6 Assessment issues in CLIL

The them e o f assessm ent is a d ifficu lt and som etim es con ten tious area am ongst CLIL
teachers. In som e respects it lies at the heart o f the qu estion o f h o w to define the level o f
co n ten t-lan gu age integration , because, ultim ately, no m atter w h at is tau gh t and h o w it is
taught, the m od e o f assessm ent determ ines h o w the learners perceive the teacher’s in ten ­
tion and, o f course, also shapes perform an ce data. In this chapter, w e are dealing w ith class­
room assessm ent as o p p o sed to p rogram m e evalu ation (w h ich is addressed in C h ap ter 7).
Program m e evalu ation involves lo o k in g at a co m plete C L IL course o r an aspect o f it and
m aking a ju d g m en t regarding its effectiveness, fo r exam ple th ro u gh collection o f data on
learners’ perform ance o r attitudes. T h e distin ction betw een assessm ent and evalu ation is
im portan t, as each serves a d ifferent pu rpose. H ow ever, there is a p oten tial overlap w h ich
is relevant to the qu estion o f w h eth er w e are assessing content, language o r both.
P rogram m e evalu ation m igh t centre on learners’ language attainm ent (m an y research
reports do so) and this m igh t be an appropriate place and m eth o d to ca rry o u t discrete
language assessm ent as well.
Assessm ent processes can be broad ly d ivid ed into sum mative and form ative and this
division form s a m ajor distinction. Sum m ative assessm ent m akes a ju d g m e n t o n the capa­
b ility o f the learner at that p o in t in tim e and, apart from o fferin g that ju d g m en t b a ck to the
learner, it often leads to som e fo rm o f in fo rm atio n -g ivin g to an oth er party, for exam ple
the school m anagem ent or the learn er’s parents. It is therefore associated w ith testing in a
m ore form al setting o r an en d -of-u n it, ‘fin al’ result, even if this is n o t obtain ed th ro u gh an
exam ination. Across the w o rld there are m an y variation s on final course and m o d u le test­
ing processes, w ith a w h o le range o f criteria in use for b o th con ten t and language outcom es.
C L IL units w ill need to m irror such system s in order to retain cred ib ility as m ainstream
ed u cational program m es. This p o in t w ill be addressed again later in the chapter.
Form ative assessm ent is m ore com plex, as its in ten tion is to be directly d iagnostic
w ith a view to im m ed iately im pactin g on the learn er’s next steps. It is also form ative for the
teacher, because it can alter plan nin g and practice m id -u n it (o r even m id-lesson ) and not
ju st after all the w o rk is com plete, as a sum m ative test m igh t do. F orm ative assessm ent was
advocated first b y Scriven (1967) and B lo o m (1968). In co m m o n w ith these w riters, A m es
and A m es (1984) suggested m o vin g aw ay from a n o rm -referen cin g approach; th ey a d v o ­
cated a task-m astery approach using a learner’s p erform an ce to structure goals for future
im p ro vem en t on an individual, rather than com petitive, basis. T h is focus then began to
d evelop in bo th research and practice. It inclu ded w riters on m otivatio n - for exam ple

112
 6 Assessment issues in CLIL 113

D w eck (1986), w h o argued that sum m ative assessm ent dem otivated learners - and assess­
m en t researchers, such as Sadler (1989), w h o argued fo r learners to be given authentic eval­
uative experience, so that th ey co u ld id e n tify w o rk o f h igh qu ality and evaluate their own
progress tow ards it. C o h e n (1994) b ro u g h t a lan gu age-learn in g perspective to the issue by
reco m m en d in g form ative a ctivity alongside classroom tasks, so that the teacher could bet­
ter u nd erstan d students’ skills and com petences.
C larke (2001) likens sum m ative assessm ent to the sim ple m easurem ent o f a plant, and
form ative assessm ent to the feeding process w h ich leads to grow th. In the U K , as a result o f
research into assessm ent (in clu d in g an im p ortan t study b y B lack and W iliam , 1998), the
term ‘A ssessm ent fo r L earn in g’ (AfL) (in Scotland, ‘A ssessm ent is for Learning’ ) was coined
to d escribe processes th o u g h t to be desirable across the cu rricu lu m . In 2002, the
A ssessm ent R eform G ro u p in E n glan d prod u ced a d o cu m en t o f ten principles for AfL,
w h ich m akes clear that b o th teachers and learners w ill ben efit from the processes described
and that form ative assessm ent sh o u ld be central to classroom practice. Som e o f the key fea­
tures in this d o cu m en t are:

• the sharing o f learn in g inten tions (m ean ing that teachers tell students at the
b eg in n in g o f the lessons w h at th ey w ill learn)
• the use o f success criteria (m ean in g that students w ill be told w hat the task will
involve and w h at the o u tco m e w ill contain)
• the involvem en t o f learners in self- and peer-assessm ent
• the im p ortan ce o f feedback, w h ich sh o u ld be sensitive to learners’ self-esteem
and w h ich sh ou ld th ereby p o sitively im p act on m otivation .

Zangl, also advocatin g a form ative approach, includes in her article three m ajor con­
clusions ab o u t lan guage assessm ent (bu t in a w a y that co u ld be applied equally well to con­
tent assessm ent). She states that teachers sh o u ld try to:

• a sse ss th e learner’s proficiency w ith in a m u lti-co m p o n e n t fram ew ork, com prising not
o n ly d om ain-/structure-sp ecific items, but a lso th e use o f la n gu a g e w ith in the social
con text o f th e classroom ;
• capture both th e learner’s individual profile and th e perform ance level o f the class as a
w hole; and
• trace th e learner along his or her develo pm en ta l path w he re tim e and experience act
as constructive factors.
(Zangl, 2000: 257)

T his chapter w ill focus o n such form ative assessm ent approaches, as it seems to us
there is a stron g case fo r form ative assessm ent to be used on a regular basis and summative
assessm ent to be used system atically bu t rarely. T h e strength o f form ative assessment
processes, acco rd in g to the researchers discussed above, is that th ey enhance learning to an
extent w h ere th ey actively su p p o rt better sum m ative outcom es. T h e pressure on CLIL
courses to m atch first-language test results is im m en se and it is through this regular occur­
rence o f focused classroom practice that C L IL teachers and learners can work towards
114 CLIL: C ontent and Language Integrated Learning

achieving such parity. W e w ill next consider w h at the specific assessm ent issues are for a
CLIL program m e, and then explore h o w w e m igh t address them . W e w ill use exam ples
from practice o f different m odes o f assessm ent and rationalize th em in term s o f the b road ­
er aim s o f C L IL as d em on strated b y the th eorization and T ool K it offered in C h apters 3 and
4. Finally, we w ill su m m arize b y givin g som e exem plars o f g o o d C L IL p ractice in assess­
m ent w hich reflect the principles o f this chapter.

6.1 W hat are the main issues for assessment in CLIL?

Assessm ent is often a m ajo r area o f teacher u n ce rtain ty in C L IL contexts and, as w ith
o ther issues relating to C L IL , m u st be considered w ith the C L IL p ractition ers’ specific situ ­
ation in m in d . O n e gro u p o f teachers and trainers in C atalo n ia m et in 2007 to collect
together and try to address the m ajo r questions regarding C L IL assessm ent. From am ongst
these teachers on e gro u p suggested the follow ing:

WViat do we- a s s e s s - CONTENT or LANGUAGE?

whajTlanguage do we~assess ? )

<
\~Cojn s faxdents answer irTcatalan ?~^)

I Whofc toots can we use for assessment?

