1. Testing
A
test, in simple terms, is a method of measuring a person’s ability;
knowledge, or performance in a given domain. Let’s look at the
components of this definition. A test is first a method. It is an
instrument- a set of techniques, procedures, or items that requires
performance on the part of test-taker. Second, a test must measure. Some
tests measure general ability, while others determine a general ability
level; a quiz on recognizing correct use of definite articles measure
specific knowledge.
Next, a test measures an individual’s ability;
knowledge, or performance. Testers need to understand who the
test-takers are. What their previous experience and background? Is the
test appropriately matched to their abilities? How should test-takers
interpret their scores? Finally, a test measures in given domain. In the
case of proficiency test, even though the actual performance on the
test involves only a sampling of skills, that domain is overall
proficiency in a language-general competence in all skill of a language.
A
well-constructed test is an instrument that provides an accurate
measure of the test-takers’ ability within a particular domain.
2. Assessment and teaching
Assessment is popular and sometimes misunderstood term in current
educational practice. You might be to think of testing and assessing as
synonymous terms, but they are not. Tests are prepared administrative
procedures that occur at identifiable times in a curriculum when
learners muster all their faculties to offer peak performance, knowing
that their responses are being measured and evaluated.
Assessment, on
the other hand, is an ongoing process that encompasses a much wider
domain. Whenever a student responds to a question, offers a comment, or
tries out a new word or structure, the teacher subconsciously makes an
assessment of the student’s performance.
At the same time, during
these practice activities, teachers are indeed observing students’
performance and making various evaluations of each learner: How did the
performance compare to previous performance? Which aspects of the
performance were better than others? Is the learner performing up to an
expected potential? How does the performance compare to that of others
in the same learning community? In the ideal classroom, all these
observations feed into the way the teacher provides instruction to each
student.
3. Informal and formal assessment
One way to
begin untangling the lexical conundrum created by distinguishing among
tests, assessment, and teaching is to distinguish between informal and
formal assessment. Informal assessment can take a number of forms,
Starting with incidental, unplanned comments and responses, along with
coaching and other impromptu feedback to the students. A good deal of
teacher’s informal assessment is embedded in classroom tasks designed to
elicit performance without recording results and making fixed judgment
about a student’s competence.
On the other hand, formal assessments
are exercises or procedures specifically designed to tap into a
storehouse of skills and knowledge. They are systematic, planned
sampling techniques constructed to give teacher and students an
appraisal of students’ achievement.
4. Formative and summative assessment
Another
useful distinction to bear in mind is the function of assessment: how
is the procedure to be used? Two functions are commonly identified in
the literature formative and summative assessment. Most our classroom
assessment is formative assessment: evaluating students in the process
of “forming” their competencies and skills with the goal of helping them
to continue that growth process. The key to such formation is the
delivery (by the teacher) and internalization (by the students) of
appropriate feedback on performance, with an eye toward the future
continuation (or formation) of learning.
Summative assessment aims to
measure, or summarize, what a student has grasped, and typically occurs
at the end of a course or unit of instruction. A summation of what a
students’ has learned implies looking back and taking stock of how well
the student has accomplished objectives, but does not necessarily point
the way to future progress.
5. Norm-Referenced and Criterion-Referenced tests
Another
dichotomy that is important to clarify here and that aids in sorting
out common terminology in assessment is the distinction between
norm-referenced and criterion-referenced testing. In norm-referenced
tests, each test-takers’ score is interpreted in relation to mean
(average score), median (middle score), standard deviation (extent of
variance score), and/or percentile rank. The purpose in such tests is to
place test-takers along in the form of numerical score.
Criterion-referenced
test, on the other hand, are designed to give test-takers feedback,
usually in the form of grades, on specific course or lesson objectives.
Classroom tests involving the students in only one class, and connected
to a curriculum, are typical of criterion-referenced testing. In a
criterion-referenced test, the distribution of students’ score across a
continuum may be of little concern as long as the instrument assesses
appropriate objectives.
6. Approaches to language testing: A Brief History
A
brief history of language testing over the past half-century will serve
as a backdrop to an understanding of classroom-based testing.
Historically, language-testing trends and practices have followed the
shifting sands of teaching methodology. For example, in the 1950s an era
of behaviorism and special attention to contrastive analysis, testing
focused on specific language elements such as the phonological,
grammatical, and lexical contrast between two languages.
