1

Chapter Two

Language Testing: An Historical Overview

2.1. Introduction

The present chapter intends to focus on an historical overview of language

testing with a review of the available literature. In addition, this chapter

will provide a brief survey of the types, approaches, and characteristics of

the available English language tests.

2.2. Historical Overview of Language Testing

Researches in the area of language testing over the last few decades have

contributed a lot in making a test more and more practical, reliable and valid.

The present state of language testing is the result of a consistent theoretical

advancement - though slow and even lacking in operation and application

especially in ESL / EFL context - over the last one century in the shape of

experimentations and innovations in language testing. The historical

overview of the developments in this area is best viewed in the nine

historical phases categorized by Spolsky (2000:536-552) in his review

article, entitled “Language Testing in The Modern Language Journal”,

where he reviews the articles published in the Modern Language Journal

2

over eighty years, reflecting upon the nature, views, principles and practices

of testing in these phases.

2.2.1. The Early Years:

This phase is most prominently known for the ‘aural and oral test’ that was

designed and implemented by the committee of the Association of Modern

Language Teachers for university admission tests in French, German, and

Spanish. This test was based on data collected from 1000 schools, where the

“majority of respondents agreed that a test was the only fair way to

recognize and encourage the widespread direct method of teaching, which

emphasized speaking the language” (Spolsky, 2000:537). Carroll (1954)

considers this test as one of the earliest calls for objective psychological

testing. This article, according to Spolsky (2000:537), was significant in

three ways – first, because this aural-oral test concentrated on the spoken

language rather than written language and ‘recognized clearly the curricular

impact (washback) of a test’. Secondly, in order to meet the feasibility

criteria of a test, we find ‘ease triumphing over principle’. Thirdly, objective

tests became widely acceptable for uniformity.

The Committee on Resolutions and Investigations of the Association of

Modern Language Teachers of the Middle States and Maryland, which

became a basis for the innovations in language testing 30 years later by the

3

Armed Services Training Program (ASTP) and the Audio-Lingual Method

after that, observed in 1917 that ‘no actual oral test is included in this

(entrance examinations for French, Spanish and German) examination’

(Committee on Resolutions and Investigations, 1917:252, in Fulcher,

2003:02). However, it further claims that ‘no candidate could pass it, who

had not attained abundant oral, as well as aural training’ (Committee on

Resolutions and Investigations, 1917:252, in Fulcher, 2003:02).

The story in the United Kingdom is found to be different. ‘While testing

speaking in the United States was frequently seen as ‘desirable but not

feasible’, the University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate

(UCLES) was not hampered by concerns over reliability or measurement

theory. A sub-test of spoken English was included in the Certificate of

Proficiency in English at its introduction in 1913, (Roach, 1945, in Fulcher,

2003:05).

2.2.2. The Inter-war Years:

These years have been significant in so many ways in the area of

experimentations, innovations and theoretical advancements of language

testing. Tests of oral and aural skills started increasing in number. Spolsky

(2000:538) lists such references as Thorndike (1921), Decker (1925),

4

Henmon et al. (1929), Lundeberg (1929), Tharp (1930), Clarke (1931), and

Rogers & Clarke (1933).

Wood (1927:96), in his pioneering work on language tests for New York

Schools, acknowledged the importance of using ‘conversational materials’

for assessing students’ speaking abilities, but this test remained ‘paper and

pencil test’ because speaking tests would be ‘subjective’ and logistically

difficult to put into operation.

Seeking objectivity became the key intention of the test developers in this

phase. Hence they concentrated on ‘new-type’ multiple choice tests as

reliable, objective measures of language ability (Fulcher, 2003:02). The first

true speaking test used in North America was The College Board’s English

Competence Examination, introduced in 1930 for overseas students applying

to study at US colleges and universities (College Entrance Examination

Board, 1939, in Fulcher 2003:02). The College Entrance Examination Board

was given the task of providing this test by the American Association of

Collegiate Registrars. It was used effectively only until 1935 due to financial

reasons.

Some other works in this direction are Broom & Kaulfers (1927), Cheydleur

(1928) and Brinsmade (1928). Seibert & Goddard (1935) developed scoring

key to attain objectivity in language testing. Smith & Cambell (1942) too

5

developed tests and a scoring key to relieve fears about multiple-choice

tests.

Different types of tests were developed by Cheydleur (1931, 1932b),

Kaulfers (1933), Haden & Stalnaker (1934), Kurath & Stalnaker (1936),

Stalnaker & Kurath (1935), Feder & Cochran (1936), Fife (1937), and

Kaulfers (1937).

Prognosis or Aptitude testing, initiated by Kaulfers (1930) became a

significant concern in this phase. Spolsky (2002:539-541) list various studies

in this regard. They are Cheydleur (1932a), Richardson (1933), Symonds

(1930a, 1930b), Henmon (1934), Wagner & Strabel (1935), Michel (1934,

1936), Matheus (1937), Tallent (1938), Kaulfers (1939), Spoerl (1939),

Maronpot (1939) and Gabbert (1941).

The goal of instruction became important for test developments. In this

regard Spolsky (2000:541) mentions mainly two studies by Conant (1934)

and Frantz (1939).

This phase has also been significant in witnessing the first detailed

proficiency scale for language tests in Sammartino (1938).

6

“Unlike in the United States, the primary purpose of an examination in the

United Kingdom was to support the syllabus and encourage good teaching

and learning” (Brereton 1944, in Fulcher, 2003:06).

2.2.3. The World War II Experience:

Due to the scientific advancements like planes and radios, the focus in

language teaching shifted from reading to aural-oral abilities of language

learners. Similar to Sammartinos (1938), Kauflers (1944) developed a

performance scale for measuring aural comprehension. Spolsky (2000:543)

identifies Roach (1945) as working on the same lines in England. Since the

Second World War, testing second language speaking attained priority over

other skills.

“When it was realized that the American service personnel were ill equipped

to communicate, that their inability to speak in a second language might be

‘a serious handicap to safety and comfort’, the push for tests of second

language speaking began in earnest. From the needs of the military, the

practice soon spread to colleges and universities” (Fulcher, 2003: xi).

Fulcher (2003:06) further notes:

“the Second World War was a watershed in the history of testing speaking. … The Army Specialized Training Programe (ASTP) was created in 1942 in order to address the communication problems of American service personnel through the delivery of language

7

programmes that focused on speaking in the fields of engineering, medical, and area studies / language”.

Even Angiolillo (1947:32) identifies ASTP as the first language instruction

programme with the specific aim ‘to impart to the trainee a command of the

colloquial spoken form of a language and to give the trainee a sound

knowledge of the area in which the language is used.’

In the UK too the testing of speaking had a military focus, though slow in

comparison to the US. Fulcher (2003:08) informs:

“much of the language teaching that went on in the United Kingdom, and those part of the world over which the Allies had control, was done by the Army Education Corps. Much of this was teaching English to Allied Forces in Europe.”

2.2.4. The Early Post War Period:

This period contributed couple of more tests in this phase. Bottke & Milligan

(1945) and Bovee & Froelich (1946), for instance, suggested some new

aptitude tests; Clapp (1947) meditated on placement tests; Coutant (1948)

and Kaulfers (1948) made special observations about language teaching in

California; and Miller (1948) designed a test of Spanish-American culture.

