Should intercultural understanding be assessed? And if so, how?

Even where intercultural competence is mentioned in policy documents, this too

often is accompanied by insufficient or inefficient practice, both at classroom and

institutional levels. The same could be said for the place which is afforded - or not -

to intercultural competence in assessment and examination frameworks (Aktor &

Risager, 2001; Byram, et al., 2001; Chien, 2013; Duffy & Mayes, 2001).

This is true in particular in England where, after a brief feature in the National

Curriculum, the requirement to teach the intercultural dimension simply disappeared

from policy documents. Awarding bodies currently have little incentive to innovate

as far as offering models for the assessment of intercultural competence, especially

as what needs to be assessed remains unclear, and where no demand exists at policy

level (Beacco et al., 2010).

Even where intercultural objectives are present in policy documents, there still is a

gap between the stated intercultural objectives of the syllabi at all levels, and the

requirements (or lack of) placed on learners to demonstrate their intercultural

competence within established assessment frameworks, and therefore, practices

(Duffy & Mayes, 2001). Despite the role of culture as one of the four pillars of a

CLIL approach, assessment is also a key issue in CLIL and the difficulty of finding a

suitable model to assess intercultural competence is one which is often cited as one

of the major challenges for teachers (Coyle et al., 2010; Scarino, 2010; Short, 1993).

Whilst teachers remain at the centre of the assessment process, especially where the

linguistic competence is concerned, well planned collaborative and self-assessment

can also contribute to this process and can add a valuable dimension (Coyle et al.,

2010). In reflecting the central role of the teacher in the learning process, evaluation

of CLIL courses should include a teacher dimension (Coyle et al., 2010: 145).

However, Furstenberg (2010) contends that other tools need to be found, whilst

ensuring that the teacher does not remain the sole evaluator.

Beacco and colleagues (2010) argue that, in assessing intercultural communicative

competence, while rigorous summative assessment may be possible, most assessment

should be formative and involve the learner. This is especially important as the

perception that learners have of assessment differs considerably from current

assessment practices, in that learners do not equate grades in external examinations

to the successful acquisition of language nor to proficiency levels, as discussed by

Graham (2004). This divorce in perception, in an educational system reliant on high

stakes, national testing makes the issue of assessment in CLIL context ever more

complex yet essential to address, if learners are to recognise the validity and worth of

assessment methods and materials used (Coyle et al., 2010).

For this reason, assessing intercultural knowledge, skills and attitudes should be an

ongoing, dynamic and reflective process for learners (and teachers), and not limit

itself to the evaluation of whether learners have acquired and are able to recall

factual knowledge about the target culture(s) (Aktor & Risager, 2001; Chien, 2013;

Coyle et al., 2010; Scarino, 2010). Therefore, although assessment in CLIL contexts

shares many of the features of good assessment practice, it will also need to go

beyond the assessment of linguistic outcomes, and to take into account both

performance evidence and affective evidence, and the dynamic, progressive nature of

the learning taking place (Coyle et al., 2010).

For Pérez-Vidal (2002), assessment should be a combination of summative (for

checking knowledge gained) and formative (in applying skills and demonstrating

attitudes). Indeed, competence is increasingly seen as ‘an amalgamation of

knowledge and skills’ (Coyle et al., 2010: 156). It could be argued, therefore, that a

formative, collaborative and non-competitive method of assessment may be more

suited than summative, individual and high stake traditional methods in evaluating

the outcomes of intercultural teaching and learning (Coyle et al., 2010; Grant &

Dweck, 2003; Scarino, 2010). The value of formative assessment has long been

established (Ames & Ames, 1984; Black &Wiliam, 1998; Bloom, 1968; Cohen,

1994; Dweck, 1986). Some have even argued that, if ongoing formative evaluation is

embedded in the teaching and learning processes, and in the materials and tasks used,

designing a separate summative assessment task may not be necessary (Coyle et al.,

2010; Short, 1993). Regular use of formative assessment will inform the learning and

teaching, and in turn support improved summative outcomes (Coyle et al., 2010:

113).

Rigorous assessment and a degree of standardisation will also be necessary to

provide tangible and credible evidence, and therefore validity, to the benefits of

CLIL methodology to learners’ knowledge, skills and understanding, when compared

with their peers in non-CLIL settings (Coyle et al., 2010; Navés, 2009). In addition,

unless intercultural competence is integrated in formal assessment, there is little

(instrumental) motivation for teachers and learners to give intercultural learning

parity with linguistic and communicative competence acquisition (Aktor & Risager,

2001). This leads Byram to contend that, in order to be widely accepted and

implemented, and therefore/but also to meet its goals, the 'cultural dimension of

foreign language teaching needs to fulfil purposes that are both educational and

utilitarian' (Byram, 2010: 319-320). Therefore, there is a need to find a suitable

model of assessment if the perceived benefits of intercultural teaching are to gain

validity, and to meet the requirements of educational institutions and systems (Coyle

et al., 2010; Hammer & Swaffar, 2012; Norris, 2006; Scarino, 2010). However, if

intercultural understanding is to become a requirement in curricula and formal

assessment frameworks, there needs to be further training for teachers on how this is

to be conceptualised and taught (Aktor & Risager, 2001).

As a result, a common framework of assessment for CLIL needs to be established

(Grenfell, 2002; Mughan, 1999), and can draw from existing frameworks of

assessment for intercultural understanding such as the Common European

Framework of Reference (CEFR), which can be a useful starting point for

establishing criterion rather than norm-referenced model of assessment, and which is

a recognised model enabling comparability of outcomes (Coyle et al., 2010; Wolff,

2002). In recommending the use of the CEFR descriptors, Beacco contends that

traditional levels should be replaced with ‘competence profiles’ as a more accurate

and personalised reflection of a learner’s learning, and that these profiles should be

contextualised (Beacco et al., 2010: 9).

As far as considering which form this assessment should take, a portfolio of work

would provide the most suitable model of assessment. This could provide a viable

solution in high-stake systems of assessment and testing, and also one which is more

likely to have credibility and worth amongst teachers and learners alike (Byram,

1997; Coyle et al., 2010; Short, 1993). The European Language Passport is an

example of an individualised profile recognising learners’ linguistic skills for

specific purposes, at a wide range of proficiency levels and in a range of languages,

including their own (Coyle et al., 2010). Beacco and colleagues (2010) also propose

the European Language Portfolio for plurilingual competence and the Autobiography

of Intercultural Encounters for the intercultural dimension as possible models.