• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

site logo
The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language
search
  • Home
  • About TESL-EJ
  • Vols. 1-15 (1994-2012)
    • Volume 1
      • Volume 1, Number 1
      • Volume 1, Number 2
      • Volume 1, Number 3
      • Volume 1, Number 4
    • Volume 2
      • Volume 2, Number 1 — March 1996
      • Volume 2, Number 2 — September 1996
      • Volume 2, Number 3 — January 1997
      • Volume 2, Number 4 — June 1997
    • Volume 3
      • Volume 3, Number 1 — November 1997
      • Volume 3, Number 2 — March 1998
      • Volume 3, Number 3 — September 1998
      • Volume 3, Number 4 — January 1999
    • Volume 4
      • Volume 4, Number 1 — July 1999
      • Volume 4, Number 2 — November 1999
      • Volume 4, Number 3 — May 2000
      • Volume 4, Number 4 — December 2000
    • Volume 5
      • Volume 5, Number 1 — April 2001
      • Volume 5, Number 2 — September 2001
      • Volume 5, Number 3 — December 2001
      • Volume 5, Number 4 — March 2002
    • Volume 6
      • Volume 6, Number 1 — June 2002
      • Volume 6, Number 2 — September 2002
      • Volume 6, Number 3 — December 2002
      • Volume 6, Number 4 — March 2003
    • Volume 7
      • Volume 7, Number 1 — June 2003
      • Volume 7, Number 2 — September 2003
      • Volume 7, Number 3 — December 2003
      • Volume 7, Number 4 — March 2004
    • Volume 8
      • Volume 8, Number 1 — June 2004
      • Volume 8, Number 2 — September 2004
      • Volume 8, Number 3 — December 2004
      • Volume 8, Number 4 — March 2005
    • Volume 9
      • Volume 9, Number 1 — June 2005
      • Volume 9, Number 2 — September 2005
      • Volume 9, Number 3 — December 2005
      • Volume 9, Number 4 — March 2006
    • Volume 10
      • Volume 10, Number 1 — June 2006
      • Volume 10, Number 2 — September 2006
      • Volume 10, Number 3 — December 2006
      • Volume 10, Number 4 — March 2007
    • Volume 11
      • Volume 11, Number 1 — June 2007
      • Volume 11, Number 2 — September 2007
      • Volume 11, Number 3 — December 2007
      • Volume 11, Number 4 — March 2008
    • Volume 12
      • Volume 12, Number 1 — June 2008
      • Volume 12, Number 2 — September 2008
      • Volume 12, Number 3 — December 2008
      • Volume 12, Number 4 — March 2009
    • Volume 13
      • Volume 13, Number 1 — June 2009
      • Volume 13, Number 2 — September 2009
      • Volume 13, Number 3 — December 2009
      • Volume 13, Number 4 — March 2010
    • Volume 14
      • Volume 14, Number 1 — June 2010
      • Volume 14, Number 2 – September 2010
      • Volume 14, Number 3 – December 2010
      • Volume 14, Number 4 – March 2011
    • Volume 15
      • Volume 15, Number 1 — June 2011
      • Volume 15, Number 2 — September 2011
      • Volume 15, Number 3 — December 2011
      • Volume 15, Number 4 — March 2012
  • Vols. 16-Current
    • Volume 16
      • Volume 16, Number 1 — June 2012
      • Volume 16, Number 2 — September 2012
      • Volume 16, Number 3 — December 2012
      • Volume 16, Number 4 – March 2013
    • Volume 17
      • Volume 17, Number 1 – May 2013
      • Volume 17, Number 2 – August 2013
      • Volume 17, Number 3 – November 2013
      • Volume 17, Number 4 – February 2014
    • Volume 18
      • Volume 18, Number 1 – May 2014
      • Volume 18, Number 2 – August 2014
      • Volume 18, Number 3 – November 2014
      • Volume 18, Number 4 – February 2015
    • Volume 19
      • Volume 19, Number 1 – May 2015
      • Volume 19, Number 2 – August 2015
      • Volume 19, Number 3 – November 2015
      • Volume 19, Number 4 – February 2016
    • Volume 20
      • Volume 20, Number 1 – May 2016
      • Volume 20, Number 2 – August 2016
      • Volume 20, Number 3 – November 2016
      • Volume 20, Number 4 – February 2017
    • Volume 21
      • Volume 21, Number 1 – May 2017
      • Volume 21, Number 2 – August 2017
      • Volume 21, Number 3 – November 2017
      • Volume 21, Number 4 – February 2018
    • Volume 22
      • Volume 22, Number 1 – May 2018
      • Volume 22, Number 2 – August 2018
      • Volume 22, Number 3 – November 2018
      • Volume 22, Number 4 – February 2019
    • Volume 23
      • Volume 23, Number 1 – May 2019
      • Volume 23, Number 2 – August 2019
      • Volume 23, Number 3 – November 2019
      • Volume 23, Number 4 – February 2020
    • Volume 24
      • Volume 24, Number 1 – May 2020
      • Volume 24, Number 2 – August 2020
      • Volume 24, Number 3 – November 2020
      • Volume 24, Number 4 – February 2021
    • Volume 25
      • Volume 25, Number 1 – May 2021
      • Volume 25, Number 2 – August 2021
      • Volume 25, Number 3 – November 2021
      • Volume 25, Number 4 – February 2022
    • Volume 26
      • Volume 26, Number 1 – May 2022
      • Volume 26, Number 2 – August 2022
      • Volume 26, Number 3 – November 2022
      • Volume 26, Number 4 – February 2023
    • Volume 27
      • Volume 27, Number 1 – May 2023
      • Volume 27, Number 2 – August 2023
      • Volume 27, Number 3 – November 2023
      • Volume 27, Number 4 – February 2024
    • Volume 28
      • Volume 28, Number 1 – May 2024
      • Volume 28, Number 2 – August 2024
      • Volume 28, Number 3 – November 2024
      • Volume 28, Number 4 – February 2025
    • Volume 29
      • Volume 29, Number 1 – May 2025
      • Volume 29, Number 2 – August 2025
      • Volume 29, Number 3 – November 2025
      • Volume 29, Number 4 – February 2026
    • Volume 30
      • Volume 30, Number 1 – May 2026
      • Volume 30, Number 2 – August 2026
  • Books
  • How to Submit
    • Submission Info
    • Ethical Standards for Authors and Reviewers
    • TESL-EJ Style Sheet for Authors
    • TESL-EJ Tips for Authors
    • Book Review Policy
    • Media Review Policy
    • TESL-EJ Special issues
    • APA Style Guide
  • Editorial Board
  • Support