In this period, there had been very reluctant language testing research as

such. As language teaching was not a distinct discipline, language testing

followed the general principles of testing available in humanities or social

sciences. Classroom tests were conducted by the teachers themselves which

8

were the results of Grammar Translation or Reading-oriented methods that

were in use at that time.

2.2.5. The 1950s:

This decade witnessed an addition of some more tests, mainly concerning

aspects of oral communication. They are Raymond (1951), Furness (1955),

Eley (1956), Borg & Goodman (1956), Buechel (1957), Harding (1958),

Mueller (1959), Valley (1959), Ayer (1960), and Sadnavitch & Popham

(1961).

This decade was dominated by the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) testing

unit in the Army services, though political and bureaucratic problems held

up the implementation work from 1952 to 1956. The FSI was again given

the responsibility in 1956 to provide evidence of foreign language

proficiency for all Foreign Service Personnel. In 1958 the FSI testing unit

further developed the 1952 scales by adding a checklist of five factors for

raters, each to be measured on the six-point scale. These five factors were

accent, comprehension, fluency, grammar and vocabulary. This can be

called to be the first step towards developing multiple trait rating.

9

2.2.6. The 1960s:

Spolsky (2000:544) reports that ‘interest in aptitude reemerged in the

postwar period and took on a new urgency …’. This resulted in such studies

as Salomon (1954), Eterno (1961), Blickenstaff (1963), Mendeloff (1963),

Guerra, Abrahamson, and Newmark (1964), Di Giulio (1967), McCarthur

(1965), and Shane (1971).

Due to the success of the FSI rating, the method was adopted and even

adapted by the Defence Language Institute (DLI), the Central Intelligence

Agency (CIA), and the Peace Corps. Quinones (Fulcher 2003:10). It is

further informed that in 1968, partly as a result of experiences of language

needs during the Vietnam War, these diverse agencies came together to

produce a standardized version, today known as Interagency Language

Roundtable (ILR).

From the early 1950s through the late 1960s, when contrastive analysis was

a thriving discipline and structuralism and behaviorism combined to make

language teaching scientific, testing focused on specific language elements

such as phonological, grammatical and lexical contrasts between the two

languages. Tests during this decade stressed mastery of discrete linguistic

skills. That is why this approach came to be known as the ‘discrete point’

approach to language testing as against the ‘integrative’ approach. Such

10

discrete item tests were constructed by breaking down the language into its

component parts relating to the four skills of listening, speaking, reading and

writing and various hierarchical units of language in phonology, graphology,

morphology, lexis and syntax.

2.2.7. The 1970s:

Researchers in this phase recommended the case for the cloze test. Such

studies as Oller (1972), Stubbs & Tucker (1974), Brier, Clausing, Senko,

and Purcell (1978), Brown (1980), Caulfield & Smith (1981), Gaies,

Gradman, and Spolsky (1977), and Lange & Clausing (1981) raised various

issues pertaining to the cloze test.

Liskin-Gasparro (1984b:22) provides information regarding the substantial

use of the FSI by the Peace Corps. The new testing system for academics

and teachers outside the control of the government agencies was introduced.

In the 1970s, as a consequence, it was adopted by many universities and

states for the purpose of bilingual teacher certification. Barnwell (1987:36)

identified three reasons for the popularity of the FSI approach in the

educational context. These are:

i. as a direct test of speaking ability, having high validity, ii. high inter rater reliability, and iii. the growing interest in the notional/functional approach to teaching

English.

11

Due to these reasons the relationship between teaching and testing was also

realized. Carroll’s (1967) experimentation with German, Russian, French,

and Spanish students in the USA became the focus of considerable attention

by 1979, when it was replicated by the Educational Testing Services (ETS)

(Liskin-Gasparro 1984b:27).

Besides this in 1979 the President’s Commission on Foreign Language and

International Studies recommended the setting up of a National Criteria and

Assessment Program to develop language tests and to assess language

learning in the US.

This decade has also been able to raise various diversified issues such as

teachers’ competence to test (Taylor, 1972), differences between men and

women response in tests (Jacobson & Imhoof, 1974), similarities in first and

second language learning (Politzer, 1974; Oller 1976a), computerized testing

(Boyle, Smith, and Eckert, 1976), repetition tasks (Bell, Doyle, and Talbott

(1977), enforced latency period for tests (Meredith, 1978), aural

comprehension test (Madsen 1979), and repetition and dictation (Natalicio,

1979).

12

2.2.8. The 1980s:

The recommendations of the President’s Commission of 1979 gave the

ACTFL (The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages) the

role of producing National Criteria, and the ACTFL Provisional Proficiency

Guidelines appeared in 1982 (ACTFL, 1982), the complete Guidelines in

1986 (ACTFL, 1986), and the revised Guidelines in 1999 (ACTFL, 1999).

These guidelines gave birth to the Proficiency Movement.

The 1980s argued the need for a ‘common yardstick’ to develop listening

and reading tests (Woodford, 1980). It focused on direct proficiency testing,

communicative skills in classroom tests, and the computerized testing

(Clark, 1983). It witnessed more samples of cloze tests (Shohamy, 1982;

Heilenman, 1983; Bensoussan and Ramzar, 1984), and continued the debate

over prognostic testing (Curtin, Avner, and Smith 1983).

This decade has been remarkable for the publication of the ACTFL (the

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages) Proficiency

Guidelines in 1982 which provided a common yardstick, but it had to

undergo certain attacks, from Savignon (1985), Lantolf and Frawley (1985),

Schulz (1986) and Kramsch (1986). This Guideline actually talked of a shift

in testing target from the ‘grammar-based achievement testing’ to the

‘communicative-based and oral proficiency’. Lowe (1986) came forward to

13

defend the Guidelines, but suggested that there is a need for further studies

and research in this direction. The debate took a positive shape with the

contributions of such researchers as Hieke (1985) and Byrnes (1987).

Besides these guidelines, testing situation in this decade was involved with

some other issues too. These issues involved such aspects as scoring criteria

(Currall and Kirk, 1986), relationship between intelligence and language

ability (Boyle, 1987; Cooper, 1987), the relationship between students’

overall grade and language ability (Spurling, 1987), and the goal of

developing a ‘common metric’ (Lambert, 1987). Premised on ACTFL

Proficiency Guidelines for foreign language reading, Lee & Musumeci

(1988) constructed a test based on text-type, reading skill, and task-based

performance.

