Reconceptualizing language teaching: an in-service teacher education course in uzbekistan

SECTION 3.5
Using Subjectively-Scored Assessments
“Test tasks should…be designed to give not only a “yes” 
or “no” answer as to whether an examinee can “do” a task, 
but should indicate how well he or she can do it relative to 
how well he or she needs to do it” (Wesche, 1983, pp. 44-45).
GOALS
The main goal of this section is to discuss different principles language 
teachers should take into consideration when using subjectively-scored 
assessments. 
By the end of this section, you will be able to…
A) explain what subjectively-scored assessments are;
B) differentiate holistic and analytic assessments;
C) discuss and come to a consensus over assessment scores; and, 
D) distinguish and apply holistic and analytic scoring.
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
Recently, teachers in Uzbekistan are highly encouraged to use subjec-
tively scored methods of assessment based on performance (e.g. role-play, 
presentation) and product (e.g. essay, report, portfolio). This approach to 
assessment involves judgement from one or more assessors who will need 
to use either holistic and/or analytic criteria (see below).
Think about the following:
1. What do you think are the main challenges in using subjective-
ly-scored assessments?
2. How difficult is it to agree on a score with a colleague? Please think 
about examples from your own experience during your time as a 
pre-service or current in-service teacher life.
3. Have you ever had any trouble understanding assessment criteria? 
If you had, why do you think that happened?

---

130
RECONCEPTUALIZING LANGUAGE TEACHING
UZBEK VIGNETTE
At the end of a course, students are assessed based on the presen-
tation of their project work. The process involves 20-minute speech de-
livered by students, and a question-answer part from members of a spe-
cially assigned assessing committee. Then, the presenter is to leave the 
room and the committee members discuss and agree on the score to be 
announced. Sometimes, students disagree with the granted scores and 
consider them unfair. For example, the other day, one of the students 
presented on a topic that he liked a lot during the course and he received 
instruction on it during classes. However, when he presented, one of the 
committee members, was very critical of the selected approaches in the 
project work and he marked the student down claiming the absence of 
the required procedures. The student was shocked as, in his project work; 
he followed the procedures taught by his teacher. Therefore, the mark 
seemed to be very unfair.
REFLECTION
Discuss the case above. What do you think is a possible violation – of 
the four traditional criteria of language assessment (i.e., validity, reliability, 
practicality, and washback) – that the assessor made? How do you think 
assessors can be sure that their assessment is fair? How should the score 
be explained to a student, when such a situation happens? 
KEY CONCEPTS
There are six key concepts in this section: Assessment criteria; holistic 
scoring; analytic scoring; inter/intra-rater reliability; benchmarking; inform-
ing and explaining a score. We will briefly explain each one below.