ASSESSMENT PLAN FOR ENGLISH A2 LEVEL STUDENTS IN GREECE

ASSESSMENT PLAN FOR
ENGLISH A2 LEVEL
STUDENTS IN GREECE
Evangelia Dimitra Kouzouloglou
MA Applied Linguistics and English Language Teaching
University of Nottingham, May 2015

ASSESSMENT PLAN FOR ENGLISH A2 LEVEL STUDENTS IN GREECE 1
Introduction
This essay seeks to present the theoretical framework that language assessment
is underpinned and explore the stages of assessment design for both high-stakes
and low-stakes testing. It also investigates the components that piece together to
develop effective and beneficial tests, while it highlights the importance of the five
principles of assessment. Furthermore, the case of English students of A2-level in
Greece is taken into consideration in order to construct an assessment plan for the
whole academic year. An analysis of the assessment plan is conducted according
to the theory outlined and an example test item is developed to demonstrate the
implementation of the five-staged model of assessment development.

1. Designing an assessment plan
In terms of language education, assessment embodies a variety of methods and
techniques used to gather information about a range of characteristics related to
students, teachers, administrators and managers, as well as the procedures used
in an educational context (Bachman & Palmer, 2010; H. D. Brown & Abeywickrama,
2010). Thus, it provides the stakeholders with an idea of the effectiveness of the
educational procedures used. Therefore, as assessment is a significant and
essential part of any curriculum, test designers should pay particular attention to
planning systematic and effective assessment schemes.
Figure 1.1. Assessment development and use, (adopted from Bachman & Palmer,
2010)

1.1. Five stages of ‘assessment development and use’
Bachman and Palmer (2010) outline five stages of ‘assessment development and
use’ that cover the areas of ‘assessment development’, ‘assessment use’ and
‘assessment production’. Figure 1.1 shows the five stages of ‘assessment
development and use’ and the substages that they include.
Firstly, ‘initial planning’ illustrates the general framework which defines, on one
hand, whether there is a need for designing a new assessment or not and, on the
other hand, the resources available, as well as the benefits of the consequences
and the decisions that may occur during the procedure (Bachman & Palmer, 2010).
In order to define all the above, it is essential to identify the needs of the
stakeholders. Brown (2008) mentioned the need for a ‘stakeholder-friendly
curriculum’ which takes into consideration the needs of all stakeholders in designing
an assessment. It would be wise to conduct a form of research and ‘need analysis’,
as indicated in Table 1.1 (See Appendix A), so as to ensure that what Hughes
(2003) called ‘stating the problem’ is determined according to the needs of those
involved.
The second stage refers to ‘design’ and justifies the actual use (Assessment Use
Argument, i.e. AUA) and purpose of the assessment (Bachman & Palmer, 2010).
This stage also includes the conceptual foundations below that lay out the
assessment:
 Mode of assessment (Bachman & Palmer, 2010)
o Implicit
o Explicit
 Language use (Bachman & Palmer, 2010)
o Externally interactive
o Reciprocal
o non-reciprocal

 Language knowledge (Bachman & Palmer, 2010)
o Organizational (Grammatical and Textual knowledge)
o Pragmatic (Functional and Sociolinguistic knowledge)
 Strategic Competence (Bachman & Palmer, 2010)
o Goal setting
o Appraising
o Planning
 Language skills (Bachman & Palmer, 2010)
o Speaking
o Listening
o Writing
o Reading
 Type of Approach (J. D. Brown, 2008; See Appendix, table 1.2)
 Type of Syllabus (J. D. Brown, 2008; See Appendix, table 1.2)
 Task characteristics or test techniques (Bachman & Palmer, 2010)
 Scoring (Bachman & Palmer, 2010)
 Feedback forms (Bachman & Palmer, 2010)
Based on the above conceptual foundations, assessment developers need to
form a ‘design statement’ in which they describe the conceptual settings of the
assessment and clarify how its design depicts the AUA (Bachman & Palmer, 2010;
Green, 2014).
The third stage, ‘operationalization’, seeks to apply the AUA and the guidelines
stated in the stage of ‘design’, elaborating a ‘blueprint’ (See table 1.3). Bachman
and Palmer (2010) report that the ‘blueprint’ constitutes the specifications of the
assessment (others have also outlined assessment specifications, e.g. Alderson,
Clapham, & Wall, 1995; Green, 2014; Hughes, 2003, etc.), that is, the content,
the structure, the tasks included, the time needed for the completion and