From the late 1960s to the present time, the dissatisfaction with structuralism

and behaviorism led to linguistic research on communicative competence

and the context of language use. According to Spolsky (1978) and Jones

(1977), there has been a large discrepancy between language teaching and

testing. While the aim of teaching was to develop practical communication,

language testing stressed on the mastery of linguistic elements. However,

recently when the goal of teaching has become communicative, language

tests have started testing communication and other pragmatic skills (Morrow

14

1977, Canale and Swain 1980, Carroll 1980). Testers have come to realize

that the whole of the communicative event is considerably greater than the

sum of its linguistic elements (Clark 1983). As against the ‘discrete’ point

approach, ‘integrative’ approach emerged with its emphasis on

communication, authenticity and context. Oller (1976, 1978) criticized the

‘discrete’ approach and said that language competence is a unified set of

interacting abilities which can not be separated and tested and claimed that it

required integration rather than testing of discrete items of grammar, reading

and vocabulary. Following this line of thinking, two types of integrative tests

emerged. ‘Cloze’ tests are reading passages mutilated by the deletion of

every nth word. The subject is required to fill up the blanks with appropriate

words, which tests the subjects’ competence in a language. The ‘dictation’

tests are short passages read to the students by the teacher: the passage is

read at a normal speed and the students listen. In the second reading it is

broken into phrases and the students write what they listen. Lastly, the work

of the students is checked by themselves while the teacher reads the passage

at a normal speed. Dictation and cloze tests are appropriate integrative tests

(Savignon 1982, Oller 1979, Streiff 1975). At present, when the aim of

teaching is to develop communicative competence, the tests are largely

performance based which requires the learners to use language naturally.

15

There is a call for direct testing which tests the learners in a variety of

language functions.

2.2.9. The 1990s:

This decade witnessed further studies concerning some recent issues

pertaining to language testing. It becomes evident from various works like

Heining-Boynton (1990) who prepared an inventory for evaluating language

teaching programmes in elementary schools; Meredith (1990) on the use of

Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI); Anderson (1991) on the individuality of

proficiency tests; Dunkel (1991) on using computer to test listening

comprehension; Abraham & Chapelle (1992) on Cloze tests; Shohamy,

Gordon, and Kraemer (1992) on the usefulness of writing scales and

intensive training for raters; Stansfield & Kenyon (1992) on developing a

tape-recorded version of the interview; Stansfield, Scott, & Kenyon (1992)

on the development of a test for translators.

The historical overview of language testing is also done by researchers in

terms of three stages in the recent history of language testing: the Pre-

scientific, the Psychometric-Structuralist, and the Psycholinguistic-

Sociolinguistic, as specified by Spolsky (1975). These phases also reflect the

intentions and theoretical basis for language testing before the emergence of

Communicative testing.

16

i) The Pre-Scientific Era: Although Spolsky (1975) traces this era from

the Chinese civil service examinations more than two thousand years ago; he

considers its present form from the 18th century Cambridge Tripos onwards.

It was characterized by the use of essays, open-ended examinations, oral

examining. Testing in this era did not rely on linguistic theory.

ii) The Psychometric-Structuralist Era: This era refers to the joint

venture of the psychometrics and the structural linguistics. While

psychometrics suggested ways on the objective and reliable methods of

testing, the structuralists identified elements of language to be tested.

Language testing in this era was dominated by criteria for the establishment

of educational measuring instruments developed within the traditions of

psychometrics (Alderson & Hughes, 1981:05).

The first person to claim the need was Robert Lado, who was responsible for

the discrete point approach. According to this approach the target language

was broken down into small testable segments using contrastive analysis. A

test in each test item was intended to give information about the candidates’

ability to handle that particular point of language.

Morrow (1979:144-145) calls the approach of this era ‘atomistic’ due to the

assumption that ‘knowledge of the elements of a language is equivalent to

knowledge of the language’. Though this approach provided easily

17

quantifiable data for testing, it carried a major drawback as pointed out by

Morrow (1979). He stated that the knowledge of discrete elements is

worthless unless the user can synthesize those elements according to the

linguistic demands of the situation. Oller (1979:212) rightly claims that “the

whole is greater than the sum of its parts …”

iii) The Psycholinguistic-Sociolinguistic Era: This era began with the

emergence of the global integrative testing. Oller’s (1979, cited in Miyata-

Boddy & Langham, 2000:76) argument on the utility of global integrative

testing provided a closer measure of the ability to combine language skills in

the way they are used for actual language use rather than discrete point

testing. However, even this view has been refuted by Bachman (1990),

Alderson (1981) and Morrow (1979). This era believed that “the whole is

greater than the sum of its parts …” (Weir, 1990, in Miyata-Boddy &

Langham, 2000:76).

About the developments in this era, Wesche (1983:41) says that “in the past

decades or so, linguistic science has paid increasing attention to the

communicative – or message transmission – aspect of language as opposed

to an earlier almost exclusive emphasis on grammatical forms and the ways

in which they could be combined to form grammatical sentences. … More

recently, attention has increasingly been given to how the communicative

18

ability of second language speakers can be tested.” More discussion on this

aspect and the other aspects of this era will be done in the next chapter.

So far through the historical overview discussed above, an attempt has been

made to survey under what circumstances, how and when the language tests

have developed. But a discussion on historical overview remains unjustified,

if the various kinds and approaches to tests and testing are not mentioned.

Therefore, the following section of this chapter will deal with the types,

approaches, Criteria, and test techniques language tests that have taken

shape so far, since its infancy.

2.3. Types of Language Tests

Over the years along the research developments various kinds of tests have

been formulated in different situations for different purposes. Some major

ones are being mentioned discussed below:

2.3.1 Proficiency Test:

Proficiency tests are intended to measure one’s overall, general ability in a

language in order to assess whether the learners are proficient enough to

handle the language in a given situation. It is not content or objective

specific. These tests are conducted, for example, to test whether a student’s

English is good enough to follow a course of study at a British university.

19

That is, these tests take into account the level of proficiency and the kind of

English needed to follow courses in particular subject areas. Cambridge

examinations (First Certificate Examinations and Proficiency Examination)

and the Oxford EFL examination (Preliminary and Higher) are a few

examples of other types of Proficiency tests which are more general in their

target. They try to establish whether candidates have reached a certain

standard with respect to certain specified abilities.

There are other proficiency tests too, which do not have any occupation or

course of study in mind. Here proficiency in a language is perceived in a

more general term. Existing tests like the Cambridge First Certificate in

English Examination (FCE) and the Cambridge Certificate of Proficiency in

English Examination (CPE) are appropriate examples for this type of test.

The function of such tests is to show whether students have reached a certain

standard with respect to a set of specified abilities. The examining bodies of

such tests are independent of teaching institutions. The FCE and CPE, as

mentioned above, are linked to levels in the ALTE (Association of Language

Testers in Europe) framework, which draws heavily on the work of Council

of Europe.

2.3.2 Placement Test:

20

These tests are conducted at the beginning of a course of study in order to

group the learners, for instance, to elementary, intermediate or advanced

levels. Placements tests are used to find the initial level of proficiency of

learners who have enrolled for a particular course. These tests are generally

situation based. A Placement test, therefore, designed and conducted at one

institution cannot be used in totality at another institution. This test is

generally tailor-made, an in-house product. Well et al (1994) and Fulcher

(1997) provide a detailed discussion on the issues in placement test

development.

2.3.3 Progress Test:

These tests are also termed as Mid term or Mid year tests because they are

conducted during the continuation of a course of study. Such tests help the

teachers and learners in assessing how far they have been able to meet the

teaching and learning targets, respectively. The results of these tests help in

modifying the teaching methodology or materials, if there is a need for it.

