Adaptive assessment for languages: revolutionizing learning and evaluation
Claudia Costa
IBDP & MYP HoD and Mother Tongue Coordinator; Language Acquisition and Language and Literature Teacher - French, Spanish and EAL
Adaptive assessment has come a long way since its early days in the late 20th century, when it was just an experimental tool in standardized testing. Now, with computer-based testing (CBT) and artificial intelligence (AI) playing bigger roles in education, it’s becoming an unavoidable reality—especially for language learning. As an IB languages teacher, I see the potential in these innovations, but I also worry about what they mean for our role as educators. Can a machine really replace the nuanced feedback and human connection that language teachers provide?
The COVID-19 pandemic sped up the shift towards adaptive assessment. With traditional exams on hold, digital platforms became the go-to for evaluating student proficiency. Duolingo’s adaptive language test took off, and the IB started looking into how digital assessments could fit into its programs without compromising standards. Change was inevitable, but it raised a lot of questions: How do we ensure fairness? Will technology enhance learning or just reduce it to a set of algorithms?
Adaptive assessments adjust to a student’s responses, making the test harder or easier based on performance. In theory, this creates a more accurate and personalized measure of language proficiency. In practice, it’s a mixed bag. For language acquisition, this kind of assessment makes sense—it can track reading, writing, listening, and speaking skills in a dynamic way. The IB is already testing digital tools for this, giving students real-time feedback on pronunciation and grammar. But what about Language and Literature courses? Literary analysis and essay writing are deeply human tasks, full of subjectivity and interpretation. AI can offer basic feedback on structure and coherence, but can it truly grasp the depth of a student’s ideas? The IB is exploring AI-assisted formative assessments, but I can’t help but wonder: Will students lose out on the rich discussions and mentorship that come with traditional teaching?
Another major concern is academic honesty. The more we rely on AI and digital testing, the harder it becomes to control plagiarism and cheating. The IB is implementing AI-driven plagiarism detection and proctoring software, but does that mean we’ll have to constantly police our students instead of guiding them through the learning process? And beyond that, what happens to the role of the teacher when so much of assessment is automated?
In the short term, adaptive assessments seem like a win. They reduce stress, make testing more accessible, and personalize learning. Long-term, though, they might push education in a direction where technology takes center stage, and human educators become secondary. As much as I embrace innovation, I also want to make sure we don’t lose what makes teaching languages so special—the personal connections, the cultural discussions, the joy of seeing a student finally grasp a complex idea through conversation, not just a screen.
Looking ahead, AI and adaptive assessments will continue to shape how we evaluate language skills. Maybe we’ll even see virtual reality (VR) and more advanced speech recognition creating immersive learning experiences. But no matter how advanced technology gets, we as teachers need to stay involved—not just as supervisors of AI, but as the heart of the learning experience. Because at the end of the day, no algorithm can replace the human element of teaching.
sources:
Serial Founder and award-wining Organizational Psychologist inventing AI that solves business problems with science.
6 天前I agree Claudia that this is a potential landmine, but doesn't have to be. If the unobtrusive adaptive assessments (without items, just from transcripts/videos of kids peforming) are grounded in Kurt Fisher's Skills Theory and Michael Lamport Common's approach, we can make sure the results are fed back to each teacher/mentor/coach in each person/child's "Goldilocks Zone" (Vygotsky Zone of Proximal Development), enabling better tailoring. A short overview of inverted adaptive testing is in my latest video here: https://www.dhirubhai.net/posts/drmattbarney_psychometrics-metrology-digitaltwin-activity-7300191067717451776-lGqz?utm_source=social_share_send&utm_medium=member_desktop_web&rcm=ACoAAAAwjEIBrX9ZgunSvhI6aO4XySbhCGiPgEk