research based reading comprehension assessments

Reading Assessment: The Key to Science-Based Reading Instruction

Reading assessments are a critical component to ensure equitable, evidence-based literacy instruction. our reading measures provide quick, reliable insights into student literacy that accelerate student growth..

• FastBridge Home

Universal Screening

• Curriculum-Based Measures
• Computer Adaptive Tests
• Progress Monitoring
• Assessments
• Dyslexia Screening
• Social-Emotional Behavior

Help All Students Become Strong Readers with Effective Reading Assessment Tools

Reading experts and cognitive scientists agree on five core principles of instruction that help all students learn to read—including those with reading difficulties like dyslexia.

Our diagnostic reading assessments help teachers pinpoint the specific reading skills that students are struggling with so that they can target interventions to the five components of effective reading instruction.

Phonemic Awareness

Ability to identify language sounds

Ability to connect speech sounds to letters and make them accessible by sight

Ability to read text

Ability to build, store, and retrieve words and background knowledge

Comprehension

Ability to deduct meaning from text

FastBridge's Reading Assessments Provide Trusted Literacy and Dyslexia Screening

FastBridge combines Computer Adaptive Tests ( CAT ) and Curriculum-Based Measures ( CBM ) to screen students, identify skill gaps, and offer proven recommendations for reading instruction and diagnostic reading interventions. That’s why many states have approved FastBridge for early reading and/or dyslexia screening .

Learn how FastBridge helps students become proficient readers.

Learn more about our reading assessments and the researchers who created them.

Assesses broad reading ability and predicts overall reading achievement in concepts of print, phonological awareness, phonics, vocabulary, comprehension, orthography, and morphology. aReading is aligned to the Lexile® Framework for Reading.

Grades K-12

AUTOreading

Assesses accuracy and automaticity with phonics, spelling, and vocabulary skills.

Universal Screening & Progress Monitoring

Assesses oral reading fluency with connected text.

Available in both English and Spanish

An optional extension of CBMreading that assesses the students' ability to recall and retell information from passages of connected text.

COMPefficiency

Assesses the quality and efficiency of a student's reading comprehension.

earlyReading

Assesses early literacy skills through reading assessment subtests that measure accuracy and automaticity.

Grades PreK-1

The Researchers

Dr. Ted Christ & Colleagues

FastBridge Reading Suite

Co-Founder of FastBridge, Professor of School Psychology, University of Minnesota

Dr. Zoheb Borbora

Co-Founder of FastBridge

Dr. Scott Ardoin

earlyReading & CBMreading English

Professor of School Psychology, University of Georgia

Dr. Tanya Eckert

Associate Professor of School Psychology, Syracuse University

Dr. Lori Helman

earlyReading & CBMreading Spanish

Professor of Literacy Education, University of Minnesota

Dr. Mary Jane White

Research Associate, University of Minnesota

Act on Reading Assessment Data with Skills-Based Interventions

FastBridge offers teacher-led reading interventions to help move struggling students closer to grade-level goals. Our scripted, class-wide and small-group lesson plans make it easier for educators to teach core literacy skills by aligning directly to our diagnostic reading assessments. Each skills-based intervention is backed by the research of Dr. Ted Christ and his colleagues at the University of Minnesota.

Concepts of Print

Proficiency includes an understanding that English words are composed of letters, and sentences are composed of words.

Proficiency includes an understanding that there are individual sounds in words, and words can be split apart into their individual sounds.

Proficiency includes an ability to connect speech sounds to letters and make them accessible by sight.

Proficiency includes reading text accurately, automatically, and at a rate that allows comprehension.

Proficiency includes an ability to build, store, and retrieve words and background knowledge.

Proficiency includes using phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and vocabulary to understand written words and making sense of what one reads.

Interested in learning more?

Reading assessment resources, infographic.

The Principles of Effective Reading Instruction

Do you know what it takes for all students to become strong readers? Learn the essentials of effective, science-based reading instruction and structured literacy instruction.

Putting the Science of Reading into Practice

Read expert advice on why reading assessment tools that identify the five critical components of reading and instruction grounded in the science of reading are crucial to addressing inequities and ensuring all students become strong readers.

Profile in Reading Success: How SPPS Uses Reading Assessment Tools to Guide Instruction

See how educators in Saint Paul Public Schools (MN) use diagnostic reading assessment data to implement Tier 1 evidence-based instructional practices and interventions for struggling readers.

Reading Assessments FAQs

How do you assess a student’s reading level.

The best way to assess a student’s reading level is to conduct universal screening three times a year (e.g., fall, winter, spring) for the purpose of identifying students who may benefit from additional instructional support. The earlier a reading difficulty is identified, the easier and more effective it is to provide intervention. After identifying students not on track to meet reading benchmark goals, the screening data can be compared with other sources of information to plan instruction. As needed, additional screeners can be used to provide more specific information about student reading skills, or to get starting scores for progress monitoring .

What makes a quality reading assessment tool?

A quality reading assessment should be grounded in the science of reading research to identify the specific literacy skills a student is struggling with and offer evidence-based recommendations on how to close skill gaps. Quality reading assessments should also be proven valid, reliable, and have multiple sources of high quality research indicating that they help teachers identify and solve reading problems that students have in schools.

What are some reading assessments?

Diagnostic: Diagnostic reading assessments pinpoint specific areas of need. FastBridge’s unique combination of CBMs and CATs of reading provide a comprehensive view of who is at risk and information about which literacy skills to focus on.

Formative: Formative reading assessments are conducted regularly during the school year. Two types of formative assessment are universal screening and progress monitoring. Screening helps teachers know each student’s current reading skills; progress monitoring shows whether reading intervention is working. Both screening and progress monitoring provide data to inform instruction that follows. FastBridge’s reading CBMs can be used for screening and progress monitoring.

Summative: Summative reading assessments certify that learning at the end of a specific period of instruction has occurred. Learn more about Illuminate Education’s summative assessments and reporting platform, DnA .

How do FastBridge’s reading assessments compare to other reading assessment tests?

FastBridge’s reading assessments offer educators the most efficient way to assess reading skill gaps because our solution offers both CBMs and CATs. With FastBridge, teachers conduct screening with recommended reading assessments for each grade level. These include:

• Specific assessments students complete for universal screening.
• Pre-selected assessments that have the capacity to predict future student reading performance and indicate what type of reading instruction is needed
• User-friendly reports that allow teachers to view student scores and see recommended reading instruction plans.
• User-friendly reporting that allows teachers to view student scores and see recommended reading instruction plans.

The R apid O nline A ssessment of R eading

An open-access assessment platform grounded in ongoing research  by the  Stanford Reading & Dyslexia Research Program

What is the ROAR?

The rapid online assessment of reading is an ongoing research project and online platform for assessing foundational reading skills. roar consists of a suite of measures that have been validated k-12; each is delivered through the web browser and does not require a test administrator. the roar rapidly provides highly reliable indices of reading ability with greater precision than many  standardized, individually-administered reading assessments. powered by the rapid online assessment dashboard, roar integrates with most rostering systems used in schools so can be deployed to a whole district with a click of a button and provides instructionally informative score reports to teachers in real time as students complete the assessments., the stanford reading & dyslexia research program  aims to investigate the factors contributing to reading difficulties including dyslexia. by developing and rigorously validating automated assessment tools that enable large-scale data collection, we can help researchers and educators understand and support the diversity of learners., scientific approach to validation.

A Research-Based Tool

Administer anywhere online, rapid. automated. online., active research & development.

Active R&D

The roar assessment suite, roar is a tool for schools, clinics, and researchers — we offer a wide range of experiments that explore the domains of reading and language, visual processing, and executive function. the following roar are available for school and community organization partners to pilot: , click on the boxes below to demo the assessments, roar assessments that have been validated at scale, new roar measures under active research, coming soon: rapid online assessments of math (roam) rapid online assessments of vision (roav), how does it work.

ROAR-SWR measures word recognition by rapidly presenting real and made-up words and asking participants to press a key to indicate whether each word is real or made-up. The words span a wide difficulty range, providing an accurate index of ability for 1st through 12th grade in just 5-10 minutes.

Animated characters guide participants through a colorful voiceover narrative, ensuring participants understand the task through brief practice and feedback. In our validation studies, children as young as 2nd grade were able to complete ROAR-SWR without a proctor, and children in 1st grade could complete it with minimal assistance.

After completing the ROAR-SWR, participants will receive information on raw scores, as well as estimated standard scores, percentile scores, and risk designations. 

Research-Practice Partnership: A Model for Collaboration

Frequently asked questions.

ROAR is configurable for different applications. ROAR-Word can be collected as a quick screener in about five minutes. Adding ROAR-Sentence provides additional complimentary information for screening. ROAR-Phoneme provides diagnostic information on different aspects of phonological awareness that can be the target of instruction or intervention and takes 12-15 minutes. ROAR can be administered to any number of students at once—individually at home or in a clinic, in small groups, a classroom or whole school district —as long as each student has access to an internet-connected computer or tablet and headphones.

ROAR provides a comprehensive profile of foundational reading skills for students from Kindergarten through Grade 12. The score reports show you how many students in your organization need support on each specific skill. Furthermore, the reports provide individual data on each student in a table that can easily be grouped by skill, level of support needed, and more. 

ROAR assessments examine foundational reading skills for students of all ages. Some of the assessments are computer adaptive, so they will give more challenging items to students who are ready for them. Some of the assessments provide different sets of items for students depending on their grade level, such as more challenging texts for older students. The graphics and storylines are omitted for older students. The assessments are generally structured similarly and the scores are comparable across grade levels.

Nothing! The ROAR is an open-access assessment; no payment or subscription is required.

The administration is completely automated – directions are read to students through their headphones, and students respond on the computer. Teachers or guardians may need to help students with logging in. Students may do the assessments in their classrooms as a group, at home, or with a specialist.

Please see our optional Quick Start guide that we provide for partners.

We take research participant data privacy seriously. All assessment data is stored securely and separately from identifiers wherever possible. If your child’s school is engaged in a ROAR partnership, assessment data may be shared back with the school as additional information to support teaching and learning.

We are excited to partner with you to try these research tools in the classroom! 

We are happy to come to your school virtually or in-person to discuss the ROAR and how it can support your students and teachers. Please reach out to our Director of Research and Partnerships, Carrie Townley-Flores ( [email protected] ) to make arrangements.

This is standard practice, and we are happy to work through this process with you. Please note that Stanford’s lawyers will need to sign off on any legal documents and this process may take some time. We also require our partners to review our Letter of Agreement or Terms of Service. 

Learn more about the Stanford University Reading & Dyslexia Research Program!

Connect with us.

[email protected]

(650) 497-0893

520 Galvez Mall

Stanford, CA 94305

Our Facebook

Lab Website

Advertisement

Designing Reading Comprehension Assessments for Reading Interventions: How a Theoretically Motivated Assessment Can Serve as an Outcome Measure

• Research into Practice
• Published: 25 May 2014
• Volume 26 , pages 403–424, ( 2014 )

Cite this article

• Tenaha O’Reilly 1 ,
• Jonathan Weeks 1 ,
• John Sabatini 1 ,
• Laura Halderman 1 &
• Jonathan Steinberg 1  

2582 Accesses

39 Citations

Explore all metrics

When designing a reading intervention, researchers and educators face a number of challenges related to the focus, intensity, and duration of the intervention. In this paper, we argue there is another fundamental challenge—the nature of the reading outcome measures used to evaluate the intervention. Many interventions fail to demonstrate significant improvements on standardized measures of reading comprehension. Although there are a number of reasons to explain this phenomenon, an important one to consider is misalignment between the nature of the outcome assessment and the targets of the intervention. In this study, we present data on three theoretically driven summative reading assessments that were developed in consultation with a research and evaluation team conducting an intervention study. The reading intervention, Reading Apprenticeship, involved instructing teachers to use disciplinary strategies in three domains: literature, history, and science. Factor analyses and other psychometric analyses on data from over 12,000 high school students revealed the assessments had adequate reliability, moderate correlations with state reading test scores and measures of background knowledge, a large general reading factor, and some preliminary evidence for separate, smaller factors specific to each form. In this paper, we describe the empirical work that motivated the assessments, the aims of the intervention, and the process used to develop the new assessments. Implications for intervention and assessment are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Theories of Motivation in Education: an Integrative Framework

The use of cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education.

The Impact of Peer Assessment on Academic Performance: A Meta-analysis of Control Group Studies

Interested readers are encouraged to consult Zygouris-Coe ( 2012 ) for a discussion on the implications of introducing disciplinary reading into the Common Core.

The 14-item background knowledge measure for the literature form was unacceptably low ( α  = near zero). Therefore, we do not report the correlation.

Note that this is a different sample of students drawn from the same intervention schools, but in the year preceding the sample used in the dimensional analyses. The purpose of this analysis is to demonstrate convergent validity evidence for each form with a general reading literacy assessment, i.e., 8th grade state ELA outcome tests.

The assessment scores were not intended for individual score reporting, but rather for computing group mean differences. Thus, we were not interested in their technical adequacy for reporting on individuals. Different analyses, modeling, and studies would be conducted to evaluate their functionality for individual score reports.

Achugar, M., & Carpenter, B. D. (2012). Linguistics and Education, 23 , 262–276.

Article   Google Scholar  

Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2009). A disciplinary discourse perspective on university science learning: achieving fluency in a critical constellation of modes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46 , 27–49.

Bennett, R. E. (2010). Cognitively based assessment of, for, and as learning: a preliminary theory of action for summative and formative assessment. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 8 , 70–91.

Google Scholar  

Berkeley, S., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2010). Reading comprehension instruction for students with learning disabilities, 1995–2006: a meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 31 , 423–436.

Bus, A. G. (1999). Phonological awareness and early reading: a meta-analysis of experimental training studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91 , 403–414.

Cai, L. (2012). flexMIRT version 1.88: a numerical engine for multilevel item factor analysis and test scoring. [computer software] . Seattle, WA: Vector Psychometric Group.

Cantrell, S., Almasi, J. F., Carter, J. C., & Rintamaa, M. (2013). Reading intervention in middle and high schools: implementation fidelity, teacher efficacy, and student achievement. Reading Psychology, 34 , 26–58.

Chamberlain, A., Daniels, C., Madden, N. A., & Slavin, R. E. (2007). A randomized evaluation of the success for all middle school reading program. Middle Grades Reading Journal, 2 , 1–22.