Some institutions conduct two or three progress tests spread over one year.

Ideally tests should reflect a clear progression towards the final achievement

based on course objectives.

2.3.4 Achievement Test:

21

The Progress test can also be understood in terms of ‘Achievement’ test.

This test is closely related to the curriculum and they establish exactly what

a learner has learned in a given teaching context. That is why; most teachers

are involved in either framing or evaluating this test. The achievement test

can be categorized into two types: ‘Final Achievement Test’ and ‘Progress

Achievement Test’.

‘Final Achievement Tests’ are actually final tests conducted at the end of a

semester or an academic year after course completion. The content of this

test is related to the content of the course as specified in the syllabus. That is

why it is referred to as the syllabus-content approach. The major

disadvantage of this test is that if the course and materials are not designed

properly, the results will have a negative wash back. That is, it will not

indicate successful achievement of course objectives. However, the results

of these tests help the teachers in correcting or modifying their strategies or

materials only to be used in the next academic session. The feedback is not

given to the learners who take this test. The amendments felt to be made are

experimented on the fresh learners who join the course.

There is an alternative approach too in this test, where the test is directed

more on the course objective rather than on the course content. This helps in

22

making the course designers explicit about objectives; hence this test is able

to capture the learners’ achievements in terms of these objectives.

‘Progress Achievement Test’ is practically synonymous with ‘Progress

Test’, as discussed in brief above. This test is intended to measure the

consistent progress of learners during their academic session. Even here it is

intended to make the test focused on the short term course objectives for a

better performance and positive wash back. This is because low scores

obtained prove to be discouraging for students. Such tests as sessionals,

tutorials, quizzes, weekly assignments, and weekly tests are examples of this

type of test.

2.3.5 Diagnostic Tests:

Diagnostic tests are meant to identify the learners’ strengths and weaknesses.

Unlike achievement tests, diagnostic tests not only provide an impression of

the level of proficiency, but they also establish what a learner has or has not

mastered. These tests provide data which can be used to adapt a teaching

programme through its follow-up techniques. They intend to establish what

further teaching is required. Such tests are extremely useful for

individualized instruction or self-instruction. This test can be conducted at

the beginning or during the course to determine proficiency related to

vocabulary, grammatical accuracy, or linguistic appropriacy. But conducting

23

and administering such a test is difficult from various practical points of

views.

Besides, not many diagnostic tests have been designed so far. The

availability of computers have come up as a help, and we have witnessed the

development of a web-based DIALANG, which offers diagnostic test in

fourteen European languages, each having five modules : reading, writing,

listening, grammatical structures, and vocabulary.

The above types of tests reflect the very purpose and use of tests in actual

practice. Over decades of language testing, the following sets / binaries of

approaches to language testing emerged, based on which the tests were

prepared:

i) Direct versus Indirect Testing

The ‘direct’ versus ‘indirect’ continuum refers to the degree to which a test

task approaches the actual criterion performance. As the term suggests,

‘Direct’ testing means a direct assessment of the learners in the skills

concerned. That is, if we want to test the ability of composition among the

learners, we get them to produce a composition or if we have to evaluate the

pronunciation, we ask them to speak. In other words, a ‘direct test’ requires

the candidate to perform the skill that is being tested. Direct test is generally

24

better conducted on the productive skills, like reading and writing, in an

authentic situation. Though the tests cannot be called to be authentic

situation in the real sense of the term, still the situation can be brought very

close to real life. The example of a direct test is a continuous piece of

writing within a limited time frame, with an unknown topic.

In this approach the positive points are that we are clear about the test target

to be assessed; hence it becomes easier to develop the authentic situation, to

assess and interpret learners’ performance, and to get a positive backwash

effect.

Unlike the ‘direct test’, the ‘Indirect test’ attempts to measure the abilities

which underlie the skills in which we are interested (Hughes 1996:15) like

the multiple choice tests of grammar and usage. One good example of

indirect testing is Lado’s (1961) paper – pencil test for testing pronunciation

ability through the identification of rhyming pairs of words. Another

example comes from grammar based test indirectly measuring writing

ability, for instance in TOEFL and IELTS, where learners are required to

identify erroneous or inappropriate expressions in formal Standard English.

The problem with indirect testing is with regard to construct and content

validity whether the test reflects what is being tested and what is actually

being covered in the test.

25

This approach to testing lacks in conveying the aim of the test hence creates

problems at the level of marking and evaluation, especially when the

evaluators / assessors are different from the test designer. Here learners’

performance on the test itself does not confirm the learners’ better

performance in the overall skill itself. That is, this approach to testing does

not necessarily promise a positive backwash effect. However, the ‘indirect’

testing is best suited for the diagnostic purposes.

Today ‘direct’ testing has attained an upper hand over ‘indirect’ testing. It is

important to mention here the existence of ‘Semi-Direct’ testing too. One

appropriate example is the ‘speaking test’ based on tape-recorded stimuli, to

which learners have to respond.

ii) Discrete point versus Integrative Testing

The term ‘discrete point’ refers to the testing of one element at a time. That

means one needs to construct separate tests for various language items.

Opposed to this, the ‘integrative’ tests combine various aspects of language

in one wholesome / integrated test. We can take, for example, the case of

writing a composition where the form, content, use of vocabulary, proper

use of grammar, etc can be checked.

26

Discrete point testing (such as diagnostic tests of grammar items) is

generally ‘indirect’. It has traditionally been referred to as tests of grammar

in which single sentences are the maximum stimulus unit presented. These

tests also use separate tasks for or subsets to assess the ‘four skills’. In other

words, this type of test selects particular levels of language code

organization (e.g. phonology, syntax) to test grammatical points (e.g. speech

sound discrimination, correct choice of preposition), while dealing with only

one skill (reading, writing, listening or speaking).

Integrative testing, with an exception of the cloze procedures, is basically

‘direct’ in nature. It involves higher level of language organization in a test;

hence it comes to be integrative by involving language in discourse, rather

than at the word, sentence or syllable level. Such tests integrate various

skills for assessment in one activity. These tests evaluate language

proficiency of learners keeping in mind their communicative competence

and performance. Studies by Carroll (1961) and Oller (1979) are remarkable

with regard to this pair of approach to language testing.

iii) Norm-referenced versus Criterion-referenced Testing

‘Norm-referenced’ testing is meant to evaluate and place the learners in

terms of other learners. That is, it tells us the learners’ ranking (like top ten

or bottom five students) as conducted by TOEFL, IELTS, or The Michigan

27

Test of English Language Proficiency. It intends to make comparisons

between individuals. It is, for instance, necessary in a situation, where a

fixed quota of the best achievers, has to be selected.

The ‘criterion-referenced’ testing, on the other hand, intends to tell what a

learner can actually do in the target language. That is, it suggests how

proficient a learner is in performing certain skills / functions through the

target language. This test does not rank-order testees. The simple aim is to

find out whether a learner has mastered a set of specific objectives. Here the

tasks are generally set and the performances are evaluated. That means

learners are supposed to measure their progress in relation to meaningful

criteria. Tests conducted by Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) and

Berkshire Certificate of Proficiency in German Level 1, for instance, have

developed certain criteria for the language skills to be reflected for being

determined as proficient in the respective skills. Some other examples are

ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview, the FBI Listening Summary Translation

Exam (Scott et al, 1996), the Canadian Academic English Language (CAEL)

Assessment (Jennings et al, 1999).