7. Discrete-point and Integrative Testing
Discrete-point
tests are constructed on the assumption that language can be broken
down into its component parts and that those parts can be tested
successfully. These components are the skills of listening, speaking,
reading, and writing and various units of language (discrete language)
of phonology, graphology, morphology, lexicon, syntax, and discourse. It
was claimed that an overall language proficiency test, then should
sample all four skills and as many linguistic discrete points as
possible.
What does an integrative test look like? Two types of tests
have historically been claimed to be examples or integrative tests:
cloze tests and dictations. A cloze test is a reading passage (perhaps
150 to 300 words) in which roughly every sixth or seventh word has been
deleted the test-taker is required to supply words that fit into those
blanks. Dictation is familiar language-teaching technique that evolved
into a testing technique. Essentially, learners listen to passage of 100
to 150 words read aloud by an administrator (or audiotape) and write
what they hear, using correct spelling.
Supporters argue that
dictation is an integrative test because it taps into grammatical and
discourse competencies required careful listening, reproduction in
writing of what is heard, efficient short-term memory; and to an extent.
8. Performance-Based Assessment
Performance-based
assessment of language typically involves oral production, written
production, open-ended responses, integrated performance, group
performance and other interactive tasks. To be sure, such assessment is
time-consuming and therefore expensive, but those extra efforts are
paying off in the form of more direct testing because students are
assessed as they perform actual or stimulated real-world tasks. In
technical terms, higher content validity is achieved because learners
are measures in the process of performing the targeted linguistic acts
9. Traditional and “Alternative” Assessment
Table 1.1 Traditional and alternative assessment
Traditional assessment Alternative assessment
One-shot, standardized exams Continuous long-term assessment
Timed, multiple-choice format Untimed, free-response format
Decontextualized test items Contextualized communicative task
Scores suffice for feedback Individualized feedback and washback
Norm-referenced scores Criterion-referenced scores
Focus on the “right” answer Open-ended, creative answers
Summative Formative
Oriented to product Oriental to process
Non-interactive performance Interactive performance
Fosters extrinsic motivation Fosters intrinsic motivation
Two
caveats need to be stated here. First, the concepts in the table 1.1
represent some overgeneralizations and should therefore be considered
with caution. It is difficult, in fact, to draw a clear line of
distinction between what Armstrong (1994) and Bailey (1998) have called
traditional and alternative assessment.
Second, it is obvious that
the table shows a bias toward alternative assessment, and one should not
be misled into thinking that everything on the left-hand side is
tainted while the list right-hand side offers salvation to the field of
language assessment! As Brown and Hudson (1998) aptly pointed out, the
assessment traditions available to us should be valued and utilized for
the functions that they provide. At the same time, we might all be
stimulated to look at the right-hand list and ask ourselves if, among
those concepts, there are alternatives to assessment that we can
constructively use in our classroom.
It should be noted here that
considerably more time and higher institutional budgets are required to
administer and score assessments that presuppose more subjective
evaluation, more individualization, and more interaction in the process
of offering feedback.
10. Computer-Based Testing
Some
computer-based tests are small-scale “home grown” tests available on
websites. Others are standardized, large –scale tests in which thousands
or even tens of thousands of test-takers are involved. Students receive
prompts in the form of spoken or written stimuli from the computerized
test and are required to type their responses.
A specific type of
computer-based test, a computer-adaptive test, has been available for
many years but has recently gained momentum. In a computer
adaptive-adaptive test (CAT), each test-taker receives a set of
questions that meet the test specifications and that are generally
appropriate for his or her performance level.
Computer-based testing with or without CAT technology, offers these advantages:
• Classroom-based testing
•
Self-directed testing on various aspects of a language (vocabulary,
grammar, discourse, one or all of the four skills, etc.)
• Practice for upcoming high-stakes standardized tests
• Some individualization, in the case of CATs
•
Large-scale standardized tests that can be administered easily to
thousands of test-takers at many different stations, then scored
electronically for rapid reporting of results.
Of course, some disadvantages are present in our current predilection for computerizing testing. Among them:
• Lack of security and the possibility of cheating are inherent in classroom based unsupervised computerized tests.
• Occasional “home-grown” quizzes that appear on unofficial websites may be mistaken for validated assessments.
• The multiple-choice format preferred for most computer-based tests contains the usual potential for flawed item design
•
Open-ended responses are less likely to appear because of the need for
human scores. With all the attendant, issue of cost, reliability, and
turn-around time.
• The human interactive element (especially in oral production) is absent.