Coiro, J. (2009). Rethinking reading assessment in a digital age: How is reading comprehension different and where do we turn now? Educational Leadership, 66 , 59–63.

Coyne, M. D., Little, M., Rawlinson, D., Simmons, D., Kwok, O., Kim, M., & Civetelli, C. (2013). Replicating the impact of a supplemental beginning reading intervention: the role of instructional context. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 6 , 1–23.

Cutting, L., & Scarborough, H. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10 , 277–299.

Denton, C. A., Wexler, J., Vaughn, S., & Bryan, D. (2008). Intervention provided to linguistically diverse middle school students with severe reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23 , 79–89.

Denton, C. A., Tolar, T. D., Fletcher, J. M., Barth, A. E., Vaughn, S., & Francis, D. J. (2013). Effects of tier 3 intervention for students with persistent reading difficulties and characteristics of inadequate responders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105 , 633–648.

Ehren, B. J. (2012). Foreword: complementary perspectives from multiple sources on disciplinary literacy. Topics in Language Disorders, 32 , 5–6.

Faggella-Luby, M. N., Graner, S. P., Deshler, D. D., & Drew, S. V. (2012). Building a house on sand: Why disciplinary literacy is not sufficient to replace general strategies for adolescent learners who struggle. Topics in Language Disorders, 32 , 69–84.

Fang, Z. (2012). Language correlates of disciplinary literacy. Topics in Language Disorders, 32 , 19–34.

Fisk, C., & Hurst, C. B. (2003). Paraphrasing for comprehension. Reading Teacher, 57 , 182–185.

Flynn, L. J., Zheng, X., & Swanson, H. (2012). Instructing struggling older readers: a selective meta‐analysis of intervention research. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27 , 21–32.

Franzke, M., Kintsch, E., Caccamise, D., Johnson, N., & Dooley, S. (2005). Summary Street ®: computer support for comprehension and writing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33 , 53–80.

Goldman, S. (2012). Adolescent literacy: learning and understanding content. Future of Children, 22 , 89–116.

Goldman, S., & Rakestraw, J. (2000). Structural aspects of constructing meaning from text. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 311–335). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101 , 371–395.

Guldenoğlu, İ., Kargin, T., & Miller, P. (2012). Comparing the word processing and reading comprehension of skilled and less skilled readers. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12 , 2822–2828.

Hammer, S., & Green, W. (2011). Critical thinking in a first year management unit: the relationship between disciplinary learning, academic literacy and learning progression. Higher Education Research & Development, 30 , 303–315.

Kane, M. (2006). Validation. In R. J. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 18–64). Westport, CT: American Council on Education and Praeger.

Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., & Olson, R. K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12 , 281–300.

Kim, J., & Quinn, D. (2013). The effects of summer reading on low-income children’s literacy achievement from kindergarten to grade 8: a meta-analysis of classroom and home interventions. Review of Educational Research, 83 , 386–431.

Kim, J. S., Samson, J. F., Fitzgerald, R., & Hartry, A. (2010). A randomized experiment of a mixed-methods literacy intervention for struggling readers in grades 4–6: effects on word reading efficiency, reading comprehension and vocabulary, and oral reading fluency. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23 , 1109–1129.

Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: a paradigm for cognition . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lee, C. (2004). Literacy in the academic disciplines and the needs of adolescent struggling readers. Voices in Urban Education, 3 , 14–25.

Lee, C. D., & Spratley, A. (2010). Reading in the disciplines: the challenges of adolescent literacy . New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation.

Liu, O. L., Bridgeman, B., & Adler, R. (2012). Measuring learning outcomes in higher education: motivation matters. Educational Researcher, 41 , 352–362.

Lykins, C. (2012). Why “what works” still doesn't work: how to improve research syntheses at the What Works Clearinghouse. Peabody Journal of Education, 87 , 500–509.

MacGinitie, W. H., MacGinitie, R. K., Katherine, M., & Dreyer, L. G. (2000). Gates MacGinitie tests of reading . Itasca, IL: Riverside.

McCrudden, M. T., & Schraw, G. (2007). Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing. Educational Psychology Review, 19 , 113–139.

McKinley, R. L., & Reckase, M. D. (1983). An extension of the two-parameter logistic model to the multidimensional latent space (Research Report ONR 83–2) . Iowa City, IA: The American College Testing Program.

McNamara, D. S. (2004). SERT: self-explanation reading training. Discourse Processes, 38 , 1–30.

McNamara, D. S. (2007). Reading comprehension strategies: theories, interventions, and technologies . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22 , 247–288.

Metzger, M. J. (2007). Making sense of credibility on the web: models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58 , 2078–2091.

Meyer, B., & Wijekumar, K. (2007). A Web based tutoring system for the structure strategy: theoretical background, design, and findings. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: theory, interventions, and technologies (pp. 347–374). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Mislevy, R. J., & Haertel, G. (2006). Implications for evidence-centered design for educational assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 25 , 6–20.

Mislevy, R. J., & Sabatini, J. P. (2012). How research on reading and research on assessment are transforming reading assessment (or if they aren’t, how they ought to). In J. Sabatini, E. Albro, & T. O'Reilly (Eds.), Measuring up: advances in how we assess reading ability (pp. 119–134). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Monte-Sano, C. (2010). Disciplinary literacy in history: an exploration of the historical nature of adolescents’ writing. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19 , 539–568.

National Assessment Governing Board (2010). Reading framework for the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.nagb.org/publications/frameworks/reading-2011-framework.pdf .

National Governors Association, & Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts . Washington, DC: Authors Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf .

O'Reilly, T., & Sabatini, J. (2013). Reading for understanding: how performance moderators and scenarios impact assessment design (Research Report No. RR-13-31) . Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Ozuru, Y., Rowe, M., O'Reilly, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Where’s the difficulty in standardized reading tests: the passage or the question? Behavior Research Methods, 40 , 1001–1015.

Perfetti, C. A., & Adlof, S. M. (2012). Reading comprehension: a conceptual framework from word meaning to text meaning. In J. P. Sabatini, E. Albro, & T. O’Reilly (Eds.), Measuring up: advances in how we assess reading ability (pp. 3–20). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Poitras, E., & Trevors, G. (2012). Deriving empirically-based design guidelines for advanced learning technologies that foster disciplinary comprehension. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 38 , 1–21.

Reynolds, M., Wheldall, K., & Madelaine, A. (2011). What recent reviews tell us about the efficacy of reading interventions for struggling readers in the early years of schooling. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 58 , 257–286.

Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. A. (2011). Relevance processes in multiple document comprehension. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Relevance instructions and goal-focusing in text learning (pp. 19–52). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Rupp, A., Ferne, T., & Choi, H. (2006). How assessing reading comprehension with multiple-choice questions shapes the construct: a cognitive processing perspective. Language Testing, 23 , 441–474.

Sabatini, J., & O’Reilly, T. (2013). Rationale for a new generation of reading comprehension assessments. In B. Miller, L. Cutting, & P. McCardle (Eds.), Unraveling reading comprehension: behavioral, neurobiological, and genetic components (pp. 100–111). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.

Sabatini, J., O'Reilly, T., & Deane, P. (2013). Preliminary reading literacy assessment framework: foundation and rationale for assessment and system design. (Research Report No. RR-13-30) . Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Sabatini, J., O’Reilly, T., Halderman, L., & Bruce, K. (2014). Integrating scenario-based and component reading skill measures to understand the reading behavior of struggling readers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29 (1), 36–43.

Schoenbach, R., Greenleaf, C., & Murphy, L. (2012). Engaged academic literacy for all. In Reading for understanding: How Reading Apprenticeship improves disciplinary learning in secondary and college classrooms, 2nd edition (pp. 1–6). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Retrieved from: http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/read-12-01-sample1.pdf .

Scholin, S. E., & Burns, M. (2010). Relationship between pre-intervention data and post-intervention reading fluency and growth: a meta-analysis of assessment data for individual students. Psychology in the Schools, 49 , 385–398.

Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78 , 40–59.

Shanahan, C., Shanahan, T., & Misischia, C. (2011). Analysis of expert readers in three disciplines: history, mathematics, and chemistry. Journal of Literacy Research, 43 , 393–429.

Shapiro, A. M. (2004). How including prior knowledge as a subject variable may change outcomes of learning research. American Educational Research Journal, 41 , 159–189.

Song, M., & Herman, R. (2010). Critical issues and common pitfalls in designing and conducting impact studies in education: lessons learned from the What Works Clearinghouse (phase I). Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32 , 351–371.

Suggate, S. (2010). Why what we teach depends on when: grade and reading intervention modality moderate effect size. Developmental Psychology, 46 , 1556–1579.

Tunmer, W. E., Chapman, J. W., & Prochnow, J. E. (2004). Why the reading achievement gap in New Zealand won’t go away: evidence from the PIRLS 2001 International Study of Reading Achievement. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 39 , 127–145.

van den Broek, P., Lorch, R. F., Jr., Linderholm, T., & Gustafson, M. (2001). The effects of readers’ goals on inference generation and memory for texts. Memory & Cognition, 29 , 1081–1087.

Vaughn, S., Swanson, E. A., Roberts, G., Wanzek, J., Stillman-Spisak, S. J., Solis, M., & Simmons, D. (2013). Improving reading comprehension and social studies knowledge in middle school. Reading Research Quarterly, 48 , 77–93.

Vidal-Abarca, E., Mãná, A., & Gil, L. (2010). Individual differences for self-regulating task-oriented reading activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102 , 817–826.

Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Scammacca, N. K., Metz, K., Murray, C. S., Roberts, G., & Danielson, L. (2013). Extensive reading interventions for students with reading difficulties after grade 3. Review of Educational Research, 83 , 163–195.

What Works Clearinghouse (2012). Phonological awareness training (What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences What Works Clearinghouse, Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED533087.pdf .

Zygouris-Coe, V. I. (2012). Disciplinary literacy and the common core state standards. Topics in Language Disorders, 32 , 35–50.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through grant R305F100005 to Educational Testing Service as part of the Reading for Understanding Research Initiative; and in partnership with WestEd, IMPAQ International, and Empirical Education, Inc. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education, nor the Educational Testing Service. We would also like to thank Cynthia Greenleaf and Ruth Schoenbach of WestEd, Cheri Fancsali and the team at IMPAQ for their partnership and support with school sample recruitment in this study; our Cognitively Based Assessment as, of, and for, Learning ( CBAL ™) Initiative partners; the NAEP team for providing access and use of released items; Kelly Bruce for technical support; and Jennifer Lentini and Kim Fryer for editorial assistance; Paul Deane, Jim Carlson, Shelby Haberman, Matthias Von Davier and anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful reviews and helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Educational Testing Service Research & Development, 660 Rosedale Road, Princeton, NJ, 08541, USA

Tenaha O’Reilly, Jonathan Weeks, John Sabatini, Laura Halderman & Jonathan Steinberg

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tenaha O’Reilly .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

O’Reilly, T., Weeks, J., Sabatini, J. et al. Designing Reading Comprehension Assessments for Reading Interventions: How a Theoretically Motivated Assessment Can Serve as an Outcome Measure. Educ Psychol Rev 26 , 403–424 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9269-z

Download citation

Published : 25 May 2014

Issue Date : September 2014

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9269-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Reading comprehension
• Outcome measures
• Intervention
• Disciplinary literacy
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• The LD@school Team
• Collaborate with Us
• Terms Of Use
• Mathematics
• Mental Health
• Executive Functions
• Social-Emotional Development
• What are Non-verbal Learning Disabilities?
• Accommodations, Modifications & Alternative Skill Areas
• Glossary of Terms
• Resources |
• Learning Modules |
• Educators’ Institute |
• Document Library |

Evidence-Based Assessment in the Science of Reading

Print Resource

Written by Una Malcolm, M.A., OCT

Introduction: Why Assess

Assessment for learning plays a critical role in informing and driving literacy instruction. Nearly all students are capable of learning to read; while specific numbers vary, estimates indicate that approximately 95% of students are capable of learning to read (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009). Rigorous, systematic, and explicit instruction that addresses the essential components of literacy including phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension (National Reading Panel, 2000), is key to allowing all children to reach their full potential. This instruction often referred to as structured literacy, must go hand-in-hand with a comprehensive assessment system to allow educators to adjust instruction to meet the specific needs of students (Spear-Swerling, 2018). Assessment is critical for students with learning disabilities (LDs) in terms of both the prevention of reading difficulties and intervention to remediate skill gaps.

Formative Assessment: Answering Questions

Assessment for learning plays a key role in meeting the needs of all students through the creation of equitable learning environments. Assessment for learning, “is used in making decisions that affect teaching and learning in the short-term future” (Growing Success, 2010, p. 30). Multiple research reviews and meta-analyses have identified that systematic formative assessment has consistent strong, positive effects on student learning (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1986; Black & Wiliam, 2005; Hattie, 2009) across a variety of factors including student age, measurement frequency, and disability status. In essence, assessment for learning allows educators to identify where students are and inform plans to get students where they need to be.

Even within assessment for learning, multiple types of assessments exist. Growing Success (2010) distinguishes between formative and diagnostic assessments but emphasizes that “what matters is how the information is used” (p. 31). Assessment answers questions; different types of assessment tools answer different types of questions. In a Response to Intervention model, assessment purposes include universal screening, diagnostic assessments, and progress monitoring; all three of these purposes for assessment answer key questions about shaping instructional environments to meet students’ needs.

1. Screening - Assessment for Learning

The development of skilled reading is a complex process that hinges on the development and the integration of cognitive and language skills. Many of these skills can be observed and measured well before children receive any formal reading instruction (Catts, 2015). With data indicating that reading trajectories are established early and are very stable (Juel, 1988), it is critical to identify reading difficulties early on in a student’s academic career to inform support. Since reading remediation at an earlier age is more effective than later intervention (Lovett et al., 2017), screening plays an important role in preventing early reading difficulties from being exacerbated over time.

All students should be screened with universal screening measures three times per year (Good et al., 2011). These assessments are very brief, standardized measures that quickly and efficiently identify which children are at risk. Standardized assessments are tests that have specific procedures for administration and scoring, perhaps with scripted directions and specific scoring guidelines (Farrall, 2012). Students are assessed on several indicators of early literacy skills appropriate for their age and grade. For example, Kindergarten and grade one students may be screened on phonemic awareness, phonics, and decoding, while older students may be screened on oral reading fluency (ORF) and retell for comprehension.

