testing and evaluation

Testing and Evaluation

By : Abla BEN BELLAL

1. DEFINITION OF TESTING :

It is a technique of obtaining infomation needed for evaluation purposes. (Tests, quizzes, measuring instruments) are devices used to obtain such information.

A TEST is « a method of measuring a person’s ability on knowledge in a given area »

2. DEFINITION OF ASSESSMENT : It is the process of collecting information or evidence of a learner’s learning

progress and achievement over a period of time in order to improve teaching

and learning.

Assessment is typically used to describe processes to examine or measure

student learning that results from academic programs.

Assessment is an ongoing process aimed at imroving student learning.

Assessment is not based on one test or one task, nor it is expressed by mark or

grade, but rather in a report form with scales or levels as well as description and

comment from the teacher.

2.1. TYPES OF ASSESSMENT:

2.1.1. Formative Assessment : when teachers use it to check on the progress of

their students, to see how far they have mastered what they should have

learnt, and then use this information to modify their future teaching plans.

*Informal assessment is a part of formative assessment. It can take a

number of forms : Unplanned comments, verbal feedback to students,

observing students perform a task of work in small groups and so on.

2.1.2. Summative Assessment : is used at the end of the term, semester, or year

in order to measure what has been achieved both by groups and by

individuals.

Research Methodology : https://www.facebook.com/groups/689682314444236/

*Formal assessment is part of summative assessment. i.e. Exercises or

procedures which are systematic and give students and teachers an appraisal

of students’ achievement.

3. DEFINITION OF EVALUATION:It is the process of making overall judgment about one’s work or a whole

school’s work.

Evaluation is typically broader concept than assessment as it focuses on the

overall, or summative experience.

when we ASSESS our students we commonly are interested in“how and

how much our students have learnt” , but when we EVALUATE them we

are concerned with “how the learning process is developing” .

4. WHAT ARE THE MAIN REASONS FOR TESTING ?

a. Achievement/Attainment tests: usually more formal, designed to show

mastery of a particular syllabus (e.g. end-of-year tests, school-leaving exams,

public tests) though similar (re-syllabus) to progress tests. Rarely constructed

by classroom teacher for a particular class. Designed primarily to measure

individual progress rather than as a means of motivating or reinforcing

language.

b. Progress Tests: Most classroom tests take this form. Assess progress students

make in mastering material taught in the classroom. Often given to motivate

students. They also enable students to assess the degree of success of teaching

and learning and to identify areas of weakness & difficulty. Progress tests can

also be diagnostic to some degree.

c. Diagnostic Tests : can include Progress, Achievement and Proficiency tests,

enabling teachers to identify specific weaknesses/difficulties so that an

appropriate remedial programme can be planned. Diagnostic Tests are primarily

designed to assess students' knowledge & skills in particular areas before a

course of study is begun. Reference back to class-work. Motivation. Remedial

work.


d. Placement Tests : sort new students into teaching groups so that they are

approx. the same level as others when they start. Present standing. General

ability rather than specific points of learning. Variety of tests necessary.

Reference forward to future learning. Results of Placement Tests are needed

quickly. Administrative load.

e. Proficiency Tests : measure students' achievements in relation to a specific

task which they are later required to perform (e.g. follow a university course in

the English medium; do a particular job). Reference forward to particular

application of language acquired: future performance rather than past

achievement. They rarely take into account the syllabus that students have

followed. Definition of operational needs. Practical situations. Authentic

strategies for coping. Common standard e.g. driving test regardless of previous

learning. Application of common standard whether the syllabus is known or

unknown.

f. Aptitude Tests: measure students probable performance. Reference forward

but can be distinguished from proficiency tests. Aptitude tests assess

proficiency in language for language use (e.g. will S experience difficulty in

identifying sounds or the grammatical structure of a new language?) while

Proficiency tests measure adequacy of control in L2 for studying other things

through the medium of that language.

