Leistungsbewertung und Lernausgangslagen (LeA.SH)
This domain tests competence-oriented assessment and the diagnostic use of learning starting points. You need to distinguish formative diagnosis from summative grading, align criteria with the Fachanforderungen, and use instruments such as LeA.SH to plan support rather than to label learners.
Core rules
- Criterion-referenced assessment: judge performance against transparent descriptors, not against the class average.
- Competence areas: assess the relevant areas (Hören, Lesen, Sprechen, Schreiben, Sprachmittlung, interkulturelle Kompetenz) rather than grammar alone.
- Formative vs summative: formative assessment informs teaching; summative assessment documents achievement at a defined point.
- Rubrics: descriptors should be observable, weighted and shared with learners before the task.
- Feedback: use feed up (goal), feed back (where the learner is) and feed forward (next step); a grade alone does not improve learning.
- LeA.SH: standardized diagnostic procedures in Schleswig-Holstein identify learning prerequisites and support planning; results are not a substitute for summative grades.
Worked example
A writing task asks for a short blog post about a school event. The rubric weights content 40%, communicative design 30% and language 30%. Content descriptors require all key information and a clear purpose; communicative design covers structure, paragraphing and register; language covers range, accuracy and spelling. A learner text with strong content but frequent tense errors scores high on content and mid on language. Reasoning: the weighting reflects the task’s communicative purpose; the learner receives a precise next step (tense control in narrative sentences) rather than a vague overall judgement. If LeA.SH data show weak listening in the group, the next unit adds pre-listening vocabulary and strategy work.
Traps that cost marks
- Grading only grammar and spelling when the task assesses communicative competence.
- Halo effects: letting neat handwriting or a confident oral performance raise all criteria.
- Mixing effort or behaviour into an achievement grade without a defined basis.
- Using diagnostic results such as LeA.SH to grade learners rather than to plan support.
- Rubric descriptors that are vague (“good”, “some errors”) and cannot be applied consistently.