Universal screening measures are widely available and very accessible. Many of the universal screeners currently available are either low-cost or free. Often there can be a fee for training or optional computer data analysis systems, but many of the testing materials are very accessible.

These assessments are technically reliable and valid, and scores are interpreted in relation to a benchmark criterion. Benchmark cutscores are not determined arbitrarily but instead are derived from research; researchers use longitudinal studies to determine what threshold a child must reach to have a strong chance of meeting future reading goals. This means a child’s score allows educators to predict future reading performance with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Students who fall at or below the cutscore are at risk and will likely need additional support to allow them to meet future goals.  For example, a benchmark cutscore on Acadience Reading assessments is the score needed for a child to have an 80 - 90% probability of meeting successive reading goals (Good et al., 2011). In interpreting a child’s score in comparison to a benchmark score, educators can quickly and efficiently assess the level of risk of future reading achievement or difficulty before difficulties emerge or worsen.

Screening allows educators to quickly and easily catch students who are at risk. Screening does not, however, give teachers a full understanding of what the underlying cause of a problem is. Screening is akin to a blood pressure or temperature check at a doctor’s office; these are simple, efficient and cost-effective ways to find problems, but abnormalities on these screeners require additional diagnostic testing to decipher what exactly is wrong.

2. Diagnostic Assessment - Assessment for Learning

Diagnostic assessments allow educators to probe deeper into the learning profiles of students in question. For many students, universal screening three times per year provides all the assessment data necessary to ensure students are making sufficient progress. For students who are at risk, though, careful analysis of reading subskills must occur to differentiate instruction and plan intervention. These assessments allow educators to ascertain which specific skills or knowledge a student has mastered, and which skills or knowledge need to be taught.

If universal screeners are similar to a blood pressure or temperature check to identify problems in a brief and cost-effective manner, diagnostic assessments are similar to more comprehensive blood tests or diagnostic imaging to dig deeper into a problem. The information from these more investigative approaches directly informs treatment, similar to how diagnostic reading assessments allow teachers to differentiate classroom instruction or plan targeted interventions.

Diagnostic assessments are longer and more in-depth than screening assessments and are typically not standardized. While screeners are quick assessments of indicators of basic skills, diagnostic assessments can be thought of as inventories of skills that directly inform instruction. Can a child segment two, three, or four phoneme words? Can a child decode words with short vowels or consonant digraphs? Diagnostic assessments allow teachers to differentiate classroom instruction and plan intervention if necessary.

Diagnostic assessments should be selected strategically. The Simple View of Reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986) indicates that reading comprehension, the end goal of reading, is a product of two sets of subskills, word recognition and language comprehension. When selecting diagnostic assessments, teachers can probe both areas of this model to clarify a student’s specific patterns of strengths and needs. When weaknesses exist in reading comprehension, is this due to difficulties with word recognition, with language comprehension, or with both?

3. Progress Monitoring - Assessment for Learning

With screening and diagnostic data in hand, teachers can differentiate core instruction and/or provide targeted intervention through intervention supports. Progress monitoring assessments allow educators to quickly measure a student’s response to instruction. Instead of waiting until the next benchmark assessment several months in the future, progress monitoring allows for more rapid adjustment of instruction. While universal screening measures students’ skill level with grade-level material, progress monitoring is at an individual child’s instructional level to directly measure response to instruction. A grade four child reading at a grade one level would be screened at the beginning, middle, and end of the year with grade four assessments. Progress monitoring assessment, though, would be at a grade one level in order to measure the child’s response to intervention.

Many universal screeners also supply progress monitoring materials. These materials are often very similar to universal screening measures in that they are brief and standardized. When selecting an assessment for progress monitoring, it is important to consider practice effects. Progress monitoring assessments typically have multiple forms so students are not tested with the same material. Progress monitoring data are usually graphed so student growth can be compared visually to an aimline , or the line between a child’s current score and the benchmark goal.

Progress monitoring assessments are purposefully brief. Depending on student age and needs, this assessment may take between one and three minutes. Struggling students need to catch up quickly; Torgesen (2004) describes the “devastating downward spiral” that occurs when students do not receive timely, evidence-based intervention. Struggling readers do not have time for a “wait and see” approach. Weekly or biweekly progress monitoring allows for enough data to quickly and clearly establish patterns. Educators can quickly judge if a child’s rate of progress is strong enough to meet the goal. If not, there are several options that can be considered to intensify instruction:

• Increasing frequency or length of support
• Decreasing group size
• Making groups more homogeneous
• Increasing level of explicitness
• Increasing opportunities for practice

To see an example of how the Thunder Bay Catholic DSB uses tier 1, 2 and 3 reading interventions, click here to view the LD@school video The Tiered Approach

In addition to informing instruction, progress monitoring data allow for insight into students learning profiles. Research indicates that data from a child’s response to intervention can give important insight into whether a child may have a learning disability. Patterns of inadequate response to evidence-based instruction, established through progress monitoring data, are key factors to consider when evaluating for a learning disability (Miciak & Fletcher, 2020; Catts & Petscher, 2021).

4. Outcome Evaluation - Assessment of Learning

Outcome assessments measure student achievement. While progress monitoring assessments show if instruction is working, outcome assessments are assessments of learning and identify if instruction worked.

These assessments are typically comprehensive assessments that measure student mastery of provincial curriculum expectations or the specific learning goals outlined. Outcome assessments often occur at the end of a period of learning, including a unit of study, a term, or a school year, for example.

Evidence-Based Assessment in the Science of Reading: Cheat sheet - Comparing and Contrasting Assessment Purposes

Click here to view and download the Evidence-Based Assessment in the Science of Reading: Cheat sheet

Assessment Data and Differentiating Tier 1 Instruction

Patterns in universal screening data can support teachers in differentiating classroom instruction. Instead of using student reading levels from a running record to group students for small group instruction, universal screening data allows educators to use reading skills to more specifically build homogeneous groups of students for instruction. A grade 2 teacher, for example, could split students into several groups based on their universal screening data:

• Fluent and accurate readers needing continued content and vocabulary instruction to build comprehension
• Students who read accurately but need fluency instruction
• Students in need of word-level decoding and phonics instruction.

Data from screeners as well as diagnostic testing for deeper probing allows for more sophisticated and specific differentiation for intervention, instruction, or enrichment since it focuses on specific skills instead of generic reading levels.

Student vs. System Analysis to Strengthen Universal Instruction

One of the strengths of universal screening is it allows educators to analyze not only individual students’ growth but also the strength of classroom core instruction. If more than 20% of students are below the benchmark on universal screening, it is a clear indication that efforts to strengthen core instruction should be made. Prioritizing intervention when a large proportion of the class is at risk misses out on a valuable opportunity to strengthen the universal tier of classroom instruction. With class-wide screening data, teachers are able to better differentiate instruction and potentially implement class-wide interventions , such as Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (McMaster & Fuchs, 2016). For example, a grade 3 teacher could implement a paired repeated reading instructional routine (Stevens et al., 2017) in response to weak fluency screening data. Instead of just problem-solving at individual student levels, teachers have the data necessary to develop action plans to strengthen core instruction for all students.

To learn more about Peer Assisted Learning,  click here to access LD@school’s article and video Peer-Mediated Learning Approaches.

Oral Reading Fluency and Running Records: Frequently Confused

Oral Reading Fluency assessments are commonly used in both screening and progress monitoring for developing readers. While individual assessments vary, generally Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) measures involve timed passage oral reading for one minute. Accuracy rates and words correct per minute scores are calculated and interpreted in relation to a benchmark score. ORF assessments are highly correlated with reading comprehension (Fuchs et al., 2001) and serve as a proxy for this critical outcome skill.

ORF assessments are often confused with running record assessments that are commonly used in literacy programs. While both assessments do involve the reading of connected passages, running records differ in that a text “level” is often indicated as a student’s instructional or independent level based on the accuracy percentage. Fluency is typically assessed through teacher observation or rubrics. Running records do not meet desired characteristics for the selection of a screener. They do not act as brief, reliable and valid indicators of key early literacy skills, and they do not allow for interpretation of scores in relation to a benchmark criterion derived from predictive probabilities. In fact, Parker et al. (2015) found that a commonly used running record assessment had a .54 correlation with a district-provided criterion reading test. These data indicate that running records were only 54% accurate in predicting student reading performance, in comparison to the established technical validity and reliability of ORF measures.

Assessment for Learning: A Case Study

The following case study provides an example of how reading assessment can be used in the classroom to identify at-risk students, pinpoint the skills these students struggle with, and determine the appropriate intervention to get students back on track. 

Maya is in grade two. As a part of the beginning-of-year screening process, her teacher administers a brief screening assessment that yields this data about Maya’s reading:

Nonsense Word Fluency:

• Correct Letter Sounds ( phonics) : Below Benchmark
• Whole Words Read ( decoding) : Well Below Benchmark

Oral Reading Fluency:

• Accuracy ( passage reading accuracy ) : Below Benchmark
• Words Correct ( passage reading fluency) : Well Below Benchmark

Maya’s teacher, Ms. Kaur, recognizes that Maya is struggling and is not on track to meet future reading goals. Ms. Kaur realizes that Maya is having difficulty reading the ORF passage accurately and smoothly since she is not an accurate and fluent word reader. Based on these screening data, she decides to dig deeper with some diagnostic assessments to help her differentiate instruction. She decides to give Maya a decoding assessment to understand which specific phonics patterns she has mastered, and which patterns she needs to be taught. She learns that Maya hasn’t yet mastered short vowel sounds. She also uses a phonemic awareness assessment to check her blending and segmenting, which shows skill gaps as well. Ms. Kaur realizes that Maya is having difficulty with word recognition skills. To check on her oral language skills, Ms. Kaur reads a story to Maya and asks her oral comprehension questions. Maya is easily able to answer questions about what she hears, indicating to Ms. Kaur that Maya’s reading difficulties appear to be stemming from decoding and word recognition difficulties and not language comprehension difficulties.

Armed with this information, Ms. Kaur builds her small reading groups. Instead of using reading levels to group students, Ms. Kaur uses reading skills. She groups Maya with other students needing phonemic awareness and short vowel instruction.

As Ms. Kaur uses this screening and diagnostic data to plan her groups and instruction, she also continues to monitor Maya’s progress using weekly Nonsense Word Fluency assessments. Since these progress monitoring assessments are one minute each, Ms. Kaur knows that this is a quick and efficient way to make sure Maya is responding to her instruction without having to wait until the mid-year screening time. If Maya is not making sufficient progress toward the benchmark score, she may need instruction to be intensified to allow her to reach the benchmark goal. Ms. Kaur graphs Maya’s progress monitoring data, as well as the aimline which shows the path between Maya’s current score and the benchmark. Ms. Kaur and her grade-level team can quickly and easily judge if Maya is progressing at a fast enough rate to close the gap.

About the author:

Una Malcolm is a doctoral student in Reading Science and also has a Master’s degree in Child Study and Education. She is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Una has trained extensively in several evidence-based teaching methods, such as Direct Instruction, Phono-Graphix and Lindamood-Bell. She is an Acadience Reading K-6 (formerly DIBELS Next) Mentor.

Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5 (1), 7 - 74. doi: 10.1080/0969595980050102

Catts, H.W., Nielsen, D. C., Bridges, M. S., Liu, Y. S., & Bontempo, D. E. (2015). Early identification of reading disabilities within an RTI framework. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48 (3), 281–297.

Catts, H.W., Petscher, Y. (2021). A cumulative risk and resilience model of dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, doi.org/10.1177/00222194211037062

Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, DHHS. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read: Reports of the Subgroups. U.S. Government Printing Office.

Farrall, M. L. (2012). Reading assessment: Linking language, literacy, and cognition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118092668

Fuchs, L.S. & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53 (3), 199 - 208.

Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. & Jenkins, J. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5 (3), 239 - 256.

Fletcher, J.M. & Vaughn, S. (2009). Response to intervention: Preventing and remediating academic difficulties. Child Development Perspectives, 3 (1), 30 - 37. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00072.x

Good, R.H., Kaminski, R.A., Cummings, K.D., Dufour-Martel, C., Petersen, K., Powell-Smith, K.A., Stollar, S. & Wallin, J. (2011). Acadience Reading K-6 Assessment Manual . Acadience Learning Inc.

Gough, P.B. & Tunmer, W.E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7 (1), 6 - 10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning . Routledge.

Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80 (4), 437 - 447. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.4.437

Lovett, M., Frijters, J.C., Wolf, M., Steinback, K.A., Sevcik, R.A., Morris, R.D. (2017). Early intervention for children at risk for reading disabilties: The impact of grade at intervention and individual differences on intervention outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109 (7), 889 - 914. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000181

McMaster, K. L., & Fuchs, D. (2016). Classwide intervention using peer-assisted learning strategies. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of multi-tiered systems of support (pp. 253–268). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7568-3_15

Miciak, J. & Fletcher, J.M. (2020). The critical role of instructional response for identifying dyslexia and other learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53 (5), 343 - 353. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420906801

Ontario Ministry of Education. ​​(2010). Growing Success: Assessment, evaluation and reporting in Ontario's schools: Covering grades 1 to 12. Ministry of Education.

Parker, D.C., Zaslofsky, A.F., Burns, M.K., Kanive, R., Hodgson, J., Scholin, S.E. & Klingbeil, D.A. (2015) A brief report of the diagnostic accuracy of oral reading fluency and reading inventory levels for reading failure risk among second and third grade students. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 31 (1), 56 - 67. doi: 10.1080/10573569.2013.857970

Spear-Swerling, L. (2018). Structured literacy and typical literacy practices: Understanding differences to create instructional opportunities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 51 (3), 201–211.

Stevens, E. A., Walker, M. A., & Vaughn, S. (2017). The effects of reading fluency interventions on the reading fluency and reading comprehension performance of elementary students with Learning Disabilities: A synthesis of the research from 2001 to 2014. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50 (5), 576–590. doi: 10.1177/0022219416638028

Torgesen, J.K. (2004). Avoiding the devastating downward spiral: The evidence that early intervention prevents reading failure. American Educator, 28 , 6-19.

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

Related articles.

Signup for our Newsletter

Get notified when new resources are posted on the website!

Sign up to receive our electronic newsletter!

