American Journal Of Philological Sciences
96
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue05 2025
PAGE NO.
96-103
10.37547/ajps/Volume05Issue05-27
Language Assessment with General Overview of
Classroom Profile and Individual Learners
Khaitova Alokhon Ilyosbek kizi
Senior teacher of English of Andijan Technical, Institute academic lyceum, Uzbekistan
Received:
16 March 2025;
Accepted:
12 April 2025;
Published:
14 May 2025
Abstract:
This article aims at exploring the principles as well as concepts of language assessment accompanied by
a specific classroom profile and it addresses language skills as well. Additionally, it provides the reader with deeper
comprehension of creating assessments aligning with standards or learning objectives and addressed various
needs of language learners making attempt to deliver valuable information for reporting future instructions.
Keywords:
Language assessment, classroom profile, prior instruction, external language assessment, language
skills, language objectives, assessment development, modification, analytic rubric, holistic rubric, fairness and
equity.
Introduction:
Testing students’ language levels
normally help educators to provide learners with
expand knowledge of the target language. Hamp-Lyons
(2016) claims that the purpose of the proficiency test is
to measure learners’ language level and to identify
strengths and weaknesses of the language learner.
Thus, in this part of my paper, I will give an overview for
Multilevel exam test that is widely common in
Uzbekistan.
To begin with, Multilevel test is a paper-based language
proficiency test assessing learners’ language levels
according to CEFR assessment criteria. The audience
include non-native speakers of English who apply for
education, work or monthly salary bonus. For my target
learners, this test type is specifically relevant to
navigate them to enter universities with high scores
after achieving proficiency certificate of this test.
Multilevel test assesses learners’ four language skills,
reading, listening, writing and speaking. According to
assessment criteria of the test, assessing scores include
the following results: C1 proficient user, scores 65-75,
the number of correct answers is 28-35; B2
independent user, scores 51-64, the number of correct
answers is 18-27; B1 basic user, scores 38-50, the
number of correct answers is 10-17 for each language
skill. There is below B1 level including scores 0-37, the
number of correct answers is 0-9, yet candidates, who
gained scores 0-37 in each level, are not provided with
any proficiency certificate in this test. All language
levels are scored separately and the results of the
assessment are added up to identify overall level,
which is equal to CEFR assessment criteria. Referring to
the language skills sub-tests, listening continues
approximately 35-40 minutes including 6 parts and 35
questions relevant to language levels from B1 to C1 at
the highest point. This sub-
test assesses candidate’s
ability to grasp main topics, detailed information, ideas,
as well as to follow the flow of ideas. Reading, is one of
the sub-tests of Multilevel test, consists of 5 parts and
35 questions and measures learners’ ability
of reading
comprehension, understanding of key points of the
passage and critical thinking and analyzing through
reading techniques such as scanning and skimming. To
accomplish the reading test, an hour is given and extra
10 minutes are given to copy the answers of both
listening and reading test into the answer sheet.
Writing, which is one of the productive skills, assesses
candidates’ grammar range and accuracy, task
achievement, usage of the vocabulary and coherence
as well. Mostly, writing test is regarded as the weakest
point of a great number of learners as it measures not
only grammar and vocabulary, but it also checks the
horizon of language learners. Writing test duration is 1
hour and it requires writing a letter for Task 1 and an
essay on a specific topic for Task 2. Speaking, which is a
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
97
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
productive skill, lasts about 12-15 minutes and consists
of three parts and it assesses pronunciation, fluency,
coherence, vocabulary size and grammar range and
accuracy. Part 1 includes 6 personal questions related
to daily life, Part 2 includes a two-minute speech on a
particular topic with a minute preparation and Part 3
includes 5-6 logical questions related to various 2 or
more topics.
METHODS
In the process of selecting tools and assessments, I
focused on creating authentic and involving tasks which
can cater to assess the language skills of my target
learners and these tasks will meet my learners’ needs.
