Self‐Assessment of Foreign‐Language Skills: Implications for Teachers and Researchers

Abstract

Self-assessment accuracy is a condition of learner autonomy. If students can appraise their o w n performance accurately enough, they will not have to depend entirely on the opinions of teachers and, a t the same time, they will be able to make teachers aware of their individual learning needs. The purpose of this article is (1) to summarize the literature on self-evaluation of foreign language skills and (2) to show what it could mean to teachers and researchers. The conclusions of several self-assessment studies are somewhat contradictory, but these differences seem to support Krashen's Monitor Model/ Theory. Therefore, both teachers and researchers should keep in mind that foreign language learners' self-estimates may be influenced to a varying degree by the use of the Monitor. 313La nguage Learning Vol. 39, No. 3 in 1976. The topic of self-assessment (variously termed selfrating, self-appraisal, self-control, etc.) has apparently just begun to expand as a distinct field of interest in language testing and evaluation. The Modern Languages Project of the Council of E u r o p d e d i c a t e d as it is to promoting studentcentered, needs-oriented, and motivation-based learningseems to have played a crucial role in this development.Research reports dealing with self-evaluations of foreign language skills were produced in different parts of the world. Most of them involved high school or university undergraduate students and, in the majority of cases, students of English as a foreign language (other languages studied were French and, in one instance, Swedish in which the learners were adult migrants).Few reports were concerned specifically, let alone exclusively, with self-appraisal practices. Frequently, self-rating occurred only because student input was needed by course developers for a more general needs analysis; or else it was one component of a much more extensive research design.The studies that were reviewed are compared in Table 1. Each study is identified by the investigatods) who described it.The emerging pattern is one of consistent overall agreement between self-assessments and ratings based on a variety of external criteria. The accuracy of most students' selfestimates often varies depending on the linguistic skills and Several studies included quantitative comparisons between self-appraisals and more objective measures of proficiency, usually in the form of calculations of Pearson productmoment correlation coefficients. Values ranging from .50 to .60 are common, and higher ones not uncommon. What this means

Teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about language learning autonomy and its implications in the classroom: A mixed method study

“…Regarding self-assessment, teachers had been found to worry about implementing self-assessment, as they had doubts about learners' ability to assess their own proficiency accurately (Blanche & Merino, 1989). However, research showed that training helped (Brantmeyer & Vanderplank, 2012;Council of Europe, 2001), and accuracy increased when language was self-assessed with clear descriptors which were connected to the learning context, and items of abstract nature proved to be less accurate than functional (can do) skills (Butler & Lee, 2010;Harris, 1997).…”

The Impact of Self-Assessment on Iranian EFL Learners’ Writing Skill

“…In the last decade, with the increased attention to learner-centred curricula, needs analysis, and learner autonomy, the topic of self-assessment has become of particular interest in testing and evaluation (Blanche, 1988).Self-assessment is used by learners to evaluate and monitor their own level of knowledge, performance, and understanding and to get information about their learning (Dickinson, 1987). Therefore, self-assessment is what the students see from their own perspectives.…”

Validity of Global Self‐ratings of Esl Speaking Proficiency Based on an Fsi/Ilr‐referenced Scale

“…The more recent (Oscarson, 1989), comprehensive review suggests continued, marked diversity in the purposes, methods, and lines of inquiry subsumed under the" self-assessment" rubric (a theme which is reinforced by Oscarson's [forthcoming] review, based on examination of pre-publication copy, received too late for full consideration in this paper). For perspective regarding conceptual and methodological diversity see, for example, Ingram (1985), Bachman and Palmer (1989), Blanche and Merino (1989), Heilenman (1990), Xu (1991. For present purposes, it seems fair to say that in the field of second language proficiency assessment, interest in developing and evaluating formal self-assessment "instruments" has not been widespread, and very few studies appear to have employed the same or clearly similar instruments/models.…”