How can we assess^prevloixs knowledge a^d^^progr&ssu?h?

( How can I deal with Learning difficwlties ? J

Provided we assess in English, how can we minimize the effect

of the language in the content assessment?

How can we evaluate the skulls/processes ? Example: planning

and investigation / designing a^work of art / reaching conclusions.

j'~How con/should weTassess growp work ? ^

T hese are the k e y questions asked b y the m a jo rity o f C L IL teachers w h en th ey m eet

to discuss practice. T h e starting p o in t usually centres on three basic issues: D o we assess con­
tent, or language, or both? W hich is more important? How do we do this? W e can d ivide this
set o f qu estions in to a series o f m ore generic questions w h ich prob e the needs and dem ands
o f a specific C L IL context. For exam ple:

• W h at do w e m ean b y assessm ent in CLIL?

• D o w e assess lan gu age o r co n ten t first?
• D o w e som etim es assess one and n o t the other? I f so, w h ich and w h en (and,
m ore crucially, w h y and how )?
• W hat about co gn itio n and culture?
• W h o assesses?
 6 Assessment issues in CLIL 115

are for a • W h en do w e assess?

examples • H o w do w e assess?
le broad- • W h a t is the role o f standard exam in ation systems?
ters 3 and • Is there a role fo r the C o m m o n E uropean F ram ew ork (2001)?
|n assess-
T h e n ext section o f this chapter begins to co n fro n t these questions by looking at
w h eth er to assess lan guage o r content, follow ed b y the issues involved in assessing each o f
these.

L a n gu ag e or content?
I, as with
ific situ- T h is cen tral d ilem m a was su m m arized early in an article b y Sh ort (1993), in which she
collect explored alternatives to standard testing in C LIL. Short also raised the tw o essential ques­
imongst tion s w h ich lie b eh in d teacher u n certain ty about assessm ent, b o th the what question and
especially the how question:

The m a n y varieties o f alternative a sse ssm e n t include perform ance-based tests, portfo­
lios, journals, projects, and observa tio n checklists. A lth o u g h th e se m easures allow better
d e m o n stra tio n o f stu d e n t know le dge, th e y can n o n e th e le ss co n fo u n d teachers o f lan­
g u a g e m in o rity students. C o m p lic a tio n s arise first because teachers m ust determine
w h e th e r th e la n g u a g e or th e content is b e in g asse sse d in th ese alternative measures.
T he n te ache rs m u st d istin g u ish betw een th e la n g u a g e and content know led ge of the
stu d e n ts and decide if one is interfering w ith th e d e m o n stra tio n o f the other.
(Short, 1993: 633).

H ere we see that the tw o questions are linked: firstly - as m entioned as a key question
in the previous section - should we assess language or content? Secondly, what methods can
w e use w hich w ill give us reliable assessment inform ation - that is, w ill one element (content
or language) im pede the other?
T h e how is the bigger question and w ill righ tly o ccu p y a larger prop ortion o f the
chapter, b u t w e w ill address the first im m ediately. C L IL units w ill all contain clear objec­
tives, po ssib ly fashioned aro u n d the 4CS. Even if a different approach is taken by the CLIL

ey meet planners, th ey w ill still at som e p o in t have had to co n stru ct statem ents regarding the con­

sesscon- tent (concepts, kn o w led ge and po ssib ly skills) w h ich is to be covered by the unit and one

ide this o r m ore statem ents regarding language. T h e lan guage objectives m ay relate sim ply to com ­

emands m u n ica tin g the conten t effectively, or th ey m ay in clu d e n otion s (such as specialist vocabu­
lary from the unit) o r fu n ctio n s (such as the ability to discuss effectively) or even be
fo rm -fo cu sed (for exam ple, co n cern in g effective use o f the past tense). The teacher design­
ing the u n it w ill k n o w w h at she o r he w ishes to teach and w hat the overall purpose o f the
C L IL m o d u le is. Therefore, the answ er to the ‘language or conten t’ question is determined
d, b y the relative p rio rity w ith in those objectives. It is im portan t to have a clear head about
that p riority; w e have taken a p o sition in this b o o k that the content should always be the
d o m in a n t elem ent in term s o f objectives, even th ou gh w e intend that language will be
learn ed securely alongside the co n ten t’s concepts and skills. W ith this perspective in mind,
n6 CLIL: C on ten t and L an guage Integrated Learning

we w ill tu rn n o w to the secon d qu estion, assum ing that it is con ten t first and forem ost that
is bein g assessed. H ow ever, as w e discuss later o n in the chapter, m an y o f the principles
involved in assessing conten t can also be applied to the assessm ent o f language, so even
p ractition ers w ith different p riorities sh o u ld fin d the in form ation useful.

A sse ssin g content

Assessing conten t is poten tially ve ry challenging. G enesee and U p sh u r are clear:

G en erally speaking, the sa m e content objectives sh o u ld be used to a sse ss th e achieve­

m e n t o f second la n g u a g e and native speakers alike - low er sta n d a rd s o f achievem ent
sh o u ld not be esta b lish ed for second la n g u a g e speakers.
(Genesee and Upshur, 1996: 47)

H ow ever, this is n o t necessarily easy to achieve - con ten t m ay be u n d erstood by a

learner, b u t she or he m ay n o t b e able to express it su fficien tly clearly if the language form s
needed are n o t k n o w n , o r i f anxiety prevents it. P inker sum m arizes:

A n y particular th o u g h t in o u r head em braces a va st a m o u n t o f inform ation. But w h e n it

co m es to c o m m u n ic a tin g a t h o u g h t to s o m e o n e else, attention sp a n s are sh o rt and
m o u th s are slow.
(Pinker, 1994: 81)

A practical exam ple w o u ld be if a learner w ere offered tw o parallel tables o f statistics

about tw o different countries bein g com pared in a geography m odule. Inside the student’s
head, com parisons w ou ld be m ade instantly and a concept form ed relating to this com p ari­
son/contrast. T he essential know ledge intended to be gained w ou ld be gained. The learner’s
language com petence w o u ld next determ ine w hether this understanding could be co m m u n i­
cated back to the teacher. If the student ‘failed’ to com m un icate understanding during the
assessment process, then the teacher w o u ld n o t be sure w hether this was due to lim ited lan­
guage com petence, or w hether the student had really n o t understood.
W e also need to define w h ich aspect o f the co n ten t w e are assessing. W e co u ld be
interested in any o f the follow ing:

• factu al recall (detail)

• general u n d erstan d in g (m ajor points)
• a b ility to m an ipu late the content, u sin g h igher-level th in kin g skills such as
interpretation , analysis, synthesis o r application . T h is w ill also reflect objectives
regarding co gn itio n (refer to C h ap ter 4 fo r som e concrete exam ples), w h ich are
best assessed th ro u gh conten t assessm ent, as w ith o u t it th ey becom e sim p ly
abstract skills
• ability to research m ore in d ep en d en tly and extend the to p ic kn o w led ge b eyo n d
w hat has been presented b y the teacher.

How should we assess?

