The Concise Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Carol A. Chapelle

Corporation/HBJ.

      4 Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

      5 Granena, G., & Long, M. (Eds.). (2013). Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

      6 Kinoshita, S., & Lupker, S. (Eds.). (2003). Masked priming: The state of the art. Hove, England: Psychology Press.

      7 Linck, J., Hughes, M., Campbell, S., Silbert, N., Tare, M., Jackson, S., … & Doughty, C. (2013). Hi‐LAB: A new measure of aptitude for high‐level language proficiency. Language Learning, 63, 530–66.

      8 Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 134–40.

      9 Petersen, C., & Al‐Haik, A. (1976). The development of the Defense Language Aptitude Battery. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 36(2), 369–80.

      10 Pimsleur, P. (1966). Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery (PLAB). New York, NY: Psychological Corporation.

      11 Robinson, P. (1997). Individual differences and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit second language learning. Language Learning, 47, 45–99.

      12 Robinson, P. (2005a). Cognitive abilities, chunk‐strength and frequency effects in artificial grammar and incidental second language learning: Replications of Reber, Walkenfeld and Hernstadt (1991), and Knowlton and Squire (1996) and their relevance to SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 235–68.

      13 Robinson, P. (2005b). Aptitude and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 45–73.

      14 Robinson, P. (2007). Aptitudes, abilities, contexts and practice. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in second language learning (pp. 256–86). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

      15 Robinson, P. (2012). Individual differences, aptitude complexes, SLA processes, and aptitude test development. In M. Pawlak (Ed.), New perspectives on individual differences in language learning and teaching (pp. 57–76). New York, NY: Springer.

      16 Roehr, K. (2018). Metalinguistic awareness and second language acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge.

      17 Saffran, J., Aslin, R., & Newport, E. (1996). Statistical learning by 8‐month‐old infants. Science, 274, 1926–8.

      18 Skehan, P. (2016). Foreign language aptitude, acquisitional sequences, and psycholinguistic processes. In G. Granena, D. Jackson, & Y. Yilmaz (Eds.), Cognitive individual differences in second language acquisition and processing (pp. 17–40). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Suggested Readings

      1 Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor‐analytic studies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

      2 Corno, L., Cronbach, L., Kupermintz, H., Lohman, D., Mandinach, E., Portues, A., & Talbert, J. (2002). Remaking the concept of aptitude: Extending the legacy of Richard E. Snow. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

      3 Robinson, P. (Ed.). (2002). Individual differences and instructed language learning. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Assessment in the Classroom

      MARGO GOTTLIEB AND ANNE KATZ

The role of assessment in the classroom occupies an increasingly visible and valued place in the education literature as teachers, researchers, and test specialists examine how assessment can be woven into instruction to support language development (Davison & Leung, 2009). In this entry, classroom assessment is distinguished from traditional tests and measurement to encompass a broad conceptualization of what teachers and students do on an ongoing basis to gather, analyze, and share information to improve teaching and learning. It acknowledges that the field of language assessment is moving from a technical or cognitive‐based activity for generating scores to a socially embedded process (Bachman & Damböck, 2017).

      Influenced by social constructivism and Vygotskyan theory, today's assessment in the classroom is an interactive process in which teachers and students work together to support learners' progress to the next step in their learning within their zone of proximal development (Sardareh & Saad, 2012). As a socially constructed process, classroom assessment is embedded in a context of stakeholders' perspectives that includes those of school leaders, teachers, students, and family members as meaningful educational partners. Assessment in the classroom is also becoming more inclusive of student voice which is beginning to be heard as a co‐contributor, facilitated by teachers, to individual goals for learning along with accompanying evidence of reaching them.

The notion of assessment as a process rather than an event is congruent with educational assessment literature that categorizes classroom assessment as an integral component of curriculum design and the instructional cycle (Cumming, 2009). For multilingual or plurilingual learners, curriculum is a dynamic interplay between language and content within instruction and assessment. Figure 1 illustrates the relationship among classroom assessment, curriculum, and instruction during learning.

Figure 1 The interaction of curriculum, instruction, and classroom assessment during learning

      Within this educational context, theories of curriculum, instruction, and learning inform choices about classroom assessment practice. From a traditional psychometric perspective, testing is viewed as a discrete activity that is summative in nature (Moss, 2008). For some, the term “testing” assumes that students act alone. Additionally, in this traditional vein, language ability for multilingual learners can be considered a stable, fixed trait (Swain, Kinnear, & Steinman, 2011). In classrooms shaped by this view, teachers deliver instruction and, at the end of the lesson or unit, use tests to measure what students have learned, often drawing on test materials provided in commercial course packs or by external agencies. As a result, data‐driven decisions often rely on extrinsic rewards and punishments to pressure students (and teachers) to improve.

      In the emerging assessment culture of the 21st century, however, the connection between learning and assessment is more tightly drawn as teachers are challenged to take on a more active role and focus on multilingual learners' language development within content learning. Attention is also centered on students' engagement in classroom tasks, their interaction with peers, and discussion with their teachers. Thus, from a sociocultural view, assessment in the classroom is a series of mediated, goal‐driven activities where language use and performance are malleable, shaped by the audience, situation, and context.

      Shepard, Penuel, and Davidson (2017) identify two guiding principles that shape today's assessment at a local level. “First, make assessments coherent (by) integrating them with rich curriculum and effective instruction and second, ground this integration of curriculum, instruction, and embedded assessments in equity‐focused research on learning” (p. 1). From these principles, they propose unique approaches to formative assessment that view the classroom in different ways. The research‐based premises of a sociocultural stance center on the social nature of learning and development, with a focus on student participation in disciplinary ways of knowing and doing. There is explicit allowance and acceptance for student engagement in academic content and practices through a variety of entry points and for students to follow personalized pathways to achievement. Following a sociocultural stance, a key purpose for assessment is to match information about students' experiences and their interests with their goals for learning in order to create a classroom community of practice.

      Congruent with this approach, Moss (2008) also draws on sociocultural theory to describe assessment in terms of a range of evidence that can address student‐generated questions or inquiries in learning. With learning viewed as an interactive process among learners, activities/tasks, resources, and others within a specific context, a more adaptive