assessing+language

After reading numerous chapters in Andrews text, I completely believe that language (and the learning of it) is a continuous process, therefore there is really no formal way of so called "assessing". I think the best way to gauge whether or not a student is comprehending what is being taught is by seeing how well a child acquires sound patterns (phonology), meaning patterns (semantics), and word and sentence structure (morphology and grammar). These things can become very obvious in any sort or writing/speaking activity assigned. In chapter 1, Andrews states that time will be much better spent and worthwhile, in regards to the larger picture of learning/understand things such as grammar, if the students are "writing in their personal or class journals, talking about a piece of writing with a partner, or even telling a good joke" (19).

(More to come as I continue reading...)


 * Meg's Response**: Sarah, this is an excellent question and one that you will find relevant when not only thinking about language instruction but also all other classroom instruction. Assessment is a key element of instruction because if we educators do not take the time to gauge the growth and development of our students, how can we know if and what they are learning. I agree that "language (and the learning of it) is a continuous process, but I would challenge you to reevaluate this idea that it cannot be formally assessed. Does this mean that there will be informal assessments? Additionally, I am interested to hear your thinking on gauging students comprehension based on phonology, semantics, and morphology/grammar. Finally, what are your thoughts on Andrews' claim about learning/understanding grammar? What do you think this might look like-specifically-within a classroom environment?