Karaj Islamic Azad University

ELT Department

Syllabus for "Language Assessment"

Spring 2020
Instructor: Zohre Mohamadi
Associate Professor of TEFL
E-mail: [email protected]
Meeting Time and Location: Sundays 2 pm- Class 005
Office Hours: by appointment.

Overview and Goals

The purpose of this course is to provide students with an opportunity to deepen their
understanding of testing and assessment, by focusing on scholarly work that have shaped the
notions of assessment used by the educational community and by considering testing and
assessment artifacts available for school teachers. As a byproduct, students will have an
opportunity to get acquainted with theoretical underpinnings of testing and assessment and to
develop strategies to evaluate school evaluation system. There will be a strong emphasis on
the historical developments on testing and assessment but there will be opportunities to get
acquainted with modern views of the field. The main textbooks are comprehensive but will
be complemented with readings from many of the authors cited in the books and from others
who have made contributions to the notion of curriculum within particular school subject
areas (e.g., mathematics, sciences, social science, literacy, etc.).

Learning outcomes:
The student will demonstrate knowledge and understanding of:
1. Test Functions: achievement, proficiency, placement, etc.
2. Test References: norm and criterion referenced
3. Testing, assessment, and alternatives to assessment
4. Item Characteristics (CTT): item facility, item discrimination, choice distribution
5. Test Characteristics: reliability, validity, usefulness
6. Test Design: planning, writing, administering, scoring
7. Test Theories: discrete-point, integrative, communicative, and performance-based
The student will demonstrate the ability to:
1) Acquire information about, and develop understanding of effective processes of
test construction.
2) Familiarity with, and an understanding of, issues and problems related to testing
and assessment
3) Openly discuss and participate in group problem solving sessions
4) Translate testing and assessment theory into effective professional practice.
5) Relate research on effective schools to the school evaluation system

Expectations and Grading Policy

This 2-credit course is organized as a seminar format, in which the essential feature will be
the active discussion of topics by all the attendees. Students are expected to attend all class
sessions, to complete course readings prior to the class for which they are assigned, to write a
reflection memo based on the readings, and participate actively in the discussions. Students
are advised to inform the instructor, preferably in advance, of absences.
Reading is a critical component of the course; as a graduate level course and the
reading load is substantial. It is expected that students will come to class having read the
assigned material thoroughly and thoughtfully and that they be willing to share their
understandings of the readings in order to contribute to the learning of all class members. To
aid students in focusing their readings, overarching questions are included in the week-by-
week schedule.

Grading Policy
1) Class participation: 15 ( points)
Forms of participations
A) Reflection memos: Each student is responsible for writing a thoughtful—yet
Brief—summary of the readings for the day including questions that remained
unanswered after the reading or that emerged from the readings and distribute them to
the other participants by 3:00 pm Saturday, prior to the class. These memos will
provide us with a first entry for discussions during class.

B) Construction of a test of any format wished by students: students are supposed to

construct a test among test formats covered in syllabus following the procedure
mentioned in the class sessions which includes 1) designing the table of specification,
2) test preparation, 3) test administration and reporting. Students should report each
step of this project throughout the term and hand in the whole project at the end of the
semester. Pair work in this project is accepted (15 points).
C) Term paper: students are supposed to write a report on interesting area of reseach in
testing and assessment. This report includes a list of suggestions for future research
and how the students find these areas interesting and researchable considering Iranian
educational contexts, conventions and cases (21 points).
2) Final exam (49 points).

Session Topic Sources

1 Introduction to the course;
Discussion of the syllabus
Steps into testing
2 Definition of the key terms Brown & Abeywickrama
Types and uses of language tests (C1), JD Brown (C1)
RM1 Due
3 Test theories and models JD Brown (C2, C3, C4);
Test construction Farhady (1986)
RM2 Due
Testing language components
4 Testing grammar, (Hughes, 2003)(C13)
Testing vocabulary (Madsen, 1983) (C2 & C3)
RM3 Due
Testing language skills
5 Assessing listening and speaking skills Brown & Abeywickrama
RM4 Due (C6 & C7)
6 Assessing reading and writing skills Brown & Abeywickrama
RM5 Due (C8 & C9)
Measurement qualities
7 Reliability JD Brown (C8 & C9)
RM6 Due
CT1 Due
8 Validity JD Brown (C10)
RM7 Due
Construct irrelevant Facets in testing
9 Test methods (Messick, 1996)
Washback Bachman (1990, C5)
RM8 Due (Shohamy, 1984)
(Shohamy, 1997)
(Alderson & Wall, 1993)
(Shohamy, Donitsa-
Schmidt, & Ferman, 1996)
10 Authenticity (Brown, 1995)
Rater Effect (Davies, 1997)
Ethics, (Lewkowicz, 2000)
RM9 Due (Weigle, 1998)
CT2 Due
Assessment
11 Alternatives in assessment, Brown & Abeywickrama
Performance assessment (C12), (Gipps, 2011) C6
 RM10 Due
12 Dynamic assessment, models and issues (Poehner, 2008) C1, C3 C4
15 Computer assisted language testing and (Suvorov & Hegelheimer,
assessment 2013)
RM11 Due (Pathan, 2012)
CT2 Due (Winke & Fei, 2008)
16 Focused questions and Seminar on
future research directions
Term paper Due