My specific learners Bek, Aisha, Nisa need to improve
their productive skill writing and Denis suffers from lack
of concentration while doing listening test and not
reaching C1 level in listening skill. Hence, according to
needs analysis towards my learners, I utilized both
originally developed and modified versions of the
assessments while creating, aligning with Weigle
(2012) and Flowerdew & Miller (2012). By this, I
emphasized designing the assessments to be more
relevant to my learner’s needs. My selection of
modifying existing assessment, that is listening
assessment, navigated me to make some changes for
the existing assessment due to my learners’ needs.
Obviously, my learners are preparing for Multilevel
exam which assesses language proficiency. In this test,
there is listening sub-test including gap-filling tasks in
two parts of it and in the existed material, there is
T/F/NG task which is not crucial for the listening section
of this external assessment. Therefore, I modified this
material into gap-filling task as this will be beneficial for
my learners to practice listening skill. Referring to
developed assessment, that is, writing assessment, I
developed the assessment from scratch and the
assessment is similar to the real task provided in the
external assessment. As writing is productive skill,
students must have strong grammar and vocabulary
knowledge as well as critical thinking skills. Thus, while
integrating writing tasks into my class, I normally
conduct mini-grammar lessons to be effective for
students. Apart from that, I introduce the vocabulary
and the language to use throughout writing process.
Shin (2011) offers to organize “mini grammar lessons”
over the writing activity to be beneficial for language
learners in order not to suffer from lack of grammar
knowledge for writing. Therefore, aligning with Shin’s
point of view, I do a
n endeavor to improve students’
grammar knowledge as well.
Referring to the choice of rubric that I have designed, I
selected holistic rubric for my listening assessment and
analytic rubric for my writing assessment. Firstly,
commenting about the holistic rubric for the listening
assessment I focused on performance descriptors in
terms of correct answers in order to describe students’
listening ability. Ayhan (2015) points out that, as
holistic rubric can be used aligning with various tasks, it
is beneficia
l to assess learners’ ability in terms of
receptive skills. Thus, I regard that holistic rubric is
relevant to evaluate listening skill due to its easy way to
deal with performance descriptors. When it comes to
the analytic rubric that I have selected for the
productive skill, writing, as writing is considered to be
one of the most challenging productive skills illustrating
weak and strong sides of the language learner, it should
be assessed owing to various criterion. Ayhan (2015)
considers that, analytic rubric is productive in terms of
showing weaknesses and strengths of a learner with
specific details. In alignment with Ayhan’s perspective,
I have utilized analytic rubric for writing skill to evaluate
my learners’ performance on writing specifically.
These assessments as well as rubrics have direct
alignment with the language objectives below. The
criterion and all tasks in the rubrics illustrate particular
skills and ideology mentioned in the objectives. I have
designed those assessments following a particular
instructional order and I ensure that, these
assessments prepare my students to illustrate their
comprehension on listening and writing as well. They
can do gap filling tasks easily through practicing the
assessment and for writing they are able to edit their
written products with the help of preparation for their
external assessment. Referring to the writing
assessment, it navigates to drafting and revising the
grammar and vocabulary and receiving feedback as the
result of practicing writing skills.
RESULTS
General overview of learners including age, ethnicity,
level.
This target classroom consists of 14 learners
whose ages are about 15-16. All of them are native
Uzbek speakers, their L1 is Uzbek and they are studying
at the lyceum specialized in Exact Sciences, yet they all
come from various districts of Uzbekistan. Being first-
year students of the academic lyceum where I work,
their language proficiency levels vary which indicates
from pre-intermediate A2 level to upper-intermediate
B2 level according to CEFR scale and compared to IELTS
scoring system their levels vary from 4 to 6.5 band
scores.
The course aim
The course conducted for my target learners is
Preparation for Proficiency Exam Course, which aims at
preparing my target learners for language proficiency
exams by improving their language skills.
