In-Class Assessment

AI-generated picture by Prof. Jonathan Acuña in May 2025

Introductory Note for the Reader

This document is more than a reaction to Evaluación de los aprendizajes: Conceptualizaciones—a

thought-provoking text provided in Spanish. It represents a set of reflective journaling notes compiled
after participating in a faculty development course offered through the university’s professional growth
platform. The ideas expressed here draw from my reading, teaching experience, academic references,
and my evolving philosophy of assessment in English language teaching. It is both a personal exploration
and a practical guide.

Towards a Sound Assessment of English Language

Learners: A Competency-Based and Holistic

Approach
 Abstract
This paper proposes a transformative, learner-centered approach to evaluating
English Language Learners (ELLs), guided by a conceptual framework derived from
Evaluación de los aprendizajes: Conceptualizaciones, CEFR descriptors, and seminal
works by Ur (1996) and Bailey & Curtis (2014). The discussion highlights the need for
transparent, contextualized, and participatory assessment systems that promote
autonomy, reflection, and communicative competence. Through metaphor, critical
analysis, and pedagogical recommendations, the author explores how teachers can
reshape evaluation practices to empower learners and uphold equity. Appendices
include CEFR-aligned assessment tasks and practical strategies for classroom use.
Resumen
Este trabajo propone un enfoque transformador y centrado en el estudiante para
evaluar a los aprendientes del idioma inglés (ELLs), basado en el marco conceptual
del documento Evaluación de los aprendizajes: Conceptualizaciones, los descriptores
del MCER, y textos clave de Ur (1996) y Bailey & Curtis (2014). Se enfatiza la
necesidad de sistemas de evaluación transparentes, contextualizados y participativos
que fomenten la autonomía, la reflexión y la competencia comunicativa. A través de
un análisis crítico, metáforas e ideas pedagógicas, el autor reflexiona sobre cómo los
docentes pueden renovar sus prácticas evaluativas para empoderar a los estudiantes
y promover la equidad. Se incluye un apéndice con tareas evaluativas alineadas al
MCER.
Resumo
Este artigo propõe uma abordagem transformadora e centrada no aluno para avaliar
aprendizes da língua inglesa (ELLs), com base no documento Evaluación de los
aprendizajes: Conceptualizaciones, nos descritores do QECR e nas obras de Ur
(1996) e Bailey & Curtis (2014). A discussão enfatiza a importância de um sistema de
avaliação transparente, contextualizado e participativo, que promova a autonomia, a
reflexão e a competência comunicativa. Por meio de metáforas, análise crítica e
recomendações pedagógicas, o autor convida os professores a repensarem suas
práticas avaliativas de forma mais ética e inclusiva. Um apêndice oferece tarefas
práticas alinhadas ao QECR.
 Introduction
Evaluating English Language Learners (ELLs) requires moving beyond
traditional methods centered on summative tests and narrow judgments of
linguistic accuracy, whether in grammar use, vocabulary appropriateness, or
pronunciation of segmentals and suprasegmentals in English. For those willing to
rummage their archive of evaluation approaches, this essay proposes a more
expansive and inclusive path where ELLs are agents of their own learning.
Drawing upon the conceptual framework outlined in Evaluación de los
aprendizajes: Conceptualizaciones (n.d.), supported by Penny Ur’s (1996)
principles on effective language teaching assessment, and enriched by Kathleen
M. Bailey and Andy Curtis’s (2014) emphasis on ethical and practical assessment,
changes in assessment are necessary and urgent.
While some may cling to the conceit that accuracy-based assessment
ensures fairness and control, they might be appalled at how such rigidity can inhibit
learning and autonomy. Indeed, a shudder can pass through learners when
evaluation is perceived as punitive rather than empowering. To reframe evaluation
as the cradle of learning, it is imperative to encourage teachers to create, adhere
to, and endorse a dynamic, process-oriented, and participatory approach in their
assessments, a model that integrates principles of formative assessment,
competency-based learning, and learner autonomy to construct an evaluation
framework that is both pedagogically sound and humanistically grounded,
adaptable to diverse language learning contexts and the plethora of existing
personalities among students in our classrooms.
1. From Product to Process
As teachers we must critique product-oriented evaluation because it is
overly focused on outcomes and often disconnected from the learning process
itself. As responsible educators truly interested in student learning, we have to
advocate for a model in which evaluation centers not only on results but also on
the unfolding processes of learning, characterized as ongoing and continuous
(Evaluación de los aprendizajes: Conceptualizaciones, n.d.). One might say that
the forefathers of language assessment, who placed an almost exclusive