5. TYPES OF TESTS :

Proficiency tests Achievement tests Diagnostic tests Placement tests*They are designed to measure students’ aility in a language.*The content is not based on the content or objectives of language courses that people taking may have followed.*It is based on a specification of what candidates have to be able to do in the language in

*Achievement tests are “more formal”, whereas Hughes (1989:8) assumes that this type of tests will fully involve teachers, for they will be responsible for the preparation of such tests and giving them to the learners.*Are directly related to language courses, their purpose being to establish how successful individual students, or the

*Are used to identify learners’ strengths and weaknesses.*They are intended to ascertain what learning still needs to take place.a diagnostic test is helps us evaluate our teaching ,the syllabus, as well as the material used in addition to locating difficulties and planning appropriate

*intended to provide information that will help to place students at the stage of the teaching programme most appropriate to their abilities.*They are used to assign students to classes at different levels.placement tests are


order to be considered proficient.* proficiency test is a test, which measures how much of a language a person knows or has learnt. It is not bound to any curriculum or syllabus, but is intended to check the learners’ language competenceThe examples of such tests could be the American Testing of English as Foreign Language test (further in the text TOEFL) that is used to measures the learners’ general knowledge of English in order to allow them to enter any high educational establishments or to take up a job in the USA*proficiency test is used to assess the general knowledge or skill commonly required to entry into a group of similar institution. Because of the general nature of proficiency decisions, a proficiency test must be designed so that the general abilities and skills of students are reflected in a wide distribution of scores. Thus, proficiency decisions must be based on the best obtainable proficiency test scores as well as other information about students

courses themselves have been in achieving objectives.*An achievement test at the end of the course to check the acquisition of the material covered during the study year*There are of 2 types :Final achievement tests : administered at the end of a course of a study. They may be written and administered by ministries of education, official examining boards, or by memebers of teaching institutions. The content of these tests must be related to the courses with which they are concerned.*Progress achievement tests : intended to measure the progress that the students are making. They contribute to formative assessment.*Achievement tests must be not only very specifically designed to measure the objectives of a given course but also flexible enough to help teachers readily respond to what they learn from the test about the students’ abilities, the students’ needs, and the students’ learning of the course objectives.*Achievement tests are mainly given at definite times of the school year. Moreover, they could be extremely crucial for the students, for they are intended either to make the students pass or fail the test.Alderson (ibid.) mentions two usage types of achievement tests: formative and summative. The notion of a formative test

remedial teaching.* diagnostic testing often requires moredetailed information about the very specific areas in which students have strengths and weaknesses. *The purpose is to help students and theirteachers to focus their efforts where they will be most effective.* the most effective use of a diagnostic test is to report the performance level on each objective (in a percentage) to each student so that he or she can decide how and where to invest time and energy most profitably.*They are designed to determne the degree to which the specific objectives of the course have been accomplished as well as to assess students’ strengths and weaknesses to correct individual deficiencies before it’s too late. These tests aim at fostering achievement by promoting strengths and eliminating weaknesses of students. In other words, the purpose of this type of tests is to diagnose students’ problems during the learning process to focus their efforts where they will be most effective.

designed to help decide what each student’sappropriate level will be within a specific program, skill area, or course.*The purpose of such tests is to reveal which students have more of, or lessof, a particular knowledge or skill so that students with similar levels ofability can be grouped together*the placement test typically could be represented in the form of dictations, interviews, grammar tests, etc.*a placement test is designed and given in order to use the information of the students’ knowledge for putting the students into groups according to their level of the language.


denotes the idea that the teacher will be able after evaluating the results of the test reconsider his/her teaching, syllabus design and even slow down the pace of studying to consolidate the material if it is necessary in futureSummative usage will deal precisely with the students’ success or failure. The teacher will immediately can take up remedial activities to improve a situation.*students are tested to find out how much each person has learnt within the program. Achievement decisions are about the amount of learning that students have done. They are flexible to help teachers respond to what they learn from the test about students’ ability, students’ needs and students’ learning of the course objective

6. PRINCIPLES OF LANGUAGE ASSESSMENTThere are five principles of language assessment; they are practicality, reliability,

validity, authenticity, and washback.