Prior instruction
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
98
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
Normally, when these learners come to the lyceum for
the first time to study, some of the students’ language
proficiency levels indicate A2 pre-intermediate level
due to the results of placement test conducted by me
at the starting point of the course and those learners
have had insufficient prior instruction struggling
language skills and for some others this result reveals
that they have had well-organized prior instruction
achieving B2 level due to CEFR scale. To assist my
learners in terms of achieving higher levels, I utilize
scaffolding strategies for my lower level students
providing them with more support in their language
journey and for my higher-level students I use the
differentiation instruction relevant to their levels in
order to assist them to increase their levels towards
advanced one. For differentiation, I require my high-
level students to write a summary based on the
passage in reading and listening skills and in writing and
speaking, I ask them to produce more complicated
product, whether it is either writing or speaking skill.
The description of individual learners
First learner: Bek
Bek is a learner from Uzbekistan, Fergana district and
aged 16, whose language proficiency level is B2 upper-
intermediate
where
he
can
illustrate
good
understanding of English with visual and auditory
learning styles. His assessment score, according to the
placement test including Multilevel exam samples,
shows that his receptive skills, listening and reading,
have been improved as the consequence of his strong
attempts and hard work towards second language
acquisition as well as having five-years of additional
formal instruction of English to achieve high proficiency
level. That was his investment to acquire the language.
The result of the assessment depicts that the scores for
his reading and listening skills are 63 and 64
respectively, however he considers he has areas to
improve showing the result of writing and speaking
skills, only 52 and 53 respectively. His extrinsic
motivation leads him to be proficient user in English
and he makes strong attempt to achieve the highest
level. In order to support him in terms of improving his
productive skills the accommodation should focus on
more practice in these skills encouraging him to have
more communication in English creating an English
atmosphere inside the class as well as writing critical
analysis on various topics.
Second learner: Nisa
Nisa is a learner who comes from Namangan and her
age is 15. Her language proficiency level is A2 pre-
intermediate according to conducted placement test
including Multilevel exam samples and assessment
score shows that she has insufficient exposure to the
English language which leads her to gain 30 and 28 from
reading and listening respectively, and she is struggling
with lack of experience in productive skills, writing 23
and speaking 24. Her learning style is visual and as she
has had insufficient prior instruction of English
consisting of only a six-mo
nth’s preparation for
entrance exams of the lyceum, she only achieved A2
level on CEFR scale. For the time being, she is eager to
increase her language level from A2 to B1 and then to
B2. Her intrinsic motivation leads her to achieve this
step by step by means of hard work and has intention
of visiting one of the English-speaking countries and
continuing her studies there since she wants to have
enough exposure to both formal and informal English.
As the investment to acquire the language, she should
spend extra time on practicing language skills by
attending extra classes. Accommodation should
address for her to provide her with simplified texts to
improve her receptive skills and to enhance her
productive skills, extra classes should be implemented
emphasizing grammar and vocabulary as well as
communicative atmosphere using only English in class.
Third learner: Aisha
Aisha is a learner from Andijan, whose age is 16 having
interpersonal learning style. Her language level is B1
intermediate and according to the result of conducted
placement test, assessment scores indicate she has had
enough exposure to English including three-
year’s
experience in language acquisition in private tutorial.
The result of the test shows that, her spoken English is
dominant among all other language skills indicating 54
as she has had enough exposure to spoken English
having lived in the UK with her family members during
five years due to her father’s job requirement.
However, she struggles with lack of experience in
formal English and according to the test result, her
reading and writing skills deserve 39 and 33
respectively. Still, as an influence of living in the UK her
listening shows higher, that is, 45. For her,
accommodation should focus on enhancing her formal
English by providing her with scaffolding in terms of
teaching grammar deeper as well as encouraging her to
improve critical thinking skills to make her do tasks on
specific topics. Her intrinsic motivation leads her to
achieve high level in the English language and as an
investment in her language journey, she needs more
practice attending to extra classes studying grammar
and vocabulary deeper.