emphasis on test scores and error-counting, left behind an evaluative legacy filled
with brushwood, cluttered, rigid, and resistant to the dynamism of learning. That
might be why Penny Ur (1996) also stresses that effective assessment in language
education must promote learning rather than simply test knowledge. Bailey and
Curtis (2014) similarly assert that assessment design must align with instructional
intentions and allow meaningful demonstration of student progress. Assessment
then is not just a mere passing or failing grade; it is the demonstration of knowledge
applied to various contexts and situations while using the target language.
Applying this to ELLs requires shifting from test-based performance to
evaluating language use in authentic, ongoing communicative contexts. These
may include production portfolios, comprising aural and written materials
generated by the learner, and task-based assessments that allow instructors to
“see” students’ linguistic development across a variety of communicative events,
such as sketchpads, simulations, debates, or TED-Talk-like presentations. If the
worst comes to the worst, and one must rely solely on static testing formats, the
learning process risks being stripped down to a loincloth of memorized formulas,
which are usually useless in real-life communication events. Finally, to pounce
down upon isolated errors without regard for communicative intent is to misjudge
the purpose of language assessment in the 21st century, helping learners improve
areas where they are struggling.
2. Multiple Forms of Evaluation
Evaluation must be multidimensional. As language educators, we must
emphasize the importance of integrating self-evaluation, peer evaluation, and
teacher evaluation as complementary practices within the broader framework of
language assessment. Learners should so like to see themselves not as passive
recipients of judgment but as full participants, engaged agents shaping their own
trajectories of growth. They should not be treated as objects to be measured, but
as dynamic characters in the “unfolding narrative” of their own learning. After all,
they are the ones immersed in the construction of knowledge, and to be smothered
by externally imposed assessments is to deny them ownership of that journey and
the joy of improving and being understood in the target language.
In language learning, for instance, self-assessment fosters metacognitive
awareness, peer assessment nurtures collaborative competence, and teacher
feedback ensures alignment with course objectives and program-level exit profiles.
Developing students’ ability to evaluate themselves becomes more important in
the long term than merely mastering content (Evaluación de los aprendizajes:
Conceptualizaciones, n.d.). Penny Ur (1996) also affirms that learner involvement
through self-assessment increases motivation and responsibility, fostering greater
engagement in both brick-and-mortar and virtual classrooms. Bailey and Curtis
(2014) emphasize the ethical imperative of student-centered assessment, noting
that learners must understand the goals and rationale behind how they are
evaluated.
If learners do not comprehend the purpose of assessment, its impact risks
being hollow, like a casket of empty rituals, devoid of formative power. When
assessment becomes something learners dread rather than value, it ceases to be
a tool for growth and becomes a barrier in their linguistic development. Thus,
language learners must play an active and participatory role in assessment, not
only to deepen their awareness but to understand where they are in the ongoing
development of their communicative competence in the target language.
3. Real-World Language Use and Competencies
The promotion of evaluations that reflect real-life applications of skills by
recommending that assessment tasks simulate authentic scenarios as closely as
possible (Evaluación de los aprendizajes: Conceptualizaciones, n.d.) is vital in
education. For ELLs, this implies communicative tasks like role plays, email
writing, or oral presentations that mirror authentic language use, supporting both
fluency and the pragmatics behind specific speech events or speaking scenarios.
Bailey and Curtis (2002) advocate for such contextualized assessments that
reflect learners’ needs, educational goals, and future communicative demands.
It’s imperative that we move learners from their comfort zones and really make
them participate in their assessment as true self-regulated individuals who want
to achieve a certain level of mastery of the target language within a time frame
for them to challenge themselves.
4. Transparency and Clarity of Criteria
Evaluation should be based on clear, previously established criteria rather
than on vague comparative norms, and these criteria must be made public and
known to students from the outset (Evaluación de los aprendizajes:
Conceptualizaciones, n.d.). For ELLs, this translates into transparent rubrics and
clearly defined learning outcomes being available from day one, whether in printed