6.1. PRACTICALITY

An effective test is practical. This means that it:

is not excessively expensive.

A test that is prohibitively expensive is impractical.

stays within appropriate time constraint.

A test of language proficiency that takes a student 10 hours to complete is

impractical.

is relatively easy to administer


A test that takes a few minutes for a student to take and several hours for an examiner

to evaluate for most classroom situation is impractical.

has a scoring/evaluation procedure that is specific and time efficient.

A test that can be scored only by computer if the test takes place a thousand miles

away from the nearest computer is impractical.

Furthermore, for a test to be practical:

administrative details should clearly be established before the test,

students should be able to complete the test reasonably within the set time

frame,

all materials and equipment should be ready,

the cost of the test should be within budgeted limits,

the scoring/evaluation system should be feasible in the teacher’s time frame.

Validity and reliability are not enough to build a test. Instead, the test should be

practical across time, cost, and energy. Dealing with time and energy, tests should be

efficient in terms of making, doing, and evaluating. Then, the tests must be affordable.

It is quite useless if a valid and reliable test cannot be done in remote areas because it

requires an inexpensive computer to do it (Heaton, 1975: 158-159; Weir, 1990: 34-35;

Brown, 2004: 19-20).

6.2. RELIABILITY

A reliability test is consistent and dependable. A number of sources of unreliability

may be identified:

·

a. Students-related Reliability

A test yields unreliable results because of factors beyond the control of the test taker,

such as illness, fatigue, a “bad day”, or no sleep the night before.

b. Rater (scorer) Reliability

Rater reliability sometime refers to the consistency of scoring by two or more scorers.

Human error, subjectivity, and bias may enter into the scoring process. Inter-


rater unreliability occurs when two or more scorers yield inconsistent score of the

same test, possibly for lack of attention to scoring criteria, inexperience, or

inattention. Intra-rater unreliability is because of unclear scoring criteria, fatigue, and

bias toward particular “good” and “bad” students.

· Test Administration Reliability

Unreliability may result from the condition in which the test is administered. For

example is the test of aural comprehension with a tape recorder. When a tape recorder

played items, the students sitting next to windows could not hear the tape accurately

because of the street noise outside the building.

c. Test Reliability

If a test is too long, test-takers may become fatigued by the time they reach the later

items and hastily respond incorrectly.

d. Test and test administration reliability can be achieved by making sure that all

students received the same quality of input. Part of achieving test reliability

depends on the physical context-making sure, for example, that every students has

a cleanly photocopied test sheet, sound amplification is clearly audible to everyone

in the room, video input is equally visible to all, lightning, temperature, and other

classroom conditions are equal (and optimal) for all students.

Reliability refers to consistency and dependability. A same test delivered to a same

student across time administration must yield same results. Factors affecting reliability

are (Heaton, 1975: 155-156; Brown, 2004: 21-22):

1. student-related reliability: students personal factors such as motivation,

illness, anxiety can hinder from their ‘real’ performance,

2. rater reliability: either intra-rater or inter-rater leads to subjectivity, error,

bias during scoring tests,

3. test administration reliability: when the same test administered in different

occasion, it can result differently,

4. test reliability: dealing with duration of the test and test instruction. If a test

takes a long time to do, it may affect the test takers performance such as

fatigue, confusion, or exhaustion. Some test takers do not perform well in


the timed test. Test instruction must be clear for all of test takers since they

are affected by mental pressures.

Some methods are employed to gain reliability of assessment (Heaton, 1975:

156; Weir 1990: 32; Gronlund and Waugh, 2009: 59-64). They are:

1. test-retest/re-administer: the same test is administered after a lapse of

time. Two gained scores are then correlated.

2. parallel form/equivalent-forms method: administrating two cloned tests at

the same time to the same test takers. Results of the tests are then correlated.

3. split-half method: a test is divided into two, corresponding scores obtained,

the extent to which they correlate with each other governing the reliability of

the test as a whole.