Fourth learner: Denis
Denis is a learner who is from Andijan as well similar to
Aisha. Being aged 16, due to the placement test result,
Denis’s language level is C1, advanced, showing
proficient user according to CEFR scale. He has had
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
99
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
massive exposure to English to achieve this level as he
has had perfect prior instruction with private tutorial
including six years. As his both parents are teachers of
English at the University, his extrinsic motivation
impacts positively on his learning styles, which are
auditory and kinesthetic. As an investment towards
language learning, he has already spent six years
without stopping to acquire the language spending
extra time on practicing English with his parents. The
results of the test illustrates that his writing and
speaking scores are 68 and 66 respectively with perfect
usage of strong advanced grammar and vocabulary,
and the scores of his receptive skills, listening and
reading are 64 and 65 respectively. Denis has self-
confidence towards his productive skills and often
supportive to his other peers while he struggles with
reading strategies and considers this language skill to
be improved. Accommodation for him should focus on
encouraging him to practice reading strategies such as
skimming and scanning, note-taking and highlighting
key points of the passage.
DISCUSSION
Language objectives to be assessed
Language objective 1 (Writing):
Students will be able
to write a formal request letter using relevant structure
for this letter type addressing all requirements within
the task of the letter
Language objective 2 (Writing):
Students will write a
request letter using relevant grammar structures and a
particular language including vocabulary for this letter
type
Language objective 3 (Listening):
Students will grasp
the meaning from the context and predict correct
answers due to their critical thinking skills and their
prior vocabulary knowledge
Language objective 4 (Listening):
Students will
distinguish the tone of the speaker and voice accurately
Instructional outlines
Writing
In this assessment, students will be writing a formal
request letter to get prepared for their writing exam in
their external assessments. As there is a requirement
for test takers to write a letter in Multilevel exam, my
learners must be aware of the ways of writing a letter.
Since writing is regarded as the most challenging skill
and being productive one, the writing tasks should be
implemented accompanied with grammar and
vocabulary. Weigle (2012) offers that writing L2
teachers who are teaching writing skill should address
the structure of the language and vocabulary as well to
reach efficient writing product. Therefore, aligning
Weigle’s perspective, I try to conduct my writing classes
including mini grammar lessons. The outline of the
assessment is the following and it is original one:
•
Students are introduced the writing type,
request letter by the teacher;
•
Students are provided with the topic for the
letter that is going to be written;
•
Students are given the language of the letter
and grammar structures to utilize throughout their
writing product;
•
They will be set exact amount of time to
generate their writing drafts;
•
They will be set exact amount of time to edit
their written drafts.
Listening
In this assessment, students will be doing a listening
task to be beneficial for their external assessment. In
their external assessments, my target learners need to
do gap filling task, which needs to be used in the exam.
I have modified the assessment as it was T/F task in the
existing task. Multilevel exam does not include doing
T/F task in the listening exam. Therefore, I altered the
task into gap-filling task. The link to access the audio
will be given in the reference list. As Thompson (1995)
suggests that, a vital factor for the listening task, it
should cover smaller passages to be understandable for
test takers. Being in favor of Thompson’s suggestion, I
used passages with fewer minutes for my learners. The
outline of the assessment is the following and it is
modified.
•
Students will be provided with the handouts
including listening task;
•
Students will be introduced the way and
techniques of fulfilling the task;
•
Students are introduced new vocabulary that is
going to be used in the listening;
•
They are provided with the audio by the
teacher;
•
At the end of the lesson, all correct answers will
be provided by the teacher.
Assessment development or modification with rubrics
(Option 3)
Assessment 1. Writing
You got the scores from the instructor of your English
language course but you realized that your productive
skills were marked with lower scores. Write a letter to
your instructor.
In your letter:
•
Introduce yourself
•
Explain why you think the scores are low
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
100
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
•
Ask to make an appointment to discuss your
weaknesses.
Write an аppropriate style
Do not write your own address and begin with Dear
Sir/Madam,
Write at leаst 150 words.
You should spеnd 20 mi
nutes to do this task.