form or downloadable from the institutional LMS. Such clarity reshapes the
learner’s worldview, allowing them to see the learning path ahead with precision,
rather than stumbling through the netherworld of hidden expectations. Without this
clarity, learners may find themselves, as a result of not knowing what the ELL gods
bestow on learners, adrift in uncertainty, unable to chart progress or meaningfully
engage with their own development. Worse yet, when bad teachers relieve
themselves of toil by creating no rubrics at all, evaluation becomes arbitrary,
subjective, and untrustworthy. In such cases, students are reduced to mere pawns
in a learning drama they cannot direct, perform in, or even understand.
For all these reasons, Penny Ur (1996) asserts that clarity in expectations
and assessment tools contributes to both test validity and fairness. Additionally,
Bailey and Curtis (2014) argue that transparency enhances ethicality and
empowers learners, reducing anxiety and promoting trust. When rubrics are
shared, understood, and used, assessment ceases to be a mythopoeic ordeal
shrouded in mystery and becomes instead a collaborative tool for learning,
structured, reliable, and student-centered.
5. Feedback as a Learning Tool
One of the core functions of evaluation is to provide feedback that
strengthens the learning process, not simply to deliver a passing or failing grade.
Timely and constructive feedback helps ELLs adjust study strategies, assimilate
course content more effectively, deepen their understanding of the subject matter,
and stay motivated as they begin to see and experience their own progress.
Constructive, timely, and meaningful feedback shifts assessment from a
judgmental act to a genuine growth opportunity (Evaluación de los aprendizajes:
Conceptualizaciones, n.d.). Penny Ur (1996) also highlights the importance of
feedback being actionable and specific, which is essential for learners seeking to
improve their performance. The aim of the language teacher should always be
linguistic and communicative development, not merely assigning numerical values
to populate learners’ academic records.
Without consistent feedback, ELLs can be beset by a prolonged series of
misfortunes, misunderstood expectations, repeated errors, and growing
frustration, which gradually erode their confidence. Too often, students are left
trying to draw evaluation secrets from teachers, unsure of how to improve or what
they did wrong. When assessment becomes the domain of a whimsical role of the
instructors, dispensing vague commentary or no commentary at all, learners lose
trust in the process. For this reason, Bailey and Curtis (2014) stress that feedback
is a powerful pedagogical tool and a central part of the “washback” effect of
assessment, meaning it directly shapes how and what students learn. When used
meaningfully, feedback becomes a bridge between instruction and learning
outcomes. It allows motivated students to huddle close to true assessment:
formative, relevant, and centered on helping them build knowledge with clarity and
purpose.
6. The Role of the Evaluator
The evaluator must evolve from acting as an inspector or scorekeeper to
becoming a facilitator of teaching and learning, a foreman at the construction site
of knowledge, offering guidance to a team of masons eager to build something
meaningful. In the ELL classroom, this means teachers must serve as coaches
who encourage, challenge, and guide learners from their current zone of
development to their zone of proximal development. Rather than coiling around
their role in assessment with rigidity and detachment, educators must embrace
their evaluative function with openness and care, blending technical expertise with
a strong sense of human empathy (Evaluación de los aprendizajes:
Conceptualizaciones, n.d.).
Instructors must foster bonds of trust with learners, becoming allies in the
learning process rather than distant authorities. Bailey and Curtis (2014) reinforce
this view by positioning teachers as reflective decision-makers who must strike a
careful balance among validity, reliability, and practicality, without ever attempting
to snatch the last bit of ethics from their practice. The teacher's position is not to
thin out the complexity of language learning into mechanical checks, but to enrich
it, to make it meaningful. A classroom without this kind of evaluative leadership
may appear full of tasks yet be barren in purpose and coherence. By contrast, a
classroom where teachers embody the role of ethical, supportive evaluators is one
that is seething with life, dialogue, growth, and shared responsibility. As role
models, teachers are not just record keepers of academic performance but the
helping hands and guiding lights that learners look at when navigating their path
through the intricacies of language acquisition.
7. Student Agency in Assessment
Empowering students to take an active role in assessment is essential; we
must not reduce them to passive receptors of numerical grades that may carry little