Recent Posts

• Working with SLPs to Support Communication and Literacy
• Webinar Recording: SORing After Primary – Morphing into Meaning
• Using Sound Walls to Support Spelling Skills for Students with Learning Disabilities

• Open access
• Published: 12 November 2022

The impacts of performance-based assessment on reading comprehension achievement, academic motivation, foreign language anxiety, and students’ self-efficacy

• Tahereh Heydarnejad   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0011-9442 1 ,
• Fariba Tagavipour 2 ,
• Indrajit Patra   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6704-2676 3 &
• Ayman Farid Khafaga   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9819-2973 4 , 5  

Language Testing in Asia volume  12 , Article number:  51 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

11k Accesses

8 Citations

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

The types of assessment tasks affect the learners’ psychological well-being and the process of learning. For years, educationalists were in search of finding and implementing accurate and convenient approaches to assess learners efficiently. Despite the significant role of performance-based assessment (PBA) in affecting second/foreign language (L2) learning processes, few empirical studies have tried to explore how PBA affects reading comprehension achievement (RCA), academic motivation (AM), foreign language anxiety (FLA), and students’ self-efficacy (SS-E). To fill this lacuna of research, the current study intended to gauge the impact of PBA on the improvement of RCA, AM, FLA, and SS-E in English as a foreign language (EFL) context. In so doing, a sample of 88 intermediate EFL learners were randomly divided into experimental group (EG) and CG (control group). During this research (16 sessions), the learners in the CG ( N = 43) received the tradition assessment. In contrast, the learners in the EG ( N = 45) were exposed to some modification based on the underpinning theories of PBA. Data inspection applying the one-way multivariate analysis of variance (i.e., the one-way MANOVA) indicated that the learners in the EG outperformed their counterparts in the CG. The results highlighted the significant contributions of PBA in fostering RCA, AM, FLA, and S-E beliefs. The implications of this study may redound to the benefits of language learners, teachers, curriculum designers, and policy makers in providing opportunities for further practice of PBA.

Introduction

In educational settings, teaching and assessment are the two sides of the same coin. The way teachers teach implicitly and explicitly affects the assessment. That is, the mode of assessment is associated with the teaching approaches and the employed procedures. Such close relationships call for educational and psychological research to consider practical approaches in the development of curriculum, instruction, and assessment in all fields of study, and EFL context is no exception. In the domain of assessment, the traditional assessment was used for years, which encountered different drawbacks. As a reaction to various deficiencies of the traditional assessment, alternatives were proposed (Xu et al, 2022 ; Yan, 2021 ; Yan & Brown, 2017 ). As Wu et al. ( 2021 ) puts it, learners’ performance should be considered in a social context that was forgotten in the traditional assessment. In the same vein, Koné ( 2021 ) believed that learners’ progress should be evaluated by their cooperation. PBA, as opposed to the traditional assessment (TA), concentrates not only on the product of learning but also on the process of learning.

Reading comprehension refers to the process that involved various meaning-making procedures in inferring the implied meaning of a text (Rezai, Namaziandost, Miri, & Kumar, 2022 , Rezai, Namaziandost, & Rahimi, 2022 ; Paris, 2005 ). The techniques used to teach reading are closely related to the employed techniques to evaluate reading comprehension (Nation, 2009 ). Evidence can be found in the literature that traditional standardized objective achievement tests focusing on multiple choices, matching, and true/false items are considered unsuitable and invalid to evaluate learners’ academic competencies (Azizi et al, 2022 ; O'Malley & Valdez Pierce, 1996 ; Michael, 1993 ; Nation, 2009 ). The traditional reading comprehension tests emphasized lower-order discrete, nonintegrated decoding skills, discrete point grammar, and decontextualized vocabulary items, which cannot provide a valid and reliable picture of the actual competencies of the learners (Jamali Kivi et al, 2021 ; Namaziandost et al, 2022 ). To compensate for the shortcomings of traditional reading comprehension tests, PBA was substituted in the educational context.

Aside the form of assessment, phycological factors may also influence the assessment process and its final results in language learning (Cao, 2022 ; Fong, 2022 ; Howard et al, 2021 ; Khajavy et al, 2021 ). Among psychological factors, AM shines differently because it has a supportive and enhancing role in the learners’ academic functioning and success (Caldarella et al, 2021 ; Martin et al., 2017 ; Peng, 2021 ). Generally, motivation is considered a stimulation force that shapes individuals’ behavior (Brophy, 1983 ). In the realm of education, student motivation, typically known as AM, is associated with their involvement in the process of learning (Hiver & Al-Hoorie, 2020 ). AM inspire learners to “make certain academic decisions, participate in classroom activities, and persist in pursuing the demanding process of learning” (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2009 , p. 2). That is, student AM pertains to students’ initial drive for launching and continuing the prolonged and tedious learning process (Ushioda, 2008 ). In the realm of language learning, Peng ( 2021 ) defined language learners’ AM as the extent to which they strive to learn a new language and their engagement in the process of learning.

Among student-related constructs, anxiety is one of the most experienced unpleasant emotions among learners (Burić & Frenzel, 2019 ; Shafiee Rad & Jafarpour, 2022 ), particularly among foreign language learners (Khajavy et al, 2018 ; Khajavy et al, 2021 ). Anxiety is a subjective state of fear and apprehension, which triggers rapid heart rate, hyperventilation, and sweating (Eysenck, 1992 ). According to Oteir and Al-Otaibi ( 2019 ), individuals feel anxious when they experience powerlessness in the face of an expected danger. In this regard, language anxiety is defined as situation-specific anxiety, including self-perceptions, beliefs, feelings, and behaviors experienced in the language learning classrooms (Horwitz et al, 1986 ; Liu et al, 2021 ; Sutarto Dwi Hastuti et al, 2022 ).

S-E is another student-attributed construct, which refers to “an individual's belief in his or her capacity to execute behaviors necessary to produce specific performance attainments” (Bandura, 1982 , p.122). Simply put, S-E reflects confidence in the ability to exert control over one’s own motivation, behavior, and social environment. Previous studies reflected that S-E is associated with positive psychological constructs such as L2 grit (Zheng et al, 2022 ; Shabani et al, 2022 ), students’ academic achievement (Ma, 2022 ; Vadivel et al., 2022 ), critical thinking (Li et al, 2022 ), and inter and intra-relationships (Martin & Mulvihill, 2019 ; Vadivel & Beena, 2019 ). Academic S-E refers to “one’s confidence in his ability to successfully perform pro-academic self-regulatory behaviors- the degree to which students metacognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally regulate their learning process” (Gore, 2006 , p.92). Learners’ S-E is influential in learners’ choice of tasks and their involvement in completing them (Olivier et al., 2018 ). According to Lai and Hwang ( 2016 ), efficacious learners show positive attitudes toward learning, and they relate their unsuccessful achievement to lower attempts rather than lower ability.

Due to the potent role of assessment in the realm of successful education, it is worthwhile to study the factors leading to its effective implementation. Yet, there is a dearth of literature about effective and convention assessment, particularly in EFL context. Therefore, more research is needed to fill this gap. PBA is one of the constructive assessments that can contribute to learners’ academic achievement. Despite the crucial role of PBA on RCA, AM, FLA, and S-E beliefs, only a few empirical studies have conducted in this regard, and to the best of our knowledge, no study has ever tried to investigate these variables simultaneously in EFL context. Thereby, it is less known about how PBA could facilitate language learning and inhibit learners’ motivation and S-E, as well as decrease FLA. Having this stand point in mind, the present study aims to explore the impact of performance-based assessment on RCA, AM, FLA, and S-E beliefs in the Iranian EFL context. Thus, the following research questions were put forth in the current study:

RQ1: Does PBA have any significant effect on EFL learners’ RCA?

RQ2: Does PBA have any significant effect on EFL learners’ AM?

RQ3: Does PBA have any significant effect on EFL learners’ FLA?

RQ4: Does PBA have any significant effect on EFL learners’ their S-E beliefs?

Based on the research questions, the following null hypotheses could be formulated:

H01: PBA does not have any significant effect on EFL learners’ RCA.

H02: PBA does not have any significant effect on EFL learners’ AM.

H03: PBA does not have any significant effect on EFL learners’ FLA.

H04: PBA does not have any significant effect on EFL learners’ their S-E beliefs.

Review of the related literature

The performance-based assessment (pba).

The origin of TA is the behaviorist assumption that macro skills should be evaluated individually and sequentially (Salma & Prastikawati, 2021 ). In this regard, closed questions with one possible answer were applied to assess students’ progress. PBA is supported by the social-constructivist theory, which pinpointed that assessment is intervened with all the procedures involved in teaching/learning. The social-constructivist theory viewed that assessment should be designed in authentic tasks with student self-assessment and feedback (Shepard, 2000 ; Yan, 2021 ). The other related theoretical foundation for PBA goes back to Vygotsky’ s sociocultural theory describing learning as a social process and emphasizing on the role of social interaction and socially mediated communication in enhancing the learning process (Lightbrown & Spada, 2006 ; Wang, 2009 ).

Over the years, TA prevails in measuring the students’ skills with too much emphasis on the learning results to the point that they negate the actual learning competence (Alderson et al, 2017 ). Typically, TA involves multiple-choice tests, fill in the blanks, true-false, matching, short-answer types, and recall information. On the other hand, the advantages of performance-based assessment reside in its potential and perspectives to generate significant effects on the learning procedure where the active participation of the learners is emphasized (Koné, 2021 ). That is, performance assessment concentrates on observation and evaluation of the learners’ progress in action and on action (Fetsco & McClure, 2005 ).

In Koné’ s words (Koné, 2021 ), PBA asks the learners to activate their knowledge and skills from various domains to accomplish the required processes of a task. Taking a similar path, Griffith and Lim ( 2012 ) refer to PBA as an engaging tool to encourage the learners to apply their previous knowledge and abilities to solve a task. PBA is designed to put the learners in a situation to practice higher-order thinking skills, analyzing, and synthesizing (Herrera et al, 2013 ). Furthermore, PBA potentially informs how the learners authentically mastered the materials (Salma & Prastikawati, 2021 ) and provided meaningful information about the learners’ actual competencies (Gallardo, 2020 ).

Academic motivation (AM)

AM is a critical element in a student’s psychological well-being and influence the way they behave. This concept refers to learners’ desire to academic subjects, which formulate their behavior, attitudes toward learning, and their attempts in the face of difficulties (Abdollahi et al, 2022 ; Koyuncuoğlu, 2021 ). Brophy ( 1983 ) characterized student AM into state motivation and trait motivation. State motivation captures learners’ tendency toward a special subject (Guilloteaux & Dörnyei, 2008 ). Trait motivation refers to learners’ general attitude toward the learning process (Csizér & Dörnyei, 2005 ). Based on Trad et al. ( 2014 ), trait motivation is static, whereas state motivation is dynamic and may change. Different factors may influence static motivation such as learning atmosphere and course content (Hiver & Al-Hoorie, 2020 ) as well as teachers’ personalities and relationships with the learners (Dörnyei, 2020 ; Kolganov et al, 2022 ).

Self-determination theory (SDT) introduced by Deci and Ryan ( 1985 ) was is the prominent theory in explaining AM. SDT proposed three components of motivation: (1) intrinsic motivation, (2) extrinsic motivation, and (3) amotivation. Extrinsic motivation touches upon the activities involved to reach a reward or avoid a punishment. In this regard, Deci and Ryan ( 2020 ) considered introjected regulation, identified regulation, and integrated regulation as three kinds of extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation was generated from innate inspiration and inherent satisfaction to follow an activity. A motivation on the other hand refers to the condition of lacking the motivation to acquire an activity or to be involved in the learning process (Deci & Ryan, 2000 ; Vadivel et al., 2021 ). Both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations of students are influential in their AM (Al-Hoorie et al, 2022 ; Froiland & Oros, 2014 ). When pupils are highly motivated, they do not stop but enthusiastically follow the learning procedures (Martin, 2013 ). AM even preserves learners in the face of hardships that learners may encounter on the road of learning (Howard et al, 2021 ). Situated expectancy value theory (SEVT) is another theory that concentrated on AM (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020 ). This theory considers contextual determinants of students’ motivational perceptions, such as socializing agents and environmental/cultural influences, which form AM.

A plethora of recent studies highlighted the significant role of teachers’ positive communication skills such as closeness (e.g., Liu, 2021 ; Zheng, 2021 ), personality traits (Khalilzadeh & Khodi, 2018 ), confirmation (Shen & Croucher, 2018 ), and style of teaching (Dom’enech-Betoret & G’omez-Artiga, 2014 ) in improving AM among the learners. Additionally, Peng ( 2021 ) found out EFL teachers’ communication behaviors could foster learners’ AM and engagement. In another study, Koné ( 2021 ) confirmed that learners’ motivational and emotional states were significant in the success of performance-based assessment project. In the same line of inquiry, Arias et al ( 2022 ) examined the relationship between emotional intelligence and AM and their contributions to learners’ well-being. Their findings supported a strong correlation between these two variables. From another perspective, Cao ( 2022 ) discussed the mediating roles of AM and L2 enjoyment in learners’ willingness to communicate in the second language.

Foreign language anxiety (FLA)

Rodríguez and Abreu ( 2003 ) define foreign language anxiety as situation-specific phenomenon caused by language learning in a formal situation, especially in a low self-appraisal of communicative competencies in that language. In the same vein, Horwitz et al ( 1986 ) proposed three components for foreign language anxiety (i.e., communication apprehension, test anxiety, and fear of negative evaluation). The first dimension, communication apprehension, refers to the anxiety in interacting with others, oral communication, or problems in listening comprehension. Test anxiety, the second component, is generated from a fear of failure in an examination. The third dimension, fear of negative evaluation, refers to apprehension about others’ evaluations and avoiding situations that may generate negative evaluation of others.