A meaningful discussion of this binary of approaches can be found in the

studies by Popham (1978), Ebel (1978), Skehan (1984), Hudson and Lynch

(1984), Hughes (1986), and Brown and Hudson (2000).

28

iv) Objective testing versus Subjective testing

The main distinction between the types of testing is in terms of methods of

scoring. If a test provides a scoring scale to be followed by the scorer, the

test is claimed to be ‘objective’, otherwise it is ‘subjective’. The ‘subjective’

testing or scoring is actually a sort of ‘impressionistic’ scoring, which varies

from the evaluation of a composition task to the scoring of short answers in

response to a reading comprehension passage.

Objectivity in testing is given priority for better reliability and greater

agreement between various scores / evaluators of the same test. This means,

it is better if a test is constructed with its specifications and scoring scale.

However, in EFL and ESL countries, in general, such things exist only in

principle.

v) Computer adaptive testing

Since the last quarter of the 21st century, a consistent effort (successful in

some instances) is going on to develop computer adaptive language tests.

This type of testing mainly helps in collecting information on learners’

ability. It also helps in conducting and aligning the difficulty levels of tests

as per the ability of the learners. That is, to begin with all learners are given

an average level test, where the learners’ abilities are identified and they are

29

further tested accordingly. For instance, those who respond correctly (in the

introductory average-level test) are presented with more difficult items,

while those who respond incorrectly are presented with easier items.

With the introduction of such practices as e-learning, e-content generation

and on-line teaching and testing, the tests are required to be adapted as per

the new challenges of testing. Chalhoub-Deville (1999), Chalhoub-Deville

and Deville (1999), and Fulcher (2000) discuss issues relating to the role of

computers adaptation for language testing.

vi) Communicative language testing

The next chapter will deal with a detailed description of this approach. In a

nut shell, this approach actually came up as a reaction almost revolutionizing

the earlier practices with regard to the matter and manner of the language

tests. It suggests the need to test learners’ ability to communicate. In order to

do so, the test designers had to replace the aspects of grammatical items and

linguistic competence by communicative grammar, functions and notions of

the target language and the communicative competence. Although it has its

own limitations, it had a considerable influence. Such studies as Morrow

(1979), Brumfit and Johnson (1979), Canale and Swain (1980), Alderson

and Hughes (1981, part 1), Hughes and Porter (1983), Davies (1988), and

30

Weir (1990) are most representative contributions with regard to

Communicative language testing.

2.4 Characteristics of language tests:

So far we saw that language testing over the last one century has been

approached differently and has produced various test types. These tests

carried certain typical features of their own. But they all were expected to

carry the following three characteristics: namely, validity, reliability, and

practicality. That is, any test that we use must be appropriate in terms of

objectives, dependable in the evidence it provides, and applicable to our

particular situation. The development of the above concepts is a typical

feature of the ‘psychometric’ phase that emerged after the ‘pre-scientific’

days.

i) Validity:

If a test is found to be based upon a sound analysis of the skill(s) intended to

be measured, and if there is sufficient evidence that test scores correlate

fairly highly with actual ability in the skills area being tested, then we may

call that test to be valid. In simpler words, a test is said to be valid if it

measures accurately what is intended to measure.

31

By definition, though the concept of validity seems to be quite simple, the

researchers have often found it complex and difficult to separate it from the

concept of reliability. General discussion on validity and ways of measuring

it can be studied in Messick (1989), Bradshaw (1990), Wall et al (1994),

Cumming and Berwick (1996), Fulcher (1997), Anastasi and Urbina (1997),

and Nitko (2001).

In recent times, the term ‘construct validity’ has been increasingly used in

place of the general notion of validity. This is so because language tests are

generally created in order to measure some theoretical constructs in the form

of language items like reading ability, fluency in speaking, accuracy in

writing, written composition, control of grammar and so on. This term was

first used in the context of psychological tests of personality to measure

psychological constructs. Bachman and Palmer (1981) is one of the early

attempts to introduce construct validity to language testing. Cripper and

Davies (1988) and Hughes, Porter and Weir (1988) made further significant

contributions on these lines.

However, it is not enough to say that a test needs to have construct validity.

Rather it is required to reflect the construct validity in the form of some

evidences, like ‘Content validity’, ‘Criterion-related validity’, and ‘face

validity’.

32

The notion of validity is reflected in the following forms:

a) Content Validity: If a test is designed to measure mastery of a

specific skill or the content of a particular course of study, it is expected that

the test is based upon a careful analysis of that skill or the outline of the

course. That is, a test must take into consideration the language item (a skill

or some grammatical structure), the aspects of this skill to be tested, and its

extent / proportion as per the level of the learners (intermediate level or

advanced level, for instance). A mere inclusion of a language item from a

course of study is not enough to evidence the ‘content validity’. In other

words, it is important for the test designers to consult the test specification, if

at all it exists. The availability of ‘Content validity’ can be judged on the

basis of the proximity of ‘test specification’ and ‘test content’. ‘Content

validity’ is directly proportionate to the backwash effect and the accurate

measure of what the test is intended to measure. The higher is the ‘content

validity’, the more accurate (higher construct validity) will be the test and

the backwash effect.

It has been often observed that the test designers ignore the ‘content validity’

and give preference to simpler and easier content over the important content.

b) Criterion-related validity: This evidence of construct validity is

often termed as ‘empirical validity’, because here the correlation between

33

the test scores is established by comparing them to independent, outside

criterion such as marks attained at the end of a course or instructors’ or

supervisors’ ratings. If there is a high correlation between the two sets of test

scores, that means the ‘criterion-related validity’ is also high. This validity is

of two types:

Concurrent validity: It is established when both the test and the

criterion are administered at about the same time. This can be exemplified

through the ratings of the two types (in terms of duration, coverage, or

mode, etc) of achievement tests for the same content. If the comparison

between the two tests shows a higher agreement, then both the test are

considered to carry higher concurrent validity.

Predictive Validity: This refers to the degree to which a test can

predict a candidates’ future performance. This can be well understood in

terms of a proficiency test, which is given to predict a learner’s ability to

take up a graduate course at a British or American university.

c) Face Validity: A test is considered to carry ‘face validity’ if it is

confirmed that it measures what it is supposed to measure. A pen-pencil test

to measure a learner’s phonetic / pronunciation ability, for example, lacks in

‘face validity’. Face validity actually depends on the content and criterion-

34

related validities. That is if a test lacks in content, it automatically promises

to lack in face validity.

ii) Reliability: The term ‘reliability’ refers to the stability of test scores.

That is, a test is considered to be reliable only if the test scores do not vary

significantly due to the change in such external factors like day, date and

place, or due to the evaluation conducted by two or more sets of independent

examiners, or even due to the two parallel forms of the same test.

