VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF BANGLADESH

ASSIGNMENT

Submitted By:
“Debashish Debnath”
ID # 2020460011 (M.A English)
Semester# Summar-2020
Assignment Topics Submission Date: 7th August, 2020

“Social Characteristics of Language Test”

Submitted To:

“Mahinur Akhter”
Course Instructor
(Testing and Assessment)- ETS 6323

M.A in English
 “Social Characteristics of Language Test”
The social character of language tests Introduction At a moment of dramatic intensity in the theatre,
the glare of a single spotlight can isolate an individual actor from his or her surroundings. The
spotlight focuses the spectator's attention on the psychological state of the character being
portrayed. Temporarily at least, the surroundings, including other actors present, are rendered
invisible for the audience. Until fairly recently, thinking about language assessment was like this. It
focused exclusively on the skills and abilities of the individual being assessed. Educational
assessment has traditionally drawn its concepts and procedures primarily from the field of
psychology, and more specifically from the branch of psychology known as psychometrics, that is,
the measurement of individual cognitive abilities.
This presents a perspective on assessment which focuses on the larger framing and social meaning
of assessment. Such a perspective has drawn on diverse fields including sociology, political and
cultural theory, and discourse analysis for its analytic tools and concepts, together with an
expanded notion of test validity.

The institutional character of assessment

The individualized and individualizing focus of traditional approaches described so far is really
rather surprising when we consider the inherently institutional character of assessment. When test
reforms are introduced within the educational system, they are likely to figure prominently in the
press and become matters of public concern. This is because they impinge directly on people's lives.
When an assessment is made, it is not done by someone acting in a private capacity, motivated by
personal curiosity about the other individual, but in an institutional role, and serving institutional
purposes. These will typically involve the fulfilment of policy objectives in education and other areas
of social policy. And social practice raises questions of social responsibility.

Assessment and social policy

Language tests have a long history of use as instruments of social and cultural exclusion. One of the
earliest recorded instances is the shibboleth test, mentioned in the Old Testament. Following a
decisive military battle between two neighbouring ethnic groups, members of the vanquished
group attempted to escape by blending in with their culturally and linguistically very similar victors.
The two groups spoke varieties of a single language aml it was typically possible to distinguish
between speakers of either variety by the way they pronounced words beginning with a sibilant
sound.
A more recent instance of a detection test is the proposal in the 196os, but never implemented, for
a language test to be used by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to exclude homosexual recruits.
Word lists which included some items of homosexual slang (words such as camp, cruise, fruit, and
trade) would be presented to recruits, and the sweatiness of their palms (a sign of nervousness)
would be measured electrically. It was assumed that only homosexuals familiar with the subculture
in which these terms were used, with secondary slang meanings, would recognize and respond to
the ambiguity of the terms. They would become nervous, sweat, and be detected. In this test, a
perfect score was zero!

Assessment and educational policy:

Assessment serves policy functions in educational contexts, too. One example is in the area of
vocational education and training for adults. Most industrialized countries have, in recent years,
responded to the need for the upgrading of the workforce in the face of rapid technological change
by developing more flexible policies for the recognition and certification of specific work related
skills, each of which may be termed a competency. National competency frameworks, consisting of
an ordered series of 'can do' statements describing levels of performance on relevant job related
tasks, have been adopted. Language and literacy competency frameworks have been developed as
part of these policies. In international education, tests are used to control access to educational
opportunities. Typically, international students need to meet a standard on a test of language for
academic purposes before they are admitted to the University of their Choice. Is this reasonable?
Should access to educational opportunity be restricted on the basis of a language test? If it is agreed
that some assessment of language ability is reasonable in this context, then questions arise
regarding the level of proficiency to be required, and how this should be determined. Further,
should the assessment of language proficiency be carried out within the context of performance on
typical academic tasks? But then, does this not mean that those who have had some experience of
such tasks have the advantage over those who do not? If this is so, then one might question the
fairness of such tasks as instruments for the testing of language ability. One can also raise the
question of how native speakers might perform on such integrated tasks, and why, given that they
are admitted to the same courses of study, they should not also be required to subject themselves
to assessment.

The social responsibility of the language tester

The policies and practices discussed in the preceding two sections throw up a host of questions
about fairness, and about the policy issues surrounding testing practice. They also raise the question
of the responsibilities of language testers. Recently, serious attention has been given to these issues
for the first time, an overdue development, one might say, given the essentially institutional
character of testing.