administration of the assessment, as well as the scoring and reporting procedures.
Green (2014) also emphasizes the administration conditions of the assessment:
How, when and where the test will be administered. Those conditions are quite
important not only from the aspect of test administration but also from the aspect
of an annual assessment project of a class.
Table 1.3. ‘Components of a Blueprint’ (adopted from Bachman & Palmer, 2010:
370)
The fourth stage, ‘trialing’, illustrates the procedure of the assessment tryout in
order to identify possible problems and ameliorate the assessment (Bachman &
Palmer, 2010). Hughes (2003) also adds that the assessment should be trialed on

both native and non-native speakers, in order to receive a complete feedback about
the clarity and effectiveness of the assessment.
Finally, the assessment use stage refers to the actual application and
administration of the assessment (Bachman & Palmer, 2010). It also encompasses
the interpretation of the results and the reconsideration of the assessment
effectiveness.
At this point, it is worth mentioning that there is a range of approaches in
language assessment that can add some extra guidelines in the aforementioned
model, depending on the aspect that the test developer approaches the test-
situation. For example, Hall et al. (1997) outline a model that is based on teachers’
perspective of assessment (See table 1.4, Appendix A) and Rea-Dickins (2001)
presents a model of processes and strategies in classroom assessment that aims
to assist in language learning (See figure 1.2, Appendix A).
All the stages above present an analytical and systematic approach to language
assessment that mostly matches to the purposes and procedures of high-stakes
assessment (Green, 2014). On the basis of a classroom assessment program,
although teachers as assessment developers could follow those steps in creating a
test or an assessment plan, sometimes some of these steps are not applicable to
classroom settings. Thus, as this essay seeks to present an example of an
assessment plan of a small classroom, this five-stage model is applied regarding
its general guidelines.
1.2. Principles of language assessment
In order to achieve efficiency in every aspect of language assessment, test
developers should take into consideration the five principles of language
assessment: Practicality, Reliability, Validity, Authenticity and Washback (H. D.
Brown & Abeywickrama, 2010).

Practicality refers to the administration procedure, as well as the time and
financial constraints that assessment developers need to consider. Reliability
includes the control of the conditions that can affect the results of the test. The
interaction between the test and the test-takers, the raters, the administration
procedure and the test itself can influence the reliability of the assessment
procedure (H. D. Brown & Abeywickrama, 2010; Green, 2014).
Validity refers to what extent the test meets the purposes and the justifications
outlined in the first two stages of the assessment. It also encompasses content,
criterion and construct-validity, as well as consequential and face validity.
Authenticity is the principle that defines the degree of contextuality and authentic
language use in the assessment tasks. Finally, washback is defined by the
opportunities for beneficial feedback that the test provides (H. D. Brown &
Abeywickrama, 2010).
All the principles above should be considered when developing a language test.
In terms of the purpose of this essay, the assessment plan presented in the next
section takes into consideration the aspects of the principles that can apply in the
stage prior to implementing an assessment.