Analytic rubric for the writing assessment
Proficient user
C1
Very
good
user
B2
Good user
B1
Basic user
A2
Task
achievement
(Objective
1)
Addresses
all
questions
provided in the
task
with
completely
interpreted
ideas,
word
count exceeds
Addresses
all
questions
provided in the
task with some
ideas are not
justified, word
count meets
Addresses
some
questions
provided in the
task with only
ideas that are
not
justified,
word count is
limited
Addresses
an
only
question
provided in the
task
with
misinterpretation,
word count is less
Grammar
range
and
accuracy
(Objective
2)
Uses wide range
of
grammar
structures
and
only compound
and
complex
sentences
without
any
errors
Uses sufficient
grammar
structures and
more
compound
sentences with
some spelling
errors
Uses
some
grammar
structures and
more
simple
sentences with
some grammar
errors
Uses
basic
grammar
structures
and
only
simple
sentences with a
lot of grammar
errors
Lexical
range
(Objective
2)
Uses wide range
of
high-level
vocabulary, the
vocabulary
is
relevant to the
topic and not
repeated
Uses sufficient
vocabulary
related to the
topic,
some
words
are
repeated
Uses
limited
vocabulary
related to the
topic
with
repetition
of
most words
Uses only basic
vocabulary with
incorrect usage,
vocabulary range
is limited with
repetition
Coherence
and
cohesion
(Objective
1)
Ideas
and
paragraphs are
linked
coherently with
the appropriate
usage of wide
range
of
Ideas
and
paragraphs are
linked
coherently with
appropriate
usage of some
cohesive
devices
Some ideas are
linked
coherently,
some cohesive
devices
are
used
incorrectly
There
is
no
cohesion linking
the
ideas,
cohesive devices
are not used
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
101
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
cohesive
devices
I have found it relevant to use analytic rubrics for
writing skill assessment as it is a productive skill and
should be assessed owing to various criterion. Weigle
(2012) claims that, in order to assess test-
taker’s
performance separately, analytic rubric can be utilized
due to varying characteristics of the writing product. In
alignment with Weigle’s perspective, I have preferred
to integrate analytic rubric type into my productive skill
assessment.
Assessment 2. Listening
Listening Part 4
You will hear a dialogue about a party between an
adolescent girl and her father. As you listen,
fill in the numbered spaces from 1 to 8 with necessary
words. You will hear the conversation twice. You have
to write no more than ONE WORD or A NUMBER in the
spaces.
Example: Name of the girl 0. Anna
The Party
•
The day of the party 1 …………………
•
The age of Tom’s sister 2………………..
•
Participants of the birthday party are
3……………. and cousins as well.
•
Dad expects the birthday party to be
4…………… as pl
enty of people are coming.
•
5…………… spends too much time at their home
studying and it is time to enjoy relaxing from studies.
•
Starting time of the party 6……………
•
7…………….. Dad will take the two girls to the
party at eight.
•
The time for picking up the girl from the party
8……………
Holistic rubric for the assessment
Score
Comprehension and inference
(Objective 3, 4)
Vocabulary knowledge
(Objective 3)
Exceeds
the
standard
8-7
correct
answers
Understanding of key ideas with the
usage of critical thinking, speaker’s
perspective from the tone of the
speakers, uses suppоrting dеtails
Comprehension
and
remembering of used new
vocabulary over the listening
audio, the usage of the
vocabulary is accurate with
distinguishing of the words
from the pronunciation
Meets
the
standard
6-4
correct
answers
Grasps main idea of the listening
audio understands the passage with
some hesitation, there is hesitation in
identifying the tone of speech
Incorrect translation of some
words
in
the
listening,
grasping some words from
the pronunciation
Improvements
needed
3 or fewer
Does not understand the topic which
is on, there is much hesitation in
distinguishing the tone of the speaker
Words
are
translated
incorrectly and most of them
are
unfamiliar
without
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
102
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
identifying
from
the
pronunciation
Referring to receptive skill, listening, I have utilized
holistic rubric as the result of the test taker depends of
the number of correct answers. Flowerdew & Miller
(2012) suggest using holistic rubric with descriptors and
points for listening assessment as it is one of the
receptive skills that can be marked with just either the
percentages or number scales. Aligning with the
viewpoints of these two authors, I have considered
holistic rubric with performance descriptors is relevant
to assess my modified assessment of the listening skill.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Multilevel test serves as an essential and
vital external language assessment for my target
learners to create academic opportunities. Being aware
of the structure and requirements of the test helps me
as a teacher conduct the English language classes in an
appropriate way. Consequently, I can organize
language classes meeting my learners’ needs and this
leads to prepare them for Multilevel exam and to
increase their overall language proficiency level.