relevance to their learning experience. When learners are plunged into the deepest
woe in learning, confusion, disconnection, or lack of direction, it is often because
they are detached from the evaluative process itself. Instructors in language
teaching or any other educational field must pursue a model where evaluation is
formative and meaningful, grounded in student engagement and voice (Evaluación
de los aprendizajes: Conceptualizaciones, n.d.). Assessment, in this light,
becomes less about declaring verdicts and more about issuing tootles of
encouragement, brief, formative signals that steer learners without overwhelming
them.
In our field of language teaching, this involves guiding ELLs to set specific
goals for each lesson, track their progress, and evaluate their own learning using
accessible, user-friendly rubrics. By doing so, teachers do not plunge their hooks
into a chaotic sea of grades, but into the lived experiences of learners’ linguistic
development. The instructor is no longer the debonair lecturer who remains aloof
or the dainty grader whose delicacy serves no pedagogical purpose. Rather, the
teacher becomes a collaborator, offering structure while encouraging student
autonomy. These practices align with Penny Ur’s (1996) support for fostering
learner independence through active involvement in assessment and Bailey and
Curtis’s (2014) view that ethical, transparent assessment must honor learners’
rights and responsibilities. Ultimately, students must recognize that assessment is
not something done to them, but something done with them.
8. Contextualized, Inclusive Evaluation
In alignment with the CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference
for Languages), language learning assessments must reflect levels of
communicative competence that range from A1 (beginner) to C2 (proficient).
Language teaching and assessment, therefore, must ensure that learners are not
simply exposed to content but are actively progressing toward clearly defined
levels of linguistic proficiency. For instance, tasks at the A2 level may involve
introducing oneself, describing daily routines, or writing short messages, while B1
learners might engage in guided conversations or compose emails on familiar
topics. This level-referenced approach supports differentiated instruction and
allows for the valid measurement of language development over time (Council of
Europe, 2001).
Yet the CEFR framework should not be mistaken for a coquettish checklist
to be admired from afar or selectively applied when convenient. It should be an
indomitable tool in the hands of teachers, used to illuminate the sight of one’s
learning and to resist the temptation to shy out of complex, student-centered
assessment planning. When faithfully implemented, it protects against the chaos
of a motley procession of evaluations that may be inconsistent, superficial, or
disconnected from real communicative goals.
 Beyond level-aligned tasks, evaluation must also be situated in the learner's
context. It should take into account all curriculum elements and remain contextual,
democratic, and inclusive. For ELLs, this implies culturally responsive assessment
practices that respect students’ backgrounds and adapt to their cognitive and
emotional needs (Evaluación de los aprendizajes: Conceptualizaciones, n.d.).
Bailey and Curtis (2014) likewise emphasize the need for context-sensitive
assessment that acknowledges and honors the diverse realities of classrooms and
the varied identities of learners. When assessment is genuinely rooted in the lived
experiences of students, it becomes more than a bureaucratic requirement; it
becomes a reflection of our ethical commitment to equitable, transformative
education.
Conclusion
A sound evaluation system for ELLs must be continuous, transparent,
inclusive, and aligned with real-world competencies, especially those clearly
outlined in the CEFR's can-do statements. This kind of assessment resists the
outdated structures that often come creeping from behind, ready to gobble up
creativity and replace meaningful interaction with rigid, impersonal testing. By
integrating formative strategies, multiple perspectives, and learner-centered
practices, as advocated in Evaluación de los aprendizajes (n.d.), echoed by Penny
Ur’s (1996) practical guidance, and reinforced by Bailey and Curtis’s (2014) ethical
and decision-oriented framework, educators can foster deeper learning and equity
in language education.
In one’s exultation over traditional metrics of academic success, it is easy to
forget that standardized exams alone cannot account for personal progress,
cultural nuance, or individual learner voice. It is time that reductive assessment
models be told, "Begone from students forever." What we must nurture instead is
a responsive and flexible evaluation culture that equips learners for leaner times,
when adaptability, communication, and critical thinking are far more valuable than
memorized rules. In such a model, assessment transcends measurement and
becomes an instrument of empowerment and transformation.