Language Assessment for Classroom Teachers

August 2020 – Volume 24, Number 2

Language Assessment for Classroom Teachers

Author: Lyle Bachman & Barbara Damböck (2018) book cover
Publisher: Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press
Pages ISBN Price
Pp. 304 978-0-19-421839-9 (paper) $50.00 U.S.

Language Assessment for Classroom Teachers, by Lyle Bachman and Barbara Damböck, presents a new approach to classroom-based language assessment: the assessment use argument (AUA) based approach. This approach is based on Bachman and Palmer’s (2010) conceptual framework for test development and use but is adapted to better suit the needs of classroom language teachers. The authors recognize that the principles and techniques typical in teacher training courses or workshops are those developed primarily for large-scale tests. For classroom teachers whose interests are in developing and using language assessments that help improve instruction and learning, the general principles of large-scale assessment may not be entirely relevant. Therefore, this book aims to bridge the gap between large-scale assessments and classroom-based assessments, empowering teachers to assess their students’ language ability more effectively and confidently. As a title in the Oxford Handbooks for Language Teachers series, the book includes a variety of examples to help readers not only understand the theories underlying the authors’ approach, but also to see how they can be used in practice. The book is divided into four parts and twelve chapters. From the introduction (Part I), through the approach (Part II), to applications (Part III), and then on to examples (Part IV), each part builds on the previous, which scaffolds readers to understand the need for such an approach, what the approach is, and how the approach can be applied to classroom settings.

Part I consists of two chapters that provide an introduction to the book and an overview of concepts relevant to classroom-based assessment (i.e., purposes of using a language assessment, modes of classroom-based assessments, links between assessment performance and consequences, test developers/users, and the practicality of assessment use). These first two chapters establish the context for understanding the AUA framework that the authors present in Part II. For example, the difference between formative and summative decisions, the concept of stakeholders, and high-stakes and low-stakes decisions are explained to help readers understand their part in the assessment development process.