In order to attain reliability one needs to ‘construct’, ‘administer’, and

‘score’ tests in such a way that the scores obtained on a test on a particular

occasion are similar to the scores obtained by the same students with the

same ability, but at a different time. The more similar the scores, the more

reliable the test is supposed to be. Reliability is perceived in terms of ‘Test

Reliability’ and ‘Scorer Reliability’.

Test Reliability: Test reliability is attained by conducting sampling of

tasks on varieties of students. Sometimes test reliability is affected by the

change in administration or the lack of motivation among students.

Scorer Reliability: It concerns the stability or consistency with which

test performances are evaluated. Scorer reliability is often affected in

subjective tests or impressionistic evaluations on such test items like

35

composition task, or free response tests, etc. To achieve this reliability, an

attempt is often made to develop a scoring scale to be followed by all

evaluators. Scorer reliability is nearly perfect in the case of multiple choice

test, if the options to the test are carefully drawn.

Studies by Lado (1961), Feldt and Brennan (1989), Anastasi and Urbina

(1997), Nitko (2001), and Brown and Hudson (2002) are some

representative contributions with regard to reliability of tests.

iii) Practicality: A test may be very valid and reliable and yet may not be

practicable in its application. The first and foremost aspect is the cost

effectiveness of the test. Besides, economy of time is also significant. Aspect

of time is to be managed keeping in mind the level of students. Hence this is

also related to the difficulty level of the test, length and breath of the task. In

addition, ease of administration and scoring also becomes important for

practicality of the test.

2.5 Summing up:

The present chapter has mainly tried to capture the advancements made in

the field of language testing over the last one century. In the process it also

takes into consideration its overall development in terms of its types,

approaches and characteristics.

36

References:

Abraham, R. G. & Chapelle, C. A. 1992. The meaning of cloze test scores: An item difficulty perspective. MLJ, 76, 468-479.

Alderson, J. C. (1981) Report of the discussion on communicative language testing. In J. C. Alderson and A. Hughes (eds.). Issues in Language Testing. ELT Documents 111. London: The British Council.

Alderson and Hughes (eds.) 1981.Issues in Language Testing. ELT Documents 111.London; The British Council.

Anastasi, A. and S. Urbina. 1997. Psychological Testing (7th Edition). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall. In Hughes, A. 1989. Testing For Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Anderson, N. J. 1991. Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. MLJ, 75, 460-472.

Angiolillo, P. 1947. Armed Forces Foreign Language Teaching. New York: Vanni. p. 32.

Ayer, G. W. 1960. An auditory discrimination test based on Spanish, MLJ, 44, 227-230.

Bachman, L. F. (1990) Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Barnwell, D. 1987. Oral Proficiency Testing in the United States. British Journal of language teaching. 25 (1): 35-42.

Bell T. O., Doyle, V. & Talbott, B. L. 1977. Review essay: The Mat-Sea-Cal oral proficiency tests: A review of. MLJ, 61, 136-138.

Bensoussan, M. & Ramzar, R. 1984. Testing EFL reading comprehension using a multiple choice rational cloze. MLJ, 68, 230-239.

Blickenstaff, C. B. 1963. Musical talents and foreign language learning ability. MLJ, 47, 359-363.

Borg, W. R. & Goodman, J. S. 1956. Development of an individual test of English for foreign students. MLJ, 40, 240-244.

Bottke, K. G. & Milligan, E. E. 1945. Test of aural and oral aptitude for foreign language study. MLJ, 29, 705-709.

Bovee, A. G. & Froelich, G. J. 1946. Some observations on the relationship between mental ability and achievement in French. MLJ, 30, 333-336.

Boyle, J. P. 1987. Intelligence, reasoning and language proficiency. MLJ, 71, 277-288. Boyle, T. A., Smith, W. F., & Eckert, R. G. 1976. Computer mediated testing: A

branched programachievement test. MLJ, 60, 428-440.

Bradshaw, J. 1990. Test-Takers’ Reactions to Placement Test. Language Testing 7: 13-30.

37

Brereton, J. L. 1944. In Glenn Fulcher. 2003. Testing Second Language Speaking. Edinburgh: Pearson Education Limited.

Brier, E. J., Clausing, G., Senko, D., & Purcell, E. 1978. A look at cloze testing across languages and levels. MLJ, 62, 23-26.

Brinsmade, C. 1928. Concerning the College Board examinations in Modern languages. MLJ, 8, 87-100, 212-227.

Broom, E. & Kaulfers, W. V. 1927. Two types of objective tests in Spanish. MLJ, 11, 517-521.

Brown, J. D. 1980. Relative merits of four methods for scoring cloze tests, MLJ, 64, 311-317.

Brown, J. D. and T. Hudson. 2002. Criterion-referenced Language Testing.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brumfit, C. J. & K. Johnson. 1979. The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press/ ELBS.

Buechel, E. H. 1957. Grades and ratings in language proficiency evaluations. MLJ, 41, 41-47.

Byrnes, H. 1987. Proficiency as a framework for search in second language acquisition. MLJ, 71, 44-49.

Canale, M. and M. Swain. 1980. Theoretical Bases of Communicativer Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing. Applied Linguistics 1: 1-47

Carroll, J. B. 1954. Notes on the achievement of measurement in foreign languages. Unpublished manuscript, cited in Spolsky, B. 2000. Language Testing in the Modern Language Journal, 84, 536-552.

Carroll, J. B. 1961. Fundamental Considerations in Testing for English Language Proficiency of Foreign Students. In H. B. Allen and R. N. Campbell (eds.) 1972. Teaching English as a Second Language: A Book of Readings.New York: McGraw Hill.

Caulfield, J. & Smith, W.C. 1981. The reduced redundancy test and the cloze procedure as measures of global language proficiency. MLJ, 65, 54-58.

Chalhoub-Deville M. & C. Deville. 1999. Computer Adaptive Testing in Second Language Contexts. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 19:273-99.

Cheydleur, F. D. 1928. Results and significance of the new type of modern language tests. MLJ,12, 513-531.

Cheydleur, F. D. 1931. The use of placement testsin modern languages at the university of Wisconsin. MLJ, 15, 262-280.

Cheydleur, F. D. 1932a. Mortality of modern language students: Its causes and prevention. MLJ, 17, 104-136.

Cheydleur, F. D. 1932b. The relationship between functional and theoretical grammar. MLJ, 16, 310-334.

38

Clapp, H. L. 1947. Meditations on a placement programme or when should a foreign language be studied?. MLJ, 31, 203-207

Clark, J. L. D. 1983. Language testing: Past and current status – Directions for the future. MLJ, 67, 431-443.

Clarke, F. M. 1931. Results of the Bryn Mawr Test in French administered in New York City high schools.Bulletins of High Points. 13, 4-13.

College Entrance Examination Board. 1939. Thirty Ninth Annual Report of the Secretary. New York: College Entrance examination Board. In Fulcher, Glenn. 2003. Testing Second Language Speaking. Edinburgh: Pearson Education Limited. P. 2.

Committee on Resolutions and Investigations. 1917. Report of Committee on resolutions and Investigations appointed by the association of Modern Langugae Teachers of the Middle States and Maryland. In Fulcher, Glenn. 2003. Testing Second Language Speaking. Edinburgh: Pearson Education Limited. P. 2.