Imagine the following situation involving the use of language tests within immigration policy. You
live in an English-speaking country which accepts substantial numbers of new settlers each year.
The current immigration policy distinguishes between categories of intending settlers. The claims
of refugees are privileged in various ways, as are those of family members of local citizens (settled
immigrants have the right to apply to bring into the country parents who are living in the country
of origin). English language proficiency and knowledge of local cultural practices have not been a
criterion in selection in such cases. A further category of individuals with no prior connection to the
country, and who are not refugees, may also apply for immigration; but the selection process for
them is much tougher-approximately only one in ten who apply is granted permission to settle.
Selection criteria for this category of applicants include educational level, type of work expertise,
age, and proficiency in English, among other things. English language proficiency is currently
assessed informally by an immigration officer at the time of interview.

On the one hand, the advent of the new test might appear to promote fairness. Obviously, as
judgements in the current informal procedures are not made by trained language evaluators, and
no quality control procedures are in place, there are inconsistencies in standards, and hence
unfairness to individuals. A carefully constructed test, both more relevant in its content, and more
reliable in its decisions, appears on the face of it to be fairer for the majority. On the other hand,
the introduction of such an instrument raises worrying possibilities.

Ethical language testing

Those who argue that language testing can be an ethical activity take either a broader or more
restricted view of the ethics of testing. We can call the former the social responsibility view, the
latter the traditional view.

Those who advocate the position of socially responsible language testing reject the view that
language testing is merely a scientific and technical activity. They appeal to recent developments in
thinking about validity, especially to the notion of consequential validity. In general, this means that
evaluation of a test's validity needs to take into account the wanted and unwanted consequences
that follow from the introduction of the test.
Generally, this expanded sense of responsibility sees ethical testing practice as involving test
developers in taking responsibility for the effects of tests. There are three main areas of concern
here. One of these is accountability. This has to do with a sense of responsibility to the people most
immediately affected by the test, principally the test-takers, but also those who will use the
information it provides. A second area relates to the influence that testing has on teaching, the so-
called washback effect. The third involves a consideration of the effect of a test beyond the
classroom, the ripples or waves it makes in the wider educational and social world: what we can
call the test impact.

Codes of professional ethics for language testers

In contrast to those advocating the direct social responsibility of the tester, a more traditional
approach involves limiting the social responsibility of language testers to questions of the
professional ethics of their practice. In this view, the approach to the ethics of language testing
practice should be the same as that taken within other areas of professional practice, such as
medicine or law. Professional bodies of language testers should formulate codes of practice which
will guide language testers in their work. The emphasis is on good professional practice: that is,
language testers should in general rake responsibility for the development of quality language tests.
The larger questions of the politics of language testing fall not so much within the domain of the
ethics of language testing practice as such; instead they represent the ethical questions that all
citizens must face-for example, on issues such as capital punishment, abortion and the like.
Critical language testing
A much more radical view of the social and political role of tests is being formulated as part of the
developing area known as critical applied linguistics. This applies current social theory and critical
theory to issues within applied linguistics generally. Language testing, as a quintessentially
institutional activity, is facing increasing scrutiny from this perspective. The basic tenets of such a
view are that the principles and practices that have become established as common sense or
common knowledge are actually ideologically loaded to favour those in power, and so need to be
exposed as an imposition on the powerless. In this view, there would be little point in tinkering with
existing institutional constructs, working within the framework they determine.
From the perspective of critical language testing, the emphasis in ethical language testing on the
individual responsibility of the language tester is misguided because it presupposes that this would
operate within the established institution of testing, and so essentially accept the status quo and
concede its legitimacy. Critical language testing at its most radical is not reformist since reform is a
matter of modification not total replacement. At its most radical indeed, it would not recognize
testing as we know it at all. Given this, it is perhaps unsurprising that language testers themselves
have found it difficult to articulate this critique, or have interpreted it as implying the necessity for
individual ethically responsible behaviour on the part of testers. The critique, if and when it comes,
may emerge most forcefully from outside the field. Given the disciplinary borders of knowledge and
influence in the field, however, any criticism from outside may be heard only with difficulty by
practitioners within.

Conclusion
In this chapter we have examined the institutional character of tests and the implications of this
for understanding the nature of language testing as a social practice, and the responsibility of
language testers. Language testing, like language itself, cannot ultimately be isolated from wider
social and political implications. It is perhaps not surprising after all that the field has only belatedly
grasped this fact, and even now is uncertain about the extent to which it is able or willing to
articulate a thorough critique of its practices. This may best be left to those not involved in language
testing. Language testers themselves meanwhile stand to benefit from a greater awareness of
language testing as a social practice. It may lead to a more responsible exercise of the power of
tests, and a more deeply questioning approach to the questions of test score meaning which lie at
the heart of the validity of language tests.

References:

1. Language Testing by Tim McNamara --OUP Oxford, 2000

2. Language Testing: The Social Dimension– by Tim McNamara and Carsten Roever
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_assessment