4. test-retest with equivalent forms: mixed method of test-retest and parallel

form. Two cloned tests are administered to the same test takers in different

occasion.

5. intra-rater and inter-rater: employing one person to score the same test in

different time is called intra-rater. Some hits to minimize unreliability are

employing rubric, avoiding fatigue, giving score on the same numbers, and

suggesting students write their names at the back of test paper. When two

people score the same test, it is inter-rater. The tests done by test takers are

divided into two. A rubric and discussion must be developed first in order to

have the same perception. Two scores either from intra- or inter-rater are

correlated.

6.3. VALIDITY

Validity is the extent to which inferences made from assessment result are appropriate,

meaningful, and useful for the purpose of the assessment. It is the most complicated

yet the most important principle. Validity can be measured using statistical correlation

with other related measures.

According to Bynom (Forum, 2001), validity deals with what is tested and degree to

which a test measures what is supposed to measure (Longman Dictionary, LTAL). For

example, if we test the students writing skills giving them a composition test on Ways


of Cooking, we cannot denote such test as valid, for it can be argued that it tests not

our abilities to write, but the knowledge of cooking as a skill.

A. Content-related Validity

A test is said to have content validity when it actually samples the subject matter about

which conclusion are to be drawn, and require the test–taker to perform the behavior

being measured. For example, speaking ability is tested using speaking performance, not

pencil and paper test. It can be identified when we can define the achievement being

measured.

It can be achieved by making a direct test performance. For example to test pronunciation

teacher should require the students to pronounce the target words orally.

There are two questions are used to applying content validity in classroom test:

1. Are classroom objectives identified and appropriately framed? The objective should

include a performance verb and specific linguistic target.

2. Are lesson objectives represented in the form of test specification? A test should

have a structure that follows logically from the lesson or unit being tested. It can be

designed by dividing the objectives into sections, offering students a variety of item

types, and gives appropriate weight to each section.

B. Criterion-related Validity

The extent to which the “criterion” of the test has actually been reached. It can be best

demonstrated through a comparison of result of an assessment with result of some other

measure of the same criterion.

Criterion-related validity usually falls into two categories:

1. Concurrent Validity: if the test result supported by other concurrent performance

beyond assessment. (e.g.: high score in English final exam supported by actual

proficiency in English)

2. Predictive Validity: to asses or predict the test-taker’s likelihood of future success.

(e.g.: placement test, admission assessment)

C. Construct-related Validity


Construct validity ask “Does the test actually touch into the theoretical construct

as it has been defined?”. An informal construct validation of the use of virtually every

classroom test is both essential and feasible. For example, the scoring analysis of

interview includes pronunciation, fluency, grammatical accuracy, vocabulary used and

sociolinguistics appropriateness. This is the theoretical construct of oral proficiency.

Construct validity is a major issue in validating large-scale standardized test of

proficiency.

D. Consequential Validity

It includes all the consequences of a test, such as its accuracy in measuring the

intended criteria, its impact on the test-takers preparation, its effect on the learner, and

the social consequences of the test interpretation and use. One aspect of consequential

validity which draws special attention is the effect of test preparation courses and

manual on performance.

E. Face Validity

Face validity is the extent to which students view the assessment as fair, relevant, and

useful for improving learning. It means that students perceive the test to be valid. It

will be perceived valid if it samples the actual content of what the learners has

achieved or expect to achieve. Nevertheless the psychological state of the test-taker

(confidence, anxiety) is an important aspect in their peak performance.

Test with high face validity has the following characteristics:

• Well constructed, expected format with familiar task.

• Clearly doable within the allotted time.

• Clear and uncomplicated test item.

• Crystal clear direction.

• Task that relate to students course work.

• A difficulty level that present a reasonable challenge.

Another phrase associated with face validity is” biased for best”. Teachers can

make a test which is” biased for best” by offering students appropriate review and

preparation for the test, suggesting strategies that will be beneficial, or structuring the


test so that the best students will be modestly challenged and the weaker students will

not be overwhelmed.