2. Assessment plan
In this section, the essay seeks to demonstrate an assessment plan for English
A2-level students in Greece. Firstly, the context of the assessment is exhibited and,
secondly, the assessment plan is presented elaborating on the framework it is
based on and the guidelines for classroom implementation.
2.1. Context
The assessment plan designed addresses a class of ten Greek students within
the age range of ten to twelve years attending a General English language course
in a private language school. The target language level is A2 (pre-intermediate)
according to the Common European Framework (See table 2.1., Appendix A) and
they need one academic year (approximately eight to nine months) to complete
this level according to the general policy that most private language schools in
Greece follow for students that start learning English at a young age. The academic
year starts in September and finishes in June. The total duration of language
instruction is 170 hours in 34 weeks. The students attend three weekly instructional
sessions; the first two sessions last two hours and the third lasts one hour.
The language school used to follow traditional methodologies in teaching, but
the changing of market demand led it to change the textbooks and the general
teaching approach applied in the classroom. There was an attempt to train the
teaching staff for applying a more communicative approach to teaching. However,
because of the traditional backround, there is still considerable emphasis in
grammatical approaches. Therefore, it was necessary to develop a new assessment
plan based on the new conditions without totally excluding the gramatical centrality
that used to prevail.
2.2. The structure of the assessment plan
The assessment plan is based on an A2 level-syllabus of a widely used textbook
by language schools in Greece that is written according to the level scaling of

Common European Framework (Clark, J., Archer, L., & Green, D. (2005). On Course
3: Pre-Intermediate. Athens: GRIVAS Publications). The textbook consists of ten
units and, according to the assessment plan and the time available, each unit needs
to be completed in three weeks.
As the assessment plan illustrates (See Appendix E), there are two weekly tests
and one final test conducted in every unit. A Term Summative Assessment also
takes place at the end of each term, following the nation-wide term policy that
distinguishes three terms during the academic year in primary and secondary
education. Furthermore, the plan illustrates the inclusion of alternative assessment,
encompassing learners’ portfolio development. Finally, at the end of the academic
year, a final summative assessment is conducted.
Regarding students’ evaluation, teachers fill appropriately the students’ grading
sheets – as it is described later in this section – and the student evaluation form at
the end of every term and at the end of the academic year (See Appendix C). As
far as the five assessment principles are concerned, there was an attempt to focus
on beneficial washback and authenticity of the materials used in the assessment.
The general guidelines of the assessment plan also give the opportunity to design
practical, reliable and valid test items (See table 2.2, Appendix A).
The rationale followed to develop the general assessment and the assessment
tools is based on the five-staged model presented in the previous section. The
change of the teaching conditions addressed the need for the development of a
new assessment plan that targets to effective testing tools and beneficial feedback
for the learners. The teaching approach followed is based on Nation's and Newton's
(2009) four-language-strand teaching model – meaning-focus input, meaning-
focused output, language-focused learning, fluency development – which outlines
the construct and methodology framework of the assessment plan and its parts.
The goal of the overall assessment project is to provide learners with equal
opportunities to focus on developing both their receptive and productive language

abilities spotlighting specific organizational and pragmatic features of language
knowledge that the target language level requires from students to familiarize with.
This can be achieved through testing and constructive feedback, which learners can
utilize to understand their weaknesses and knowledge gaps. This realization can
lead them to focus on and practice the problematic for them areas of language.
An example item has been designed in order to demonstrate how the five-staged
model of assessment development can be applied to a low-stakes weekly test. The
test-example does not include the ‘trialing’ and ‘assessment use’ as these are
beyond the purpose and the limitations of this essay (See Appendix D).
2.2.1. Weekly and unit final tests
As the assessment plan shows (See Appendix E), every unit includes two weekly
tests and one unit final test. The weekly test 1 focuses on language-focused testing
and lasts fifteen minutes (See table 2.3). It normally consists of three activities,
each one of which tests one of the different elements of language-focused learning
– grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation. Alternatively, it may include just one task
that requires from the learner to use those three language elements combined.
Table 2.3. Notes on the framework of the weekly tests
The weekly test 2 focuses on meaning-focused input and output testing and it
also lasts fifteen minutes (See table 2.3). It may be comprised of either two
different activities, each one of which focuses on one strand at a time, or a task
that requires the combination of receptive and productive skills. Furthermore, every
weekly test 2 concentrates on either listening and speaking or reading and writing.
Language Strand
Elements Grammar Vocabulary Pronunciation Listening Reading Speaking Writing
Weekly test 2
Weekly test 1
Language focused-learning Meaning focused-input Meaning-focused output

