All of a sudden, everyone seems to have become interested in the topic of evaluation as a means of enhancing learning, rather than merely measuring it. The book "Assessment in the Learner-Centered Classroom", by Alan Trussel-Cullen, tries to explain such interest by demonstrating that schools have changed, and the change in evaluation methods are just following pattern. "Perhaps it is important to remember that we haven't always been convinced that schools exist primarily for learning", says the author. "Down through history, the dominant purpose of education has varied with culture and the historical imperatives of the times. At one time or another, schools have been seen as institutions for furthering morality, consolidating the power of church, teaching manners, civilizing the savage mind, and inculcating the virtues of patriotism, nationalism, communism or a host of other "isms". (...) Right now, at this point in history, we see as the main function of our schools the fostering and facilitating of learning."
Trussel-Cullen goes on: "But if learning is our core business, then to satisfy ourselves that we are doing a good job, and to satisfy the community or whoever it is that is paying us to do our job, we have to be able to know and show that our students are learning. Because of this, learner-centered classrooms have to have effective systems of assessment".
Assessment is a very powerful tool that teachers many times overlook. Not the kind of assessment that simply detects weak spots in the students' learning, but a set of procedures that respect the simple fact that students are individuals who learn differently, at a different pace. Assessment must be interwoven with the process of learning, instead of being used at the "end" of it as a way of checking if our objectives were met. Because learning is continuous (we never stop learning, do we?), evaluation must also be.
The first step we must take in order to make evaluation a continuous process is acknowledging that assessment and testing are not synonyms. Testing is definitely a tool in assessment, but certainly not the only one.
Sometimes, the answers we are seeking through testing are there, in our classrooms, right under our noses. So observation must play an important role in evaluation. Also, assignments and exercises done in class must not be set aside as practice for the "real" thing (Her Highness The Test). While tests are mainly binary and show us (yes) the students have reached our objectives or (no) they just didn't get it, class assignments and activities can show us how far along in the process those students are, in a much wider range of possibilities.
But let's suppose tests are either required by the school where you work or are just some sort of "security device" you would rather keep on holding on to. There's still much room for improvement even if you don't make very drastic changes on how you evaluate your students.
The first "rule" is never make room for "content" by skipping reviews, and make sure not to put "all cats in the same bag" by reviewing what "most students" are having problems with. That's boring and not very productive. When faced with tasks related to the topics seen so far, students may think " I guess I just can't do this" or "I'm not sure I understand this as well as I thought I did". At this point, individual assistance from the teacher is crucial in allowing each one to concentrate on his/her own deficiencies, rather than on what "the majority of the class" is having problems with. In an effective review, time is actually saved, not wasted.
Then the test day arrives. As said before, assessment will only be fair and worthwhile if it is part of the learning process, rather than merely an instrument to measure it. If four abilities were taught and practiced, there is no reason for the testing to be done in written form only. If the teacher has tried, throughout the course, to make language learning pleasurable, interesting and fun, there is no logic in making tests that are boring, dull or exhausting. If the atmosphere in class has been of friendliness and cooperation, there is no point in intimidating the students by making the test unreasonably difficult of applying military techniques to avoid cheating. In other words, our tests must make sense.
And they must be used for diagnostic, not labeling purposes. There's just no use in giving anyone a "C", an "average" or even a "failing" grade unless we, as teachers, know exactly what the main strengths and weak spots are. To do that, assessment must be more carefully planned so that specific objectives are set. According to whether or not they are met, a review project will be worked out with the students, who will have access to materials which will complement the teacher's explanations or provide extra practice in the "trouble topics". The whole point in these recap activities is to give students a second (third, fourth...) chance to reach the same -or similar-level of understanding as the others. That's not always an easy task, especially for those who work on a tight schedule, but it can be much more easily done if the teacher is able to spot and work exclusively with whatever each student is having problems with. Also, the students can do much of the extra work at home. And since "extra work" was mentioned, you may be thinking "but isn't it too much extra work for the teacher?" Well, it doesn't have to be, especially when teachers of a same grade or level work cooperatively: everyone can contribute to the organization of an "activity bank" covering different topics, and copies can be made using originals from that bank whenever needed. Each activity should have a detailed explanation of the topic (in the mother language, if necessary) followed by extra-practice materials.
No matter what the difficulties are, solutions can always be found. In teaching, there is nothing compared to the pleasure of realizing that, with our help, students overcame limitations and difficulties and were able to move on. Whatever extra effort it takes to reach that "Eden", it will be worth it. Since teachers can't count much on good salaries, they've got to live on results.