The assessment of the English ability

of young learners in Norwegian

schools: an innovative approach
Angela Hasselgren University of Bergen, Norway

I Introduction
Since 1995, the English Department EVA Project (EVAluation of
English in Schools) at the University of Bergen has been engaged by
the Norwegian Ministry of Education to develop and trial material
and procedures for systematically introducing formative assessment
of the English ability of primary school pupils towards the end of the
sixth grade (1112 year olds), most of whom are in their third year
of English learning. The material is to be used by teachers to assess
their pupils strengths and weaknesses, and to identify pupils with
special English language needs. Moreover, the material should introduce innovative methods to enhance the assessment skills of the users,
i.e., teacher and pupil alike. This is in line with new curriculum guidelines which put assessment and feedback in a central position, highlighting the need for multiple forms of assessment, including self
assessment.
All components of the material which consist of a set of tests
and assessment instruments for teachers and pupils were pre-piloted
over several rounds in 199697. The final version (pending minor
adjustments) was piloted nationally during the spring of 1998, involving around 1000 pupils in 34 schools, and the analysis of the data
from this trialing is still being carried out at the time of writing. The
work described below highlights some of the issues and principles
that have led to an innovative approach to materials development in
the area of assessment, and touches on some questions that remain
to be addressed.
II Norwegian young learners and assessment: conditions and
demands
It soon became apparent that assessing this young learner (YL) population would be carried out under very distinct conditions. This was
in part owing to the characteristics of the YLs who:
Address for Correspondence: Angela Hasselgren, Department of English, University of Bergen,
Sydnesplassen 7, N-5007 Bergen, Norway; email: Angela.Hasselgreneng.uib.no
Language Testing 2000 17 (2) 261277

0265-5322(00)LT180OA 2000 Arnold

Downloaded from ltj.sagepub.com at University of Reading on January 24, 2015

262 Assessment of English ability in Norwegian schools

have a particular need and capacity for play, fantasy and fun;
have a relatively short attention span;
are at a stage when daring to use their language is vital, and any
sense of failure could be particularly detrimental.
Moreover, in the context of Norway, where virtually all teachers
are expected to take part in some English teaching, where there is
great caution regarding the introduction of the written English language in the early school years, where the curriculum is highly unspecific regarding what is to be taught, and where there is absolutely no
tradition of testing in the primary school, other factors were found to
be salient to the projected test development:
Many of these pupils have a limited amount of experience with
the written language.
Their teachers tend not to be specialist language teachers.
The curriculum does not make explicit the language ability
expected of pupils.
The teachers and pupils have little or no experience in assessment.
Strict, exam-like conditions are not easily attainable (nor
desirable) in the YL classroom.
These conditions have placed certain particular demands on the
material to be developed. Test tasks should be engaging and varied.
They should be sufficiently easy that most pupils manage most tasks,
and all are able to make a plausible attempt. Pictures or other nonverbal stimuli should be used widely, instead of written text, to carry
the burden of the message, and any methods used should be familiar
to the learners in advance of testing. To achieve positive washback
effect, the tasks should promote good learning as well as assessment
activities. Both pupils and teachers should develop their ability to
assess, based on explicit criteria, by using the EVA material.
Additionally, in the absence of documentation of what pupils should
be able to do, a preliminary definition is needed of what pupils usually
can do at this stage in their schooling, in order to set the level of
difficulty of tasks and provide a yardstick for judging strengths and
weaknesses.

III Meeting demands

The way these not inconsiderable demands have been met, prior to
actual material development, can be considered in stages: defining
pupils language ability and adopting pedagogic principles.

Downloaded from ltj.sagepub.com at University of Reading on January 24, 2015

Angela Hasselgren 263

1 Defining pupils language ability
Communicative language ability is regarded here as comprising four
basic components (see Hasselgren, 1998), briefly defined as:
microlinguistic ability concerning the knowledge of essentials,
such as vocabulary, morphology, syntax and phonology;
textual ability involving cohesion within a text;
pragmatic ability involving knowing how language is typically
used in the target culture and in the particular situation;
strategic ability involving knowing how to cope with difficulties
and potential breakdowns in communication.
However, in order to describe what pupils at this stage typically can
do with their language, these components have had to be operationalized in the light of:
the topics, concepts and text types which pupils are familiar with
through classroom activity;
the functions which pupils can be expected to perform in listening,
reading, speaking and writing;
the conditions under which pupils can be expected to communicate in English (in terms of physical setting, purpose, familiarity
of interlocutor and channel).
Arriving at such a description has involved a lengthy process. First,
with the rather abstract notions outlined in the national curriculum in
mind, an analysis of course books and consultation with teachers was
carried out. A five-page questionnaire, asking Which of these things
are most of your pupils familiar with/can most of your pupils do?,
was then compiled and sent to all sixth-grade English teachers in
Bergen, of whom 19 responded. The results of the survey, supplemented by rounds of consultation with experts (teachers, teacher
trainers and language testers), gave rise to a detailed description of
the language ability which it is reasonable to expect of pupils, in
terms of topics, functions, text types/genres, as well as certain grammatical forms. Early trialing of material has since led to an adjustment
of this description.
2 Adopting pedagogical principles
The pedagogical principles agreed as the foundation for the EVA
tasks have been influenced by a number of writers, and are summarized as follows:
Tasks should be enjoyable, with varied activity incorporating

