Part IV: Teaching Materials Reflection on AL 6962 Assessment Tool

This reflection is based on an assessment tool I created for AL 6962: Practicum II in TESOL. I taught a voluntary multi-level TOEFL preparatory class held every Thursday for an hour and 45 minutes. There was an average of three adult students in attendance per week. For my assessment tool, I adapted a written question from ETS TOEFL to show students what they will typically be expected to answer during Question #2: Independent Writing. I gave the students the exact time they would be given in the TOEFL test30 minutes and reminded them that their answer must be a minimum of 300 words. I printed the directions and instruction on strips of paper and passed them out, and reiterated to the students that the question would fall under the independent writing section of the TOEFL test. The strengths of my assessment were authenticity and positive washback. I attempted to re-create the atmosphere of the actual TEOFL test to make it as authentic as possible in terms of timing, content, and instruction. I also encouraged the students to take the time to outline their response, just as they would be asked to do in the TOEFL test. These directions were beneficial to the organization and overall quality of their responses. I think my test resulted in effective positive washback because the students might not have another chance to have a teacher grade a test that is tailored to the TOEFL exam, and my comments will help them gain a sense of their own English proficiency. There were several weaknesses that I am anxious to improve on before my next assessment. The first is that although I attempted to follow the official TOEFL scoring rubric

when grading their tests, I am not TOEFL trained. It is typically graded by two scorers, as well, so the test lost a considerable amount of its validity. Another obstacle that I faced when creating this test was the medium in which the students would do the test; in TOEFL, all responses are typed out on a computer. My classroom did not have computers, however, so I had them write out their responses by hand. This could negatively affect the authenticity of the test because the students might be faster or slower at typing than they are at writing; therefore would not definitively know after this test how long it would take them to write out the minimum 300 words. A possible solution would be asking the students to bring in their own laptops and then have myself stand in the back of the room so that I would be able to ensure they were only on a word processor and not looking up words on the internet. The final problem I faced was that one of the students seemed to be struggling to write even a few sentences, despite having 30 minutes to answer. I was aware that his English level was the lowest in the class; however, I wasnt sure what to do if he came up to my desk and asked me to explain what the question meant. In a real life TOEFL situation, test administrators would not be able to answer any questions regarding the content of a test question; if the student doesnt understand the question, then he can either leave the question blank or guess. Overall, I believe that this test was helpful for the students to assess what level they are currently at in their written TOEFL training. The students were very eager to try this test, as all three of them felt that they needed English writing practice. My feedback included written comments about their organization and grammar, the TOEFL scoring rubric for written questions, and a verbal explanation of common problems in all three essays the next class. Hopefully it provided specific areas in their written English that they need to improve upon to attain a higher test score during the real Question #2 of the TOEFL test.