Thus, the assessment plan outlines five listening and speaking tests and five
reading and writing tests during the academic year. Finally, the fact that the weekly
test 2 focuses on one skill of receptive and productive knowledge at a time does
not mean that there is not use of other language skills or elements.
The unit final test comprises of tasks that include language focused-learning,
meaning-focused input and output. It lasts thirty minutes and it consists of either
tasks that incorporate all those three strands at the same time or tasks that focus
on different skills and strands at a time. The former is strongly suggested, as it
would be useful for the learners to combine the language knowledge of different
elements and possibly develop their fluency while performing a task.
Both weekly and unit final tests are graded according to percentile-scaled scoring
procedure (See Appendix B). The teacher corrects the test, writes down the mark
in every student’s “Grading report sheet of Weekly tests” (See Appendix C), keeps
copies of the tests and returns them to the students in order to get feedback and
file them in their portfolios. Although those tests are marked according to a
percentile-point scale, at the end of the academic year the teacher converts this
scale to a 30-point scale, as the final percentage of the weekly and final unit tests
constitute 30 percent of the final grade (See Appendix B).
2.2.2. Term Summative Assessment
As illustrated at the assessment plan, there are three term summative
assessments during the academic year. The first is conducted in the week 10 and
includes the material taught in the first three units; the second is conducted in the
week 20 and includes the material taught from the fourth to the sixth unit; and the
last term assessment is carried out in week 33 and encompasses the material
taught at the last four units of the textbook. It lasts an hour and is not carried out
during the class time.

The structure of the test is similar to the unit final test. In other words, it is
based on the framework of language-focused learning, meaning-focused input and
output testing. It also should include whatever the teacher has identified that the
students have problem with during the class time, the weekly and the unit final
tests. The scoring is the same with the marking procedure followed in the weekly
tests; the teacher uses a percentile-point scale to mark the tests and at the end of
the academic year converts this scale to a 20-point scale, in order to adjust the
results to the percentage that the term summative assessment constitutes in
relation to the final grade (See Appendix B). As happens with the weekly tests,
teacher also keeps copies of the term tests, takes notes about students’ results and
writes down the marks in every student’s “Grading report sheet of Term Tests”
(See Appendix C).
2.2.3. Portfolio
In order that an assessment explores every aspect of students’ language
expression, it is important to include alternative methods of assessment. Portfolios,
as an alternative assessment, assists learners to analyze and reflect on their own
work so as to watch and evaluate their progress through a display of material that
they have collected. Portfolios can also be developed electronically and could
include an array of media files and other projects, while giving the opportunity to
online sharing of materials and discussions(Cummins & Davesne, 2009).
In this assessment case, there is a portfolio entry at the end of each unit.
Students combine creatively what they have learnt in every unit with their personal
experience and research to create a mixed-constructed written output document.
Apart from the portfolio entries in each unit, students should also include the
weekly tests, the final unit tests and the term assessments with every audio or
video recording they include. Regular review of the portfolio should be scheduled:
 After every unit final test, to evaluate what has been done in a certain unit

 After each term assessment, to evaluate the students’ progress and the
degree of the achievement of their language goals
 At the end of the academic year, to evaluate the total progress, give some
hints about students’ difficulties and set new goals for future progress
Regarding the evaluation of the portfolios, teachers should consider the
European Language Portfolio Grids, which can promote students’ self-assessment
and figure out if they have reached the A2-level goals at the end of the academic
year (“Council of Europe | European Language Portfolio | Self-assessment Grids,”
n.d.).
2.2.4. Final Summative Assessment
As illustrated at the assessment plan, Final Summative Assessment is carried
out in week 34 and its main purpose is to measure and summarize what the
students have learnt during the course. It lasts two hours and follows the same
structure with the Term Assessment but in a larger scale. It includes tasks that aim
to test students’ understanding and performance in receptive and productive
knowledge, focusing on the key language elements taught during the course. The
scoring is conducted through a percentile-point scale and the marks are written
down at the “Grading report sheet of Final exam” (See Appendix C).

