce, conduct
and interpret their own assessments. These are skills language teachers pos-
sess and language learners may well feel they lack. However, there is an
important difference between self-administration and self-creation of tests.
The former is the starting point of self-assessment and the latter is a more dis-
tant goal. Teachers can help learners acquire the requisite skills. Interpreting
test results will become a familiar activity as learners engage in reflection.
Finally, there is the problem of self-consciousness. Just as some learners
feel self-conscious about speaking a foreign language so too will some react
badly to the idea of conducting their own assessments. In younger learners
it is possible that this will be translated into immature behaviour. In older
learners it may foster resentment of the process.
Self-assessment for autonomous language learners Links & Letters 7, 2000 55
assessment in which all the work is done by the learner. A generic assessment
is a halfway house. The teacher develops an idea for how to do an assessment,
explains the idea clearly in a set of instructions and leaves the learners to create
their own assessments. The advantage of generic assessments is that the same
idea can be used many times with the learner varying the content but still
with some of the face validity of teacher-prepared assessments. Generic assess-
ments are a balance between teacher-prepared and learner-prepared assess-
ments in a number of ways (figure 4). In a sense they also help to balance out
the benefits against the pitfalls of self-assessments.
Ease of preparation
Cost effectiveness
Expert authoring
Face validity
Reliability
Teacher- prepared
✓ ✖ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓
Generic
✖
✓ ✓ ✖ ✖
Learner-prepared
✖ ✓ ✖ ✖ ✖
Figure 4. The characteristics of different kinds of assessments.
5. Conclusion
Where a considerable number of learners are likely to want to use a particu-
lar assessment and where it can be used by new learners each year, it may
be worth the time a teacher will spend in producing a teacher-prepared
assessment. Where learners are particularly motivated or are able to see pro-
ducing assessments as a learning experience, then learner-produced assess-
ments are a reasonable option, especially if they can be reused by other learn-
ers. However, in a majority of cases it is generic assessments which are likely
to be the most effective in terms of balancing the benefits against the pitfalls
of self-assessment.
Generic assessments are best written specific to a particular context where
the writer has a knowledge of the learners and the resources available to
them. It is also useful to build in a learner feedback option as this may be the
only way of monitoring the success of such assessments.
References
BACHMAN, L.; PALMER, A.S. (1989). “The construct validation of self-ratings of
communicative language ability”. Language Testing, 6 (1): 14-29.
BLANCHE, P. (1990). “Using standardised achievement and oral proficiency tests for
self-assessment purposes: the DLIFC study”. Language Testing, 7 (2): 202-29.
B LUE, G.M. (1988). “Self-assessment: the limit of learner independence”. In
BROOKES, A.; GRUNDY, P. (eds.). Individualisation and autonomy in language
learning. ELT documents, 131. London: Modern English Publications in associ-
ation with the British Council (Macmillan).
GARDNER, D. (1996). “Self-assessment for self-access learning”. TESOL Journal,
5 (3): 18-23.
GARDNER, D.; MILLER, L. (1999). Establishing self-access: from theory to practice.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
HOLEC, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
(First published 1979, Strasbourg: Council of Europe.)
HOLEC. H. (1985). “Self-assessment”. Proceedings of Self-Directed Learning and Self
Access in Australia: From Practice to Theory. Conference held in 1984 by Coun-
cil of Adult Education, Melbourne Australia.
JANSSEN-VAN DIETEN, A. (1989). “The development of a test of Dutch as a foreign
language: the validity of self-assessment by inexperienced subjects”. Language
Testing, 6 (1): 30-46.
LITTLE, D. (1996). “Freedom to learn and compulsion to interact”. In PEMBER-
TON, R.; LI, E.; OR, W.; PIERSON, H. (eds.). Taking control: autonomy in language
learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
NUNAN, D. (1997). “Designing and adapting materials to encourage learner auton-
omy”. In BENSON, P; VOLLER, P. (eds.). Autonomy and independence in language
learning. London: Longman.
OXFORD, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: what every teacher should know.
Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Self-assessment for autonomous language learners Links & Letters 7, 2000 59
PEMBERTON, R. (1996). “Introduction”. In PEMBERTON, R.; LI, E.; OR, W.; PIER-
SON, H. (eds.). Taking control: autonomy in language learning. Hong Kong: Hong
Kong University Press.
PIERCE, B.N.; SWAIN, M.; HART, D. (1993). “Self-assessment, French immersion and
locus of control”. Applied Linguistics, 14 (1): 25-42.
THOMSON, C.K. (1996). “Self-assessment in self-directed learning: issues of learner
diversity”. In PEMBERTON, R.; LI, E.; OR, W.; PIERSON, H. (eds.). Taking con-
trol: autonomy in language learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
TUDOR, I. (1996). Learner-centredness as language education. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
60 Links & Letters 7, 2000 David Gardner
Appendix
A generic self-assessment
This sheet describes a way in which you can make up your own test and then
use it to test yourself. You might need to adapt the method to suit your needs.
Be creative.
The Test
1. Listen to a news programme in English. Make notes about the main story.
2. Later (probably the next day) get a newspaper and check how much of the sto-
ry you understood (see notes 1 & 2).
Scoring
1. Give yourself a mark out of 10 for the main points.
2. Give yourself another mark out of 10 for details.
Notes
1. The newspaper you use can be in your own language as you are using it to
check information not language; however, if you can get one in English that
would be an added bonus.
2. Occasionally you might find the story you took notes on is not repeated in the
newspaper (perhaps because another, more important story developed
overnight). That’s a pity but you will still have been practising your English.
3. Newspaper reports are often different from TV or radio reports. They are
often longer, contain more details and sometimes disagree about the facts.