References
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press.
Bailey, K. M., & Curtis, A. (2014). Learning about language assessment:
Dilemmas, decisions, and directions (2nd ed.; D. Freeman, Series Ed.). Heinle
ELT.
Evaluación de los aprendizajes: Conceptualizaciones. (n.d.). Assessment course
manuscript.
Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge
University Press.

Transformative, Learner-Centered Approach to Evaluating ELLs

• Emphasize process over product: Assessment should monitor growth,

not just outcomes.
• Incorporate multiple perspectives: Use self-assessment, peer
assessment, and teacher feedback.
• Align with real-world language use: Include authentic tasks (e.g., role-
plays, presentations, portfolios).
• Anchor in transparent criteria: Rubrics and learning objectives are
shared early and clearly.
• Provide timely, meaningful feedback: Feedback guides learners, not just
grades them.
• Position yourself as a facilitator: The teacher supports, reflects, and
adapts rather than controls.
• Empower learners to reflect: Learners take active roles in setting goals
and evaluating their own progress.
• Respect learner context and identity: Assessment is culturally
responsive and emotionally supportive.
• Connect with CEFR descriptors: Ensure level-appropriate, differentiated,
and communicative performance.
 • Prioritize ethical, formative practices: Move away from punitive, high-
stakes models.

Teacher Self-Reflection Checklist on Assessment Practices

Instructions: Use this checklist before designing or delivering an assessment.

Mark ✓ for “Yes,” ~ for “Somewhat,” and ✗ for “No.” Reflect on how to improve
areas marked ✗ or ~.

Statement ✓/~/✗

I use assessment to support learning, not just to grade it.

I offer regular opportunities for self-assessment and peer

feedback.

My assessments include real-life communication tasks, not just

exercises.

I share rubrics and learning objectives with students from the

beginning.

I give feedback that is timely, specific, and helps learners

improve.

I reflect on my role as a facilitator, not merely a grader.

I involve students in tracking and discussing their progress.

I adapt assessment practices to be sensitive to learners’

backgrounds.

I align assessments with CEFR levels or can-do descriptors.

I continually revise assessments to reflect ethical, learner-

centered values.
Discussion Questions (For Peer Group Work)
Instructions: Use the following questions to prompt discussion in small groups
or reflective writing sessions. Encourage participants to share concrete examples
from their own teaching experiences.
1. What role does self-assessment currently play in your classroom, and how
could it be expanded?
2. How does your institution’s evaluation system align—or conflict—with
formative assessment principles?
3. In what ways do rubrics enhance or hinder transparency and fairness?
4. What might be some unintended consequences of relying heavily on
summative assessments?
5. How can CEFR descriptors be used to inform day-to-day classroom tasks?
6. How does feedback function in your current teaching practice? Is it timely,
actionable, and motivating?
7. Have you ever felt “coiled” into a rigid role as an evaluator? How might you
redefine that role?
8. How can assessment practices become more culturally responsive to your
students’ backgrounds?
9. What does a “motley procession of evaluations” look like in real classroom
settings? How can it be avoided?

Suggested Topics for Continued Exploration

1. Designing effective rubrics for formative assessment in ELL contexts
2. Balancing reliability and flexibility in classroom-based evaluation
3. Student-led assessment: strategies and challenges
4. Using CEFR can-do statements for differentiated instruction
5. Assessment for learning vs. assessment of learning: practical shifts
 6. Ethical dilemmas in grading and feedback

Appendix A: CEFR-Aligned Assessment Tasks for English Language

Learners
For practical reference, Appendix A provides a table of CEFR-aligned
assessment tasks that illustrate how ELLs at various proficiency levels can be
evaluated through communicative and context-sensitive activities.

CEFR
Skill Sample Assessment Task Assessment Type
Level

Read a simple personal profile (e.g.,

Multiple-choice /
A1 Reading a student card) and match it to the
matching task
correct image.

Listen to people giving their name

True/false or
Listening and nationality; identify basic
checkboxes
information.

Introduce oneself and ask/answer

Peer oral interview with
Speaking basic personal questions (name,
checklist
age, country).

Fill in a personal form with name, Completion task with

Writing
age, email, etc. accuracy checklist

Read a short text (email or postcard)

Short-answer or
A2 Reading and identify key facts (who, where,
multiple-choice
when).

Listen to a short dialogue about daily

Fill-in-the-blank /
Listening activities; answer comprehension
sequencing
questions.

