Technology and LOA

Within this wider ecology of learning, traditional classrooms are only one of the places where language learning happens. Mobile devices (smartphones, tablets, etc.) are now becoming central to learning and assessment processes, and households and communities can now be connected up using this kind of digital technology. The connectivity helps create innovative “learning systems” based on virtual environments that have a functional resemblance to “real” classrooms (e.g., cloud-based learning systems). Such systems enable new forms of learner-to-learner interaction, provide adaptivity to individual learner interests and personalized needs, and address persistent problems that are known to impede learning (e.g., attitude, motivation, and perseverance). This learner-centered focus may also facilitate learner autonomy and increase the amount of time learners spend on communicative tasks that interest them and are relevant to their lives.

Very importantly, the use of devices can capture and process richer data than in the past. This data-driven evidence of learning can be used by teachers and learners to provide individualized feedback in timely and formative ways to stimulate reflection on further learning. It can also be used with a diagnostic focus and to report detailed learning outcomes in terms of progression in proficiency.

30 Nick Saville Conclusion

In summary, LOA seeks to provide a coherent system for combining all forms and uses of assessment, and combines different kinds of evidence at each stage of the planning and delivery of instructed learning programs. The aim is to achieve measurably better language learning and, consequently, to equip learners with enhanced communication skills.

In order to avoid a negative impact, a key factor remains the necessary alignment of stakeholders’ views and actions in their own contexts - at the macro- and micro-levels of the ecosystem. So, in addition to a theory of change and improvement, LOA needs to provide a theory of action aimed at implementing educational change processes and achieving the intended impact by design.

If such alignments are to succeed, shared understandings of the principles and values underpinning the systemic model need to be developed by the various participants and stakeholders and then communicated to all. This will remain an ongoing challenge. Teachers and the quality of their teaching will remain central, and with the increasing use of technology, the role of the teacher will need to change and adapt to the new learning contexts. Amongst other new skills, higher levels of assessment literacy will be needed to take full advantage of the data-driven evidence that the LOA system can provide, and that can be used to provide the feedback to empower learners more effectively.


Thanks to Neil Jones, Angeliki Salamoura, Miranda Hamilton, and colleagues at Cambridge Assessment English for their collaboration in developing the systemic approach to LOA referred to in this chapter.


Anton, M. (2012). Dynamic Assessment. In G. Fulcher & F. Davidson (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Language Testing (pp. 106-119). New York: Routledge.

Assessment Reform Group. (1999). Assessment for Learning: Beyond the Black Box. Cambridge: University School of Education.

Assessment Reform Group. (2002). Assessment for Learning: 10 Principles.

Cambridge: University School of Education.

Bachman, L.F., Davidson, E, Ryan, K., 5c Choi, I-C. (1995). An investigation into the comparability of two tests of English as a foreign language. The Cambridge-TOEFL Comparability Study. Studies in Language Testing Volume 1. Cambridge: UCLES/Cambridge University Press.

Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 18(1), 5-25.

Black, P., &; Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7-73.

Black, R, 5c Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards through

classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-144.

Bloom, B. S. (1969). Some theoretical issues relating to educational evaluation. In R. W. Tyler (Ed.), Educational evaluation: New roles, new means. The 68th yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Part 2) (pp. 26-50). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151-167.

Boud, D., &; Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 399-413.

Brindley, G. (2001). Outcome-based assessment in practice: Some examples and emerging insights. Language Testing, 18, 393-407.

Bronfenbrenner, Y. (1976). The experimental ecology of education. Educational Researcher, 5(9), 5-15.

Brookhart, S. M. (2003). Developing measurement theory for classroom assessment purposes and uses. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22(4), 5-12.

Brown, J. D., 5c Hudson, T. (1998). The alternatives in language assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 653-675.

Carless, D. (2007). Learning-oriented assessment: Conceptual bases and practical implications. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(1), 57-66.

Carless, D. (2009). Learning Oriented Assessment: Principles and Practice and a Project. In L. H. Meyer, H. Davidson, R. Anderson, R. Fletcher, P. Johnston 5c M. Rees (Eds.), Tertiary Assessment & Higher Education Student Outcomes: Policy, Practice & Research (pp. 77-90). Wellington: Ako Aotearoa.

Cheah, Y. M. (1998). The examination culture and its impact on literacy innovations: The case of Singapore. Language and Education, 12,192-209.

Cheng, L., 5c Watanabe, Y. (Eds). (2004). Washback in Language Testing. Mahwah: Erlbaum.

Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Davison, C. (2007). Views from the chalkface: School-based assessment in Hong Kong. Language Assessment Quarterly, 4, 37-68.

Davison, C., 5c Hamp-Lyons, L. (2009). The Hong Kong Certificate of Education: School-based Assessment Reform in Hong Kong English Language Education. In L-Y. Cheng 5c A. Curtis (Eds.), English Language Assessment and the Chinese Learner (pp. 248-264). New York: Routledge.

