Unlearning Assessment Practices in Intercultural Language Learning

SYMPOSIUM EXPLORING ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENT APPROACHES IN INTERCULTURAL LANGUAGE LEARNING “ I N T E R C U LT U R A L C O M P E T E N C E : T R A D I T I O N S A N D T R A N S I T I O N S ” F I F T H I N T E R NAT I O N A L C O N F E R E N C E O N T H E D E V E L O P M E N T A N D A S S E S S M E N T O F I N T E R C U LT U R A L C O M P E T E N C E J A N U A RY 2 1 - 2 4 , 2 0 1 6 TUCSON, ARIZONA (CERCLL)

Dr Adriana Diaz Dr Lynne Diaz-Rico Dr Michelle Kohler

UN-LEARNING ASSESSMENT PRACTICES IN INTERCULTURAL LANGUAGE LEARNING Adriana Díaz ([email protected]) School of Languages and Cultures University of Queensland (Australia)

ROADMAP FOR THE PRESENTATION Looking back Reflecting on (my) personal (teaching & research) journey PNR – “Point of no return” Un-learning assessment practices Looking forward Re-learning to reconcile beliefs and practices

LOOKING BACK REFLECTING ON (MY) PERSONAL (TEACHING & RESEARCH) JOURNEY ASSESSMENT – What does it mean it to me/you? Accountability? To whom? Evidence of learning? Whose learning? Necessary evil? Why do it?

RESEARCH PROJECTS & PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS Centrality of assessment. The need to assess intercultural language learning in order to make its inclusion systematic rather than incidental and ad hoc.

RENEWED UNDERSTANDING OF THE INTERCULTURAL (LANGUAGE) LEARNING PROCESS subjective

life-long life-wide whole-person non-linear liquid, dynamic & unpredictable inconsistent (open to transformation – may progress or regress) unstable & incoherent (may be transgressed, manipulated, etc.) underpinned by 3xC = Curiosity, Criticality & Creativity

going beyond lingual-biased “proficiency/competence” but always related to language embracing multi-modality of pathways & development of multi-competence(s)

“INTERCULTURAL (COMMUNICATIVE) COMPETENCE” If we accept that intercultural learning is essentially subjective and hence rather unpredictable, how can we describe the outcomes in advance as specific competencies and attempt to teach or even assess them? (Zotzmann, 2015)

AND YET… “COMPETENCE” PREVAILS AS AN ATRACTIVE CONCEPT FOR TEACHERS & RESEARCHERS ALIKE “Competence carries particular associations: for instance, the promise of rendering learning outcomes identifiable, predictable and, at least, in principle, measurable.” This orientation aligns with… “Competence-based education (…) so ubiquitous in contemporary education policy that even some postmodern, anti-essentialist perspectives on intercultural learning seem to be in line with its main premises.” (Zotzmann, 2015)

INTERNAL CONFLICT

A JANUSIAN APPROACH TO INTERCULTURALITY (DERVIN, 2010)

Researchers defend and put forward the changeability and unstable nature of cultures, identities, “subjects” (…) but on the other hand, through their (…) analyses, which resort to quantification (…) they categorise study participants into national, religious, ethnic groups – and this limits the co-constructive aspects. (Dervin, 2009)

While post-structuralist and postmodern structuralist views on interculturality are decidedly different from structuralist perspectives in their emphasis on the fluid, hybrid and generally unpredictable nature of intercultural communication, they nevertheless conceptualise the outcomes and goals of intercultural learning as “competence”. (Zotzmann, 2015)

The assessment dimension of languae teaching is just an extension of this Janusian approach. We may accept these ideas but then continue to look for assessment instruments to test and measure this construct. Furthermore we may also apply positivistic terminology (e.g., “validity”, “reliability”, “generalisability”) to comply with expected/internalised dominant paradigms.

ADDING A CRITICAL LAYER… Who is entitled to enunciate classification [of such constructs]? Whose interests are being served by it? What discourses does the classification draw upon?

What we now know about the potential outcomes of intercultural learning process.

METHODLOGY

What we now know about the intercultural learning process.

PRODUCT

PROCESS

PNR – “POINT OF NO RETURN” UN-LEARNING ASSESSMENT PRACTICES What we now know about the tools that may elicit this kind of learning.

SOME UN-LEARNING STRATEGIES… 1. Resisting the reification of intercultural (language) learning for assessment purposes. 2. De-centering “assessment” from the pedagogical process. 3. Considering the failure of “assessment” as we know it.

LOOKING FORWARD RE-LEARNING TO RECONCILE BELIEFS & PRACTICES Can beliefs and practices be reconciled under a “realistic” liquid approach?