Describe a daily routine using simple Guided oral production

Speaking
phrases. with prompt cards
 Write a short email to a friend about Structured writing task
Writing
a weekend plan. with rubric

Read an informational article and

Multiple-choice + short
B1 Reading identify the main idea and supporting
response
details.

Note-taking task /
Listen to a guided tour and take
Listening comprehension
notes for a travel itinerary.
questions

Role-play ordering in a restaurant or Interactive pair work

Speaking
asking for directions. with performance rubric

Write a paragraph describing a Free writing task with

Writing
recent experience or trip. organization rubric

Read a newspaper editorial and

Inference-based Q&A /
B2 Reading identify the author’s opinion and
short analysis
tone.

Listen to a news report and

Listening summarize key points in your own Oral or written summary
words.

Participate in a group discussion on Group interaction

Speaking
a familiar issue (e.g., social media). assessment

Write an opinion essay on a familiar

Essay rubric with focus
Writing topic, providing reasons and
on argumentation
examples.

Read an academic article and

Critical response /
C1 Reading evaluate the author’s perspective
discussion board post
and assumptions.

Listen to a university lecture and Summary task / note-

Listening
complete a summary and outline. taking assessment

Give a short oral presentation and Presentation rubric +

Speaking
answer follow-up questions. Q&A component
 Portfolio-based
Write an extended analytical essay
Writing assessment with peer
using evidence from multiple texts.
review

Read complex literary or academic

Essay or debate
C2 Reading texts and critique ideas and
preparation notes
language.

Listen to a panel discussion or

Comparative analysis
Listening academic debate and compare
(oral or written)
speakers’ viewpoints.

Present a researched argument and Formal presentation +

Speaking
lead a debate or seminar. facilitator rubric

Write a research-based paper or

Research paper with
Writing editorial with references and critical
peer/self-assessment
commentary.

Appendix B: Reflective Journaling on evaluation – April 2025: 1

These are notes that were taken while reading “Evaluación de los aprendizajes:
Conceptualizaciones” while participating on a faculty development course at
Universidad Latina.

1. Definition and Purpose of Evaluation

● Etymology: From Latin a-valere, meaning “to give value.” Evaluation is

more than measuring—it involves assigning value and making informed
decisions.
● Generic definition: A process to collect, select, and analyze information in
order to make value judgments that guide decision-making in education.

2. Evaluation in the Educational Context

● Core characteristics:
o Evaluation is not merely supervisory.
o It is a pedagogical tool to improve learning.
 o Helps determine what to teach, when to reinforce, and when to close
or open new learning cycles.
● It is ongoing, interactive, and central to ensuring quality education at all
levels.

3. What Is Evaluated

● Evaluation must go beyond students and also assess:

o Teacher performance
o Curriculum design and implementation
o Processes and outcomes across the educational system

4. Generations and Approaches to Evaluation

● Five generations are outlined, showing a historical evolution:

o From measuring behavior and outcomes
o To focusing on learner needs, self-assessment, and collaborative
evaluation
● Comparison:
o Traditional evaluation: focuses on exams, outcomes, individual
grading.
o Alternative evaluation: emphasizes process, student participation,
and formative feedback.

5. Characteristics of Competency-Based Evaluation

● Focused on demonstrable results.

● Evaluation criteria are public and transparent.
● Emphasizes qualitative over quantitative data.
● Is cumulative, individualized, and aligned with real-world performance.
● Outcomes guide learning and match workplace requirements.

6. Functions of Evaluation

● Formative: Guides learning, redirects efforts.

● Diagnostic: Assesses prior knowledge and needs.
● Predictive: Forecasts future performance.
● Motivational: Encourages effort and improvement.
● Feedback: Supports adjustment of strategies.
● Self-awareness: Encourages learners to reflect on their process and
progress.

7. Types of Evaluation

● By purpose:
o Summative: Measures final outcomes.
o Formative: Monitors progress throughout.
● By timing:
o Initial: Assesses prior knowledge.
o Ongoing/process: Monitors during learning.
o Final: Verifies learning at the end of a period.
● By agent:
o Self-assessment: Student reflects on own performance.
o Peer assessment: Students evaluate each other.
o External assessment: Teacher or others assess student
performance.