Downloaded from ltj.sagepub.com at University of Reading on January 24, 2015

264 Assessment of English ability in Norwegian schools

elements of game and fantasy, humour, involvement and excitement (e.g., Harmer, 1991; Halliwell, 1992).
The four macroskills (speaking, writing, listening and reading)
should be activated in an integrated way (e.g., Nunan, 1989), with
virtually exclusive adherence to the L2 (e.g., Ellis, 1990).
While naturalness should be aimed for (e.g., through fairly normal speaking flow, and ad-libbing on taped spoken materials),
no need is felt for absolute authenticity in texts, nor total purposeful communicativeness in tasks (e.g., Cook, 1997).
Learning is believed to take place optimally through a communicative, meaning-focused approach, backed up by some formfocusing (e.g., Lightbown and Spada, 1993).
IV Design of materials and procedures
The materials and procedures produced in the project have had to
accommodate the special situation of the YLs being assessed, and to
incorporate the principles outlined above. This section demonstrates
how this has been attempted in both the tasks and the scoring instruments.
1 The tasks
In order to reveal a profile of pupils ability and yet integrate the four
macroskills, a four-episode, cartoon-picture-packed mystery story
booklet and CD have been put together, each episode primarily testing
a different macroskill: reading, listening, general language use
(cross-skill and form-focused) and writing. The episodes are short
(about 25 minutes) and given over a two-week period, culminating
with writing about what happened through the eyes of the two main
characters. In the course of the main action the hunt for a stolen
elephant a variety of familiar themes arise. Extracts from the test
are provided as Appendix 1.
The reading test presents a series of texts introducing the characters
and the situation. Tasks largely involve matching (with widespread
use of pictures), truefalse choices or gap filling (see Appendix 1a).
The listening test carries the action further in radio-type drama, on
CD. Tasks here generally involve identifying specific things referred
to on the CD by crossing or numbering pictures or maps (see Appendix 1b). In addition, a series of open questions on the action as a
whole is presented at the end of this test, and pupils are invited to
give their solution to the mystery. The general language test takes the
story to its conclusion and is designed to assess a number of specific

Downloaded from ltj.sagepub.com at University of Reading on January 24, 2015

Angela Hasselgren 265

skills, such as word recognition (see Appendix 1c), spelling of common words (see Appendix 1d) and everyday colloquial expressions
(see Appendix 1e). The writing test places the pupils in the situation
of the two main characters, and invites them to write a diary entry
and letter in response to the events in the story. Pupils are encouraged
to use the material in the booklet as a resource in this test.
The trials, involving over a thousand pupils altogether, have indicated that pupils become very engaged and genuinely need to use all
their skills to try to solve the mystery. Class/group discussion is built
into the activity. The recorded material is natural and realia is simulated in many of the texts. The tasks are varied and widely based on
comic-strip type illustrations. Most pupils achieve over 70% correct
answers (but with hardly any achieving 100%). A practice test introducing all the basic method types is provided.
Speaking is assessed separately in pairs, and tasks are picturebased, with a strong game element. These tasks may be used either
in testing or classroom activities. Appendix 2 shows a typical task
from the speaking test.
2 Scoring instruments
Scoring instruments are provided both for pupils and teachers. Pupils
self-assessment forms are filled in at the end of each subtest (see
Appendix 3). Pupils use a four-point scale (yes, mostly, a bit, no) to
rate various aspects of their own performance, salient to the particular
macroskill being tested, as well as their overall performance. They
are also asked to rate the material, and to say what they have learnt,
using English as far as possible.
The teachers have a range of scoring forms. For the first three
subtests, scores are entered on a score sheet. However, teachers are
encouraged to add comments, which may be influenced by the pupils
own assessment. For the speaking and writing tests, teachers fill in a
profile form for each pupil, choosing one of three level descriptors
for each of five different aspects, roughly corresponding to the
components of communicative language ability (for profile of written
language, see Appendix 4). In the case of speaking, observation forms
for classroom use are provided (Appendix 5). There is some correspondence between the questions on pupils self-assessment forms
and those in the teachers material.
The material is photocopiable and the profile, self-assessment and
observation forms are intended to be used on a regular basis in classroom activity. It is anticipated that this ongoing, more comprehensive
and multiple perspective assessment will yield a more reliable profile
of a pupils ability than a one-off test battery could ever achieve,