Conant, J. B. 1934. Notes and news: President Conant speaks again. MLJ,19, 465-466. Cooper, T. C. 1987. Foreign language study and SAT – verbal scores. MLJ, 32, 596-

599. Coutant, V. 1948. Evaluation in Foreign language teaching.MLJ, 32, 595-599.

Cripper, C. and A. Davies. 1988. ELTS Validation Project Report. Cambridge: The British Council and Cambridge local Examinations Syndicate. In Hughes, A. 1989. Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridgr; Cambridge University Press.

Cumming, A. and R. Berwick. (eds.).1996. Validation in Language Testing.Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. In Hughes, A. 1989. Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridgr; Cambridge University Press.

Currall, S. C. & Kirk, R. E. 1986. Predicting success in intensive foreign language courses.MLJ, 70, 107-113.

Curtin, C., Avner, A., & Smith, L. A. 1983. The Pimsleur Battery as a predictor of student performance. MLJ. 67, 33-40.

Davies, A. 1988. Communicative Language Testing. In Hughes, A. 1989. Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridgr; Cambridge University Press.

Decker, W. C. 1925. Oral and aural tests as integral parts of Regents’ examinations. MLJ, 9, 369-371.

Di Giulio, E. 1967. Testing in the language laboratory. MLJ, 51, 103-104. Dunkel, P. A. 1991. Computerized testing of non-participatory L2 listening

comprehension proficiency: An ESL prototype development effort. MLJ, 75, 64-73. Ebel, R. L. 1978. The Case for Norm-referenced Measurements. Educational

Researcher 7(11):3-5. In Hughes, A. 1989. Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridgr; Cambridge University Press.

Eley, E. G. 1956. Testing the language arts. MLJ, 40, 310-315.

39

Eterno, J. A. 1961. Foreign language pronunciation and musical aptitude. MLJ, 45, 168-170.

Feder, D. D. & Cochran, G. 1936. Comprehension maturity tests: A new departure in measuring reading ability. MLJ. 20, 201-208.

Feldt, L. S. and R. L. Brennan. 1989. Reliability. In Linn (ed.). 1989. In Hughes, A. 1989. Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridgr; Cambridge University Press.

Fife, R. H. 1937. Reading tests in French and German. MLJ, 22, 56-57. Frantz, A. I. 1939. The reading knowledge test in the foreign languages: A survey.

MLJ, 23, 440-446. Fulcher, G. 1997. An English Language Placement Tests: issues in Reliability and

Validity. Language Testing. 14: 113-138. Fulcher, G. 2000. Computers in Language Testing. In Brett and Motteram (eds.) 2000.

Fulcher, Glenn. 2003. Testing Second Language Speaking. Edinburgh: Pearson Education Limited.

Furness, E. L. 1955. A plea for a broader program of testing. MLJ, 39, 255-259. Gabbert, T. A. 1941. Predicting success in an intermediate junior college reading

course in Spanish. MLJ, 8, 637-641. Gaies, S., Gradman, H., & Spolsky, B. 1977. Towards the measurement of functional

proficiency: Contextualization of the noise test. TESOL Quarterly, 11, 51-57. Guerra, E. L., Abrahamson, D. A., & Newmark, M. 1964. The New York City foreign

language oral ability rating scale. MLJ, 48, 486-489. Haden, E. & Stalnaker, J. M. 1934. A new type of comprehensive foreign language test.

MLJ, 19, 81-92. Harding, F. D. J. 1958. Tests in selection of language students. MLJ, 42, 120-122.

Heilenman, L. K. 1983. The use of a cloze procedure in foreign language placement. MLJ, 67, 121-126.

Heining-Boynton, A. L. 1990. The development and testing of the FLES program evaluation inventory. MLJ, 74, 432-439.

Henmon, V. A. C., Bohan, J. E., Brigham, C. C., Hopkins, L. T., Rice, G. A., Symonds, P. M. Todd, J. W., & Van Tassel, R. J. (eds.). 1929. Prognosis tests in the modern foreign languages: Report prepared for the Modern Foreign Language Study and the Canadian Committee on Modern Languages (Vol. 16). New York: Macmillan Company.

Henmon, V. A. C. 1934. Recent developments in the study of foreign language problems. MLJ, 19, 187-201.

Hieke, A. E. 1985. A componential approach to oral fluency evaluation. MLJ,I 69, 135-142.

40

Hudson, T. & B. Lynch. 1984. A Criterion-referenced Approach to ESL Achievement Testing . Language Testing 1: 171-201.

Hughes, A. and D. Porter. (Eds.). 1983. Current Development in Language Testing. London: Academic Press.

Hughes, A. 1986. A Pragmatic Approach to Criterion-referenced Foreign Language Testing. In Hughes, A. 1989. Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hughes, A., D. Porter and C. Weir. (Eds.).1988. Validating the ELTS Test: A Critical Review. Cambridge: The British Council and University of Cambridge Local Examination Syndicate. In Hughes, A. 1989. Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridgr; Cambridge University Press.

Hughes, A. 2003. Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jacobson, M. & Imhoof, M. 1974. Predicting success in learning a second language. MLJ, 58, 329-336.

Kaulfers, W. V. 1930. Why prognose in the foreign languages? MLJ, 14, 296-301.

Kaulfers, W. V. 1933. Practical techniques for testing comprehension in extensive reading. MLJ 17, 321-327.

Kaulfers, W. V. 1937. Objective tests and exercises in French Pronunciation. MLJ, 22, 186-188.

Kaulfers, W. V. 1939. Prognosis and its alternatives in relation to the guidance of students. German Quarterly, 12, 81-84.

Kauflers, W. V. 1944. War time development in modern language achievement testing. MLJ, 28, 136-150.

Kaulfers, W. V. 1948. Post war language teaching in California Colleges. MLJ, 32, 368-372.

Kramsch, C. J. 1986. From language proficiency to international competence. MLJ, 70, 366-372.

Kurath, W. & Stalnaker, J. M. 1936. Two German vocabulary tests. MLJ, 21, 95-102. Lado, R. 1961. Language Testing. London. Longman.

Lambert, R. D. 1987. The case for a national foreign language center: An editorial. MLJ, 71, 1-11

Lange, D. L. & Clausing, G. 1981. An examination of two methods of generating and scoring Cloze tests with students of German on three levels. MLJ, 65, 254-261.

Lantolf, J. P. & Frawley, W. 1985. Oral proficiency testing: A critical analysis. MLJ, 69, 228-234.

Lee, & Musumeci. 1988. In Spolsky, B. 2000. The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 84, No. 4, Special Issue: A Century of Language Teaching and Research: Looking Back and Looking Ahead, Part 1 (Winter, 2000), pp. 536-552. Blackwell Publishing

41

on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/330305. Accessed on 07/12/2009 00:43.

Liskin-Gasparro, J. E. 1984b. The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines: A Historical Perspective. P. 22. In Fulcher, Glenn. 2003. Testing Second Language Speaking. Edinburgh: Pearson Education Limited.

Lowe, J. P. 1986. Proficiency: Panacea, framework, process? A reply to Kramsch, Schulz, and particularly to Bachman and Savignon. MLJ, 70, 391-397.