The concept of face validity according to Heaton (1975: 153) and Brown (2004:

26) is that when a test item looks right to other testers, teachers, moderators, and test-

takers. In addition, it appears to measure the knowledge or abilities it claims to

measure. Heaton argues that if a test is examined by other people, some absurdities

and ambiguities can be discovered.

Face validity is important in maintaining test takers’ motivation and

performance (Heaton, 1975; 153; Weir, 1990: 26). If a test does not have face validity,

it may not be acceptable to students or teachers. If students do not take the test as

valid, they will show adverse reaction (poor study reaction, low motivation). In other

words, they will not perform in a way which truly reflects their abilities.

Brown (2004: 27) states that face validity will likely be high if learners

encounter:

1. a well-constructed, expected format with familiar tasks,

2. a test that is clearly doable within the allotted time limit,

3. items that are clear and uncomplicated,

4. directions that are crystal clear,

5. tasks that relate to their course work (content validity), and

6. a difficulty level that presents a reasonable challenge.

To examine face validity, no statistical analysis is needed. Judgmental

responses from experts, colleagues, or test takers may be involved. They can read

thoroughly to the whole items or they can just see at glance the items. Then, they can

relate to the ability that the test want to measure. If a speaking test appears in

vocabulary items, it may not have face validity.

6.4. AUTHENTICITY

Authenticity is the degree of correspondence of the characteristics of a given

language test task to the features of a target language task. It also means a task that is

likely to be encountered in the “real world”.

Authenticity can be presented by:

• Using a natural language


• Contextualizing the test item

• Giving meaningful (relevant, interesting) topics for the learners.

• Providing thematic organization to the item (e.g. through story line or episode)

• Giving test which represent or closely approximate real world task.

6.5. WASHBACK

In general terms, washback means the effect of testing on teaching and learning. In

large-scale assessment, it refers to the effects that test have on instruction in the terms

of how the students prepare for the test. While in classroom assessment, washback

means the beneficial information that washesback to the students in the form of useful

diagnoses of strengths and weaknesses.

In enhancing washback, the teachers should comment generously and specifically

on test performance, respond to as many details as possible, praise strengths, criticize

weaknesses constructively, and give strategic hints to improve performance.

The teachers should serve classroom tests as learning device through which

washback is achieved. Students’ incorrect responses can become windows of insight

into further work. Their correct responses need to be praised, especially when they

represent accomplishments in a student’s inter-language.

Washback enhances a number of basic principles of language acquisition: Intrinsic

motivation, autonomy, self-confidence, language ego, inter-language, and strategic

investment, among others.

One way to enhance washback is to comment generously and specifically on test

performance. Washback implies that students have ready access to the teacher to

discuss the feedback and evaluation he/she has given.

The effects of tests on teaching and learning are called washback. Teachers must be

able to create classroom tests that serve as learning devices through which washback is

achieved. Washback enhances intrinsic motivation, autonomy, self-confidence,

language ego, interlanguage, and strategic investment in the students. Instead of giving

letter grades and numerical scores which give no information to the students’


performance, giving generous and specific comments is a way to enhance washback

(Brown 2004: 29).

Heaton (1975: 161-162) mentions this as backwash effect which falls into

macro and micro aspects. In macro aspect, tests impact society and education system

such as development of curriculum. In micro aspect, tests impact individual student or

teacher such as improving teaching and learning process.

Washback can also be negative and positive (Saehu, 2012: 124-127). It is easy

to find negative wash back such as narrowing down language competencies only on

those involve in tests and neglecting the rest. While language is a tool of

communication, most students and teachers in language class only focus on language

competencies in the test. On the other hand, a test can be positive washback if it

encourages better teaching and learning. However, it is quite difficult to achieve. An

example of positive washback of a test is National Matriculation English Test in

China. It resulted that after the test was administered, students’ proficiency in English

for actual or authentic language use situation improved.

Washback can be strong or weak (Saehu, 2012: 122-123). An example of strong

effect of the test is national examination; meanwhile weak effect of the test is the

impact of formative test. Let us compare and decide how most students and teachers

react on those two kinds of test.