W hile assessing sim ple detail m ay be u n com p licated , the o th er aspects in the list
above are m ore co m p lex for b o th teachers and learners. For this reason, w h en d esigning the
 6 Assessment issues in CLIL 117

m eans o f assessm ent, teachers sh o u ld choose - w h eth er assessing learners individually or

in pairs/groups - the m ost d irect m eth od w h ich uses the least language. Examples o f this
are that the learners sh o u ld com p lete grids, draw diagram s or pictures, decide if bulleted
statem ents are tru e o r false, correct facts w h ich are w ro n g , m ake sim ple presentations
lin ked to visuals o r answ er conten t-based questions w ith a sim ple yes/no response. This
p o in t w ill be d evelo p ed later in the chapter.
But the how o f assessment also raises other issues. W ith the current strong focus on
concrete objectives and purposeful learning activities w hich involve students in thinking and
problem solving - som etim es in pairs or groups - com e regular assessment opportunities, as
lon g as alternative form ats are accepted. Creating a specific ‘test’ m ay not be necessary if the
activities them selves deserve m on itorin g and can provide concrete evidence o f learning. So
an o n goin g approach to assessment in each lesson can becom e the norm , as Short’s (1993)
article suggests. A s w ell as observin g learners at w o rk on the tasks set b y the teacher, if a three-
part lesson structure is im plem ented (w ith a starter, m ain activities and a plenary) then the
w hole-class plenary can double as an o p p o rtu n ity to both m on itor understanding and to
re-teach the m aterial for those w h o need to hear it (content or language) again. If the notion
o f assessment is tru ly form ative, then the teacher wants to m on itor the understanding at all
the different levels - not to m ake a ju d gm en t on individuals, bu t to inform her or his own
actions and future planning. So it is not a m atter o f ‘catching people ou t’, but o f repairing
m isconceptions and filling gaps.

T h e p le n a ry is the sectio n o f a lesson w h ere th e teach er and

learn ers to g eth er su m m arize th e learn in g u p to that p o in t in
o rd er to m o v e on. T h is is o ften tow ard s th e en d o f the lesson

A lon gsid e this, and in accordance w ith the principles o f A fL o r its equivalent, is an
u n d erstan d in g that assessm ent sh ou ld n o t always be o f individuals, b u t w ill som etim es be
o f grou ps o f learners. A lth o u g h it m ay be d ifficu lt to d ecide w h o has contributed what and
w h o kn ow s w hat, this is seen as less im p ortan t, given that there are oth er gains to be made
th ro u gh collaborative w ork. T h e final o u tp u t m ay be m ore than the sum o f all the parts
w ith m ore sophisticated use o f language after gro u p n egotiation and editing. Research,
d ivid ed betw een m em bers o f a gro u p and th en shared, can also contribute to this refine­
m ent. In add ition, such tasks po ten tially raise different areas for assessment, such as team ­
w o rk, p roject m an agem en t and cap acity fo r self-assessm ent.

W ho should assess?
T h e p o ssib ility o f expan d in g assessm ent b eyo n d the teacher loo kin g solely at individ­
ual learners links p artially to the question o f who assesses. Clearly, teachers wish to retain
the m ajo r role in this, b u t w e can consider the fo llo w in g factors in establishing the possible
range o f teacher, self- and peer-assessm ent m eth od s available:

• C lear success criteria enable learners to peer-assess or self-assess in certain kinds

o f tasks.
u8 CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning

• Assessm ent can be co llabo rative w ith in the w h o le-cla ss setting if the
teacher show s a n o n y m o u s extracts fro m w o r k an d invites co n stru ctive
am endm ents.
• Presentations can be assessed fo r a range o f factors; fo r exam ple, the co m m u n ica ­
tion o f certain item s o f conten t, use o f m edia, use o f effects to scaffold u n d er­
standing and co n trib u tio n o f m em bers o f a group.
• Self- and peer-assessm ent can be used as a platform to elicit com m ents about the
learning process b y asking w h y the judgm ents are as th ey are. This, w hen well
established, can lead to insights into cogn ition, w h ich is the m ost difficult C to
assess.
• Cultural content can be som ethin g w hich learners feel adds interest and w hich can
be peer-assessed throu gh a m ore subjective system such as, for younger learners
three stars and a wish, or an equivalent age-appropriate m echanism (this involves
the assessor finding three aspects to praise and one to suggest for developm ent).
• Peer-assessm ent can lead to better self-assessm ent. I f a learner has form u lated
ideas ab o u t a piece o f w o rk su fficien tly w ell to co m m u n icate and ju stify those
ju d gm en ts to an other learner, she o r he w ill be m ore able to lo o k at her or his
o w n w o rk in the sam e objective m anner.

T h e p o in ts above all dem on strate that relying o n teacher assessm ent alone cou ld
im poverish a C L IL classroom . W e w ill state again that a teacher w ill still be the m ain asses­
sor, bu t there are n u m erou s possibilities to v a ry this in appropriate circum stances. In co n ­
sidering h o w and w here to add this variety, it is also necessary to w eigh up h o w w ell learners
can assess fro m a lin gu istic perspective: is th eir lan guage cap ability sufficient to m ake valid
judgm ents? W ill a teacher need to re-assess everything? C o llabo rative assessm ent in a
w hole-class co n text m an aged b y the teacher w ill always give an in d icatio n as to student
capacity for the process.

Assessing content in the first language

W e have so far avoided the n o tio n o f con ten t assessm ent carried o u t in learners’
(or the sch o o l’s) first language. Som e C L IL courses have b u ilt in the practice o f addressing
the secon d -lan gu age ‘language b a rrier’ issue b y m o n ito rin g com p reh en sion th ro u gh a test
given in the first language. W e sh o u ld note im m ed iately that this becom es d ifficu lt o r even
im possible in classroom s w ith a w id e va riety o f first languages and m ay actually disadvan ­
tage som e learners if the m ajo rity lan guage is assum ed to be every learn er’s first language.
But even in classroom s w here all students share a first language, it can be p rob lem atic for
both practical and p ed agogical reasons. It can fail on a practical level w h en the specialist
vocabu lary needed for the con ten t area is sim p ly n o t k n o w n in the first language, because
the topic has been tau gh t th ro u gh the C L IL language. T h is is yet m ore p ro n o u n ce d if the
full subject is C L IL -tau gh t fo r a year o r m ore, as the first-language specialist term in o lo g y
w ill be less related to cu rren t topics. O n a p h ilosop h ical and pedagogical level it can fail,
because the inten tion o f the C L IL p rog ram m e is to b u ild cap acity to cop e fu lly in an
additional language, w h ich includes fin d in g strategies to co m m u n icate and d eveloping
 6 Assessment issues in CLIL 119

th in k in g as far as possible in that language. T h e prop on en ts o f this system w ill argue, o f

course, that the use o f the first language still allow s a deeper understanding to be com m u ­
nicated and that the practical p roblem s can be overcom e. T h e issue needs careful thought
b y those d evelo pin g the program m es.
T h is issue does, how ever, b ecom e ve ry d ifficu lt w h en w e b rin g any nationally set test­
ing into play. O n e o f the p io n eerin g schools w h ich d eveloped C L IL approaches in the U K
stopped their p ro g ram m e a year aw ay from nation al exam in ation s, because the vehicular
lan guage w as n o t accepted for testing. A s the students w ere less confid en t w ith the subject
m atter in E nglish, th ey had to ca rry o u t a revision p rog ram m e in English in the lead up to
the assessm ents so as to be able to reach their p oten tial grades. A detailed report b y Serra
(2007) addresses m an y o f the above issues, fo cu sin g carefu lly on w h at she calls ‘language
alternation’ (also called ‘tran slan gu agin g’, m en tion ed in C h ap ter 2), specifically because o f
the need to m an age first- and secon d -lan gu age capability in the conten t area (in this case,
m ath em atics).