Lundeberg, O. K. 1929. Recent developments in audition-speech tests. MLJ, 144, 193-202.

Madsen, H. S. 1979. An indirect measure of listening comprehension. MLJ, 63, 429-435.

Maronpot, R. P. 1939. Discovering and salvaging modern language risks. MLJ, 23, 595-598.

Matheus, J. F. 1937. Corelation between psychological test scores, language test scores, and semester grades. MLJ, 22, 104-106.

McCarthur, J. 1965. Measurement, interpretation, and evaluation – TV FLES: Item analysis in test instruments. MLJ, 49, 217-219.

Mendeloff, H. 1963. Aural placement by television. MLJ, 47, 110-113.

Meredith, R. A. 1978. Improved oral test scores through delayed response. MLJ, 62, 321-327.

Meredith, R. A. 1990. The oral proficiency interview in real life: sharpening the scale. MLJ, 74, 288-296.

Messick, S. 1989. Validity. In Hughes, A. 1989. Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridgr; Cambridge University Press.

Michel, S. V. 1934. Prognosis in the Modern Foreign Languages. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Minesota, Minneapolis. Cited in Spolsky 2000.

Michel, S. V. 1936. Prognosis in German. MLJ. 20, 275-287. Miller, M. M. 1948. Test on Spanish and Spanish American Life and Culture. MLJ, 32,

140-144. Miyata-Boddy, Nick & Langham, Clive S. 2000. Communicative language testing - an

attainable goal?. Tokyo: The British Council. Morrow, K. 1979. Communicative Language Testing: Revolution or Evolution? In C. J.

Brumfit and K. Johnson. (eds.). 1979. The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press/ELBS.

Mueller, T. 1959. Auding Tests. MLJ, 43, 185-187. Natalicio, D. S. 1979. Repetition and dictation as language testing techniques. MLJ, 63,

165-176.

42

Nitko, A. J. 2001. Educational assessment of Students (3rd Edition). Upper Saddle River, N. J.: Prentice Hall.

Oller, J. W. 1972. Scoring methods and difficulty levels for cloze tests of proficiency in English as a second language. MLJ, 56, 151-158.

Oller, J. W. 1976a. Review Essay: The measurement of Bilingualism: A review of. Modern Language Review, 60, 399-400.

Oller. J. W. 1979. language Tests at School: A Pragmatic Approach. London: Longman.

Politzer, R. L. 1974. Devrlopmrntal sentence scoring as a method of measuring second language acquisition. MLJ, 58, 245-250.

Popham, W. J. 1978. The Case for Criterion-referenced Measurements. Educational Researcher 7 (11): 6-10.

Raymond, J. 1951. A controlled association exercise in Spanish. MLJ, 35, 280-289. Richardson, H. D. 1933. Discovering aptitude for the foreign languages. MLJ, 18, 160-

170. Roach, J. O. 1945. Some problems of oral examinations in modern languages: An

experimental approach based on the Cambridge examinations in English for foreign students, being a report circulated to oral examiners and local examiners for those examinations. Cambridge, England: Local Examination Syndicate.

Rogers, A. L. & Clarke, F. M. 1933. Report on Bryn Mawr Test of ability to understand Spoken French. MLJ, 17, 241-248.

Sadnavitch, J. M. & Popham, W. J. 1961. Measurement of Spanish achievement in the elementary schools. MLJ, 45, 297-299.

Salomon, E. 1954. A Generation of Prognosis testing. MLJ, 38, 299-303.

Sammartino, P. 1938. A language achievement scale. MLJ, 22, 429-432. Savignon, S. J. 1985. Evaluation of communicative competence: The ACTFL

Provisional Proficiency Guidelines. MLJ, 69, 129-134. Schulz, R. A. 1986. From achievement to proficiency through classroom instruction:

some caveats. MLJ, 70, 373-379. Seibert, L. C. & Goddard, E. R. 1935. A more objective method of scoring

composition. MLJ, 20, 143-150. Shane, A. M. 1971. An evaluation of the existing college norms for the MLA-

Cooperative Russian Test and its efficacy as placement examination. MLJ, 55, 93-99.

Shohamy, E. 1982. Affective considerations in language testing. MLJ, 66, 13-17. Shohamy, E., Gordon, C. M., & Kraemer, R. 1992. The effect of raters’ background

and training on the reliability of direct writing tests. MLJ, 76, 27-33.

43

Smith, F. P. & Cambell, H. 1942. Objective achievement testing in French recognisition versus recall tests. MLJ, 76, 27-33.

Spoerl, D. T. 1939. A study of some of the possible factors involved in foreign language learning. MLJ, 23, 428-431.

Spolsky, B. 1975. Language Testing: Art or Science? In Moller, Alan. 1981. “Reaction to the Morrow Paper”. In ELT Documents 111 – Issues in Language Testing. London: The British Council.

Spolsky, B. 2000. The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 84, No. 4, Special Issue: A Century of Language Teaching and Research: Looking Back and Looking Ahead, Part 1 (Winter, 2000), pp. 536-552. Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/330305. Accessed on 07/12/2009 00:43.

Spurling, S. 1987. The fair use of an English language admissions test. MLJ, 71, 410-421.

Stalnaker, J. M. & Kurath, W. A. 1935. A comparision of two two types of foreign language vocabulary test. Journal of Educational Psychology, 26, 435-442.

Stansfield, C. W. & Kenyon, D. M. 1992. The development and validation of a simulated oral proficiency interview. MLJ, 76, 129-141.

Stansfield, C. W., Scott, M. L. & Kenyon, D. M. 1992. The measurement of Translation ability. MLJ, 75, 455-467.

Stubbs, J. B. & Tucker, G. R. 1974. The cloze test as a measure of English proficiency. MLJ, 58, 239-241.

Symonds, P. M. 1930a. A foreign language prognosis test. Teachers’ College Record. 31, 540-546.

Symonds, P. M. 1930b. Foreign Language Prognosis Test. New York: Teachers College. Columbia University.

Tallent, E. R. E. 1938. Three coefficient of correlations that concern modern foreign languages. MLJ, 22, 591-594.

Taylor, J. S. 1972. Would achievement testing of students solve the problem of incompetent language teachers? MLJ, 56, 360-364.

Tharp, J. B. 1930. Effect of oral-aural ability on scholastic ability. MLJ, 15, 10-26. Thorndike, E. L. ed. 1921. The Teachers’ Word Book. New York: Teacher’s College,

Columbia University. Valley, J. R. 1959. College actions on CEEB advanced placement language

examination candidates. MLJ, 43, 261-263. Wagner, M. E. & Strabel, E. 1935. Predicting success and failure in college ancient and

modern foreign languages. MLJ, 19, 285-293. Wall, D., C. Clapham and J. C. Alderson.1994. Evaluating a Placement Test. Language

Testing 11:321-344.

44

Weir, C. J. 1990. Communicative Language Testing. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall. Wesche, M. Bingham. 1983. Communicative Testing in a Second Language. The

Modern Language Journal, 67, 41-55. Woodford, P. E. 1980. Foreign language testing. MLJ, 64, 97-102.