The attentional control theory (ACT) explains the reason why anxiety hinders learners’ academic achievement (Eysenck et al, 2007 ). ACT is originated from the processing efficiency theory (PET) by Eysenck and Calvo ( 1992 ) and explains that anxiety impairs attentional control by absorbing threat-related stimuli. Both external and internal causes may trigger students’ anxiety. Based on ACT, the high levels of worry and low self-confidence of anxious learners may be the reason of their unsuccessful performance (Eysenck et al, 2007 ). Different sources may evoke FLA. According to Alamer and Almulhim ( 2021 ), learners’ outlook on their language aptitude, their personality traits, the exposed experiences in the classroom, and the levels of difficulty may trigger anxiety. From another perspective, Young ( 1991 ) specified the student, the teacher, and the instructional practice as the potential sources of language anxiety. From Brown et al.’s viewpoint (Brown et al, 2001 ), students’ personality type (introversion vs. extroversion) can be among the possible causes of anxiety. As Cassady ( 2010a ) stipulated, academic anxiety is a general term that refers to a groups of anxieties students experience in academic domain. According to him, students’ anxiety (e.g., test anxiety, math anxiety, foreign language anxiety, and science anxiety) interferes with students’ learning process. The focus of the present study is on FLA.

Leafing through the literature on FLA and its association with other student-related factors was quite rosy. For instance, the reciprocal relationships between foreign language anxiety and the following student-related factors were confirmed in the following studies: learners’ attitudes toward language acquisition (Horwitz et al, 1986 ), test performance (Cassady, 2010b ; Covington et al, 1986 ), language performance (Zheng & Cheng, 2018 ), AM (Omidvar et al, 2013 ), anxiety, and social support as the predictor of AM during Covid-19 (Camacho et al, 2021 ). Furthermore, some studies in the realm of foreign/second language concentrate on the examination of skill-based anxiety and its role in language learning. For instance, speaking anxiety (Çağatay, 2015 ; Prentiss, 2021 ), listening anxiety (Zhang, 2013 ), reading anxiety (Hamada & Takaki, 2021a , 2021b ), and writing anxiety (Zhang, 2019 ) were explored in recent years. These studies confirmed that FLA hinder language acquisition or performance. Via a structural equation modeling approach, Fathi et al ( 2021 ) documented that FLA and grit could predict learners’ WTC in EFL context. Similar findings were reached by Khajavy et al ( 2021 ). They came to conclusion that EFL learners’ FLA, WTC, and enjoyment were integrated. That is, WTC and enjoyment were positively correlated, but the relationship between FLA and WTC was significantly negative.

Self-efficacy (S-E)

As Bandura (Bandura, 2012 ) defines, S-E impresses individuals’ understanding about their capabilities to execute appropriate behaviors for the purpose of achieving a desirable goal. S-E beliefs are influential in the ways people think, act, and used strategies in the face of different challenges (Bong & Clark, 1999 ). Social-cognitive theory espoused by Albert Bandura ( 1997 ) provides a theoretical foundation for perceptions of abilities that focus on the impact of self-referent phenomena and adopts an agentic view of personality. Bandura ( 1997 ) defined S-E as one’s perceived ability to effectively accomplish or demonstrate a behavior or series of behaviors in a given situation. Based on this agentic socio-cognitive perspective, the underlying features of personal agency include intentionality, forethought, self-reactiveness, and self-reflectiveness (Schunk & Mullen, 2012 ). As Bandura ( 2012 ) puts it, intention shapes future actions but for manifestation of forward-looking plans is more than an intentional state. Successful implementation of intentions and plans entails not only the intentional capability to make choices and action plans but also the capability to motivate and regulate the implementation of desired actions. This metacognitive capability is manifested through self-regulatory processes, which connect thought to action and include self-monitoring, performing self-guidance through personal standards, and corrective self-reactions (Cerit, 2019 ). Bandura’s agentic socio-cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997 ) also emphasized on individuals’ ability of reflecting on themselves, their thoughts, and actions.

Regarding students’ improvement in learning due to the role of S-E skills, different studies have been conducted. Enfield ( 2013 ) as well as Ha et al ( 2019 ) evinced the positive role of learners’ S-E in flipped classrooms. Furthermore, Doménech-Betoret et al ( 2017 ) concluded that expectancy-value beliefs affect academic S-E and the achievement/satisfaction relationship. The positive effects of student S-E beliefs and classroom engagement on their academic achievement were also concluded by the findings of Olivier et al ( 2018 ). In a recent attempt, Namaziandost and Çakmak ( 2020 ) inspected the difference that the flipped classroom made on S-E and gender. According to their findings, the females in the EG improved more than their male classmates when applying the flipped classroom activities. In the same line of inquiry, Yang et al ( 2022 ) concluded that learners’ L2 grit and S-E are correlated in the L2 context. They approved that teachers can set the tone of their learners’ S-E as well as L2 grit.

Taken together, the literature on the merits of PBA is rather flourishing; yet, there seems to be a lack of sufficient evidence on the extent and direction of its influence on boosting reading comprehension, motivation, foreign language learning anxiety, and learners’ S-E. Hence, the present study was conducted to fill this research gap in EFL context. The findings of this study can redound to the benefits of learners, teachers, policymakers, and curriculum designers.

Methodology

The current study is quantitative in nature and uses a pretest-posttest quasi-experimental design. In the following, the undertaken steps are introduced in detail.

Participants

Based on the results of the Oxford Quick Placement Test, 88 participants (45 females & 43 males) out of 154 freshmen EFL learners were chosen to take part in this research. These participants were at the intermediate level of English language proficiency. They were studying English teaching at the University of Gonabad, northeast of Iran. They were asked to not attend extra English classes this project. There were 45 students (24 females and 21 males) in the EG and 43 students (23 female and 20 male) in the CG with the age range from 18 to 23 and diverse socio-economic backgrounds. According to their syllabi, the students had to take a reading comprehension course in the first semester of the academic year (16 sessions). The students were fully aware of the voluntary nature of the study and gave informed consent to participate in this research project.

Instruments

The following instruments were utilized in this research:

Oxford Quick Placement Test

The Oxford Quick Placement Test was employed to inspect the learners’ level of English language proficiency. In the Oxford Quick Placement Test, the range of score is from 0.1 to 0.9. The scores between 0.4 and 0.6 are considered as an intermediate level of English language proficiency. In the current study, the reliability of the Oxford Quick Placement Test was 0.89.

Achievement Motivation Scale (AMS)

To measure AM, the AMS college version (Vallerand et al., 1992 ) was utilized. This instrument was developed based on self-determination theory with 7 dimensions: intrinsic motivation toward knowledge, accomplishments, to undergo stimulation, external motivation as introjected, and identified regulations and amotivation. This scale consists of 28 items on a 7-point Likert scale (strongly agree to strongly disagree). The complete scores of this scale vary from 28 (the lowest range) to 196 (the highest range). As it was reported by Bahrani ( 2006 ), this scale presented satisfactory validity and reliability. In this study, the results of Cronbach’s alpha of 0.87 reflect significant reliability.

Foreign Language Anxiety Scale (FLCAS)

To probe into the level of learners’ anxiety in their foreign language classroom, the FLCAS developed by Horwitz et al ( 1986 ) was employed. This scale includes 33 items in a 5-point Likert scale (strongly agree to strongly disagree) to assess communication anxiety, fear of negative evaluation, test anxiety, and anxiety of foreign class. The reliability of the FLCAS estimated via Cronbach’s alpha (ranging from 0.81 to 0.77) was significant in this investigation.

The Self-Efficacy Scale (SES)

To gauge the degree of students’ beliefs about their successful achievement, the S-E Scale (Greene et al, 2004 ) was employed. This scale contains seven statements ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (4). The reliability of this scale estimated through Cronbach’s alpha was acceptable (0.89).

A quasi-experimental design was used in the current research, and the participants were assigned to groups based on nonrandom criteria. To measure the students’ level of English language proficiency, the Oxford Quick Placement Test was utilized. The cut score (0.4–0.6) was considered (indicating intermediate level) to keep the learners in this project. Prior to administering the treatment, a pretest was administered to both groups. The pretest consisted of the designed reading comprehension test (which will be discussed in details in the following section), AMS, FLCAS, and SES.

After the pretest, the instruction was done by one of the researchers who was the instructor for both the experimental and CGs. To teach reading skills, Strategic Reading 2 (Richards & Eckstut-Didier, 2012 ) was utilized for both experimental and CGs. Students in the two groups of the study were exposed to these materials, with the exception that the students in the EG were exposed to PBA. In contrast, the CG ones were exposed to classroom traditional assessment. The major principle determining the focus of the teaching in PBA was to engage learners in all the learning activities. To do so, instruction involved working through the sequence of modeling, scaffolding, and guided practice in EG. Classes were considered as a source of learning as well as enjoyment. During their learning processes, EG was asked to evaluate their own learning progress. As the focus of this research was reading comprehension, regular instruction was administered to the students in the CG, and their books received no modification or supplementary parts. For the EG, in contrast, some modifications or supplementary sections were added to the books based on the underpinning theory of PBA. The reading tasks in EG were also modified in a way that learners had the opportunity to work in different peer or group activities.

To assess the reading skills of the students, the researchers of the present study designed a test to measure the learners’ reading comprehension skills before and after treatment. This assessment was designed based on Strategic Reading 2 (Richards & Eckstut-Didier, 2012 ) and included three sections to assess the knowledge of vocabulary, grammar, and the inferential reading comprehension skills. The first section, knowledge of vocabulary, involved 30 items. In the first ten items, the students were required to choose the word which was closest in meaning to the word phrase in bold given in the sentence. In the second group of items (10 items), some words were provided, and the students were asked to choose the equivalent definition from the four options. In the third subsection (10 items), a passage was provided, and students were required to fill in the blanks with appropriate words. All the vocabularies used in the assessment were selected from the reading passages in the students’ books. In the following section, a test of the grammatical knowledge consisted of 30 items in three parts. The first part (10 items) asked the students to put unscrambled words in order. In the second part (10 items), the students were asked to use appropriate forms of words in parentheses to complete the sentences. The third part (10 items) was designed to ask the students to check their knowledge and correct the errors. All tested grammatical structures were chosen from the students’ books. The last section in our designed assessment was inferential reading comprehension skills test, including three reading comprehension passages with 20 items. The questions asked the learners to infer the implied message of the passage, the tone of the text, the implicit possible relation between the two ideas in the text, and the conclusion of the text.

To inspect the face and content validity of the items, expert judgment was employed. In so doing, two psychometricians and two English teachers were invited to evaluate the quality of the items. Based on their comments, some items were revised. Following this step, the test was a sample of 34 university students similar to the target population to check the test-retest reliability. To gauge the stability of the results over time, the same test was readministered to the same participant after 2 months. Based on the results of the Pearson correlation coefficients, a high test-retest reliability of the test was confirmed ( r = 0.90, p < 0.05).

Furthermore, in each reading session, the students in the EG were asked to complete a knowledge chart as well as a self-assessment checklist. In the knowledge chart, the students were required to complete a chart with three columns. The title of each column is as follows: what I know about the topic of the text, what I want to know, and what I learned from reading the text. The self-assessment checklist with three sections was designed to evaluate the pre-reading, while reading, and post-reading strategies of the learners. Students in the EG are asked to reflect on their employed reading strategies and assess their own progress. After completing the knowledge chart and self-assessment checklist, they were kept in a portfolio designed for each student. The teacher read the portfolio of each participant and gave feedback to them. The learners understood where they were in relation to their learning goals so that they could evaluate their progress, identify gaps or misconceptions in their understanding, and take remedial actions. Students were also provided with some insights into future-oriented solutions. Thinking aloud and writing journals, sharing experiences with their peers are among other strategies applied for the EG. The participants in the CG received no treatment. At the end of the experiment, after the instruction was completed, a posttest was run to investigate the effectiveness of the program in both the control and EGs. The posttest comprised of the designed reading comprehension test, AMS, FLCAS, and SES.

Data analysis

To compare the pretest and posttest scores of the EG and CG learners with respect to RCA, AM, AA, and S-E, one-way MANOVA was utilized. This statistical test is used when there is one independent variable (in this case, the PBA, which surfaces as the experimental vs. control groups) and two or more related dependent variables (RCA, AM, AA, and S-E in this case). Prior to the administration of MANOVA, its assumptions (including normality, sample size, outliers, linearity, homogeneity of regression) were checked.

In this section, the results of the statistical analysis are displayed. Tables 1 and 2 deal with comparing the EG and CG learners on the speaking pretest.

The pretest mean scores of the EG and CG for RCA, AM, FLA, and S-E are shown in Table 1 . There were minimal differences between the mean scores of the two groups on all RCA of speaking except for FLA (for which the mean scores of the EG were higher than CG). To make sure whether the differences were of statistical significance or not, the researcher had to refer to the MANOVA table below (Table 2 ).

Since the most commonly reported statistics is Wilk’s lambda, here the value for this statistic is reported (0.921). The Wilk’s lambda’s associated Sig. value was found to be 0.142, which is larger than the significance level (i.e., 0.142 > .05). This shows that the two groups of EG and CG were not significantly different on their pretest in terms of the dependent variables. What follows is the results of a similar data analysis procedure performed for the RCA, AM, FLA, and S-E posttest scores of the EG and CG. Any possible changes on the posttest could be attributed to the treatment provided for the EG (that is, using the PBA).

Based on Table 3 , considering RCA, the score of participants in the EG is higher than their counterpart in the CG ( M = 17.13; SD = 1.45). Regarding AM, EG got higher score in the posttest than CG ( M = 103.31; SD = 18.70). Moreover, EG received higher score than CG in the posttest of FLA ( M = 54.44; SD = 10.94). EG also got higher score than the CG in the posttest of S-E ( M = 54.44; SD = 10.94). To find out whether these differences were statistically significant or not, the researcher needed to consult to the MANOVA table below (Table 4 ).

The Wilk’s lambda’s associated Sig. value was .00, which is lower than the significance level (.00 < .05). A p -value less than or equal to the significance level shows that there was a significant difference between the two groups. Thus, the two groups of EG and CG were significantly different on their posttest in terms of RCA, AM, FLA, and SS-E. Now to see which of the four dependent variables caused the difference between the two groups, Table 5 should be looked at.

Because we are looking at a number of separate analyses here, it is suggested that we use a more stringent significance level to avoid type 1 error. The most common way of this is to apply Bonferroni adjustment, which entails dividing the significance level (i.e., .05) by the number of analyses. In this case, since there were four dependent variables, significance level ought to be divided by four (giving a new significance level of .012). The results now are significant if the probability value ( Sig. ) is less than .012. In Table 4 , reading through group row, under the Sig. column, the p -value for all the four dependent variables (.000) was found to be less than .012. All other p -values, however, were larger than the significance level. This means that RCA, AM, FLA, and S-E significantly differed in the EG and CG due to the treatment provided for the EG learners. More importantly, partial eta squares of 0.736, 0.668, 0.777, and 0.690 for RCA, AM, FLA, and S-E, respectively, are considered quite large effect sizes.

