In part 2 of this 3 part series on assessment – https://secondaryschoolslt.com/2026/07/10/language-assessment-at-secondary-school-student-focused-dynamic-and-curriculum-based-assessment-part-2/ – I discussed some ideas I’ve personally found useful for assessing secondary level students, such as student-focused assessment, dynamic assessment and curriculum-based language assessment. In this post, I’d like to share some final thoughts.
Language sampling
Another difficulty involved in identifying expressive language disorders at secondary school level is that they tend to be more hidden. Even struggling students tend to make fewer overt grammatical errors as they get older (Nelson, 1998). Instead, they are likely to produce utterances that are shorter and simpler for their age, they may struggle with organising their thoughts and generating ideas (Nippold, 1998, Paul & Norbury, 2012).
For this reason, many experts advocate carrying out language sampling. Marilyn Nippold, for example, recommends taking both a conversational and an expository sample (Nippold, 2023), such as explaining a favourite game. This is because sentence length and complexity vary a lot depending on the context and discourse type (Nippold et al, 2005).
These samples can then be transcribed, analysed and compared to norms. Sentence length and complexity can be assessed with measures such as the mean length of communication unit (MLCU) and clausal density (CD), which is the average number of clauses per sentence. The different types of sentences used could be noted, and attention paid to any lower frequency, later developing structures. Lexical development and diversity could be measured by looking at the number of different words (NDW). Finally, the proportion of maze words can give an idea of the level of dysfluency (Nippold, 2023, p.3).
Marilyn Nippold (2023) acknowledges that language sampling may feel daunting to many SLTs who worry about the time it will take, and whether they have the linguistic knowledge to confidently analyse such samples. She recommends a computer program called SALT (Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts) for the purpose, since it automatically analyses speech samples once transcribed.
I have also personally found that even taking a short written sample can be quite revealing of a student’s difficulties: their ability to plan, generate ideas and organise them into paragraphs, as well as the types of sentence structures and vocabulary they are using.
Assessing comprehension
Assessing comprehension is arguably even more challenging than assessing expressive language, since it is even more “hidden”. Whilst some standardised assessments do include tests of receptive syntax, these tend to be quite basic. They are unlikely to cover a wide range of later developing structures.
One very useful way of assessing understanding of different types of sentence structures is with a grammaticality judgment task. This simple task involves giving students a list of sentences, and asking them whether they make grammatical sense or not. One of the benefits of assessing older students is that most will have developed the “meta-skills” to engage with a task like this.
Paul and Norbury (2012) suggested showing students pictures of an “OK lady” and a “silly lady”, and proceeding to ask them to tell if the sentence was “OK” or “silly” by pointing to the corresponding picture. With our older age group, I have found that simply asking students to put a tick by the sentences that make sense and a cross by the ones that don’t is enough.
An alternative to this is to read/ show students a sentence, and then ask them a direct question about it. An example that tests understanding of relative clauses might be: “The journalist who interviewed the teacher ate his lunch. Who ate his lunch: the journalist or the teacher?”
A student who answers “the teacher” may be relying on an immature comprehension strategy of assigning the verb to the nearest noun (“the teacher ate his lunch…”), and does not appear to have developed the ability to extract meaning from this syntactic structure alone. Grammaticality judgment tasks can be used to assess any number of sentence types or structures that you suspect may be a problem, such as passive sentences, nominal clauses or clefts.
Another simple but very effective way of finding out how much a student is understanding of a text is to ask them to paraphrase, one sentence at a time. We could also ask to hear their thoughts using a “think aloud” approach. After the instructor has modelled their own thought processes as they attempt to understand a text, the student is encouraged to do so. This way, we are able to see exactly where any breakdowns in comprehension occur, and whether the student is employing any particular strategies.