7. WAYS OF TESTING:

7.1. Direct and Indirect Testing:

Direct Indirect*Hughes (1989:14) : the involvement of a skill that is supposed to be tested. The following view means that when applying the direct testing the teacher will be interested in testing a particular skill, e.g. if the aim of the test is to check listening comprehension, the students will be given a test that will check their listening skills, such as listening to the tape and doing the accompanying tasks. Such type of test will not engage testing of other skills.

*Testing is direct when it requires the learner to perform

*Indirect testing. It differs from direct one in the way that it measures a skill through some other skill. It could mean the incorporation of various skills that are connected with each other, e.g. listening and speaking skills.

*Indirect testing, regarding to (Hughes), tests the usage of the language in real-life situation

*indirect testing is more effective than direct one, for it covers a broader part of the language. It denotes


precisely the skill that we wish to measure. If we want to know how well learners can write compositions, we get them to write compositions. The tasks and the texts used should be as authentic as possible

*It is said that the advantages of direct testing is that it is intended to test some certain abilities, and preparation for that usually involves persistent practice of certain skills. Nevertheless, the skills tested are deprived from the authentic situation that later may cause difficulties for the students in using them.

that the learners are not constrained to one particular skill and a relevant exercise. They are free to elaborate all four skills; what is checked is their ability to operate with those skills and apply them in various, even unpredictable situations. This is the true indicator of the learner’s real knowledge of the language.

7.2. Discrete point and Integrative Testing:

Discrete point Integrative_discrete point test is a language test that is meant to test a particular language item, e.g. tenses. The basis of that type of tests is that we can test components of the language (grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and spelling) and language skills (listening, reading, speaking, and writing) separately

_The integrative test intends to check several language skills and language components together or simultaneously. Hughes (1989:15) stipulates that the integrative tests display the learners’ knowledge of grammar, vocabulary, spelling together, but not as separate skills or items.

7.3. Norm referenced and Criterion referenced Testing:

They are not focused directly on the language items, but on the scores the students can get

Norm Referenced (proficiency & placement tests) Criterion Referenced (achievement & diagnostic)*Norm-referenced tests refer to standardized tests that are designed to compare and rank test takers in relation to one another. This type of tests reports whether test takers performed better or worse than a hypothetical average student. It is designed to measure global language abilities, such as overall English language proficiency and academic listening ability, in which each student’s score is interpreted relative to the scores of all other students who took the test.

* Norm-referenced test that measures the knowledge of the learner and compares it with the knowledge of another member of his/her group. The learner’s score is compared with the scores of the other students

*In NRTs, testers interpret each student’s performance

*Criterion-referenced tests are designed to measure students’ performance against a fixed set of criteria or learning standards. That is to say, they are written descriptions of what students are expected to know and be able to do a lot at a specific stage of their education. CRTs provide information on whether students have attained a predetermined level of performance called “mastery”.

* The aim of testing is not to compare the results of the students. It is connected with the learners’ knowledge of the subject. As Hughes (1989:16) puts it the criterion-referenced tests check the actual language abilities of the students. They distinguish the weak and strong points of the students. The students either manage to pass the test or fail it.


in relationship to the performances of other students in the norm group. In other words, NRTs examine the relationship of a given student’s performance to that of all other students in percentile terms. Scores are expressed with no references to the actual number of test questions answered correctly .This means that teachers are mainly concerned with the student’s percentile score which informs them about the proportion of students who scored above and below the student in question.

*Tests are used to measure general abilities such as language proficiency in English. This type of tests has subtests that are general in nature. For example, measuring listening comprehension, reading comprehension and writing

*the purpose is to generate scores that spread the students out along a continuum of general abilities. Thus, any existing difference between individuals can be distinguished since a student performance is compared to others in the same group

*the test is very long and contains a variety of different types of question content. The content is diverse and students find difficulties to know exactly what will be tested because the test is made up of a few subtests on general language skills such as reading and listening comprehension

* students know the general format of the questions but not the language points or content to be tested by those questions

* the primary focus in interpreting scores is on how much of the material each student has learnt in absolute terms. That is, teachers are concerned with how much of the material the students know (The Percentage). They care about the percentage of questions the students answered correctly in connection with the material at hand without reference to students’ positions. A high percentage score means that the test was very easy for students who knew the material being tested.