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY:
Academic integrity is a basic principle that requires the student to take credit one for ideas
and efforts that are his/her own. It is dishonest to submit materials in assignments, exams, or
other academic work that is based on sources prohibited by the faculty member. Students are
entirely responsible for demonstrating to the faculty member’s satisfaction. Academic
dishonesty, or cheating, shall include, but is not limited to, situations in which a student:
1. Refers during an academic evaluation to receive material sources not authorized by the
faculty member.
2. Utilizes devices during an academic evaluation that are not authorized by the faculty
member.
3. Provides assistance to another student or assistance from another student during an
academic evaluation in a manner not authorized by the faculty member.
4. Presents as his/her own the ideas or words of another person without customary and proper
acknowledgment of sources.
5. Knowingly permits his/her words to be submitted by another person without the faculty
member’s permission.
6. Acts as a substitute or utilizes a substitute in any academic evaluation.
7. Fabricates data in support of laboratory or field work.
8. Possesses, buys, sells, obtains, or uses a copy of any materials intended to be used as an
instrument of academic evaluation in advance of its administration.
9. Alters grade records of his/her own or another students work in a course or a component of
a course.

Instances of academic dishonesty may be discovered in a variety of ways. Faculty members

who assign written work ordinarily check citations for accuracy, run data base and online
checks, and may simply recognize familiar passages that are not cited. They may observe
students in the act of cheating. Other students, faculty, or staff may become aware of
instances of cheating. All persons who observe or otherwise know about instances of
cheating are expected to report such instances to the proper instructor or Dean.

Penalties for instances of academic dishonesty:

1. The faculty member, at his or her discretion, may a) assign a failing grade for the
assignment;
b) Assign a failing grade for the course; c) recommend to the appropriate Dean that the
student’s transcript reflect a course failure for reasons of academic dishonesty; d) request that
the appropriate Dean recommends to the President that the offending student be suspended
for one semester or, in particularly egregious cases, permanently expelled from the College.
2. A faculty member need present only basic evidence of academic dishonesty. There is no
requirement for proof of intent. Students are responsible for understanding the tenets of
academic honesty and integrity.
3. Students may appeal penalties for academic dishonesty using the process established for
Appeal of Grades

Required Textbooks
1. Brown, H.D. & Abeywickrama, P. (2018). Language assessment: Principles and
classroom practices (3rd ed.). Pearson Education.
2. Brown, J.D. (2005). Testing in language programs (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Plus a collection of articles to be handed in class

Alderson, J. C., & Wall, D. (1993). Does washback exist? Applied linguistics, 14(2), 115-
129.
Brown, A. (1995). The effect of rater variables in the development of an occupation-specific
language performance test. Language testing, 12(1), 1-15.
Davies, A. (1997). Introduction: The limits of ethics in language testing: Sage Publications
Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA.
Gipps, C. (2011). Beyond Testing (Classic Edition): Towards a theory of educational
assessment: Routledge.
Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers: Ernst Klett Sprachen.
Lewkowicz, J. A. (2000). Authenticity in language testing: some outstanding questions.
Language testing, 17(1), 43-64.
Madsen, H. S. (1983). Techniques in Testing: ERIC.
Messick, S. (1996). Validity and washback in language testing. Language testing, 13(3), 241-
256.
Pathan, M. M. (2012). Computer Assisted Language Testing [CALT]: Advantages,
Implications and Limitations. Research Vistas, 1(4), 30-45.
Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and
promoting L2 development (Vol. 9): Springer Science & Business Media.
Shohamy, E. (1984). Does the testing method make a difference? The case of reading
comprehension. Language testing, 1(2), 147-170.
Shohamy, E. (1997). Testing methods, testing consequences: Are they ethical? Are they fair?
Language testing, 14(3), 340-349.
Shohamy, E., Donitsa-Schmidt, S., & Ferman, I. (1996). Test impact revisited: Washback
effect over time. Language testing, 13(3), 298-317.
Suvorov, R., & Hegelheimer, V. (2013). Computer‐assisted language testing. The companion
to language assessment, 2, 594-613.
Weigle, S. C. (1998). Using FACETS to model rater training effects. Language testing, 15(2),
263-287.
Winke, P., & Fei, F. (2008). Computer-assisted language assessment. Encyclopedia of
language and education, 4, 353-364.