Other assessments
One final point to add is that in recent years, a few really helpful assessments aimed at this age group have been published. For example, Language for Behaviour and Emotions (LFBE) is a comprehensive toolkit created by Anna Branagan, Melanie Cross and Stephen Parsons in 2020, using the principles of dynamic assessment to identify students’ strengths and weaknesses.
Helpfully, it includes assessment of some later-developing, age-appropriate skills such as figurative language and higher order thinking skills which are not typically covered by standardised assessments, as we have seen. For example, knowledge of idioms, as well as vocabulary related to behaviour and emotions are tested. Higher order thinking skills including prediction, inference and ability to retell a story are also targeted in their scenario-based assessment and program.
Final thoughts
With all these things to keep in mind, assessment of secondary school students may feel daunting. But many experts now agree that assessment should be thought of as an ongoing process, rather than as something that must be “complete” before intervention can begin (Nelson, 1998, Larson and McKinley, 2003, Paul and Norbury, 2012, Scott and Balthazar, 2013). Thought of this way, we only need to gather enough information about a student’s difficulties to make a start and decide on priorities.
This is what I now choose to do, although I have experienced both extremes in the past. Working at my first school with around 100 students on my caseload, I carried out brief “screenings”, using just three or four subtests from the CELF-4 as the basis for identifying their difficulties and setting targets. To be honest, this did not feel like enough information to go on.
On the other hand, when I worked for the NHS, assessment was much more comprehensive, sometimes taking as long as three to four sessions. However, the goal was different: many of these students would not be seen for direct therapy, or they might only receive a few sessions with me. Instead, the aim was to gather enough information to pass on to the staff supporting them.
At my current school, where I am fortunate enough to see students 1:1 or in small groups on an ongoing basis, my assessments usually take place over a couple of sessions. I begin by interviewing them about their difficulties and getting them to tell me their “stories”. I tend to carry out some core subtests from the CELF-5, and perhaps others based on the reasons they were referred. Using dynamic assessment alongside usually gives me a solid place to start. Alternatively, I might use the scenario-based assessment from the LFBE toolkit.
As we continue working together and I find I need more information, I might speak to their teachers to see how things are going in class, carry out a grammaticality judgment task to assess their understanding of certain sentence structures, or use the “Crazy Phrases” test from the LFBE toolkit to assess their knowledge of idioms and non-literal language.
Once more obvious oral language difficulties have been resolved, I might take a sample of written language, or ask to see some of their classwork or assignments, perhaps even attempting some tasks together in a participant observation. My practice is by no means perfect. But I hope that some of these ideas resonate, and that this snapshot into my daily practice gives a useful insight into assessment at secondary level.
Notes
Branagan, A., Cross, M. and Parsons, S. (2020) Language for Behaviour and Emotions: A Practical Guide for Working with Children and Young People. Routledge.
Larson, V.L. and McKinley, N.L. (2003) Communication solutions for older students. Thinking Pub.
Nelson, N. W. (1998) Childhood Language Disorders in Context: Infancy Through Adolescence. 2nd edn. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Nippold, M.A. (1998) Later language development: The school-age and adolescent years. 2nd ed. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Nippold, M.A. (2023). Grammar guide for speech-language pathologists: Steps to analyzing complex syntax. San Diego: Plural Publishing.
Nippold, Marilyn A., Linda J. Hesketh, Jill K. Duthie, and Tracy C. Mansfield. “Conversational Versus Expository Discourse: A Study of Syntactic Development in Children, Adolescents, and Adults.” Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 48, no. 5 (2005): 1048–1064. doi.org.
Paul, R. and Norbury, C. (2012) Language Disorders from Infancy Through Adolescence: Listening, Speaking, Reading, Writing, and Communicating. 4th edn. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier.
Scott, Cheryl M., and Catherine H. Balthazar. 2013. “The Role of Complex Sentence Knowledge in Children with Reading and Writing Difficulties.” Perspectives on Language and Literacy 39 (3): 18–30. [1, 2]
Thoughts of a secondary school SLT 
Leave a comment