UNIVERSIDAD CATÓLICA DE LA SANTÍSIMA CONCEPCIÓN

FACULTAD DE EDUCACIÓN

DEPARTAMENTO DE LENGUAS

EVALUACIÓN DE LA COMPETENCIA COMUNICATIVA EN INGLÉS

PROFESORA MARIA GABRIELA SANHUEZA

GUIDO RIQUELME

ANA MARIA LUNA

It is mainly important for any subject involved in the teaching learning process, to be aware of the differences

between the concepts: assessment, test, and evaluation. The objective of a proper assessment is to promote

language performance in order that students be able to communicate in L2. We have to take into consideration

that by contextualizing the learning in authentic tasks, we can improve the motivation of the students making

them participate in activities that involves real context. Students should be measured on what they have been

taught at their respective schools, they need to be provided with comments and feedback in order to learn

about their own mistakes and improve their competences in the English.

As future teachers, it is primary important to comprehend the principles that the authors provide in regard to

language assessment in classrooms not only because these principles can improve our teaching process, but

also these principles are very helpful when we design worksheets, rubrics and evaluations for our students.

A revision of the principles of language assessment according to Brown (2004), Coombe (2007), and

Bachman & Palmer (1997), will be presented in the following paragraphs.

Bachman and Palmer, Douglas Brown and Coombe agree on 5 principles/qualities. Those are: Practicality,

Reliability, Validity, Authenticity, and Wash back. But Bachman and Palmer consider one principle that the

other two authors don’t consider. Equally, Coombe contemplate 2 principles that are not considered by the

other two authors.

According to Bachman and Palmer (1997) practicality can be defined as the correlation between the resources

available and the resources that are required at the moment of making a test. Coombe (2007) considers as

practicality the cost of the test, if it is adequate, in terms of length, to the time that is going to be implemented,

resources available, if it easy to mark, etc. Douglas Brown’s (2004) concept of practicality agrees with

Coombe’s.

Regarding reliability, Bachman and Palmer, Brown and Coombe agree on explaining reliability as a

consistency of the test score, on two contexts that are more or less similar. Brown (2004) adds the concepts of

student reliability, physical and psychological factors that might affect student’s performance at the moment

of sitting for a test; Rater reliability, Inter-rater reliability and intra-rater reliability, the reliability is directly

affected by the scorer; Administrator reliability “Unreliability may also result from the conditions in which

the test was administrated” (Brown, 2004, p.21); Test reliability, sometimes the test itself could affect its own

reliability. Coombe (2007) seconds Brown (2007) stating some aspects that might affect the reliability of a

test.

Validity, defined by Bachman and Palmer (1997) as construct validity. This means that the score represents

the validity of the test, and within that interpretation of the test scores should be given some justifications.

These justifications must provide justifications of the area of language that we, as teachers, want to measure.

According to Coombe (2007), construct validity is the equivalent methodologies of language learning and the

type of assessment corresponding to that methodology. Also, validity is described as the testing of what is

taught and how the teacher taught it using formats of assessments that are familiar to students. To Brown

(2004) a valid test measure what it said that is going to measure. Brown mentions five types of evidences that

demonstrate the validity of a test. The first evidence is called content-related validity; this means the

achievement of what is going to be measured. The second evidence is named criterion-related evidence; in

other words, if the test criterion was reached. The third evidence, construct-related evidence refers if the test

measure what is was meant to measure. The forth evidence, consequential validity, refers to the consequences

of the test itself. Finally face validity, the last evidence, is defined as the formal aspects of a test, how familiar

look to students.

Regarding authenticity Bachman and Palmer (1997), and Coombe (2007) agree when defining authenticity as

the use of the target language on test task should be as authentic (belonging to real world) situations. Coombe

(2007) explain that students feel more motivated when they are faced with tasks that imitate real world

situations. As Brown (2004) explains, many times authentic task become a failure at the moment of emulate

real world situations and they become mainly grammatical or lexical focused tasks.

Finally, the quality in which those three authors converge is wash back. Douglas brown (2004) explain wash

back as the process in which a student receive information about their performance and progress through

feedback. Also, how the student prepares for a test is considered wash back. Brown states that there is no

wash back if students receive a simple mark without any justification. Coombe (2007) states that wash back

can be considered as the effect that tests have on teaching and learning, and this could be either positive or

negative. For Bachman and Palmer (1997) wash back belong to a bigger principle that is called impact.

Impact can be divided into two groups: micro (Individuals, teachers and students) and macro (Society and

educational system), being wash back considered as micro aspect of impact.

According to Bachman and Palmer (1997), interactiveness can be considered as the amount of abilities that

the test taker possesses in order to fulfill the assignment. Those characteristics needed are explicated by

Bachman and Palmer as language abilities, topical knowledge and affective schemata.

Finally, two concepts considered only by Coombe (2007) transparency states the importance of clear and

accurate information to students about testing, including how it is going to be assessed, time given to

complete the test. Coombe (2007) asseverate that this principle in particular make the student part of the

testing process. Security is the last principle mentioned by Coombe and it makes reference and it is very close

to the concept of recycling. Recycling, in terms of assessment, means to use and reuse the test, since the test is

so well prepared and accomplish with all principles/qualities.

From our point of view, even though those three authors might consider the same principles or not, there

descriptions or considerations of them are not excessively different from each other. We consider that Brown

(2004) is the one author that presents all the essential principles that we need for a proper assessment. Brown

mentions that it is not only necessary design proper tests, but also keep on mind to maintain motivation on our

students considering their emotions, abilities and the environment where they are involve. Moreover, he

suggested the importance of give feedback to our students, it is highly important that learners know about

their own mistakes and their strengths.

In order to conclude, through this analysis we learnt guidelines for language assessment. These principles are

essential to be known and applied, not only for us training teachers, but also to those educators who have

more experience, since they may need to adjust their methodologies and take into consideration the learners’

needs, emotions, environment and learning styles. As future teachers, we need to have into consideration all

the principles/qualities already mentioned in order to make and ensure that our assessments tools are

completely useful, as Bachman and Palmer (2007) consider usefulness as a result of the combination of the

qualities. In addition, we consider that washback is an indispensable tool for us, because it is something that

we have observed in our progressive practices where teachers are not used to give feedback to learners we

they make a mistake, it is fundamental to give them feedback of their mistakes and their strengths in order to

increase their participation and motivation inside the classroom

References:

-Bachman, L. F. & Palmer, A. (1997). Language testing in practice: designing and developing useful

language tests. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press

-Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment principles and classroom practices.New York: Pearson

Education

-Coombe, C., Folse, K. Hubley, N. (2007). A practical guide to assessing English language learners. Ann

Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.