Conclusion
In conclusion, it has been shown how the five-staged model of assessment
development introduced in the first part of the essay can be implemented in an
assessment plan and designing low-stakes tests. The assessment plan was
constructed according to the Greek TEFL (Teaching English as a Foreign Language)
context for a classroom with 10 students in a small private language school.
General information about the assessment plan and guidelines on how to use it
were provided, while the supplementary material in Appendices includes all the
assessment plan tables and sheets with more specific information for the user.

Appendices
A. Tables – Figures
Part 1
Table 1.1. Stages of Need Analysis (NA), (adopted from Brown, 2008: 281)

Table 1.2. Approaches to language teaching and Types of Syllabuses (adopted
from (Brown, 2008: 285)
Table 1.4. Developmental model of teacher assessment adopted from Hall,
Webber, Varley, Young, & Dorman, 1997: 110)

Figure 1.2. Processes and strategies in classroom assessment (adopted from
Rea-Dickins, 2001: 435 )
Notes: NC = National curriculum; LEA = Local Education Authority

Part 2
Table 2.1. Level A2 objectives and syllabus according to the Common European
Framework (adopted from “Oxford House College » English Language School in
London, Oxford and Stratford-upon-Avon, U.K.,” n.d.)
Table 2.2. The principles of the assessment items – General assertions
Practicality Reliability Validity Authenticity Wasback
Weekly tests High - Medium Medium Medium
Unit final tests Medium - Medium Medium High
Term Tests High - Medium Medium High
Portfolio Low - High High High
Final Exam High - High Medium Medium

B. Grading scale
Grading Scale
Term Tests Weekly tests Portfolio Final exam
Total number
of points
(200)
First Term Second Term Third Term
20 points 20 points 20 points 30 points 10 points 100 points
A 19-20 19-20 19-20 28-30 10 90-100 180-200
B 17-18 17-18 17-18 24-27 9 80-89 160-179
C 15-16 15-16 15-16 21-23 8 70-79 140-159
D 13-14 13-14 13-14 18-20 7 60-69 120-139
F below 12 below 12 below 12 below 18 below 6 below 60 below 120
A 90-100
B 80-89
C 70-79
D 60-69
F below 60
Weekly, Unit final test and Term
test Grading Scale

ASSESSMENT
PLAN
FOR
ENGLISH
A2
LEVEL
STUDENTS
IN
GREECE
20
C.
Assessment
and
Evaluation
forms
Weeks 1-3 Weeks 4-6 Weeks 7-9 Weeks 11-13 Weeks 14-16 Weeks 17-19 Weeks 21-23 Weeks 24-26 Weeks 27-29 Weeks 30-32
Totalper
language
element
Grammar (40 points)
Vocabulary (40 points)
Pronunciation (20 points)
Total
Listening (50 points)
Speaking (50 points)
Reading (50 points)
Writing (50 points)
Total
Reading (15 points)
Writing (15 points)
Grammar (15 points)
Total
Unitfinaltest
Weekly test2
Weekly test1
GradingReportSheetofWeekly Tests

Week 10 Week 20 Week 33
Total per
language
element
Reading (15 points)
Writing (15 points)
Grammar (15 points)
Total
Grading report sheet of Term Tests
Points
Reading (15 points)
Writing (15 points)
Grammar (15 points)
Total
Grading report sheet of Final exam

Course: Tardies: Absences:
Instructor: Signature:
Excellent performance Satisfactory performance
Poor performance
Unsatisfactory performance
Listening Skills
Reading Skills
Speaking Skills
Writing Skills
Grammar
Vocabulary
Pronunciation
Fluency
Portfolio
Comments:
Goals for next academic term/ year:
Student performance evaluation form
Grade:

D. Weekly 15-minute test
Unit 3. Fashion
Week 7
Stage 1: Initial Planning
(a) Need for assessment: There is a need for designing a new test which will
be administered at the end of the 'week 7'
(b) Resources: The resources available are the personal effort and time of the
teacher
(c) Consequences: The consequences will benefit positively both the students
and the teacher. The students will test their understanding of the idioms of
the unit, past tense formation and their pronunciation skills. The teacher
will get some feedback about the students’ knowledge and understanding
about specific grammatical, vocabulary and pronunciation features.
(d) Decisions: If the students' scores are low, then it is necessary to select
and group the wrong responses and the knowledge gaps, as well as, review
the test and provide the students with opportunities to practice the target
language items more.
(e) Learners' needs: The age and the language level of the students require
simple and comprehensive formatting.
(f) Teacher's needs: Because of the nature of the test, it needs to be easily
and quickly scored

Stage 2: Design
(a)Mode of assessment: Explicit
(b)Language use: Non-reciprocal
(c) Language knowledge: Organizational knowledge
a. Grammatical knowledge
i. Knowledge of Vocabulary (With some hints of Sociolinguistic
knowledge (idiomatic expressions)
ii. Knowledge of syntax
iii. Knowledge of phonological features
(d)Language Skills: Reading, Writing
(e) Test technique: Picture-cued task, Gap-filling, Read-aloud
(f) Scoring: Absolute grading scale (percentile scale)
(g)Feedback: Classroom discussion
Operationalization
Blueprint
(1) Assessment specifications
(a)Number of parts: 2
Part 1
i. Students look at the pictures and write a brief story (five sentences
maximum) using past tense
ii. Students fill the gaps with the words missing from the idiomatic
phrases
Part 2: Students read aloud a brief text
(b)Number of tasks per part: Part 1: two activities, Part 2: one activity
(c)Sequence of parts and tasks: as indicated above

(d)Relative importance of parts and tasks: checking students’ knowledge
in forming past tense, their comprehension of idioms that include clothing
vocabulary and their pronunciation skills
(e)Time allotment for each part and overall: The test is designed to be
administered at the end of the week 7 and at the beginning of the class.
The duration of the test per activity: First Activity: 5 minutes; Second
Activity: 5 minutes; Third Activity: 5 minutes; Overall time of the test: 15
minutes; overall time of both the test and administration procedure: 19
minutes.
(2) Task specifications
(a)Constructs to be assessed: forming the past tense, knowledge of the
idioms that include words related to clothes and pronunciation
(b) Characteristics of the setting: Language classroom, recording device
(c)Characteristics of input, expected response, and relationship
between input and responses: The input of the test is familiar to the
students as they are supposed to have been exposed to similar materials
during the class. The pictures convey concepts that students already know,
the idioms and the reading text have been worked on during instruction.
(d)Procedures for recording test takers' performance: Teachers return
the test to the students after writing down any observations and
interpretations. They also keep a copy of the reading recording of every
student and the originals are filed in the learners’ portfolios. Then, they jot
down the marking in the students’ grading sheet.
(e)Instructions for responding to the assessment tasks:
i. Look at the pictures and write a short story (from three to five
sentences) about what happened to those two children
ii. Fill the appropriate word to complete the meaning of the idiom
iii. Read aloud the text with clear voice

(3) Procedures of setting cut scores and making decisions
(a) Checking students’ knowledge of forming the past tense, knowledge of
specific idioms and pronunciation skills
(b) The test will be used for adjusting instruction according to the gaps
identified in learners' performance
(c) Percentile scaled rating is used, allotting 40 points to the first activity, 40
points to the second and 20 points to the third. The students are expected
to get marks above 60 points
(4) Procedures and formats for reporting assessment records,
interpretations and decisions
The test results will be included in the final mark calculation and reported to the
relevant form

Unit 3 – Fashion
Part 1
(a)Look at the pictures below and write a short story (from three to
five sentences) about what happened to those two children.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
(b) Fill the appropriate word to complete the meaning of the idiom
What are you wearing? These boots went out of………………….. years ago!
I am never dressed to ………………! I like casual clothes.
I love ripped jeans! Do you think that they will ever come into …………………… again?
My new jeans contain Lycra so they fit like a ……………………...
Spiders scare the ……………………off me!
Date: ……………………….. Student Name: ………………………………………………………….
Mark:…………/100

Part 2
Read aloud the following text with a clear voice.
"When I visit London one of my favorite things to do is shopping! I really enjoy
hunting around for a bargain in the sales, buying something new to wear out on a
Saturday night. Or alternatively, a bit of window-shopping - it doesn't cost a penny.
Sometimes I'll spend hours just wandering around a market having a chat with my
friends.”

ASSESSMENT
PLAN
FOR
ENGLISH
A2
LEVEL
STUDENTS
IN
GREECE
29
Weeks Topical Syllabus Functional Syllabus Vocabulary Syllabus Grammar Syllabus Text format/ genre Assessment
at the airport derivatives
simple present - present
progressive completing a post-card
at the hotel confusable words future forms
asking for/ giving personal
information articles
talking about future plans
Week 1
weekly 15-minute test: grammar,
vocabulary, pronunciation
Week 2
weekly 15-minute test: meaning-focused
input (listening) and meaning-focused
ouput (speaking)
Week 3 unit final test (30 minutes)
responding to thanks derivatives very-too-enough
completing a report about
eating habits
deciding what to eat confusable words comparison
planning/ decision making expressions with 'mind' plurals
different meanings of
'bad'
many-much-a lot of -(a)
few- (a) little
Week 4
Week 5
weekly 15-minute test: meaning focused
input (reading), meaning-focused output
(writing)
on the Underground confusable words
simple past-past
progressive
in a clothes shop phrasal verbs
simple present perfect -
present perfect
progressive
ask and answer questions prefixes adjectives
dialogue based on picture
prompts antonyms
prepositions
idioms
Week 7
Week 8
input (listening) and meaning-focused
ouput (speaking)
Weeks 1-3
Weeks 7-9
1. Travel
3. Fashion
Portfolio: Making and writing a post-card
Portfolio: Poster advertizing food business
Portfolio: Essay about a famous person in
fashion industry
Weeks 4-6 2. Food and Diet
completing an e-mail about
clothes/ a party
Revision 1-3 Term Summative Assessment
Week 10
E. Assessment plan

ASSESSMENT
PLAN
FOR
ENGLISH
A2
LEVEL
STUDENTS
IN
GREECE
30
Weeks Topical Syllabus Functional Syllabus Vocabulary syllabus Grammar Syllabus Text Forms/ Genre Assessment
asking for part-time work derivatives the infinitive
expressing interest/ disinterest prepositions the gerund
giving personal information antonyms some - any - no
comparing and contrasting
Week 11
Week 12
weekly 15-minute test: meaning-
focused input (reading), meaning-
focused output (writing)
sequencing derivatives modal verbs
agreeing/ disagreeing expressions with 'take' so do I / neither do I
giving personal information confusable words
reflexive / emphatic
pronouns
giving advice idioms
Week 14
Week 15
weekly 15-minute test: meaning
focused input (listening) and
meaning focused ouput (speaking)
giving a warning prepositions, derivatives passive voice
buying concert tickets over the
phone
phrases with 'last'
decision making phrasal verbs, similes
expressing preference confusable words
contrasting idioms
Week 17
Week 18
weekly 15-minute test: meaning-
focused input (reading), meaning-
focused output (writing)
Portfolio: Leaflet about a charity
event for homeless people
Weeks 11-13
Portfolio: creating a leaflet for
dance lessons/ music festival
Portfolio: Make a leaflet for a zoo
completing a story about
a girl who runs away from
home
leaflets
leaflets
Week 20 Revision 4-6 Term Summative Assessment
4. Life on the streets
5. Animals
Weeks 14-16
Weeks 17-19 6. Entertainment
completing a letter about
entertainment
arrangements
writing a story about an
animal