* CRTs are designed to provide precise information about each individual’s performance on well-defined learning points. Subtests for a notional functional language course might consist of a short interview where ratings are made of students’ ability to perform greetings, express opinions and so on.*the purpose is to assess the amount of skill learnt by each student. That is to say, the focus here is on a student’s performance compared to the amount of material known by that student, and not on scores’ distribution.

* a CRT consists of numerous and short subtests in which each objective in the course will have its own subtest. To save time and efforts, subtests will be collapsed together which makes it difficult for an outsider to identify the subtests.

* students can predict both the questions formats on the test and the language points to be tested. Teaching to such a test should help teachers and students stay on track .Besides, the results should provide a useful feedback on the effectiveness of teaching and learning processes.

7.4. Objective and Subjective Testing:

Objective Subjective*A objective testing is one that can’t be interpreted differently because of

*A subjective testing is one that can possibly be interpreted differently

*The subjective test involves personal judgement of the examiner


numerical values.*when testing the students objectively, the teacher usually checks just the knowledge of the topic

*Testing subjectively could imply the teacher’s ideas and judgements. This could be encountered during speaking test where the student can produce either positive or negative impression on the teacher. Moreover, the teacher’s impression and his/her knowledge of the students’ true abilities can seriously influence assessing process. For example, the student has failed the test; however, the teacher knows the true abilities of the student and, therefore, s/he will assess the work of that student differently taking all the factors into account.

7.5. Communicative Testing:

*It involves the knowledge of grammar and how it could be applied in written and oral language; the knowledge when to speak and what to say in an appropriate situation; knowledge of verbal and non-verbal communication. All these types of knowledge should be successfully used in a situation*without a context the communicative language test would not function. The context should be as closer to the real life as possible. It is required in order to help the student feel him/herself in the natural environment.*the student has to possess some communicative skills, that is how to behave in a certain situation, how to apply body language, etc.*Communicative language testing involves the learner’s ability to operate with the language s/he knows and apply it in a certain situation s/he is placed in. S/he should be capable of behaving in real-life situation with confidence and be ready to supply the information required by a certain situation. Thereof, we can speak about communicative language testing as a testing of the student’s ability to behave him/herself, as he or she would do in everyday life. We evaluate their performance.

8. A SHORT HISTORY OF LANGUAGE TESTING:

Spolsky (1975) identifies three stages in the recent history of language testing: 1) The

pre-scientific 2) the psychometric-structuralist and 3) the psycho-linguistic-

sociolinguistic.

8.1. The Pre-scientific Period:

Language testing has its roots in pre-scientific stage in which no special skill or

expertise in testing is required. This is characterized by lack of concern for statistical

considerations or for such notions as objectivity and reliability (Heaton 1988, Weir

1990; Farhady et al., 1994). In its simplest form, this trend assumes that one can and


must rely completely on the subjective judgment of an experienced teacher, who can

identify after a few minutes of conversation, or after reading a student’s essay, what

mark to give him/her in order to specify the related language ability.

The pre-scientific movement is characterized by translation tests developed

exclusively by the classroom teachers. One problem that arises with these types of

tests is that they are relatively difficult to score objectively; thus, subjectivity becomes

an important factor in the scoring of such tests (Brown, 1996). It is inferred from

Hinofotis’s article (1981) that the pre-scientific movement ended with the onset of the

psychometric structuralist movement, but clearly such movements have no end in

language teaching and testing because, such teaching and testing practices are

indubitably going on in many parts of the world depending on the needs which specific

academic contexts demand.