SHIFTS ARE TAKING PLACE… FROM…

TO…

traditional, cognitive-instructivist approaches (psychometric measurements), focus on assessment and outcome (product), focus on “competence”, unidirectional assessment (“done to” the learner), teacher-centred.

alternative, socio-constructivist approaches. focus on learning process. focus on “performance” (in its broadest definition). bidirectional (cycles of) reflection (powerful for both learners and teachers). learner-centred. … how?

ELICITING INTERCULTURAL LEARNING PROCESSES focus on process multi-method multi-perspective individual, collaborative & peer opportunities experiential longitudinal SUBJECTIVE Focus on promoting and eliciting learners’ (individual & firstperson) reflective processes that may lead to questioning (un-learning) of the self and of the interpretive, meaningmaking processes involved in interaction.

EXAMPLE OF ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUALISATIONS OF ASSESSMENT  In addition to the work by Liddicoat & Scarino (2013), Witte (2014) also refers to the concept of Dynamic Assessment (also Glenn Levine).  DA does not separate the domains of instruction and evaluation but treats them as two sides of the same coin.

 Conceptually, DA is anchored in Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of the “zone of proximal development,” or ZPD.  DA does not aim at the retrospective assessment of achieved progress but it is aimed at the immediate future of the next learning zone of the individual learner.  “DA is a future-in-the-making model where assessment and instruction are dialectically integrated as the means to move toward an always emergent (i.e. dynamic) future rather than a fixed endpoint” (Lantolf and Thorne 2006: 330).

SHIFTS…NEW QUESTIONS & IMPLICATIONS  

Need to avoid the conflation of learning with assessment. Need for alternative paradigms of “assessment” – no longer something that is “done to” learners but promote their engagement in less alienating ways. - How do learners view assessment practices as relevant to their own contexts? (Deardorff, 2015b & Deardorff, 2016)  Need for re-learning, “expanded views” (of language, of learning, of teaching, of assessment). (Liddicoat & Scarino, 2013)

 Need for additional research into what the learning process looks like in practice. (cf. Kohler)  Need for renewed understandings of our role as SUBJECTIVE “teachers/assessors” in the intercultural language learning process. (Scarino, 2013 – Liddicoat & Scarino, 2013)  Need for further teacher education – enhancing “assessment literacy”. (Scarino, 2013)  More dialogue…   

… across educational contexts. … “across disciplines” (intercultural communication, education, etc.) emphasising the role of language learning. … “across continents”.

TO CONCLUDE… FROM BEST-PRACTICE TO ACTUAL PRACTICE & UN-FINISHED PEDAGOGIES If we see instruction and evaluation as an interplay, two sides of the same coin then we can focus on the formulation of progressive pedagogical principles.. “practising pedagogy in and for itself” (Sutton, 2011, 2015). We face multiple challenges and constraints in our personal/situated contexts (discipline, institution, department, teaching team… even learners’ own set of beliefs and assumptions), ultimately mediated by the quality of the human relationship between learners and teachers.

SELECTED REFERENCES Deardorff, D. K. (2015a). Demystifying Outcomes Assessment for International Educators: A Practical Approach. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Deardorff, D. K. (2015b). How to Assess Intercultural Competence. In Z. Hua (Ed.), Research Methods in Intercultural Communication: A Practical Guide (pp. 120-134). Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Deardorff, D. K. (2016). Outcomes Assessment in International Education: Changing the Paradigm. In E. Jones, R. Coelen, J. Beelen, & H. de Wit (Eds.), Global and Local Internationalization (pp. 83-89). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Dervin, F. (2010). Assessing intercultural competence in language learning and teaching: A critical review of current efforts. In F. Dervin & E. Suomela-Salmi (Eds.), New Approaches to Assessing Language and (Inter-)Cultural Competences in Higher Education (pp. 155-172). Frankfurt am Main:: Peter Lang. Scarino, A. (2013). Language assessment literacy as self-awareness: Understanding the role of interpretation in assessment and in teacher learning. Language Testing, 30(3), 309-327.

Sercu, L. (2010). Assessing intercultural competence: More questions than answers. In A. Paran & L. Sercu (Eds.), Testing the Untestable in Language Education (pp. 17-34). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Witte, A. (2014). Blending Spaces: Mediating and Assessing Intercultural Competence in the L2 Classroom. Boston/Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Zotzmann, K. (2015). The impossibility of defining and measuring intercultural competencies. In D. J. Rivers (Ed.), Resistance to the Known: Counter-Conduct in Language Education (pp. 168-191). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.