The present study was an attempt to explore the impacts of PBA on RCA, AM, FLA, and S-E among EFL learners. Based on data analysis, classroom performance-based assessment had a significant effect on the improvement of reading comprehension skills among EFL learners. In this way, the students in the EG outperformed their peers in the CG with regard to the usage of PBA to assess reading comprehension. Furthermore, the results revealed that PBA significantly influence the learners’ AM. In addition, a significant difference was found in AA and sense of efficacy among the control and EGs in favor of PBA.

Regarding the first research question (RQ: does PBA have any significant effect on EFL learners’ RCA?), the potential benefits of PBA implementation in the successful enhancement of reading comprehension skills in EFL learners were confirmed. This outcome can be attributed to the characteristics of PBT: the usage of authentic materials for the purpose of real-life communication, monitoring the learners’ development, providing deep insight into the degree and depth, engaging learners in the cooperative task, and activating self-aid skills (e.g., S-E, self-awareness, self-evaluation, and self-regulation) among learners. Theoretically, this finding is in line with the propositions of the socio-constructivist theory, which emphasizes on the crucial role of self-monitoring and awareness in the enhancement of the learning progress (Herrera et al, 2013 ). As was mentioned before, PBA opens a window for practicing thinking, problem-solving skills, self-evaluation, self-monitoring, and self-awareness among the learners. The depth of classroom performance-based assessment helps teachers capture learning goals and processes. Furthermore, the picture that classroom PBA provides from the students’ learning is much clearer than TA. With this clearer picture, decision-making about ongoing instruction and future activities is much easier and more accountable in the educational system.

PBA also revolves around Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory highlighting the idea that social interaction is central to learning. Cooperative activities and students’ social interaction are among the underpinning criteria for designing classroom PBA, which is attributed to the peculiar features of Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory. This situation motivates university learners to become autonomous learners. Creating and maintaining rapport as well as the use of interaction are among the significant objectives of PBA, which are supported by Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory. Providing nonthreatening situations and maintaining friendly communication work as affective glue and helps learners, in particular university students to perform better.

The current findings are also in accord with prior studies (e.g., Abualrob & Al-Saadi, 2019 ; Narathakoon et al, 2020 ; Sumardi, 2017 ; Wiyaka & Prastikawati, 2019 ) on the general efficacy of classroom PBA. Strong reading comprehension is the ultimate goal of reading instruction at all grade levels, but research on the realm of PBA is still in its infancy and calls for more identical investigation. In their study, Suastra and Menggo ( 2020 ) concluded that PBA empowers learners to write skillfully. In PBA, university professors are actively involved in their learning processes as well as their evaluation. They are asked to reflect on their weaknesses, and problem-solving activities in line with their needs are suggested, which enhances efficient learning. From another perspective, Efendi ( 2017 ) confirmed that the implementation of PBA for writing skills helps both English teachers as well as learners. The applicability of PBA in the improvement of speaking skills was supported by the findings of Soto et al. ( 2018 ). In their study, some performance-based tasks were introduced to boost the learners’ speaking skills. Furthermore, the contribution of PBA in enhancing listening comprehension among EFL learners was concluded in an investigation by (Abd El Ghany et al, 2019 ).

Regarding the second finding of the study (RQ2: does PBA have any significant effect on EFL learners’ AM?), the significant influence of PBA on the learners’ AM is defined by the objectives of PBA as mentioned earlier and self-determination theory. It means that when university students’ competence, satisfaction, and autonomy are fulfilled, they become self-determined and motivated. The main objectives of PBA suggest that it can foster a positive self-image and offer support and encouragement, which motivates university students to act enthusiastically. This finding is also congruent with some previous studies which evidence the profound influence of PBA in boosting learners’ writing skills and motivation (Menggo et al., 2019 ), a more friendly learning atmosphere, and thus increased S-E attributes and positive feelings of the learners (AlKhateeb, 2021 ), self-confidence and motivation (Soto et al., 2018 ), and positive emotional state and motivation. Through PBA, university students are informed about their progress; they can set new goals for their learning. According to Dörnyei et al ( 2016 ) as well as Al-Hoorie et al ( 2022 ), L2 learning is guaranteed when the learner is determined and motivated to achieve their goals.

The other findings of the present research indicated that due to the positive effects of PBA, students in the EG were able to manage their FLA much better than their counterparts in the CG. Thus, the third null hypothesis is rejected (PBA does not have any significant effect on EFL learners’ FLA). It can be inferred that fostering university students’ involvement in their learning process and asking them to evaluate themselves while learning give them a sense of self-worth and self-confidence, thus decreasing their anxiety. This outcome is also supported by the underpinning theories of ACT (Eysenck et al, 2007 ). Based on ACT, FLA can be an obstacle against students’ progress. According to Djafri and Wimbarti ( 2018 ), different factors may induce language anxiety, such as teaching style, teacher-student relationship, assessment, and final results. In this regard, Aydin et al ( 2006 ) pointed out that test anxiety considerably affects learners’ language skills and achievement; therefore, they recommended that training courses for teachers and examiners to envision their outlook on the influence of test anxiety on the learning process. Put it another way, Aydin et al ( 2020 ) stated that students with test anxiety lose their concentration and do not perform well on the test. More significantly, language performance and test anxiety are at opposite poles (Khoshhal, 2021 ); language performance will increase if test anxiety decreases. In such a situation, that text anxiety hinders the language learning process; PBA can assist language learners in relieving their stress and anxiety.

The effectiveness of using PBA in enhancing learners’ S-E was also confirmed by the results of this study. Thereby, the fourth null hypothesis (PBA does not have any significant effect on EFL learners’ their S-E beliefs) was rejected. As Suryadi and Santoso ( 2017 ) maintained, S-E is an important predictor of their achievement. More importantly, S-E is a complex construct affecting AM and learning process (Yasemin & Cavus, 2014 ). Thus, it can be inferred that PBA puts the university students at the center of the learning processes and assumes assessment as an option to envision their S-E, self-awareness, and self-evaluation; experiencing such a situation increases the probability of successful achievement. The suggested tasks of PBA could enable learners to improve their weaknesses during the processes of learning without anxiety; this opportunity consequently directs learners toward a positive viewpoint. Efficacies of learners can skillfully tackle the difficulties in the path of language learning. This finding is in accord with those of Villarta et al ( 2021 ), which concluded that PBA could foster learners’ S-E in science classes. In the same line of inquiry, AlKhateeb ( 2018 ) provided evidence that PBA supported leaners’ achievement and S-E. Yan et al ( 2022 ) also conducted a study with the aim of providing instructional intervention in self-assessment and approved that this intervention could boost learners’ S-E in creativity and academic performance.

Conclusion and implications

All in all, the findings of the current study indicated that PBA has a beneficial effect on RCA, AM, FLA, and S-E among EFL learners. The outcome calls for more attention to the role of PBA in the L2 learning process. Due to the fact that teaching and assessment influence every aspect of L2 learning process, their significant role in L2 classroom contexts should be acknowledged and valued by all of the stakeholders in the field, including policymakers, curriculum designers, materials developers, and teachers. As the findings of this study reflected, PBA could foster RCA.

This rational can be put forward that the helpful strategies involved in PBA activate language learners to be involved in reading comprehension activities. Thus, implementing PBA is strongly recommended in language classes with the aim of helping students learn and practice RCA as well as speaking, listening, and writing more effectively. In so doing, the crucial role of teachers in applying PBA in the L2 classrooms should be highlighted. They need to acquire the related knowledge about the advantages of PBA and how to implement PBA in their classes. Teachers also need to learn which strategies are useful and convenient for practicing PBA in enhancing all four main skills. Adding the implications of the current study in pre-service and in-service teacher training programs can pave the way for providing language teachers with the skills and knowledge required to implement PBA.

It was also concluded that learners’ psychological and cognitive associated factors such as AM, foreign language learning anxiety, S-E, and consequently their academic achievement could be affected by the employed assessment, especially in higher education. Therefore, critical inspection is necessary to evaluate and modify the way students in general and university students in particular are taught and assessed to guarantee the well-being of education. Further attention is also needed in pre-service and in-service teacher and university professor training programs to learn about the importance of learners’ psychological and cognitive attributed constructs and useful strategies to improve them.

In the present research, the learners’ years of teaching experience, educational levels, age, and gender were not considered. It is suggested to consider these variables in similar research studies in future. The possible effect of different learners’ sociocultural backgrounds was not under focused in the current study. Future study may address the influence of PBA on EFL learners’ skills with respect to different sociocultural backgrounds. Future research can investigate the effect of PBA on other areas of L2, such as listening, speaking, writing, and pronunciation. Furthermore, this study was quasi-experimental design; future research can apply other methods to ensure the generalizability of the findings. Future studies can also conduct a similar study with more participants. Additionally, it should be noted that in the current research, only reading comprehension was considered, and the other three main skills were not the target of this study. Thus, considering the influence of PBA on speaking, listening, and writing skills of the learners can be considered as future research perspectives. Exploring the influence of PBA on other learner-related constructs such as self-regulation, L2 grit, academic buoyancy, and coping strategies is suggested for future studies.

Availability of data and materials

The authors declare that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.

Abbreviations

• Performance-based assessment

Second/foreign language

• Reading comprehension achievement
• Academic motivation
• Foreign language anxiety
• Students’ self-efficacy

Experimental group

Control group

Traditional assessment

Self-determination theory

Situated expectancy value theory

Attentional control theory

Processing efficiency theory

Achievement motivation scale

Foreign Language Anxiety Scale

The self-efficacy scale

Research question

Abdollahi, A., Vadivel, B., Huy, D. T. N., Opulencia, M. J. C., Van Tuan, P., Abbood, A. A. A., … Bykanova, O. (2022). Psychometric assessment of the Persian translation of the Interpersonal Mindfulness Scale with undergraduate students. Frontiers in Psychiatry , 632 .

Abd El Ghany, O. M., Mahmoud Zaza, M. S., & Amin, M. (2019). Using performance assessment tasks for developing EFL listening comprehension skills among preparatory stage pupils. Journal of Faculty of Education , 118 (1), 1–19.

Google Scholar  

Abualrob, M. M. A., & Al-Saadi, S. H. (2019). Performance-based assessment: Approach and obstacles by higher-elementary science teachers in Palestine. Journal of Education and Learning , 8 (2), 198–206. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v8n2p198 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Al-Hoorie, A. H., Oga-Baldwin, W. Q., Hiver, P., & Vitta, J. P. (2022). Self-determination mini-theories in second language learning: A systematic review of three decades of research. Language Teaching Research , 9 . https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221102686 .

Alamer, A., & Almulhim, F. (2021). The interrelation between language anxiety and self-determined motivation; a mixed methods approach. Frontiers in Education , 6 , 618655. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.618655 .

Alderson, J., Brunfaut, T., & Harding, L. (2017). Bridging assessment and learning: A view from second and foreign language assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice , 24 (3), 379–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2017.1331 .

AlKhateeb, M. A. (2018). The effect of using performance-based assessment strategies to tenth-grade students’ achievement and self-efficacy in Jordan. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences , 13 (4), 489–500.

Alkhatib, M. (2021). Investigate the relation between psychological well-being, self-efficacy and positive thinking at Prince Sattam bin Abdul Aziz University students. Int. J. High. Educ. 9 138–144. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v9n4p138 .

Arias, J., Soto-Carballo, J. G., & Pino-Juste, M. R. (2022). Emotional intelligence and academic motivation in primary school students. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica&nbsp; (In Press). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-022-00216-0 .

Aydin, S., Akkaş, F. D., Türnük, T., Beydilli, A. B., & Saydam, İ. (2020). Test anxiety among foreign language learners: A qualitative study. The Qualitative Report , 25 (12), 4289–4309.

Aydin, S., Yavuz, F., & Yeşilyurt, S. (2006). Test anxiety in foreign language learning. Journal of Graduate School of Social Sciences of Balikesir University , 9 (16), 145–160.

Azizi, Z., Namaziandost, E., & Rezai, A. (2022). Potential of podcasting and blogging in cultivating Iranian advanced EFL learners’ reading comprehension. Heliyon , 8 (5), e09473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09473 .

Bahrani M. (2006). The study of academic motivation of high school students and their related factors. Social Sci J Shiraz Univ. 22 (4), 11–22.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist , 37 (2), 122–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122 .

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control . W.H. Freeman and Company.

Bandura, A. (1998). Self-efficacy. Stanford University, encyclopedia of human behavior . Academic.

Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of Management , 38 (1), 9–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410606 .

Bong, M., & Clark, R. E. (1999). Comparison between self-concept and self-efficacy in academic motivation research. Educational Psychologist , 34 (3), 139–153. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3403_1 .

Brophy, J. E. (1983). Research on the self-fulfilling prophecy and teacher expectations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75 (5), 631–661. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.75.5.631 .

Brown, J. D., Robson, G., & Rosenkjar, P. R. (2001). Personality, motivation, anxiety, strategies, and language proficiency of Japanese students. In Z. Dörnyei, & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition , (pp. 361–398). University of Hawaii.

Burić, I., & Frenzel, A. C. (2019). Teacher anger: New empirical insights using a multi-method approach. Teaching and Teacher Education , 86 , 102895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102895 .

Çağatay, S. (2015). Examining EFL students’ foreign language speaking anxiety: The case at a Turkish state university. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences , 199 , 648–656.

Caldarella, P., Larsen, R. A., Williams, L., Wills, H. P., & Wehby, J. H. (2021). “Stop doing that”: Effects of teacher reprimands on student disruptive behavior and engagement. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions , 23 , 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300720935101 .

Camacho, A., Correia, N., Zaccoletti, S., & Daniel, J. R. (2021). Anxiety and social support as predictors of student academic motivation during the COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychology , 12 , 644338. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.644338 .

Cao, G. (2022). Toward the favorable consequences of academic motivation and L2 enjoyment for students’ willingness to communicate in the second language (L2WTC). Frontiers in Psychology , 13 , 997566. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.997566 .

Cassady, J. C. (2010a). Anxiety in schools. The causes, consequences, and solutions for academic anxieties . Peter Lang Publishing.