8.2. The Psychometric Structuralist Period :

With the onset of the psychometric-structuralist movement of language testing,

language tests became increasingly scientific, reliable, and precise. In this era, the

testers and psychologists, being responsible for the development of modern theories

and techniques of educational measurement, were trying to provide objective

measures, using various statistical techniques to assure reliability and certain kind of

validity. According to Carrol (1972), psychometric-structuralist tests typically set out

to measure the discrete structural elements of language being taught in audio-lingual

and related teaching methods of the time. The standard tests, constructed according to

discrete point approach, were easy to administer and score and were carefully

constructed to be objective, reliable and valid. Therefore, they were considered as an

improvement on the testing practices of the pre-scientific movement (Brown, 1996).

In psychometric structuralist period, there was a remarkable congruence between

American structuralist view of language and psychological theories and practical needs

of testers. On the theoretical side, both agreed that language learning was chiefly

concerned with the systematic acquisition of a set of habits; on the practical side,


testers wanted and structuralists knew how to deliver long lists of small items which

could be sampled and tested objectively.

However, the following triple objectives were achieved from discrete tests, which was

the result of the coalescence of the two fields.

1) diagnosing learner strengths;

2) prescribing curricula at particular skills;

3) developing scientific strategies to help learners overcome particular weakness

The psychometric-structuralist movement was important because for the first time

language test development followed scientific principles. In addition, Brown (1996)

maintains that psychometric-structuralist movement could be easily handled by trained

linguists and language testers. As a result, statistical analyses were used for the first

time. Interestingly, psychometric-structuralist tests are still very much in evidence

around the world, but they have been supplemented by what Carrol (1972)

called integrative tests.

8.3. The Integrative-Sociolinguistic Period :

With the attention of linguists inclined toward generativism and psychologist toward

cognition, language teachers adopted the cognitive-code learning approach for

teaching a second and/or foreign language. Language professionals began to believe

that language is more than the sum of the discrete elements being tested during the

psychometric-structuralist movement (Brown, 1996; Heaton 1991; Oller, 1979).

The criticism came largely from Oller (1979) who argued that competence is a unified

set of interacting abilities that cannot be tested apart and tested adequately. The claim

was that communicative competence is so global that it requires the integration of all

linguistic abilities. Such global nature cannot be captured in additive tests of grammar,

reading, vocabulary, and other discrete points of language. According to Oller (1983),

if discrete items take language skill apart, integrative tests put it back together;


whereas discrete items attempt to test knowledge of language a bit at a time,

integrative tests attempt to assess a learner’s capacity to use many bits all at the same

time.

This movement has certainly its roots in the argument that language is creative.

Beginning with the work of sociolinguists like Hymes (1967), it was felt that the

development of communicative competence depended on more than simple

grammatical control of the language; communicative competence also hinges on the

knowledge of the language appropriate for different situations.

Tests typical of this movement were the cloze test and dictation, both of which assess

the students’ ability to manipulate language within a context of extended text rather

than in a collection of discrete-point questions. The possibility of testing language in

context led to further arguments that linguistic and extralinguistic elements of

language are interrelated and relevant to human experience and operate in

orchestration.

Consequently, the broader views of language, language use, language teaching, and

language acquisition have broadened the scope of language testing, and this brought

about a challenge that was articulated by Canale (1984) as the shift in emphasis from

language form to language use. This shift of focus placed new demands on language as

well as language testing.

Evaluation within a communicative approach must necessarily address, for example,

new content areas such as sociolinguistic appropriateness rules, new testing formats to

permit and encourage creative, open-ended language use, new test administration

procedures to emphasize interpersonal interaction in authentic situations, and new

scoring procedures of a manual and judgmental nature (Canale 1984, p. 79, cited in

Bachman, 1995).

For both theory and practice, the challenge is thus to develop tests that reflect current

views of language and language use, in that they are capable of measuring a wide

range of abilities generally associated with ‘communicative competence’ or


‘communicative language ability’, and include tasks that themselves embody the

essential features of communicative language use (Bachman 1995, p. 296).


testing and evaluation

Education