Davison, C., 5c Leung, C. (2009). Current issues in English language teacher- based assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 43(3), 393-415.

Eckstein, M. A., 5c Noah, H. J. (1993). Secondary School Examinations: International Perspectives on Policies and Practice. London: Yale University Press.

Harlen, W. (2004a). A systematic review of the evidence of the impact on students, teachers and the curriculum of the process of using assessment by teachers for summative purposes. Retrieved from: aspx?tabid=119

Harlen, W. (2004b). A systematic review of the evidence of the reliability and validity of assessment by teachers for summative purposes. Retrieved from: 16

Harlen, W., 8c Deakin Crick, R. (2002). A systematic review of the impact of summative assessment and tests on students' motivation for learning. Retrieved from:

Jones, N. (2014). Multilingual Frameworks: The construction and use of multilingual proficiency frameworks. Studies in Language Testing Volume 40. Cambridge: UCLES/Cambridge University Press.

Jones, N., 8c Saville, N. (2016) Learning Oriented Assessment - a systemic approach. Studies in Language Testing Volume 45. Cambridge: UCLES/ Cambridge University Press.

Jones, N., Saville, N., 8c Hamilton, M. (2013). A systemic view of assessment within an educational context. Paper presented at ILTA/AAAL Symposium, Dallas.

Linn, R. L., Baker, E., 8c Dunbar S. B. (1991). Complex, performance-based assessment: expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 20(8), 15-21.

Lynch, B. (2001). Rethinking assessment from a critical perspective. Language Testing, 18(4), 351-372.

Mansell, W., James, M., 8c Assessment Reform Group. (2009). Assessment in Schools. Fit for purpose? A commentary by the Teaching and Learning Research Programme. London: ESRC TLRP, Institute of Education London.

Messick, S. (1989). Validity, in Linn, R.L. (Ed). Educational Measurement (3rd edition) (pp. 1-103). Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education/ Macmillan.

Мок, M. С. M. (2009). Self-directed Learning Oriented Assessment: Theory, strategy and impact. Paper presented in a lecture of the Chair Professors Public Lecture Series of The Hong Kong Institute of Education, 29 December 2009.

Moss, P. A. (2003). Reconceptualizing validity for classroom assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22(4), 13-25.

Newton, P. E., 8c Shaw, S. D. (2014). Validity in Educational and Psychological Assessment. Cambridge: Sage/Cambridge Assessment.

Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Poehner, M. E., 8c Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 233-265.

Purpura, J. E. (2004). Assessing Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Raban, S. (Ed). (2008). Examining the World. A History of the University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Roach, J. (1971). Public Examinations in England 1850-1900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rea-Dickens, P. (2004). Understanding teachers as agents of assessment. Language Testing, 21(3), 249-258.

Saville, N. (2009). Developing a model for investigating the impact of language assessment within educational contexts by a public examination provider. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Bedfordshire.

Saville, N. (2010). Developing a model for investigating the impact of language assessment. Research Notes, 42, 2-8.

Sebba, J., Deakin Crick, R., Yu, G., Lawson, H., Harlen, W., &: Durant, K. (2008). Systematic review of research evidence of the impact on students of self and peer assessment. Retrieved from: aspx?tabid=24158danguage=en-US

Shepard, L.A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4-14.

Shepard, L. A. (2006). Classroom assessment. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational Measurement (pp. 623-646). Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education/Praeger.

Shepard, L. A. (2008) Formative assessment: Caveat emptor. In C.A. Dwyer (Ed.), The Future of Assessment: Shaping Teaching and Learning (pp. 279-303). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

Shohamy, E. (1998). Critical language testing and beyond. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 24(4), 331-345.

Spolsky, B. (2004). Continuity and Innovation: Revising the Cambridge Proficiency in English Examination 1913-2002. ELT Journal, 58(3), 305-309.

Turner, C.E. (2012). Classroom assessment. In G. Fulcher 5c F. Davidson (Eds.), The Rout/edge Handbook of Language Testing (pp. 65-78). Oxford: Routledge.

Turner, C.E., 5c Purpura, J. E. (2016). Learning-oriented assessment in second and foreign language classrooms. In D. Tsagari 5c J. Banerjee (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Assessment (pp. 255-272). Berlin: de Gruyter.

Vladingerbroek, B., &: Taylor, N. (Eds). (2009). Secondary School External Examination Systems: Reliability, Robustness and Resilience. New York: Cambria Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Wiggins, G., 5c McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by Design. Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Wiliam, D. (2006). Assessment for learning: why, what and how?. Paper presented to the Cambridge Assessment Network. Retrieved from https://www.dylanwil-

Withers, G. (1987). From marking strategy to assessment procedure: a review of recent Australian practices. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 13, 7-19.

< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >