Carol A. Chapelle - The Concise Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics

20 Rea‐Dickins, P. (2006). Currents and eddies in the discourse of assessment: A learning‐focused interpretation. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 164–88.

21 Sardareh, S. A., & Saad, M. R. M. (2012). A sociocultural perspective on assessment for learning: The case of a Malaysian primary school ESL context. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 66, 343–53.

22 Shepard, L. A., Penuel, W. R., & Davidson, K. L. (2017). Design principles for new systems of assessment. Phi Delta Kappan. Retrieved March 28, 2019 from http://www.kappanonline.org/design-principles-new-systems-assessment/

23 Sigman, D., & Mancuso, M. (2017). Designing a comprehensive assessment system. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.

24 Stoynoff, S., & Chapelle, C. A. (2005). ESOL tests and testing. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

25 Swain, M., Kinnear, P., & Steinman, L. (2011). Sociocultural theory in second language education: An introduction through narratives. Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.

26 Turner, C. E., & Purpura, J. E. (2016). Learning‐oriented assessment in second and foreign language classrooms. In D. Tsagari & J. Banerjee (Eds.), Handbook of second language assessment (pp. 255–72). Boston, MA: De Gruyter.

27 Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

28 Wiliam, D., & Leahy, S. (2015). Embedding formative assessment: Practical techniques for K‐12 classrooms. West Palm Beach, FL: Learning Sciences International.

1 Davison, C., & Leung, C. (Eds.). (2009). TESOL Quarterly, 43(3). (Special issue on teacher‐based assessment: An international perspective on theory and practice).

2 Heritage, M., Walqui, A., & Linquanti, R. (2013, June). Formative assessment as contingent teaching and learning: Perspectives on assessment as and for language learning in the content areas. Paper presented at the AERA Meeting, San Francisco, CA.

3 Rea‐Dickins, P. (2008). Classroom‐based language assessment. In E. Shohamy & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education. Vol. 7: Language testing and assessment (pp. 257–71). New York, NY: Springer.

1 Based in part on A. Katz and M. Gottlieb (2012). Assessment in the classroom. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. John Wiley & Sons Inc., with permission.

ELIZABETH STALLMAN MADDEN

This entry examines how cultural knowledge is defined and assessed. It addresses the long‐standing interest in applied linguistics and related disciplines, such as intercultural communication, education, psychology, and anthropology, in how culture can be taught and learned. The substantial growth in the field of international educational exchange since the turn of the 21st century has heightened this interest in language and culture learning, and the research and applied literatures have expanded accordingly (Lange & Paige, 2003). Related to this growth is the development of cultural knowledge assessment instruments (Paige, 2004; Fantini, 2009).

This entry presents a conceptual map to introduce how cultural knowledge is defined and assessed to provide a foundation for the discussion of assessment instruments. Next, the dimensions of cultural knowledge are examined in greater detail and four assessment instruments related to those dimensions are presented. The entry condenses decades of theory and research, hence necessarily simplifies the very complex topic of cultural knowledge and assessment. Much of what is discussed originates from disciplines other than the applied linguistics or language education fields. This is not to discount the substantial body of knowledge linking language and culture (Kramsch, 1998; Lange & Paige, 2003; Lussier, 2007; Byram, 2008), but to acknowledge the focus on culture per se.

Paige's (2006) description of culture learning provides a useful frame of reference for assessment of cultural knowledge. He describes culture learning as a process of acquiring and acting upon five primary dimensions of cultural knowledge: (a) cultural self‐awareness —explicit knowledge of one's own preferred values, beliefs, patterns of behavior, and cultural identity; (b) knowledge of culture— knowing the elements of culture, both objective and subjective; (c) culture specific knowledge— knowing about a particular culture other than one's own; (d) culture general knowledge —knowledge about intercultural transitions and experiences, and how to manage them; and (e) culture learning —knowing how to learn about another culture (2006, pp. 40–1).

The interrelated concepts of intercultural sensitivity , intercultural development , and intercultural competence (Bennett, 1993; Hammer, 2008), separate from the five culture concepts mentioned above, are also central to the assessment of cultural knowledge. These terms describe, in various ways, what it ultimately means to be effective in communicating and interacting across cultures. For Bennett (1993), intercultural sensitivity “is the construction of reality as increasingly capable of accommodating cultural difference” (p. 24). Bennett's “developmental model of intercultural sensitivity” (DMIS) conceptualizes intercultural sensitivity as a developmental phenomenon consisting of six primary orientations toward cultural difference along a continuum. Intercultural development refers to the movement through this continuum from ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism and the increasing capacity to shift one's frame of cultural reference, cognitively and behaviorally.

The DMIS has been highly influential and of great value to educators working in culturally diverse settings because it provides a way of (a) understanding the challenges experienced by persons living in those situations and contexts, and (b) designing programs that will support intercultural development that are relevant to the learners' existing level of competence.

Consistent with the multidimensional ways in which cultural knowledge has been conceptualized, many assessment instruments are used to measure various aspects of cultural knowledge. Fantini (2009) identifies 44 “external assessment instruments” that measure intercultural competence. Paige (2004) describes 35 “intercultural instruments” that are organized into nine culture categories. Five categories are particularly relevant: (a) intercultural development, (b) cultural identity, (c) cultural values, (d) cultural adjustment, and (e) culture learning (“learning styles” in Paige, 2004).

Bennett (1993) authored the “developmental model of intercultural sensitivity,” a seminal work on intercultural development. At the highest levels of development, Bennett theorizes that individuals have the capacity to shift cognitively and behaviorally to another culture's frames of reference, what Hammer (2008) refers to as “intercultural competence.” This concept of intercultural competence has received considerable attention in the literature, valuable works being those by Bennett (2015), Deardorff (2009), Moodian (2008), and Savicki (2008). The best known instrument for measuring intercultural development as represented by the DMIS is the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI; Hammer, 2008), which is described in greater detail below.

Cultural identity refers to the sense a person has of belonging to and identifying with one or more cultural communities as well as to knowledge of one's own cultural values. Numerous instruments have been developed over the years to assess ethnic‐specific forms of identity, such as the Cross Racial Identity Scale (Cross & Vandiver, 2001) to measure Black American ethnic identity, and the Suinn‐Lew Asian Self‐Identity Acculturation Scale (Suinn, Rickard‐Figueroa, Lew, & Vigil, 1987). More generalizable scales also have been developed that allow respondents to identify their primary culture and evaluate the strength of their participation in it. Examples include the Multi‐Index Ethnocultural Identity Scale (MEIS; Yamada, 1998), the Ethnic Identity Scale (EIS; Umaña‐Taylor, Yazedijian, & Bámaca‐Gómez, 2004), and the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure‐Revised (MEIM‐R; Phinney, 1992; Phinney & Ong, 2007), which is described below.