I will use the data from those assessments in order to
inform about the instruction used in future and will
identify areas where language learners need extra
assistance and chances to improve. To exemplify, when
students struggle with distinguishing supporting facts
continually over the listening task, the lessons in future
will contain more comprehensible instruction and
making practice on this language skill. When it comes
to the datа from the writing task, it will infоrm the
choice for writing experiences used in the future as well
as providing an insight into fields where learners
require additional instruction on grammar and
vocabulary as well as structuring.
I must admit that, the assessments are normally
formed in order providing fairness and equity for all
language learners. Puspawati (2014) offers proficiency
tests to have fairness in terms of being all students
equal to show their language learning ability as well as
addressing all learners’ needs. In alignment with
Puspawati’s point, I have made the assessments
including fairness based on my students’ needs. Brown
(2005) suggests focusing on providing a relevant
support to meet the learners’ individua
l needs
maintaining the equity of the assessment. Aligning with
Brown’s ideas, I will focus on some individual needs of
my students. For example, Bek, Nisa and Aisha suffer
from lack of grammar knowledge and cannot improve
their writing skill, so I conduct mini-grammar lessons
over each writing classes to use within their writing
products. Taylor & Chen (2016) suggest using
accommodations for lower level students in order to
create an opportunity to demonstrate their language
learning abilities. Denis whose level is almost C1
struggles his listening skill and I drive him practice
listening skill more providing him with listening
assessments that he needs. By this endeavors I
maintain equity throughout my classes and provided
assessments.
However, there is an area to improve, that is, exploring
more creative and engaging methods to observe the
progress of the students will be beneficial for me in
terms of creating more valid and reliable assessments
with relevant rubrics due to my students’ needs.
REFERENCES
Ayhan, U. (2015). Key of language assessment: Rubrics
and rubric design. International Journal of Language
and Linguistics. 2(2). International Burch University.
Brown, C. L. (2005). Equity of literacy-based math
performance assessments for English language
learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 29(2), 337-363.
Flowerdew, J., & Miller, L. (2012). Assessing listening. In
C. Coombe, P. Davidson, B.O’Sullivan, & S. Stoynoff
(Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language
assessment (pp. 225-233). Cambridge University Press.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (2016). Purposes of assessment. In D.
Tsagari & J. Banerjee (Eds.), Handbook of second
language assessment (pp. 13-27). De Gruyter, Inc.
O’Sullivan, B. (2012). Assessing speaking. In C. Coombe,
P. Davidson, B. O’Sullivan, & S. S
toynoff (Eds.), The
Cambridge guide to second language assessment (pp.
234-246). Cambridge University Press.
Puspawati, I. (2014). Fairness issues in a standardized
English test for non-native speakers of English. TESOL
Journal, 5(3).
Shin, S., J. (2011). Ten techniques for successful writing
tutorials. TESOL Journal. 11(1).
Taylor, L., & Chen, N. N. (2016). Assessing students with
learning and other disabilities/special needs. In D.
Tsagari & J. Banerjee (Eds.), Handbook of second
language assessment (pp. 377-395). De Gruyter, Inc.
Thompson, I. (1995). Assessment of second/foreign
language listening comprehension. In D. J. Mendelson
& J. Rubin (Eds.), A guide for the teaching of second
language listening. San Diego, CA: Dominic Press.
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
103
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
Weigle, S. C. (2012). Assessing writing. In C. Coombe, P.
Davidson, B. O’Sullivan, & S. Stoynoff (Eds.), The
Cambridge guide to second language assessment (pp.
218-224). Cambridge University Press.
LISTENING PET - FCE - CAE. (2020, September 9). PET 4
-
TEST
1
[Video].
YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTMZYT8cT1w
Test
namunalari.
(n.d.).
www.dtm.uz.
https://uzbmb.uz/page/test_namunalari