Part II begins with Chapter 3, in which the authors provide an overview of the AUA framework. The authors believe that an AUA provides a solid conceptual framework, guiding test developers and users through the process of assessment development and justification. Consequences (Claim 1), decisions (Claim 2), interpretations (Claim 3), and assessment records (Claim 4), the outcomes and the qualities of the four claims, as well as the ways to provide support for the claims, are described in detail in Chapters 4-7.

In Part III, more specific procedures that can be used to develop assessment tasks based on the AUA are discussed. Chapter 8 explains the development of an assessment task template, which includes selecting, describing, and modifying target language use tasks so that they are more practical to use as an assessment task. In Chapter 9, the authors show how to create multiple tasks from a single assessment task template. Once a model task is created following the specifications in an assessment task template, additional tasks can be created by changing one or more of the task characteristics (e.g., topical content), while the language ability to be assessed and the attributes of the students (e.g., age, ability level, etc.) are maintained. Then, Chapter 10 describes how to combine these individual tasks to use as a classroom-based assessment by creating a blueprint that specifies the content and format of an assessment, the procedures and instructions for the assessment, and the assessment task templates for each task type. The procedures to follow in administering classroom-based assessments, along with considerations for scoring performance and reporting results, are discussed in Chapters 11 and 12.

The final section of this book, Part IV, is devoted to specific examples illustrating the development of classroom-based language assessments described in the book’s previous parts. The examples include assessment tasks for all four skills (i.e., speaking, listening, writing, and reading), for different age groups, and for different levels of English as a Second Language/English as a foreign language students.

The book has several features that are particularly informative and useful to readers. First, almost every chapter begins with thought-provoking questions, effectively and meaningfully engaging readers with the discussions that follow. The authors also provide numerous illustrative examples. Showing how AUA-based language assessment can be adopted in practice, the examples make the somewhat abstract conceptual discussion more concrete and easier to grasp. In addition, exercises at the end of each chapter make reading more interactive, allowing readers to solidify concepts with practice.

Another strength of the book lies in the assessment approach that is presented. The AUA provides teachers with a conceptual framework that guides the development and justification of classroom-based language assessments. It is beneficial to consider the process by first thinking about the test consequences, and then linking the claim about the intended consequences to the claims about decisions, interpretations, and assessment records. Stating the claims in the AUA and backing them with evidence will help classroom language teachers become more confident with their assessments and allow them to convince stakeholders that intended uses of the assessment are justified.

Specific procedures for assessment task development based on the AUA, however, could have been more detailed. Although Part III is meant to provide such information, the amount and depth of explanation is not sufficient to answer questions that teachers have or address challenges they face while creating assessment tasks. For instance, while explaining assessment records (Claim 4) in the AUA, the authors emphasize the importance of minimizing sources of inconsistency. To support the claim that assessment records are consistent, the authors suggest that teachers provide appropriate analyses of test data as evidence. While acknowledging that such analyses will provide strong evidence to Claim 4, the authors simply redirect readers to Bachman (2004) and Carr (2011). Many teachers would want to know how to analyze reliability of ratings with regard to student performance by reading this book. Teachers may also desire information on rater training procedures, how to develop a rubric with descriptions that clearly define different ability levels, and how to set a cut score to make equitable decisions. These topics are not answered in the book’s relevant chapters. For readers who approach with such expectations, they may find the contents to be too general.

Nevertheless, despite the above limitations, Language Assessment for Classroom Teachers is a great resource for language teachers who are interested in assessing their students’ language ability in a principled way. Although the intentions that go into development and use of language assessments do not always ensure fair test use, the process of specifying an AUA and trying to provide backing for the claims will increase the chances of making right decisions and achieving beneficial consequences. The book would also be good for teacher preparation courses, in-service training courses, and workshops in language assessment for classroom teachers. Anyone involved in classroom-based language assessment will be able to enhance their knowledge and skills of assessment development and justification by referencing this book.

References

Bachman, L. F. (2004). Statistical analyses for language assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. (2010). Language assessment in practice: Developing language assessments and justifying their use in the real world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Carr, N. T. (2011). Designing and analyzing language tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Reviewed by
Haeun Kim
Iowa State University, USA
<haeunkimatmarkiastate.edu>

© Copyright rests with authors. Please cite TESL-EJ appropriately.
Editor’s Note: The HTML version contains no page numbers. Please use the PDF version of this article for citations.

© 1994–2026 TESL-EJ, ISSN 1072-4303
Copyright of articles rests with the authors.