A sse ssin g la n gu a g e

W e have already m en tio n ed the need fo r C L IL courses to seek p arity w ith first-
lan gu age p rogram m es b y u sing recogn ized local testing fram ew orks. T h ere is clearly a case
in language assessm ent fo r su m m ative attainm ent at the en d o f courses to be stated in
term s o f levels in an intern atio n ally recogn ized system such as the C o m m o n European
F ram ew ork o f Reference fo r Languages (2001). T h e self-assessm ent level descriptors from
B i upw ards (ibid.: 26-7) refer to elem ents o f conten t w h ich co u ld en com pass CLIL m ate­
rial. But in co m m o n w ith the rest o f this chapter w e w an t to lo o k m ore at the earlier stages
before p rog ram m e assessm ent and to answ er the question: H ow do we assess language on an
everyday basis? To b egin w ith , just as w ith content, we need to be sure w h ich aspect o f lan­
guage co m p eten ce w e are assessing. It co u ld be the ability to:

• recall su bject-specific vo ca b u lary

• operate fu n ctionally, u sing appropriate language structures and form s to discuss
and disagree, ask effective questions, rep o rt in appropriate language structures,
and so on
• listen o r read fo r m eaning
• present o r discuss effectively
• d em on strate thin king/reasonin g in the C L IL language
• show awareness o f gram m atical features o f the language.

Teachers need to b e clear b o th why th ey are assessing language as opposed to content

and how th ey w ish to do this. I f w e speak firstly ab o u t form ative assessment o f language,
then w e co u ld m ean o n g o in g co rrectio n in the classroom as w ell as assessment o f written
lan guage in w o rkb o oks, o r o f the oral language o f presentations after th ey have been com ­
pleted. It co u ld be argued that such lan guage correction and assessment should be used
specifically to im prove the co m m u n icatio n o f content. I f a student is told, as part o f ‘live
co rrectio n ’, that ch an gin g the lan guage in a certain w ay w o u ld m ake the content clearer,
120 CLIL: C on ten t and L an guage Integrated Learning

then there is also a clear m otive fo r that language assessm ent. If it is sim p ly m ade as a
correction o f a detail o f lan guage accuracy, then it w ill in evitably halt the flo w o f content
co m m u n icatio n and co u ld frustrate learners. It is im p ortan t to be clear that this does not
m ean w e sh o u ld ign ore all errors and never assess language, b u t w e can create specific
o p p o rtu n ities to d o this rather than offer con tin u al corrective feedback w h ich u nd erm in es
conten t confid en ce. T h e ‘language clin ic’ is a potentially useful version o f this practice: from
tim e to tim e, the teacher gathers language errors w h ich need to b e addressed as a class and
hold s a lan gu age clin ic in a lesson, explain in g to learners that this is a necessary step to su p ­
p o rt better com m u n ica tion o f content.
W h en lo o k in g at how to assess language, w e sh o u ld note that - as w ith con ten t -
language can be assessed th ro u gh a va riety o f approaches. B row n and H u d so n present the
fo llo w in g as types o f assessment:

... (a) selected -re spo nse (in clu d in g true-false, m atching, and m ultiple-choice a s s e s s ­
m ents); (b) c o n stru c te d -re sp o n se (in c lu d in g fill-in, sh o rt-a n sw e r, and pe rfo rm a n ce
asse ssm e n ts); and (c) p e rso n a l-re sp o n se (in clu d in g at least conference, portfolio, and self-
an d peer assessm en ts).
(B row n and H udson , 1998: 658)

This links back to the Short article in w hich she also lists assessment instrum ents w hich
offer a better range o f opportu nities for C LIL students to dem onstrate understanding:

... skill checklists a nd re a d in g/ w ritin g inventories, anecdotal records a nd teacher o b se r­

vations, stu d e n t self-evaluations, portfolios, p erfo rm ance -b a se d tasks, e ssa y w riting, oral
reports, a n d interview s.
(Short, 1993: 629)

In this article, Sh ort w as setting o u t a n e w v ie w o f assessm ent for b ilin gu al teaching

in A m erica w h ich d id n o t relate to the existing E nglish as a Secon d Language schem es.
T h e em phasis o n classroom processes w h ich lies b eh in d m an y o f these m eth od s is still
n o t co m p letely accepted across the w o rld , b u t, as w e have m ain tain ed so far, such m eth ­
ods are vital tools fo r teachers to gain a full u n d erstan d in g o f student progress. In term s
o f c o n tin u o u s la n g u a g e assessm en t, th e E u ro p e a n L an gu a ge P o rtfo lio sch em e
(http://ww w.coe.int/t/dg4/portfolio/) offers a range o f m aterial d evelop ed in different
countries w h ich teachers m ay fin d useful, b u t at present this is n o t d irectly inclusive o f a
CLIL approach. W e w ill next explore som e assessm ent contexts in order to exem p lify som e
o f these tools.

6.2 Assessment in action: Examples of practice

In this section, the in ten tio n is to d evelop the threads o p ened up in the chapter so far,
exploring rationale and m eth od s o f assessm ent, and to select assessm ent types w h ich exem ­
plify certain issues. T his can n ot be a full guid e to C L IL assessm ent, as b o th the scope o f d if­
ferent m ethods and the m an y d ifferent levels o n w h ich C L IL courses operate w o u ld m ake
 6 Assessment issues in CLIL 121

iade as a that im possible. T h e p o in ts m ade here, how ever, sh ou ld be transferable to related types o f
: content assessm ent and to levels o f w o rk and ages o th er than those directly referred to.
does not
! specific
S h arin g objectives and success criteria
(ermines
ice: from Sh arin g th e o bjectives an d o fferin g success criteria are im p o rtan t first steps towards
^lass and effective assessm ent, as learners b eg in to fin d o u t in this w a y n o t ju st w h at th ey are like­
p to sup- ly to b e learn in g, b u t also h o w th eir w o rk w ill b e assessed, b o th as th ey w o rk and when
[ th e y have co m p le ted it. It is im p o rta n t to use co n crete statem ents in fram in g these
[intent - in ten tio n s, n o t ju st b ecau se o f the p o te n tial lin g u istic co n strain ts contain ed in a CLIL
(sent the co n text, b u t b ecau se th is is g o o d assessm ent p ractice. T h e o ld er and m ore advanced
learn ers are, th e m o re co m p le x this stage can be m ad e, so th at it rem ains cognitively
ap p ro p riate. F or exam p le, the objectives / learn in g o u tco m es and the success criteria
assess-
can b e referen ced m o re fu lly to p re vio u s k n o w led g e i f th e lin gu istic know ledge can
irmance
a cco m m o d a te this. T h e p rim a ry-a g e stru ctu res o f W A L T (w e are learning to) and W ILF
ind self-
(w ha t I ’m looking for), co m p risin g criteria o u tlin in g w h a t th e fin ish ed w o rk w ill contain,
so m etim es p erso n ifie d in to tw o c a rto o n characters, p ro v id e d irectio n for m aking the
1998: 658)
statem ents con crete. T h ese basic co n ce p ts can b e ad o p ted in a less ‘p rim a ry ’ form for use
I
[s which w ith o ld er learners. W e m a y b e add ressin g so m eth in g as sim p le as: ‘T oday w e are learning

