Assignment 5: Title, Research aims và Research questions.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual
framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2),
159–80.
Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17(2), 89–100.

3. Task-Based Language Assessment

ALI SHEHADEH
Task-based language teaching (TBLT) is an educational framework and an approach
for the theory and practice of second/foreign language (L2) learning and teaching, and a
pedagogy in which classroom tasks constitute the main focus of instruction (Richards &
Schmidt, 2010). Task-based language assessment (TBLA) is based on the same
underlying principles as TBLT but extends these from the learning-and-teaching domain
into the testing domain. Particularly, TBLA testing/assessment is organized around tasks
rather than grammar or vocabulary. TBLA has four main features: formative,
performance-referenced, direct, and authentic. It consists of three basic components: (1) a
test task (the construct-centered approach or the direct system-referenced test), (2) an
implementation procedure (planning time and interlocutor), and (3) a performance
measure (the direct assessment of task outcomes and external ratings). TBLA has been
utilized with different age groups, different proficiency levels, and different educational
and cultural backgrounds. For example, peer group discussion as an oral assessment
format (Gan, Davison, and Hamp-Lyons, 2009), and continuous feedback through online
tasks (Winke, 2010). However, TBLA is considered an “alien theoretical concept” that is
not applicable to their specific teaching context or educational setting for many many
teachers or instructors because they may not know how to utilize TBLA in their practices,
what TBLA is exactly and why it is more conducive to L2 learning. Therefore, further
research and work need to be done on the design, implementation, and utilization of
TBLA.

References:
Gan, Z., Davison, C., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2009). Topic negotiation in peer group oral
assessment situations: A conversation analytic approach. Applied Linguistics, 30(3),
315–34.
Richards, J., & Schmidt, R. (2010). Longman dictionary of language teaching and
applied linguistics (4th ed.). London, England: Longman.
Winke, P. (2010). Using online tasks for formative language assessment. In A. Shehadeh
& C. Coombe (Eds.), Applications of task-based learning in TESOL (pp. 173–85).
Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
 4. Measuring Reading Fluency
M. JEFFREY ZWICK
There are many different definitions of reading fluency: the orchestration of a
number of combined sub skills (Schwanenflugel and Ruston, 2008), fluency posits
(Grabe, 2009), stages of fluency development (Anderson, 2008, 2009). According to
Anderson's (2008) definition of reading fluency, teachers should enquire about suitable
rate and adequate comprehension. When discussing rate development, it is important to
consider automaticity (the rapid and accurate identification of letters, syllables, and high-
frequency words (The National Reading Panel, 2000)). Reading teachers can evaluate
reading rate by keeping track of time as their participants read a passage. Repeated
reading activities is an effective way to expedite the process of developing automaticity in
L2 reading because they also provide the student with repeated exposure to a particular
text (Anderson, 1999). Other activities which are effective in developing reading fluency
by increasing reading rate include rapid word recognition, rate buildup, class-paced
reading, and self-paced reading. However, a high reading rate is meaningless when
accompanied by a low level of comprehension. Participants must find an equal balance
between rate and comprehension. Schacter (2006) shares a variety of strategies that are
successful in fostering reading comprehension: developing thin questions (answers are
found in the text) and thick questions (answers must be inferred from the text), using
graphic organizers, and SQ3R (survey, question, read, recite, review). To increase reading
fluency, reading teachers must concentrate on both aspects of reading.
References:
Anderson, N. J. (1999). Exploring second language reading. Boston, MA: Thompson &
Heinle.

Anderson, N. J. (2008). Practical English language teaching: Reading. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.

Anderson, N. J. (2009). ACTIVE reading: The research base for a pedagogical approach in
the reading classroom. In Z. H. A. Han & N. J. Anderson (Eds.), L2 reading research
and instruction: Crossing the boundaries (pp. 117–43). Ann Arbor: The University of
Michigan Press.

Schacter, J. (2006). The master teacher series: Reading comprehension. Stanford, CA: The
Teaching Doctors.

Schwanenflugel, P., & Ruston, H. (2008). Becoming a fluent reader: From theory to
practice. In M. Kuhn & P. Schwanenflugel (Eds.), Fluency in the classroom (pp. 1–
16). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
The National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence based
 assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for
reading instruction (National Institute of Health Pub. No. 00-4769). Washington, DC:
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

5. Test Impact and Washback

JAMIE L. SCHISSEL
Test impact and washback are the effects of test use including positive and negative,
intended and unintended consequences. Impact refers to the effects that a test may have
on individuals, policies, or practices. Washback is more commonly used to refer to the
effects of tests on teaching and learning (Wall, 1997). Test impact and washback can
purposefully inform teaching and learning in day-to-day classroom interactions and can
reduce negative consequences. Test developers strive to prevent difficulties connected to
two threats to validity in order to limit the possibly negative impact and washback:
construct underrepresentation (the items on an assessment either are too narrowly focused
on a few skills or address too many skills superficially) and construct-irrelevant variance
(external, unrelated variables influence test performance). Teacher can use test impact and
washback positively, through curriculum and materials, teaching methods, feelings and
attitudes, and learning outcomes. Factors to consider when deciding how tests influence
the curriculum and the materials are the aspects of the curriculum and materials to focus
on, how much time or emphasis to place on different parts of the curriculum and
materials, and how to sequence the units or lessons, how tests influence the curriculum
and the materials relates to the stakes attached to the test. How tests impact the teaching
methods also requires particular attention. If the methods overemphasize the assessment
by emphasizing test-wiseness or test-taking strategies, negative impact and washback may
arise. The feelings and attitudes of the students about exams can also be influenced. Tests
can promote learning or vice versa. Taking a stance for positive test impact and washback
means valuing teachers' positions and roles in the classroom as well as in educating
students.
Reference:
Wall, D. (1997). Impact and washback in language testing. In C. Clapham & D. Corson
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 291–302). Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Kluwer.