For assessing content (and cognition), it is necessary to understand what con- tent is and how it is assessed, as much literature on CLIL attempts to do (e.g., Ball et al., 2015; Genesee & Hamayan, 2016; Mehisto & Ting, 2017). Coyle et al. (2010, p. 116) provide the following aspects of the content that could be assessed:
• factual recall (detail);
• general understanding (major points);
• ability to manipulate the content, using higher-level thinking skills such as interpretation, analysis, synthesis, or application;
• ability to research more independently and extend the topic knowledge beyond what has been presented by the teacher.
Assessing Factual Recall and Understanding
The first two aspects—factual recall and general understanding—are related to the assessment of the degree to which students have understood and accu- rately memorised content. Many CLIL researchers focus on these aspects, providing methods to elicit students’ content knowledge in a way that lan- guage does not intervene (e.g., Coyle et al., 2010; Genesee & Hamayan, 2016; Mehisto & Ting, 2017). For example, Coyle et al. (2010) introduce an assessment task that involves matching information (combining two halves of definitions) or filling out the appropriate key vocabulary in a diagram or gaps in sentences, which is called a “keyword approach” (Lin, 2016, p. 111).
Through these tasks, students can demonstrate a conceptual understanding with limited linguistic resources at their disposal. Their performance is assessed based on the accuracy of information selected or vocabulary rather than on linguistic forms.
Open-ended response tests, including writing a summary or making an oral presentation about the learnt content, are also common in CLIL to assess mastery of content (Genesee & Hamayan, 2016; Hönig, 2010). Llinares, Morton, and Whittaker (2012) provide a sample rubric for assessing factual recall in an open-ended speaking task in which students explain Darwin’s journey on The Beagle and his theory of evolution. This is the descriptor for the highest score for content:
Students will be able to provide accurate and detailed information about the journey of The Beagle, and an accurate summary of Darwin’s theory, including some technical information. Explanation of the theory is linked to what Darwin observed on his voyage. (p. 298)
It is worthwhile noting that providing accurate information alone is not suf- ficient to receive the highest score, and elaboration of explanation and inclu- sion of relevant information are regarded as another indicator of content knowledge (see Hönig, 2010). Inclusion of key points is also considered to be
a component demonstrating content knowledge in open-ended response tests. For example, Ball et al. (2015) present an assessment task that requires students to write comments on the main points of population growth of five European countries from 1800 to 1910 having looked at the data. One of the criteria is to mention the countries that experienced the largest and smallest growth during the period and touch upon the factors that affected the phe- nomenon. They claim, “if students fail to do this, then their understanding of the concepts here will be questionable” (Ball et al., 2015, p. 218).
Assessing Thinking Skills
The latter aspects of content that can be assessed, provided by Coyle et al.
(2010)—ability to manipulate the content using higher-level thinking skills and ability to research and extend the topic knowledge—relate to critical thinking skills beyond recalling factual information. These aspects involve application of knowledge learnt, analysis of novel problems using knowledge, and evaluation of given information (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Mehisto and Ting (2017) also regard the abilities to apply knowledge and do projects with others as foci of assessment in CLIL. Coyle et al. (2010) claim that cog- nition or higher-level cognition is best assessed through content assessment.
Lin (2016) provides several CLIL assessment tasks tapping into the abilities to apply the content with three levels of language—vocabulary, sentences, and texts. In application assessment tasks, students are required to explain a new phenomenon by applying the knowledge they have learnt in class. For exam- ple, students are asked to explain why marine fossils are found in high moun- tains using their knowledge of the movement of the earth’s crust. Tasks of the analysis type are not always clearly distinctive from application tasks, but the former involve synthesis of given information to deduce the correct answer.
For example, students are asked to design a scientific experiment to compare the amount of reducing sugars in two types of fruits they choose. They are required to use their knowledge of the topic and scientific experiment to write down the steps, conduct investigation, and summarize the results. Although Lin (2016) does not provide the criteria for assessing students’ language out- put in these tasks, it can be assumed that responses are assessed based primar- ily on the content accuracy of the explanations or responses (see Massler et al., 2014).
Cloud, Genesee, and Hamayan (2000) provide a further task that involves application of knowledge gained. After students learn about John Smith’s voy- age and settlement at Jamestown (in history class) and compare two points of
view of authors who wrote about their experience in America (in language arts class), their ability to apply their knowledge and take different perspectives is assessed. In the form of a written composition, they are asked to take the role of Native Americans who lived in Jamestown when John Smith landed, describe an incident that might result in conflict, and explain the different viewpoints of American Indians and settlers. Rubrics consist of Organisation, Sentence structure and variety, Vocabulary, Mechanics, and Content and originality. The last criterion, which focuses on originality of ideas and inter- estingness of details, seems to be related to thinking skills, as originality or novelty is regarded as an essential element of creativity (Bae, Bentler, &
Lee, 2016).
Assigning projects is another way to assess thinking skills, including appli- cation and analysis as well as the ability to research. A project is an activity in which students conduct performance or develop pieces of work, focusing on a single theme and demonstrating learnt knowledge (Dale, van der Es, &
Tanner, 2011). Dale et al. (2011) state that projects require students to syn- thesise information from various sources, develop thinking skills by present- ing complex problem-solving activities, and encourage independence and autonomy. They provide an example of project work in which students plan an expedition across the Sahara and write a brochure about it. In order to complete the project, they need to research the specific area they will be travel- ling in and consider the hazards they might face and ways to avoid them. The final product (brochure) is assessed through rubrics consisting of Language, Layout, Content and research, Practicality of the expedition, and Work hab- its. The highest score for Content and research is given to brochures which contain accurate information, are thorough, and include extra information (Dale et al., 2011). These components are similar to those used to assess fac- tual recall as mentioned above. The extent to which the project is well researched might be judged through the three components (see Ball et al., 2015, p. 243).
Finally, in the Sahara project (Dale et al., 2011), practicality of the expedi- tion, or the extent to which the expedition proposal is realistic, is also assessed.
This criterion taps into students’ ability to manage the given problem-solving task, which is to lead an expedition across the Sahara. If students cannot pres- ent realistic plans for the expedition in their brochures, it cannot be said that the task is successfully achieved, and accuracy or depth of information would be pointless. Thus, this criterion appears to focus on whether students fulfilled the main task objective. Table 1 summarises content-related abilities and how they are assessed.