g: to see th e d ifferen ces b etw e en the lan dscapes o f La R e u n io n an d the Isle o f Skye, so we
can d ecid e w h ich pictu res sh o w w h ich p lace’ . O r w e m a y be h an d lin g m ore advanced
r obser-
co n cep ts su ch as: ‘B u ild in g o n last w e ek ’s w o rk o n zo n a l soils an d h o w N orth w est Europe
ng, oral
an d a tro p ica l e n viro n m en t su ch as La R e u n io n sh o w d ifferences, w e are loo k in g m ore
clo sely at in trazo n al soils an d a feature called p o d so l in the tro p ica l region. B y the end o f
993:629)
this w e e k ’s w o r k y o u w ill have a clear v ie w o f th e soil ch aracteristics o f that area and why
aching th ey m ig h t d iffer fro m lo ca l soils’. In b o th cases, stu d ents start the lesson kn o w in g what
hemes, th e y are g o in g to learn , an d in b o th cases the C L IL teach er w ill n eed to use som e visual
is still su p p o rt to en su re th at all learn ers fo llo w the co n ten t o f th ose learning intentions.
meth- W h eth er it is pictu res o f tw o en viro n m en ts, m ap s o f loca tio n s, k ey vo cab u lary or dia­
1 terms gram s, th o se statem ents are b etter su p p o rte d b y these visu a l elem ents than i f they were
cheme ju st sp oken . Success criteria can also b e given fo r a p iece o f h o m e w o rk , such as the p ro ­
fferent d u c tio n o f a presen tatio n . T h e exam p le given o n p age 122 (‘P rep arin g a presentation’ ) acts
ve of a o n several levels, cla rify in g co n ten t (as in the th ird b u lle t p o in t), the presentation conven­
psome tio n s an d th e q u a lity exp ectatio n s. T h e su b ject o f this task w as Aspects o f the weather sys­
tems in the Pacific Ocean, so th e ch ecklist o f p o in ts in clu d ed explanation o f the
th erm o clin e an d the features o f El N in o / La N in a. T h e set o f bu llet points here acts as an
overall ch ecklist fo r stu d ents w h e n th e y have co m p leted th e task, m akin g the assessment
process m o re overt:
so far,
exem-
pf dif-
make
122 CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning

Example: Preparing a presentation

About the PowerPoint presentation:
• There should be a title summarizing w h at you are explaining.
• There should be the names of the authors.
• There should be all t he points o f the outline I have given you.
• The explanations should be concise and clear.
• The drawings and/or diagrams should clarify the explanation.
• The presentation o f the PowerPoint should be attractive and well organized.
Source: Roser N ebo t (2008)

Link to worksheet [Accessed 27 A p ril 09]: http://www.xtec.cat/cirel/pla_le/nottingham /roser_nebot/

students.pdf

T he grid in the exam p le ‘D ra w in g and p ain tin g a lan dscape’ acts as a checklist for a
final task, co n solid atin g a u nit. T h is is a g o o d exam p le o f w h ere success criteria refer to a
n on -lin guistic o u tco m e, b u t con tain w ith in th em a reference to m u ch o f the key v o ca b u ­
lary o f the u nit, so ch eckin g co m p reh en sio n and even lan gu age - if the piece o f w ork
m atches all criteria, the teacher can b e sure that the con ten t and the language o f the unit
have been established. T h e lan gu age does n o t need to be p rod u ced fo r this process and
therefore a discussion w ith the student ab o u t the finished p ain tin g w o u ld reveal her or his
capacity to use the lan gu age effectively, b u t teachers can d ecide to w h at degree receptive
and prod u ctive com peten ce are desirable o r required.

Example: D raw in g an d p ain tin g a landscape

During and after y o u r work, check the follow ing points:

Draw the horizon line and add t he vanishing point.

Set the background and t he foreground.
Objects appear smaller as they g e t further a way and with less detail.
Overlapping tells us which object is in front, closer.
Objects g e t higher on t he foreground and closer to the horizon line.
Warm colours advance and cool colours recede.
Objects in the distance appear pale.
Do not forget t he w a y light and s h ad o w create forms with colour and
shading techniques.

Source: Isabel Palom ares C o ts (2008)

Link to worksheet [Accessed 27 A p ril 09]: http://www.xtec.cat/cirel/pla_le/nottingham /

isabel_palom ares/student.pdf
 6 Assessment issues in CLIL 123

Alternative asse ssm e n t form ats

It is im p o rtan t to allow learners to express their responses to tasks in the m ost direct
w ay possible so that language is n o t a b arrier to d em on stratin g understanding o f content.
Sim ple assessm ent form ats such as record ing to a grid have several advantages. The format
itself requires little lan gu age kn o w led ge to stim ulate conten t recall; it activates and organ­
izes th in kin g to su p p o rt m ax im u m d em on stration o f know led ge, thus form in g part o f the
process o f w o rk in g w ith in a student’s ‘zon e o f p roxim al d evelo p m en t’ (Vygotsky, 1978),
w h ich fo r any in d ivid u al learner w ill also involve d ialogic interaction w ith the teacher
[anized.
and/or m ore able peers. It is therefore p art o f the form ative structure.
In o u r first geographical exam ple on page 121 (com p arin g the islands o f La Reunion
SbotI and Skye), learners m igh t have a grid system w ith ind ivid ual colu m ns for each o f ten pho­
tographs and rows, labelled sim ply w ith item s w h ich m igh t be visible in the photographs,
such as a volcano, a sparrowhawk, a whiteye, the Cuillin Ridge. Learners tick any items from
the list that th ey see in each p h o to in turn. This establishes som e specialist vocabulary
kn ow led ge d em an ded b y the topic, and is at a basic level o f com prehension. O nce complete,
klist for a
the grid can be used for a further task involvin g pair w ork, in w hich learners produce a
refer to a
short, oral d escription o f a p h o to grap h and th en com e to a decision about where it has been
r vocabu-
taken. A t the sim plest level, this m ay be betw een tw o locations, b u t a com parison o f three
! o f work
environ m en ts (perhaps the tw o islands and the school locality for the younger children)
f the unit
m akes it a m ore co m p lex and m ore cogn itively challen gin g task. T h e teacher can eavesdrop
scess and
d u rin g this stage o f the w o rk to listen for correct location decisions and to evaluate language
ler or his
use b eyo n d the sin gle-w ord structure w h ich m igh t result from learners’ referring to the grid.
receptive
T h e language fo r learning (see C hapters 3 and 4) dem ands the fuller sentence structure
w hich accom panies a description:

In the picture a re ...

Can you see anything

else?

It also h a s ...

I think this photo

is fr o m ...

W hy do you think so?

