Week 13 Response

First of all, after exploring the topics of reliabilty and validity in great depth in ENG 346, I have a problem with Huerta-Macias' anecdotal remark that second language acquisition cannot be asessed in "a valid and reliable way" through traditional testing methods (338).  Although I'm not a personal fan of high-stakes, standardized testing, there are certain situations in which it is the best, indeed the most valid and reliable, measure of student's progress or proficiency in the L2.  Her argumentation (and claims of "all the problems found with such testing") leads to more misunderstanding about traditional testing--which believe me, I was very biased about it, too, before this semester of coursework--and creates a dichotomy between traditional testing and alternative assessment (339).  Some of the points she makes are flat out wrong, like saying alternative assessment is more free of bias (339).  Alternative assessment, such as observation, can be equally as biased as the traditional testing methods.  Also, alternative assessment can, in fact, take time out of the classroom, or take time outside of the classroom, in the form of student-teacher conferences or interviews.  The truth is that these methods are not in opposition but rather two sides of the same coin that must be used concurrently in order to make the most informed decisions about our student's ability in the L2 as well as our own teaching practices.

In chapter 34, Peñaflorida brings up some very valid and pertinent issues/"malpractices" in alternative assessment in terms of L2 writing (345).  She also recognizes the shortcomings of alternative assessment and provides a more balanced review of it compared to Huerta-Macias.  This chapter really highlights the tension between content (substance) evaluation and grammar (form) correction, which is a particular challenge for all English teachers, but especially ESL/EFL teachers.  Before continuing past the introduction section, I tried to brainstorm some solutions to this issue.  Could we assign papers with a different focus (e.g. grade one paper only for substance and the next only on forms)?  This seems problematic, as incorrect forms remain and may become fossilized in the writer's work or the student could write a grammatically flawless paper with little depth or insight.  As teachers, we want it all: substance and form.  So then I thought that maybe we could always grade for substance but grade for errors in form in a different way.  Instead of using the dreaded red ink pen, perhaps we could use highlighters to draw the learner's eyes to the form and then make suggestions or give tips that could lead them to the correct use of that form.  For example, the teacher could write "What time frame are we in?" if the student uses the wrong verb tense.  This was just an idea that came to me, but I still recognize problems with this method.  Personally, I think I'd rather receive a paper that is really marked up than receive one with little feedback or, sometimes even worse, inconsistent feedback.  If teachers make certain errors but not others, this is confusing and misleading to the L2 writer.