The current study examined the validity of classroom-based English assessment in the elementary school context using a validity analysis framework, which includes cognitive, instructional, and inferential validity components. As a case study, it evaluated two unit achievement tests administered to 142 6th grade students. Three types of data (i.e., the curricular learning goals, instructional contents covered for the two units, and two unit achievement tests and scores) were collected and analyzed for the classroom-based assessment validity argument. Results revealed that the two tests were relevant to the curriculum and instruction; however, there was a lack of correspondence between the two tests and the curriculum (cognitive validity); moreover, the instructional contents were not sufficiently covered with representative test items (instructional validity). While the test items functioned as expected, students showed a wide range of achievement, which was not expected in the achievement test context (inferential validity). The findings suggest implications for the development and use of classroom-based assessment for young language learners.

This paper aims to examine problematic areas in assessing children’s language learning, suggesting key solutions to the problems arising from different types of assessment. A critical evaluation of a variety of alternative assessment methods provided several teaching implications. First, assessment needs to be conducted through informal tests in which the learners cannot notice that they are being assessed. Although assessing young learners needs to be compatible with the more accessible learning such as activities used everyday in their classroom, coping with instructions for classroom activities needs to be handled with care. Assessing young learners through group or pair works can be more effective to enhance social and communicational skills than traditional tests. However, equity in relation to their participation in the activities, their English knowledge, and learning experience needs to be taken into serious consideration. Finally, more attempts to promote teacher-student interaction through student journals and conferencing assessment need to be made, even though this would not be culturally preferred learning style in Korea. This paper may thus give solutions for effective ways of assessing young learners from multiple perspectives rather than depending on only one assessment instrument.