Because these birds

only live i n ...
124 CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning

A grid ch ecklist fo r m o re a d van ced w o rk still p erfo rm s th e sam e fu n ctio n . It allow s

in fo rm a tio n , p e rh a p s o n a m o re c o m p le x level, to b e a sse m b le d easily, w ith
th ou gh t (rather than lan gu age) h igh ligh ted at that stage, an d th en fo r th at assem bled
in form ation to be used to stim ulate lan gu age p ro d u ctio n o n ce th e co n cep ts are secu rely
in place.
In the assessm ent o f conten t co m preh en sio n th ro u gh receptive tasks, a m ajo r learning
tool, and so also a m ajo r assessm ent too l, is reading. N aturally, at p rim a ry level, this has to
be restricted and carefu lly p lanned, and m ay involve listening rather than reading, especial­
ly w ith the you n ger ages. B ut fro m late p rim a ry onw ards, visual texts o f all types (see
C hapter 5) are an integral part o f C L IL classroom s. M an y task types involve sim p ly reading
- for exam ple, m atch in g pictures to vocabulary, ‘heads and tails’ sentence halves, true/false
decision tasks, gap-fill w here the m issing item s are given in a box, d ecision tasks w here two
versions are given and the correct one has to be chosen and, in m ore practical subjects, fo l­
low in g in stru ction s to create an ou tco m e. M ost w ritin g tasks also b egin w ith reading, as w e
will see later in this section.

M a tc h in g inform ation

T h e assessm ent in stru m en t w h ich involves m atch in g in fo rm a tio n , fo r exam p le b y

‘heads an d tails’ (jo in in g tw o halves o f several d efin itio n s o r sentences), also serves
m ore th an o n e p u rp o se sim u ltan eou sly. In this ty p e o f learn in g/assessm ent task, d e m o n ­
strating co m p re h e n sio n sh o u ld alw ays in volve real d ecisio n s based o n co n cep t u n d er­
stan d in g an d n o t o n o th er elem ents, su ch as lin gu istic fo rm s. In the exam p le ‘Id en tifyin g
co ord in ates’ - a sim ple task at C L IL b eg in n er level - the 11 target sentences o ften have
the sam e sentence stru ctu re. T h is m eans th at, w h e n p a irin g th e sentence halves, learners
are faced w ith b etw een tw o an d six p o ssib le tail m atch es fo r each head, each o f w h ich
w o u ld p ro d u ce a stru ctu ra lly so u n d sentence. O n ly the sim plest p air o f sentences is o p en
to a straig h tforw ard 50/50 ch o ice (th ey bein g th e first an d the fifth sentences). Learners
m ust th erefore fo cu s o n m ea n in g in o rd er to m atch th e co rrect tail to each head. T h e
assessm ent is d esign ed to be carried o u t in pairs, so o fferin g the teach er a n o th er o p p o r ­
tu n ity to listen to d ia lo g u e an d assess to w h a t extent learn ers’ u n d erstan d in g seem s to be
based on co n cep t k n o w led ge , as w ell as w h eth er th e learn ers have in tern alized the
language n eed ed to exp lain that u n d erstan d in g. A d d itio n ally, o th er elem en ts can be e v a l­
uated, such as the p ro n u n cia tio n o f k e y vo cab u lary. T h e in ten tio n sign alled in the task
ru b ric is fo r the p air w o rk to be fo llo w e d b y a plenary, d u rin g w h ich the ratio n a liza tio n
o f choices can be tested in o p en class d iscu ssion . For th ose w h o w ere less sure eith er o f
their choices o r o f th e reason fo r th eir ch oices, this w ill o ffer a n o th e r ch an ce to co n s o li­
date learning.
 6 Assessment issues In CUL

t allows
Example: Id en tifyin g coord inates \
y, w ith
fembled Join the follow ing heads with the correct tails (working in pairs, and later 1
securely in a plenary):

1 The horizontal axis is called . . . . . . positive x and positive y coordinates.

earning
The point ( - 2 , - 3 ) is . . . . . . 2 units to t he left, 3 units up.
s has to
special- The first quadrant contains all the . . . the x-axis.
>es (see
points with . . .
reading The fourth quadrant contains . . . 2 units to t he right, and 3 units up.
lie/false all t he points with . . .
ere two The vertical axis is called . . . . . . t he y-axi s.
cts, fol-
The point (2,3) is . . . . . . negative x and positive y coordinates.
The point (2,-3) is . . . . . . 2 units to the left, 3 units down.
The point (-2,3) is . . . . . . on t he x-axis.
The second quadrant contains . . . negative x and negative y coordinates.
all t he points with . . .
jple by
The point (2,0) is . . . . . . 2 units to the left, 3 units down.
serves
ernon- The point (0,2) is . . . . . . on the y-axis.
under-
Source: M . Luz Esteve (2007)
itifying
Link to worksheet [Accessed 27 A pril 09]: http://www.xtec.cat/cirel/pla_le/nottingham/
n have
m luz_esteve/worksheeti.pdf
sarners
which
iS open
:arners
Productive asse ssm e n t ta sks
d. The
T h o se p rod u ctive tasks w h ich elicit con ten t from students either o rally o r in w ritten
appor-
fo rm at are clearly the m ore d ifficu lt assessm ent instrum ents to structure, because they
s to be
require n o t ju st reco gn itio n o f k ey language, b u t also accurate m em o ry fo r it. Students need
ed the
n o t o n ly to u nd erstan d the topic, b u t to be able to use lan guage in a w a y w h ich co m m u n i­
e eval-
cates that und erstan d in g, and this w ill rarely be in sin gle-w ord fo rm (except in a sim ple
le task
labelling task). O ften the m aterial fo r labelling is given either in an acco m p an yin g text or
zation
in a b o x (and so it is anoth er exam p le o f the reading-based tasks described in the previous
her o f
section), b u t there w ill be tim es w h en the teacher w ill w ish to establish w h eth er the class
rnsoli-
has p rop erly internalized the key vo ca b u lary and the associated concepts. In this case, the
teacher w ill use an open labelling task for this pu rpose, such as that sh ow n in the exam ple
‘Labelling a d iagram ’ on page 126.
B eyo n d su ch sim ple labelling, students’ use o f speakin g/w ritin g to express u nd er­
stan d in g needs to be scaffolded. W ith p rim a ry-a ge ch ildren, learners early in a secondary-
level C L IL u nit, o r C L IL b egin n ers in secon d ary ed u catio n , this scaffo ld in g is best achieved
126 CLIL: C ontent and L an guage Integrated Learning

E xam p le: L abelling a d iagram

Label the diagram with the joints:

Link to similar worksheets [Accessed 27 A p ril 09]:

http://www.xtec.cat/cirel/pla_le/nottingham/francesc_niella/worksheets.pdf

b y u sin g a m o d ellin g approach . D ia gra m m a tic structures are still the m o st useful ways
o f starting a w ritin g process, as th ey requ ire k e y vo ca b u la ry an d an u n d erstan d in g o f
processes, b u t d o n o t necessarily need co n n ected text. A b ra n ch ed o r statem ent k ey w h ich
uses yes/no qu estion s to lead the reader to the correct d efin itio n of, fo r exam p le, an a n i­
m al, is an exam p le o f a real-p u rp o se co m p re h en sio n task w h ich can also be used as a
 6 Assessment issues in CLIL 127