Cassady, J. C. (2010b). Test anxiety. Contemporary theories and implications for learning. In J. C. Cassady (Ed.), Anxiety in schools. The causes, consequences, and solutions for academic anxieties , (pp. 7–26). Peter Lang Publishing.

Cassady, J. C., & Johnson, R. E. (2002). Cognitive test anxiety and academic performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 27 , 270–295. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2001.1094 .

Cerit, Y. (2019). Relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs and their willingness to implement curriculum reform. International Journal of Educational Reform , 22 (3), 252–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/105678791302200304 .

Covington, M. V., Omelich, C. L., & Schwarzer, R. (1986). Anxiety, aspirations, and self-concept in the achievement process: A longitudinal model with latent variables. Motivation and Emotion , 10 (1), 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992151 .

Csizér, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (2005). Language learners’ motivational profiles and their motivated learning behavior. Language Learning , 55 (4), 613–659. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00319.x .

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self- determination in human behavior . Springer Science & Business Media.

Book   Google Scholar  

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry , 11 (4), 227–268.

Deci, E. L.& Ryan, R. M. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61 , Article 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860 .

Djafri, F., & Wimbarti, S. (2018). Measuring foreign language anxiety among learners of different foreign languages: in relation to motivation and perception of teacher’s behaviors. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 3 (17), 138–144. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-018-0058-y .

Doménech-Betoret, F., & Gómez-Artiga, A. (2014). The relationship among students’ and teachers’ thinking styles, psychological needs and motivation. Learning and Individual Differences, 29 , 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.10.002 .

Doménech-Betoret, F., Abellán-Roselló, L., & Gómez-Artiga, A. (2017). Self-efficacy, satisfaction, and academic achievement: The mediator role of students’ expectancy-value beliefs. Frontiers in Psychology , 8 , 1193. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01193 .

Dörnyei, Z. (2020). Innovations and challenges in language learning motivation . Routledge.

Dörnyei, Z., Henry, A., & Muir, C. (2016). Motivational currents in language learning: Frameworks for focused interventions . Routledge.

Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2009). Motivation, language identities and the L2 self: A theoretical overview. In Z. Dörnyei, & E. Ushioda (Eds.), in motivation, language identity and the L2 self , (pp. 1–8). Multilingual Matters).

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2020). From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value theory: A developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 61 , 101859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101859 .

Efendi, Z. (2017). Improving students’ ability in writing English teaching by using portfolio assessment: An experimental study at SMKN 1 Blangpidie. Getsempena English Education Journal , 4 (2), 152–163.

Enfield, J. (2013). Looking at the Impact of the Flipped Classroom Model of Instruction on Undergraduate Multimedia Students at CSUN. TechTrends, 57 (6), 14–27. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-013-0698-1 .

Erdogan, T., & Senemoglu, N. (2016). Development and validation of a scale on self-regulation in learning (SSRL). SpringerPlus , 5 (1686), 1–13.

Eysenck, M. W. (1992). Anxiety: The Cognitive Perspective . Psychology Press.

Eysenck, M. W., & Calvo, M. G. (1992). Anxiety and performance: The processing efficiency theory. Cognition and Emotion , 6 (6), 409–434.

Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. G. (2007). Anxiety and cognitive performance: Attentional control theory. Emotion , 7 (2), 336–353.

Fathi, J., Mohammaddokht, F., & Nourzadeh, S. (2021). Grit and foreign language anxiety as predictors of willingness to communicate in the context of foreign language learning: A structural equation modeling approach. Issues in Language Teaching , 10 (2), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.22054/ilt.2021.63362.627 .

Fetsco, T., & McClure, J. (2005). Educational psychology: An integrated approach to classroom decisions. Boston: Allyn-Bacon Longman.

Fong, C. J. (2022). Achievement motivation in a pandemic context: A conceptual review of prominent theories and an integrated model. Educational Psychology . (In Press). https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2022.2026891 .

Froiland, J. M., & Oros, E. (2014). Intrinsic motivation, perceived competence and classroom engagement as longitudinal predictors of adolescent reading achievement. Educational Psychology, 34 (2), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.822964 .

Gallardo, K. (2020). Competency-based assessment and the use of performance-based evaluation rubrics in higher education: Challenges towards the next decade. Problems of Education in the 21st Century , 78 (1), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/20.78.61 .

Getie, A. S. (2020). Factors affecting the attitudes of students towards learning English as a foreign language. Cogent Education , 7 (1), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2020.173818 .

Gore, A. (2006). An inconvenient truth: The planetary emergency of global warming and what we can do about it. Rodale Press.

Greene, B. A., Miller, R. B., Crowson, H. M., Duke, B. L., & Akey, C. L. (2004). Predicting high school students’ cognitive engagement and achievement: Contributions of classroom perceptions and motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 29 , 462–482.

Griffith, W. I., & Lim, H.-Y. (2012). Performance-based assessment: Rubrics, Web 2.0 tools and language competencies. MEXTESOL Journal , 36 (1), 1–12 https://mextesol.net/journal/index.php?page=journal&id_article=108 .

Guilloteaux, M. J., & Dörnyei, Z. (2008). Motivating language learners: A classroom-oriented investigation of the effects of motivational strategies on student motivation. TESOL Quarterly , 42 , 55–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00207.x .

Ha, A. S., O’Reilly, J., Ng, J. Y. Y., & Zhang, J. H. (2019). Evaluating the flipped classroom approach in Asian higher education: Perspectives from students and teachers. Cogent Education , 6 (1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1638147 .

Hamada, A., & Takaki, S. (2021a). Approximate replication of Matsuda and Gobel (2004) for psychometric validation of the foreign language reading anxiety scale. Language Teaching , 54 , 535–551. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444819000296 .

Hamada, A., & Takaki, S. (2021b). Effects of multidimensional foreign language reading anxiety on achievement in Japanese EFL classrooms. System , 101 , 102613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102613 .

Herrera, S. G., Morales Cabral, R., & Murry, K. G. (2013). Assessment Accommodations for Classroom Teachers of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students (2nd ed.) . Pearson.

Hiver, P., & Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2020). Reexamining the role of vision in second language motivation: A preregistered conceptual replication of you. Language Learning , 70 (1), 48–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12371 .

Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal , 70 (2), 125–132.

Howard, J. L., Bureau, J., Guay, F., Chong, J. X., & Ryan, R. M. (2021). Student motivation and associated outcomes: a meta-analysis from self-determination theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science , 174569162096678 . https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620966789 .

Jamali Kivi, P., Namaziandost, E., Fakhri Alamdari, E., Ryafikovna Saenko, N., Inga-Arias, M., Fuster-Guillén, D., … Nasirin, C. (2021). The comparative effects of teacher versus peer-scaffolding on EFL learners’ incidental vocabulary learning and reading comprehension: A socio-cultural perspective. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research , 50 (5), 1031–1047. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-021-09800-4 .

Kara, A. (2009). The effect of a ‘learning theories’ unit on students’ attitudes towards learning. Australian . Journal of Teacher Education , 34 (3), 100–113. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2009v34n3.5 .

Khajavy, G. H., Ghonsooly, B., Hosseini Fatemi, A., & Frenzel, A. C. (2018). Antecedents of pleasant and unpleasant emotions of EFL teachers using an appraisal-theoretical framework. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research , 6 (2), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.30466/ijltr.2018.120559 .

Khajavy, G. H., MacIntyre, P. D., Taherian, T., & Ross, J. (2021). Examining the dynamic relationships between willingness to communicate, anxiety and enjoyment using the experience sampling method. In N. Zarrinabadi, & M. Pawlak (Eds.), New perspectives on willingness to communicate in a second language , (pp. 169–197). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67634-6_9 .

Khalilzadeh, S., & Khodi, A. (2018). Teachers’ personality traits and students’ motivation: a structural equation modeling analysis. Current Psychology, 40 , 1635–1650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-0064-8 .

Khalilzadeh, S., & Khodi, A. (2021). Teachers’ personality traits and students’ motivation: A structural equation modeling analysis. Current Psychology , 40 , 1635–1650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-0064-8 .

Khoshhal, Y. (2021). Test anxiety among English language learners: a case of vocabulary testing using multiple - choice items and error identification tests. REIRE. Revista d’Innovaci ó i Recerca en Educaci ó. , 14 (1), 1–14.

Kolganov, S. V., Vadivel, B., Treve, M., Kalandarova, D., & Fedorova, N. V. (2022). COVID-19 and two sides of the coin of religiosity. HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies , 78 (4), 7.

Koné, K. (2021). Exploring the impact of performance-based assessment on Malian EFL learners’ motivation. Advances in Language and Literary Studies , 12 (3), 51–64. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.12n.3.p .

Koyuncuoğlu, Ö. (2021). An investigation of academic motivation and career decidedness among university students. International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES) , 7 (1), 125–143. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.1694 .

Lai, C.-L., & Hwang, G.-J. (2016). A Self-Regulated Flipped Classroom Approach to Improving Students’ Learning Performance in a Mathematics Course. Computers & Education, 100 , 126-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.05.006 .

Li, M., Heydarnejad, T., Azizi, Z., & Rezaei Gashti, Z. (2022). Modeling the role of emotion regulation and critical thinking in immunity in higher education. Frontiers in Psychology , 13 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1005071 .

Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2006). How Languages Are Learned (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University.

Liu, F., Vadivel, B., Mazaheri, F., Rezvani, E., & Namaziandost, E. (2021). Using games to promote EFL learners’ willingness to communicate (WTC): Potential effects and teachers’ attitude in focus. Frontiers in Psychology , 4526 .

Liu, W. (2021). Does teacher immediacy affect students? a systematic review of the association between teacher verbal and non-verbal immediacy and student motivation. Frontiers in Psychology , 12 , 713978. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.713978 .

Ma, Y. (2022). The effect of teachers’ self-efficacy and creativity on English as a foreign language learners’ academic achievement. Frontiers in Psychology , 13 , 872147. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.872147 .

Martin, A.J. (2013). Motivation to learn. In A Holliman (Ed.). The Routledge international companion to educational psychology. London: Routledge.

Martin, A. J., Ginns, P., & Papworth, B. (2017). Motivation and engagement: Same or different? Does it matter? Learning and Individual Differences, 55 , 150–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.03.013 .

Martin, L. E., & Mulvihill, T. M. (2019). Voices in education: Teacher self-efficacy in education. The Teacher Educator , 54 , 195–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2019.1615030 .

McNamara, T. F. (1997). Interaction’ in second language performance assessment: whose performance? Applied Linguistics , 18 (4), 446–466.

Menggo, S. (2018). English learning motivation and speaking ability. Journal of Psychology and Instruction , 2 (2), 64–69.

Menggo, S., Suastra, I. M., Budiarsa, M., & Padmadewi, N. N. (2019). Speaking for academic purposes course: An analysis of language functions. E-Journal of Linguistics, 13 (2), 314–332. https://doi.org/10.24843/ejl.2019.v13.i02.p10 .

Michael, W. B. (1993). Performance-based (authentic) assessment. In W. B. Michael (Ed.), EDPT 655 research design course reader , (pp. 46–51). University of Southern California.

Molin, F., Cabus, S., Haelermans, C., & Groot, W. (2019). Toward reducing anxiety and increasing performance in physics education: Evidence from a randomized experiment. Research in Science Education . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9845-9 .

Namaziandost, E., Heydarnejad, T., & Rezai, A. (2022). Iranian EFL teachers’ reflective teaching, emotion regulation, and immunity: Examining possible relationships. Current Psychology . https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03786-5 .

Namaziandost, E., & Çakmak, F. (2020). An account of EFL learners’ self-efficacy and gender in the flipped classroom model. Education and Information Technologies , 25 (2), 4041–4055. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10167-7 .

Narathakoon, A., Sapsirin, S., & Subphadoongchone, P. (2020). Beliefs and classroom assessment practices of English teachers in primary schools in Thailand. International Journal of Instruction , 13 (3), 137–156. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13310a .

Nation, I. S. P. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL reading and writing . Routledge.

Neroni, J., Meijs, C., Kirschner, P. A., Xu, K. M., & de Groot, R. H. M. (2022). Academic self-efficacy, self-esteem, and grit in higher online education: Consistency of interests predicts academic success. Social Psychology of Education , 25 , 951–975. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-022-09696-5 .

Olivier, E., Archambault, I., De Clercq, M., & Galand, B. (2018). Student self-efficacy, classroom engagement, and academic achievement: Comparing three theoretical frameworks. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 48 (2), 326–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0952-0 .

O'Malley, J. M., & Valdez Pierce, L. (1996). Authentic Assessment for English Language Learners . Addison Wesley.

Omidvar, H., Omidvar, K., & Omidvar, A. (2013). The determination of effectiveness of teaching time management strategies on the mental health and AM of school students. Journal of School Psychology , 2 (7), 6–22 https://www.sid.ir/en/journal/ViewPaper.aspx?id=353142 .

Oteir, I. N., & Al-Otaibi, A. N. (2019). Foreign language anxiety: A systematic review. Arab World. English Journal , 10 , 309–317. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol10no3.21 .

Paris, S. G. (2005). Reinterpreting the development of reading skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 40 (2), 184–202. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.40.2.3 .

Peng, C. (2021). The academic motivation and engagement of students in English as a foreign language classes: Does teacher praise matter? Frontiers in Psychology , 12 , 778174. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.778174 .

Prentiss, S. (2021). Speech anxiety in the communication classroom during the covid-19 pandemic: Supporting student success. Frontiers in Communication , 6 , 642109. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.642109 .

Rezai, A., Namaziandost, E., Miri, M., & Kumar, T. (2022). Demographic biases and assessment fairness in classroom: Insights from Iranian University teachers. Language Testing in Asia , 12 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-022-00157-6 .

Rezai, A., Namaziandost, E., & Rahimi, S. (2022). Developmental potential of self-assessment reports for high school students' writing skills: A qualitative study. Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly (Formerly Journal of Teaching Language Skills) , 41 (2), 163–203. https://doi.org/10.22099/tesl.2022.42670.3082 .

Richards, J., & Eckstut-Didier, S. (2012). Strategic reading . Cambridge University Press.

Rodriguez, M., & Abreu, O. (2003). The Stability of General Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety across English and French. Modern Language Journal, 87 , 365-374. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00195 .