ASSESSMENT
PLAN
FOR
ENGLISH
A2
LEVEL
STUDENTS
IN
GREECE
31
Weeks Topical Syllabus Functional Syllabus
Vocabulary
syllabus
Grammar Syllabus Text Forms/ Genre Assessment
at the chemist's prepositions simple past perfect
ask and answer questions common mistakes
past perfect
progressive
giving information similes simple future perfect
giving advice phrasal verbs adverbs
confusable words
Week 21
Week 22
input (listening) and meaning-focused ouput
(speaking)
expressing disappointment idioms conditionals Portfolio: Create a poster for a charity
changing the subject prepositions
speculating confusable words
derivatives
Week 24
Week 25
weekly 15 minute-test: meaning-focused
(writing)
expressing surprise (or lack of
it)
different meanings
of 'hold', 'take off',
'heavy and 'light'
exclamatory
structures
Portfolio: Unusual forms of transport
(poster)
at the bus stop prepositions question tags
booking a taxi confusable words clauses of result
idioms
Week 27
Week 28
input (listening) and meaning-focused ouput
(speaking)
expressing intentions prepositions reported speech
Portfolio: Lifestyles in other countries -
writing an essay with a picture collage
saying you are disappointed confusable words relative pronouns
offering to help
different meanings
of 'low'
conjunctions
somebody saying goodbye phrasal verbs unreal past
idioms
would rather - had
better
Week 30
Week 31
(writing)
Week 34 Final Summative Assessment
Portfolio: Natural Remedies - Essay about
two or more natural remedies with a picture
collage
Week 33 Revision 7-10 Term Summative Assessment
writing a letter
accepting an invitation
Weeks 30-32
10. Changing
Situations
7. Health
writing an essay about
winning a lot of money
Writing a story with the
title 'The worst Journey
Ever'
Weeks 21-23
completing an e-mail to
a health page in a
magazine
Revision 1-10
Weeks 24-26
Weeks 27-29
8. Money
9. Transport

References
Alderson, J. C., Clapham, C., & Wall, D. (1995). Language Test Construction and
Evaluation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (2010). Language Assessment in Practice. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Brown, H. D., & Abeywickrama, P. (2010). Language Assessment: Principles and
Classroom Practices (2nd ed.). New York: Pearson Education.
Brown, J. D. (2008). Testing-context Analysis: Assessment is Just Another Part of
Language Curriculum Development. Language Assessment Quarterly, 5(4),
275–312.
Clark, J., Archer, L., & Green, D. (2005). On Course 3: Pre-Intermediate. Athens:
GRIVAS Publications
Council of Europe | European Language Portfolio | Self-assessment Grids. (n.d.).
Retrieved May 22, 2015, from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/elp/elp-
reg/self_assessment_grids_EN.asp
Cummins, P. W., & Davesne, C. (2009). Using Electronic Portfolios for Second
Language Assessment. The Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 848–867.
Green, A. (2014). Exploring Language Assessment and Testing: Language in
Action. London and New York: Taylor & Francis; Routledge.
Hall, K., Webber, B., Varley, S., Young, V., & Dorman, P. (1997). A study of teacher
assessment at Key Stage 1. Cambridge Journal of Education, 27(1), 107–
122.
Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for Language Teachers (2nd ed.). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Nation, I. S. P., & Newton, J. (2009). Teaching ESL/ EFL: Listening and Speaking.
New York: Routledge.

Oxford House College » English Language School in London, Oxford and Stratford-
upon-Avon, U.K. (n.d.). Retrieved May 21, 2015, from
http://www.oxfordhousecollege.co.uk/
Rea-Dickins, P. (2001). Mirror, mirror on the wall: identifying processes of
classroom assessment. Language Testing, 18(4), 429–462.

ASSESSMENT PLAN FOR ENGLISH A2 LEVEL STUDENTS IN GREECE

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to ASSESSMENT PLAN FOR ENGLISH A2 LEVEL STUDENTS IN GREECE

Similar to ASSESSMENT PLAN FOR ENGLISH A2 LEVEL STUDENTS IN GREECE (20)

More from Martha Brown

More from Martha Brown (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

ASSESSMENT PLAN FOR ENGLISH A2 LEVEL STUDENTS IN GREECE