m o d el fo r the co n stru ctio n o f a d ifferent key. A sim ilar w ay o f eliciting key vocabulary is
to use a V en n d iag ram fo r classification w ith visuals as a source. B y locating the items into
separate or jo in t sectio n s o f th e V e n n d iag ram (w h ich co u ld consist o f betw een tw o and
five circles w ith a ran ge o f overlap p ossibilities), learners are d em on strating a conceptual
u n d erstan d in g, b u t w ith o u t the m ore co m p le x lan gu age w h ich a branch ed key requires.
In this way, the essential d escriptive o r d efinitive term s can be tested along w ith the under­
stan d in g o f h o w th ey lin k and differ, w ith o u t the need fo r o th er language w hich might
d ivert atten tion. T h is w o rks especially w ell as a gro u p task, because it involves an initial
b ra in sto rm in g o f relevant ideas, w h ich sh o u ld in ev ita b ly p rod u ce a m ore com prehensive
o u tco m e i f shared b y a n u m b er o f students. T h is w ill th en lead to a group reasoning
process in ord er fo r d ecisions to be m ad e ab o u t the p lacem en t o f the assem bled ideas onto
the d iagram . T h e need to state the reasons fo r the d ecisions ‘o u t lo u d ’ supports the deep­
er co n cep t co m p reh en sio n o f in d ivid uals and o f the g ro u p collectively. H owever, for the
p ro d u ctio n o f longer, co n n ected texts, a sim ple task b r ie f w h ich begins w ith instructions
to describe, explain o r - at a h igh er level - ju stify is rarely su fficient to elicit a response
w h ich w ill tru ly represent as full an u n d erstan d in g as learners m ay actually possess (except
w ith m o re lin gu istically advan ced students). U sing a heard text as the m odel (such as a
sh o rt clip o f a d o cu m en ta ry) is a m ore d em an d in g b rid g in g task w h ich w ill ultim ately
a llo w learners to p ro d u ce a fuller, rich er text. T h is is because the task requires the infor­
m atio n to be cap tu red as it is sp oken and in co n text rath er th an th ro u gh m ultiple readings
carried o u t at the stu d en t’s o w n speed. ‘W atch in g a d o cu m e n ta ry ’ gives an exam ple o f a
h eard -text b rid g in g task.

E xam p le: W atch in g a d o cu m en ta ry

Watch the video and list the sources o f C 02emissions that appear in it.
While listening, read the transcription o f the video and complete the gaps.
En e r g y - d ep e n de n t .............appliances are part o f our modern w a y of life. Most
o f t h e e ne rg y t h e y use comes from burning g a s , .............. wh ic h emit carbon
dioxide, C 0 2, into t h e a t m o s p h e r e , .............t h e planet’s climate . . .
Source: J. M iquel M ontesinos (2008)
Link to worksheet [Accessed 27 A pril 09]: http://www.xtec.cat/cirel/pla_le/nile/
m iquel_m ontesinos/students_worksheets.pdf

A n o th er varian t o n this is a task w h ich requires learners to take notes or fill in a dia­
gram o r grid, w hilst listening to the teacher give a presentation w hich consolidates and
synthesizes p revio u sly learned m aterial from the unit. Shorter w ritin g or speaking tasks are
appropriate on ce the m od ellin g is p artially o r w h o lly rem oved. T h e exam ple task ‘Thinking
ab o u t a p rob lem ’ scaffolds the lan gu age o f co n clu sio n bu t not the actual mathematical
reasoning - this needs to com e fro m the students, either ind ivid ually or in groups.
128 CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning

Example: T h in kin g about a prob lem

It's Impossible to fold a piece o f paper more than eight times!
Sounds odd, doesn't it? W hat is the reason fo r that?
Try it yourself and try to answer. Think about the thickness o f the paper, the
number o f layers and the m athem atical rule.

I think that the reason for this is t h a t . . . _________________________

I think it is impossible because . . . ______________________________
This is due to . . . ____________________________________________

Source: Imma Romero (2007)

Link to worksheet [Accessed 27 April 09]: http://www.xtec.cat/cirel/pla_le/nottingham/
imma_romero/student.pdf

Science investigations offer o pportu n ities fo r short pieces o f w ritin g or speaking from
notes. O nce the language o f report has been established, the scaffolding can be at least
partly w ithdraw n. This is a goo d exam ple o f the integration o f teaching, learning and
assessment, as there w ill be a series o f stages involved in the w h o le process.

1 First o f all, m odellin g or instruction -giving w ill set out the objectives and will
establish the success criteria (not for the investigation, but for the reporting o f it).
2 D u rin g this process, scaffolding w ill take place as the teacher circulates and
encourages pairs or groups to discuss w hat they are d oin g. A t this stage, the
teacher w ill sam ple in d ivid uals’ and grou ps’ u nderstan din g o f the concepts
b eh in d the investigative w ork, as w ell as their ability to see what is happenin g
and why as the investigation proceeds.
3 T h e teacher w ill also b ecom e aware d u rin g the m od ellin g stage o f any really
specific language needs w hich m igh t prevent accurate and full reportin g o f the
investigation.
4 As an assessm ent op p o rtu n ity, the reportin g stage w ill be divided into tw o
sections. Firstly, the pairs/groups w ill create the report using peer scaffolding.
In dividuals w ill w rite this fo rm ally or m ake notes for an oral report. T h e teacher
w ill then either see the w ritten reports and assess them o r w ill listen to oral
reports and offer feedback. In either case, the assessm ent w ill still be form ative
and so fo rm p art o f the o n g o in g teaching and learning process.

6.3 Peer- and self-assessment

We should lastly explore the subject o f peer- and self-assessm ent, w hich has been
alluded to throu gh ou t the chapter. It w as noted earlier that there needs to be a close lin k to
success criteria for this to be effective, and that qu ality and accuracy o f expression w ill not
 6 Assessment issues in CLIL 129

be inclu ded in these jud gm ents, except for the m ost advanced and able learners (although
clarity can certainly feature in them ). There are num erous reasons for using peer- and self-
assessm ent in the C L IL classroom . From a lon g-term perspective, we can assert that learn­
ers w h o understand w hat th ey are learning, as w ell as h o w to dem onstrate high-quality
understanding, w ill m ake greater progress than th ey m igh t otherw ise do i f ‘kept in the dark’.
Black and W iliam m ake these tw o com m ents:

[S]e lf-a sse ssm e n t by pupils, far fro m b e in g a luxury, is in fact an essential com ponent of
fo rm a tive a sse ssm e n t. W h e n a n y o n e is try in g to learn, feedback a b o u t the effort has
three elem ents: recognition o f th e desired goal, evidence a b o u t present position, and
so m e u n d e rsta n d in g o f a w a y to close th e g a p betw een th e two.
(B lack and W iliam , 1998: 4)

Peer-assessm ent w h ich refers to specific criteria and is carried ou t in discussion

betw een tw o partners in a class is valuable, because it centres o n a process where each stu­
d ent puts into w ords - and therefore also rehearses - their in d ivid u al understanding o f the
topic m aterial. N ego tiatio n takes place and a finer u n d erstan d in g o f that m aterial by both
parties is possible as a result. T h is can also be m od elled before bein g com pletely handed
over to students. L anguage o r conten t ‘clinics’, as suggested earlier, provid e an opportunity
for w hole-class discussion o f issues co n cern in g aspects o f the C L IL program m e, in which
the use o f success criteria can be p rop erly explain ed and d em onstrated, and also a m odel
fo r positive and constru ctive statem ents can be given. Self-assessm ent and self-evaluation
are b o th likely to be better in form ed i f th ey fo llo w peer-assessm ent, m eaning that target-
setting w ill su bsequ en tly also be m ore relevant. Peer-assessm ent can also be a larger-scale
exercise, in clu d in g the w h o le class listening to presentations b y oth er groups and ‘m arking’
them all w ith reference to a set o f criteria. W e inclu de on page 130 an exam ple o f criteria
in clu d ed in a peer-assessm ent grid used to assess a Pow erP oint presentation (Figure 10).