8. Problems in Evaluation Practices

● Overly focused on:

o Control, certification, and observable results.
o Students only, rather than evaluating the evaluators or the system
itself.
o Grades and testing, not process or skills.
● Often lacks democratic principles, technical criteria, and timely
feedback.
 9. Toward a Pedagogy of Evaluation

● Evaluation must be:

o Integrated with teaching and learning.
o Planned, designed, and executed as part of the learning process.
o Reflective of constructivist principles, involving dynamic student-
teacher interaction.

10. Profile of the Evaluator

● The evaluator (usually the teacher) should:

o Move beyond the role of inspector or scorekeeper.
o Be a motivator, guide, and facilitator of learning.
o Possess technical knowledge and human sensitivity.

11. Goals for a New Evaluation Culture

● Eliminate the notion of evaluation as a tool of authority.

● Establish evaluation as a continuous, participatory, flexible, and holistic
process.
● Prioritize process over product.
● Promote student engagement, self-assessment, and co-assessment.
● Encourage ongoing reflection and adaptation by educators.

Summary

The text presents a comprehensive and modern vision of evaluation in education,

advocating for a formative, democratic, and student-centered approach. It
underscores that evaluation is not an endpoint, but a continuous and
essential part of learning and teaching, deeply tied to decision-making, quality
improvement, and personal growth.

Appendix C: Reflective Journaling on evaluation – April 2025: 2

These are notes that were taken while reading “Evaluación de los aprendizajes:
Conceptualizaciones” for the second time and trying to draw conclusions on how
the ideas in the article can be materialized in my current language teaching.
How can we apply this information or approach to a sound way of assessing and
evaluating English Language Learners?

1. Shift from Product to Process

● Traditional: One-time tests or exams that measure grammar and

vocabulary in isolation.
● Recommended: Emphasize ongoing formative assessment of listening,
speaking, reading, and writing in real contexts.
How to apply:
● Use portfolios, learning journals, or regular speaking logs.
● Assess task-based performance, e.g., giving directions, writing an email,
or participating in a discussion.

2. Embrace Multiple Forms of Evaluation

The text highlights self-assessment, peer-assessment, and teacher-led

evaluation (hetero evaluation).
How to apply:
● Implement student reflection checklists after tasks (“What did I learn?”,
“What was difficult?”).
● Use peer feedback in speaking activities to promote language awareness.
● Combine with teacher feedback based on clear, shared rubrics.

3. Focus on Competencies and Real-World Use

Evaluation should mirror real-life language use, not artificial exercises.

How to apply:
● Align assessments with CEFR descriptors or can-do statements (e.g.,
“Can introduce oneself in a formal situation”).
 ● Design authentic tasks: writing a blog post, doing a role-play job
interview, or participating in a collaborative project.

4. Make Criteria Transparent and Public

One of the core ideas in the document is that evaluation criteria must be
explicit.
How to apply:
● Share rubrics and goals with students before tasks.
● Involve them in creating or adjusting rubrics (especially at B1+ levels).

5. Use Assessment to Inform Instruction

Evaluation is a feedback loop, not a final stamp.

How to apply:
● Analyze learner errors and gaps to adapt future lessons (diagnostic use).
● Use exit tickets, quick quizzes, or oral check-ins to inform lesson
planning.

6. Train the Evaluator

The document encourages the teacher to evolve into a reflective, supportive

guide.
How to apply:
● Teachers should undergo ongoing professional development in areas
such as:
o Assessment for learning
o Bias-free evaluation
o Culturally responsive teaching

7. Foster Student Agency

Language learners need to see evaluation as a tool for growth, not punishment.
How to apply:
 ● Teach metacognitive strategies (how to learn vocabulary, how to monitor
comprehension).
● Encourage goal setting and review progress regularly with students.

8. Design Contextualized Assessments

The evaluation should reflect the learner’s context—age, background, purpose

of learning (e.g., academic, professional, social).
How to apply:
● Use materials and situations relevant to learners’ real-life needs.
● Consider their cultural and linguistic background when interpreting
results.

Conclusion

Applying this document’s framework to ELL assessment means moving toward

assessment as learning: integrated, formative, contextual, collaborative, and
meaningful. This approach promotes learner autonomy, continuous
improvement, and real communicative competence—far beyond memorizing
irregular verbs or acing a multiple-choice test.