Downloaded from ltj.sagepub.com at University of Reading on January 24, 2015

266 Assessment of English ability in Norwegian schools

besides providing a means of tracking and documenting progress.
Moreover, it gives training to both pupils and teachers in the area of
assessment, providing them with a metalanguage for describing their
language abilities.
Teachers are instructed not only in how to use the material, but
also on how to interpret results and, equally importantly, on how to
act on them to develop their pupils skills. It is emphasized that scores
and profiles should only be regarded as giving indications of ability,
which should be pursued further. The assessment results should
always be interpreted alongside the pupils self-assessment comments,
and with the class teachers own knowledge of their pupils in mind.
While the handbook is intended to be self-instructing, it is recognized that teachers benefit from active training in the use of the test
material and accompanying forms. For this reason, county authorities
have been invited to arrange in-service training courses in assessment
using the EVA material. This activity is currently ongoing and has
proved to be popular among authorities and teachers alike.
V Conclusions and outlook
While the material itself has been tailored to the particular demands
of YLs in Norway, further research is needed to answer questions of
how successful the project has been, and how future, similar projects
may benefit from the EVA experience.
Incoming data from participating schools in the national trialing is
now in the process of being analysed, and may give some insight into
how accurately pupils are able to rate their own performance, and
whether they have become more adept at this as the assessment
scheme progresses. Comparison of test results with teachers intuitive
assessments, collected prior to testing, should provide an indication
of the external validity of the tests. Additionally, teacher evaluations
of the usefulness of the material may at least offer a preliminary indication on the consequential aspects of its validity.
However, questions remain that no short-term analysis of scores
will reveal. More insight is needed into what actually constitutes communicative language ability of young native speakers, so that criteria
for assessment of YLs fall within the range of what can reasonably
be expected in young speakers or writers. More knowledge is needed
about the ability of YLs to assess themselves on various aspects of
performance. Also insight into which sub-skills, or can dos, appear
to be key factors in the general success of early language learning
could guide test-makers in deciding which areas to focus on.
In Norway at least, a realization seems to be dawning that, in applying the least expertise in terms of the extent, i.e. breadth and depth,

Downloaded from ltj.sagepub.com at University of Reading on January 24, 2015

Angela Hasselgren 267

of specialist training that language teachers have received to the
most critical stage in learning, we have got it wrong. Moreover, the
rich incoming data from the EVA writing test is testimony that the
notion of writing must wait is a myth. Also, the preliminary analysis
of self-assessment data shows that most pupils (except, perhaps happily, the very weakest) are almost disconcertingly realistic about what
they can and cannot do in English. Pupils responses indicate that
they both enjoy using the materials and have learnt from them. Also,
teachers indicate that they greatly appreciate being given some insight
into what goes into pupils language ability and a language for documenting and describing it.
While there is clearly a long way to go before valuable formative
assessment of English language ability is being systematically carried
out in the Norwegian classroom, the scenario looks favourable. In the
absence of any tradition that smacks of grading in primary schools,
both teachers and pupils are able to approach assessment without
prejudice and put it to positive use. It seems that, in some ways, we
have got it right. There are, so far, no victims of testing in the
Norwegian primary school, and the principal challenge to those
involving themselves in this area will be to ensure that the situation
remains that way!
Acknowledgements
The appendixes are reprinted with permission of the Nasjonalt
Ifremiddelsenter Oslo.
VI References
Cook, G. 1997: Language play and language learning. English Language
Teaching Journal. 51, 22431.
Ellis, R. 1990: Instructed second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Halliwell, S. 1992: Teaching English in the primary classroom. London:
Longman.
Harmer, J. 1991: The practice of English language teaching. London:
Longman.
Hasselgren, A. 1998: Smallwords and good testing. Studia Humanitas
Bergensia. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Bergen.
Lightbown, P.M. and Spada, N. 1993: How languages are learned. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Nunan, D. 1989: Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Downloaded from ltj.sagepub.com at University of Reading on January 24, 2015

268 Assessment of English ability in Norwegian schools

Appendix 1 Extracts from main test set

Downloaded from ltj.sagepub.com at University of Reading on January 24, 2015

Angela Hasselgren 269

Appendix 1a Extract from reading test

Downloaded from ltj.sagepub.com at University of Reading on January 24, 2015

270 Assessment of English ability in Norwegian schools

Appendix 1b Extract from listening test

Downloaded from ltj.sagepub.com at University of Reading on January 24, 2015

Angela Hasselgren 271

Appendix 1c Extract from general language test

Downloaded from ltj.sagepub.com at University of Reading on January 24, 2015

272 Assessment of English ability in Norwegian schools

Appendix 1d Extract from general language test

Downloaded from ltj.sagepub.com at University of Reading on January 24, 2015

Angela Hasselgren 273

Appendix 1e Extract from general language test

Downloaded from ltj.sagepub.com at University of Reading on January 24, 2015

274 Assessment of English ability in Norwegian schools

Appendix 2 Extract from speaking test

Downloaded from ltj.sagepub.com at University of Reading on January 24, 2015

Angela Hasselgren 275

Appendix 3 Self-assessment form (speaking)

Downloaded from ltj.sagepub.com at University of Reading on January 24, 2015

276 Assessment of English ability in Norwegian schools

Appendix 4 Profiling form for writing

Downloaded from ltj.sagepub.com at University of Reading on January 24, 2015

Angela Hasselgren 277

Appendix 5 Classroom observation form (spoken English)

Downloaded from ltj.sagepub.com at University of Reading on January 24, 2015