6.4 Summary of assessment principles

T his chapter has attem pted to p ro vid e a discussion o f issues in and potential
approaches to the d ifficu lt qu estion o f assessm ent in C LIL. It cann ot o f course do justice to
the en o rm o u s range o f possible differences betw een contexts, bu t it has taken a philosoph­
ical line w h ich w e h o p e is coherent. W e co n clu d e w ith a set o f su m m ary principles which
w e feel have u n d erp in n ed the discussion th ro u gh o u t, and w h ich , echoing Short’s (1993)
plea, advocate alternative assessm ent m ethods:

• C lear learn in g objectives are needed before an assessment focus can be chosen.
L earning objectives/outcom es sh o u ld use a form at w h ich acknowledges the
d ifferent areas o f learn in g in the classroom (such as the 4CS approach) - this
w ill u su ally in clu d e content/skills first, then language in som e form. In a CLIL
classroom there are likely to be m ore possible angles o f assessment at any one
p o in t because o f the integrative nature o f content and language. Therefore, even
m ore than in first-language lessons, w e cann ot always assess everything.
r^cr c ^ n fe n t'and'la n g u a g e fn fegratecf Learning

Figure 10: A grid for peer-assessm ent

PowerPoint Beginning Developing Accomplished Excellent

1 2 3 4
General D iso rg a n iz e d O rga n ize d but D iso rga n ize d O rga n ize d and
aspects of a n d difficult difficult to b u t ea sy to ea sy to fo llo w
slides to fo llo w fo llo w fo llo w
Pictures and Sm a ll and B ig bu t difficult Sm a ll but ea sy B ig a nd ea sy to
graphics im p o ssib le to to un d e rsta n d to un d e rsta n d u n d e rsta n d
un d e rsta n d
Texts Sm a ll and B ig but difficult Sm a ll bu t ea sy B ig and ea sy to
im p o ssib le to to un d e rsta n d to un d e rsta n d u n d e rsta n d
un d e rsta n d
Content D o e s not cover Covers so m e o f C overs m o st o f All topics
all approp riate th e appropriate the appropriate covered. A lso
topics topics topics inte resting
facts
Speech Beginning Developing Accomplished Excellent
1 2 3 4
M atching Speech has Speech is O n ly a fe w Speech and
between n o t h in g to do su b sta n tia lly item s o f the slides m atch
speech and w ith slides different fro m speech are not perfectly
images slides reflected in the
slides
Language M any A fe w errors O n ly o n e or Pron un ciation
pro n u n cia tio n tw o errors and g ra m m a r
a nd are perfect
g ra m m a tic a l
errors
Communication The speech is The speech is The speech The speech is
read all th e read m o st o f is read no t read
tim e th e tim e so m e tim e s
Timing O n ly o ne O ne m em ber O ne m em ber The tw o
between team m em ber sp e a ks m o st o f sp e a k s m ore m e m b e rs share
members sp e a ks th e tim e th a n th e o th er speech equally
(Adapted from A lberich, 2007)

• W e sh o u ld use a m ixtu re o f fo rm al and in fo rm al assessm ent w h ich is bo th

task-based and assignm ent-based, and a m ix o f specific test tim es and classw ork
sam pling.
• We shou ld fam iliarize the learners w ith the assessm ent m easures and success
criteria, expressed in a stu d en t-frien d ly form at.
• C o n ten t kno w led ge sh o u ld b e assessed u sin g the sim plest fo rm o f language
w h ich is appropriate fo r th at purpose.
 6 Assessment issues in CLIL 131

• L anguage sh o u ld b e assessed fo r a real pu rp ose in a real context - sometimes

this w ill be fo r form /accuracy, som etim es for com m u n icative com petence and/or
fluency.
• I f the assessm ent is orally based, ‘w ait tim e’ is crucial, as in CLIL contexts we
sh o u ld be asking students to thin k, and th in kin g takes tim e and the expression
o f that th in k in g takes longer.
• Scaffold in g is n o t ‘ch eatin g’ - w e need to assess w h at students can do with
su p p o rt before w e assess w h at th ey can do w ith o u t it.
• Students need to be able to take som e respon sibility for their ow n assessment,
b o th in term s o f self- and peer-assessm ent. T h is w ill enhance their longer-term
learn in g potential.

References
A lberich, J. (2007) English through Science [O nline lesson plans and w orksheets]. Available at:
http://www.xtec.cat/cirel/pla_le/nottingham /joan_alberich/index.htm [Accessed 29
A p ril 09].
Am es, C . and Am es, R. (1984) ‘Systems o f student and teacher m otivation: Toward a qualitative
definition’, Journal o f Educational Psychology, 76, 4, 535-56.
Assessm ent Reform G roup (2002) Assessment for Learning: 10 Principles. Research-based principles
to guide classroom practice [O nline], Available at: http://www.qca.org.uk/libraryAssets/media/
4031_afl_principles.pdf [Accessed 27 A pril 2009].
Black, P. and W iliam , D. (1998) ‘Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assess­
m ent’, Phi Delta Kappa, [Online] 80, 2. Available at: http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/
kbla9810.htm [Accessed 28 A pril 2009].
B loom , B. S. (1968) Learning for Mastery. The Evaluation Comment, Los Angeles: University of
California.
Brow n, J. D. and H udson, T. (1998) ‘T h e Alternatives in Language Assessm ent’, TESOL Quarterly,
32, 4, 653-75. ^
Clarke, S. (2001) Unlocking Formative Assessment: Practical Strategies for Enhancing Pupils’ Learning
in the Primary Classroom, London: H odder and Stoughton.
C ohen, A. (1994) Assessing Language Ability in the Classroom (Second edition), Boston: Newbury
House/Heinle and Heinle.
Common European Framework o f Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (2001)
Cam bridge: C am bridge U niversity Press.
D w eck, C . S. (1986) ‘M otivational processes affecting learning’ American Psychologist, 4 1 ,1040-8.
Genesee, F. and Upshur, J. A. (1996) Classroom-Based Evaluation in Second Language Education,
Cam bridge: C am bridge U niversity Press.
Pinker, S. (1994) The Language Instinct: How the M ind Creates Language, N ew York: Harper Collins.
Sadler, D. R. (1989) ‘Form ative assessment and the design o f instructional systems’, Instructional
Science, 18,119-44.
Scriven, M . (1967) ‘ The m ethodology o f evaluation’, in Stake, R. E. (ed.) (1967) Curriculum
Evaluation (Am erican Educational Research Association M onograph Series on Evaluation, 1),
Chicago: Rand McNally.
232 CL/L Content and Language Integrated Learning

Serra, C. (2007) ‘Assessing CLIL at prim ary school: A longitudinal study’, International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10, 5, 582-602.
Short, D. (1993) ‘Assessing integrated language and content instruction’, TESOL Quarterly, 27, 4,
627-56.
Vygotsky, L. (1978) M ind in Society, Cam bridge, M A: Harvard U niversity Press.
Zangl, R. (2000) ‘M o nitoring language skills in Austrian prim ary (elem entary) schools: A case
study’, Language Testing, 17, 250-60.