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 61 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860 .

Salma, N., & Prastikawati, E. F. (2021). Performance-based assessment in the English learning process: Washback and barriers. Getsempena English Education Journal , 8 (1), 164–176. https://doi.org/10.46244/geej.v8i1.1305 .

Schunk, D. H., & Mullen, C. A. (2012). Self-efficacy as an engaged learner. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement , (pp. 219–236). Springer.

Shabani, M. B., Ashkani, P., & Karimi, M. N. (2022). L2 Teachers’ pedagogical thoughts: Variations across teachers with varying levels of grit. Frontiers in Education , 7 , 890834. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.890834 .

Shafiee Rad, H., & Jafarpour, A. A. (2022). Effects of well-being, grit, emotion regulation, and resilience interventions on l2 learners’ writing skills. Reading & Writing Quarterly&nbsp; (In Press). https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2022.2096517 .

Shen, T., & Croucher, S. M. (2018). A cross-cultural analysis of teacher confirmation and student motivation in China, Korea, and Japan. Journal of Intercultural Communication , 47 , 1404–1634 http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:jyu-201612165123 .

Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher , 29 (7), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x029007004 .

Shogren, K. A., Garnier Villarreal, M., Lang, K., & Seo, H. (2017). Mediating role of self-determination constructs in explaining the relationship between school factors and postschool outcomes. Exceptional Children , 83 (2), 165–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402916660089 .

Soto, S. T., Espinosa, L. F., Morales, M. A., Molineros, Y., Rojas, M. A., Moreira, W., & Intriago, E. (2018). Performance-based tasks as a mean to assess the speaking skills of learners of English as a foreign language. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, Special Issue for ITEC , 2017588 , 587–594.

Suastra, I. M., & Menggo, S. (2020). Empowering students’ writing skill through performance assessment. International Journal of Language . Education , 4 (3), 432–441. https://doi.org/10.26858/ijole.v4i3.15060 .

Sumardi, S. (2017). Performance-based assessment as a current trend in ELT: Investigating its washback effects on secondary-school students learning. Kajian Linguistik Dan Sastra , 2 (1), 1. https://doi.org/10.23917/kls.v2i1.5347 .

Suryadi, B., & Santoso, T. (2017). Self-efficacy, adversity quotient, and students’ achievement in mathematics. International Education Studies , 10 (10), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v10n10p12 .

Sutarto Dwi Hastuti, I., Fuster-Guillén, D., Palacios Garay, J. P., Hernández, R. M., & Namaziandost, E. (2022). The effect of problem-based learning on metacognitive ability in the conjecturing process of junior high school students. Education Research International , 2022 , 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2313448 .

Trad, L., Katt, J., & Neville Miller, A. (2014). The effect of face threat mitigation on instructor credibility and student motivation in the absence of instructor nonverbal immediacy. Commun. Educ. 63 , 136–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2014.889319 .

Ushioda, E. (2008). Motivation and good language learners, in lessons from good language learners . Cambridge University Press.

Vadivel, B., & Beena, P. V. (2019). The impact of multimedia in English language classroom of undergraduate students in engineering colleges. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology , 28 (2), 194–197.

Vadivel, B., Namaziandost, E., & Saeedian, A. (2021). Progress in English language teaching through continuous professional development—Teachers’ self-awareness, perception, and feedback. Frontiers in Education , 6 , 757285. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc .

Vadivel, B., Azadfar, Z., Talib, M. A., Mutlak, D. A., Suksatan, W., Abbood, A. A. A., ... & Chupradit, S. (2022). Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-12: Psychometric Properties of This Construct Among Iranian Undergraduate Students. Frontiers in Psychology, 13 , https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.894316 .

Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Briere, N. M., Senecal, C., & Vallieres, E. F. (1992). The Academic Motivation Scale: A Measure of Intrinsic, Extrinsic, and Amotivation in Education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52 (4), 1003–1017. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164492052004025 .

Villarta, Y. M., Atibula, L. T., & Gagani, F. S. (2021). Performance-based assessment: Self-efficacy, decision-making, and problem-solving skills in learning science. Journal La Edusci , 2 (3), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.37899/journallaedusci.v2i3.38 .

Wang, Y. (2009). Teachers' performance assessment practices and their second language acquisition approaches: The case of English for international business programs in a university in Shanghai (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. (3514505). (Accessed 27 May 2022).

Wiyaka, A., & Prastikawati, E. F. (2019). Authentic performance-based assessments – a practical guide for teachers . UPT Penerbitan Universitas PGRI Semarang Press.

Wu, X(M)., Zhang, L.J. & Liu, Q. (2021). Using Assessment for Learning: Multi-Case Studies of Three Chinese University English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Teachers Engaging Students in Learning and Assessment. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 725132. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.725132 .

Xu, L., Naserpour, A., Rezai, A., Namaziandost, E., & Azizi, Z. (2022). Exploring EFL learners’ metaphorical conceptions of language learning: A multimodal analysis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research , 51 , 323–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-022-09842-2 .

Yan, Z. (2021). Assessment-as-learning in classrooms: The challenges and professional development. Journal of Education for Teaching , 47 , 293–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2021.1885972 .

Yan, Z., & Brown, G. T. L. (2017). A cyclical self-assessment process: Towards a model of how students engage in self-assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , 42 , 1247–1262. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1260091 .

Yan, Z., Lee, J. C.-K., Hui, S. K. F., & Lao, H. (2022). Enhancing students’ self-efficacy in creativity and learning performance in the context of English learning: The use of self-assessment mind maps. Frontiers in Psychology , 13 , 871781. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.871781 .

Yang, S., Azari Noughabi, M., & Jahedizadeh, S. (2022). Modelling the contribution of English language learners’ academic buoyancy and self-efficacy to l2 grit: Evidence from Iran and China. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development , 1–17 . https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2022.2062368 .

Yasemin, A., & Cavus, S. (2014). The effects of alternative assessment and evaluation methods on academic achievement, persistence of learning, self-efficacy perception and attitudes. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education , 10 (4), 1022–1046.

Young, D. J. (1991). Creating a low-anxiety classroom environment: What does language anxiety research suggest? The Modern Language Journal , 75 (4), 426–437. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1991.tb05378.x .

Zhang, X. (2013). Foreign language listening anxiety and listening performance: conceptualizations and causal relationships. System , 41 (1), 164–177.

Zhang, X. (2019). Exploring the relationship between college students’ writing anxiety and the pedagogical use of online resources. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education , 16 , 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0149-y .

Zheng, J. (2021). A functional review of research on clarity, immediacy, and credibility of teachers and their impacts on motivation and engagement of students. Frontiers in Psychology , 12 , 712419. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.712419 .

Zheng, Y., & Cheng, L. (2018). How does anxiety influence language performance? From the perspectives of foreign language classroom anxiety and cognitive test anxiety. Language Testing in Asia , 8 (1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-018-0065-4 .

Zheng, S., Heydarnejad, T., & Aberash, A. (2022). Modeling the interplay between emotion regulation, self-efficacy, and L2 grit in higher education. Frontiers in Psychology , 13 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1013370 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

This study did not receive any funding.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of English Language, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Gonabad, Gonabad, Iran

Tahereh Heydarnejad

English Language Department, Dezful Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

Fariba Tagavipour

NIT Durgapur, Durgapur, West Bengal, India

Indrajit Patra

Department of English, College of Science and Humanities, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj, Saudi Arabia

Ayman Farid Khafaga

Department of English, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors have made substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, and writing the manuscript. The authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ information

Tahereh Heydarnejad is a university lecturer at the Department of English Language, University of Gonabad, Gonabad, Iran. She published many papers in different local and international journals.

Fariba Tagavipour is a lecturer at the Islamic Azad University of Dezful.

Indrajit Patra is an independent researcher. He got his PhD from NIT Durgapur, West Bengal, India.

Ayman Farid Khafaga is an associate professor in the Department of English, College of Science and Humanities, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia. He is also an assistant professor in the Department of English, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Suez Canal University, Egypt.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tahereh Heydarnejad .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Heydarnejad, T., Tagavipour, F., Patra, I. et al. The impacts of performance-based assessment on reading comprehension achievement, academic motivation, foreign language anxiety, and students’ self-efficacy. Lang Test Asia 12 , 51 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-022-00202-4

Download citation

Received : 24 September 2022

Accepted : 27 October 2022

Published : 12 November 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-022-00202-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• EFL learners

• Professional
• International

Log In to My PreK-12 Platform

• AP/Honors & Electives
• my.mheducation.com
• Open Learning Platform

Log In to My Higher Ed Platform

• Connect Math Hosted by ALEKS
• My Bookshelf (eBook Access)
• Language Arts
• Science & Health

Social Studies

• Intervention
• Supplemental
• Arts & World Languages
• AP®, Honors & Electives, and CTE

View All Language Arts Programs

Wonders (PreK–6)

StudySync (6–12)

Achieve3000 Literacy (2–12)

Reading Mastery Transformations (K–5)

Actively Learn (3–12)

Direct Instruction (PreK–12)

Open Court Reading (K–5)

Smarty Ants (PreK–2)

Redbird Language Arts & Writing (2–7)

View all Math Programs

Reveal Math (K–12)

ALEKS (3–12)

ALEKS Adventure (1–2)

Everyday Math (PreK–6)

Redbird Math (K–7)

Illustrative Math (6–12)

Number Worlds (PreK–8)

View all Science & Health Programs

Inspire Science (K–12)

Glencoe Health (9–12)

Teen Health (6–8)

McGraw Hill Science Interactives (6–12)

View all Social Studies Programs

IMPACT (K–5)

New Social Studies (6–12)

Networks (6–12)

View all Intervention Programs

Arrive Math (K–8)

Corrective Reading (3–12)

Corrective Math (3–12)

Connecting Math Concepts (K–6)

View all Supplemental Programs

McGraw Hill AR

Achieve3000 Math (3–12)

Moments for MySELF

ACT & SAT Practice Books

View all Visual & Performing Arts Programs

Spotlight on Music (PreK–8)

Music Studio Marketplace (PreK–12)

Music Its Role (9–12)

Exploring Art (6–8)

Voices in Concert (6–12)

Art Talk (9–12)

View all World Languages Programs

¡Así se dice!

View all AP®, Honors & Electives, and CTE Programs

Communications

English Language Arts

Career & Technical Ed (CTE)

5 Steps to a 5 Test Prep

Traditional Ordering

Contact a Rep

Request a Quote

Create® EasyOrder

Shop Online

Online Ordering Guide

Quick Order

For Your Classroom & School

Back to School Prep

Product Trainings

Integration Services

Free Educational Activities

K–12 Mobile App

Science of Literacy

McGraw Hill + Kahoot!

Our Principles

What We Stand For

Art of Teaching

Equity in Action

Educator Communities

Inspired Ideas (blog) 

Comprehensive Core Curriculum

Welcome to open court reading​.

Read what the Science of Reading tells us, then see how Open Court Reading makes the research actionable.

Built on the Science of Reading, Validated by Research For more than 60 years, research has been the mainstay of Open Court Reading . Built upon findings from original learning theory and cognitive science, and balanced with teacher input and modern research on literacy development, Open Court Reading delivers undeniable results for learners at every level.

Instruction that Turns Research into Action The Science of Reading is only a body of research unless it's made actionable. Through systematic, explicit instruction and a scope and sequence that follows a purposeful progression of skills—first build a strong foundation, then build upon that foundation— Open Court Reading empowers teachers to turn research into action every day.

Foundations for Lifelong Literacy Literacy research consistently shows that complex learning cannot take place without strong foundational skills. Open Court Reading provides students the building blocks needed to read and comprehend texts across genres, synthesize information to develop and discuss complex thoughts and ideas, and become fluent storytellers themselves.

Components for Open Court Reading

All components, except for Kits, available in print and digital formats

Instructional Resources

Scope and Sequence

CCSS Correlation

Literature List

Student Readers

First Reader , Link will open in a new tab

Helps students transition from teacher-led instruction to independent reading. Soft cover for small hands.

Big Books/Little Books , Link will open in a new tab

16 books: 12 units, 1 science, 1 social studies, 1 Alphabet, 1 rhyming. Available in both sizes.​

​Pre-Decodable and Decodable Stories , Link will open in a new tab

14 core pre-decodable 28 core decodable stories​

Teacher's Edition and Guides

Teacher's Edition , Link will open in a new tab

Every lesson provides differentiated instruction and EL support. Two units in six volumes.

Intervention Teacher's Guide , Link will open in a new tab

​Features lesson-by-lesson intervention support at point of use.

EL Support Guide , Link will open in a new tab

Guidance and practice with phonics, vocabulary, comprehension, and grammar skills.

Skills Practice , Link will open in a new tab

Practice alphabetic knowledge, phonemic awareness, and phonics.

Assessments

Lesson & Unit Assessments , Link will open in a new tab

Measure alphabetic knowledge, phonemic awareness, and phonics.

Benchmark Assessments , Link will open in a new tab

Covers foundational skills, comprehension, grammar, usage, and mechanics.

Skills Kits

Foundational Skills Kit , Link will open in a new tab

Provides research-based instruction and classroom-tested tools to help every student master essential skills.

Student Anthology , Link will open in a new tab

Narrative and informative texts highlight key ideas and details; writing as a craft, and background knowledge and ideas.​

Five pre-decodable stories and 109 decodable stories

Practice phonemic awareness, phonics, and fluency

Measure phonemic awareness, phonics, and fluency.

Pre-Decodable and Decodable Stories , Link will open in a new tab

55 core decodable stories in seven books​

Language Arts Handbook , Link will open in a new tab

Provides models and acts as reference book for writing, revising, and editing skills.

Practice phonics, spelling, accessing complex texts, writing, grammar, usage, and mechanics.

Measure phonics, spelling, accessing complex texts, writing, grammar, usage, and mechanics.

23 Core Decodable stories available in four books​​

​Language Arts Handbook , Link will open in a new tab

Practice word analysis, vocabulary, accessing complex texts, spelling, fluency writing, grammar, usage, and mechanics.

Measure word analysis, vocabulary, accessing complex texts, spelling, fluency writing, grammar, usage, and mechanics.

Word Analysis Kit , Link will open in a new tab

Resources to develop critical reading skills that enable students to approach new words and more complex texts.

Experience Open Court Reading

Explore how Open Court Reading can deliver literacy success to your classroom.