Communicative Syllabus Design and Testing

Dr. Ambreen Shahriar

Dr. Ayesha Sohail
Dr. Habibullah Pathan

Kashmir Journal of Language Research Vol. 17 /1 (2014)

 Abstract:
This paper aims at designing a course and developing a testing system for it. It begins
with explaining what is meant by syllabus and testing here. The paper discusses
theory around communicative syllabus and communicative testing in detail, which it
develops later on. I discuss the relevance of theory in the target situation (University
of Sindh) by discussing current in-class situation. The paper provides practical
implications on applicability of communicative syllabus and communicative testing.
Of all the types of the communicative syllabus presented by Yalden, we prefer Type 5
the Fully Notional syllabus for my target situation. Finally, before conclusion, we
present the view on constructing good communicative tests, which can prove useful in
target situation.

Key words
Communicative syllabus
Communicative testing
Backwash effect
Notional syllabus

1. INTRODUTION

Teaching and testing have an unbreakable relationship. Neville (1988) notes that
teaching and testing are closely related but in testing the same sort of material is to be
administered and marked in such a way that the results could be reliable when
individuals and groups are compared. The following triangle presents the relation
between the trio; communicative needs, language programs and testing systems.

Figure: 1 Communicative
The Curriculum Triangle
needs
Carroll (1980:05)

Language Testing
programmes systems

Kashmir Journal of Language Research Vol. 17 /1 (2014)

Shaw (1977; cited in Yalden, 1983) defines syllabus as ‘a statement of the plan of the
curriculum’, and he defines curriculum as the goals and objectives, resources and
processes of the entire learning experience to be accomplished through classroom
instruction. Bourke (2006) points that the best syllabus is one which works in the
‘acquisition-poor environment’; he notes that most of the approaches and methods of
the syllabus designing treat language learning as uni-directional. He mentions that
whatever provokes interest is worth being a part of the language syllabus, so that the
language becomes ‘byproduct’ of the interactive and language-oriented activities
performed by the learners during their course. Yalden (1983) finds that the syllabus
comprises the content, based on the purposes of learning and the plan to implement
that content in the classroom.

Madsen (1983) starts his book with the statement, “Testing is an important part of
every teaching and learning experience”. Effective testing is important for a better
effect on the teaching and learning process. Morrow (1981a) points that the written
and spoken tests (not reading and listening tests) are taken to assess the overall
performance on a task and the skills or strategies used to perform it.

Carroll (1980) points that communicative teaching as well as testing varies according
to learner needs. A communicative syllabus considers the purposes of language
learning as foremost. Besides, the mode and medium of communication and the target
level are also taken into account. Keeping a close concern of the academic and social
requirements from the target language, the communicative syllabus designer reflects
on the social hindrances also.

Communicative tests assess the ability of a learner to use the language generally and
universally without restricting its use to particular settings only. The performance
tests which check the learners’ abilities to use the language in specific settings are not
communicative in nature. Though a communicative test also assesses the learners
communicative ability in the given setting, yet that setting will act as a sample of any
setting that the learner may come across with, not a specific setting.

By now I have explained what I meant by syllabus and testing. I have also tried to
make myself clear on the communicative syllabus and communicative testing. In the
next section, I will discuss the theoretical issues related to communicative syllabus

Kashmir Journal of Language Research Vol. 17 /1 (2014)

design, communicative testing and assessment. In the following section, I will present
the relevance of those theories with my target situation (University of Sindh);
following which I will present the practical implications. I will give suggestions on
syllabus design, tests and assessment. Finally, I will summarize my argument in the
conclusion.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Now I am turning towards the theoretical issues. This section comprises the review of
the literature on the Communicative Syllabus and testing. The first sub-section covers
the communicative syllabus design. The next section under this heading highlights the
theoretical issues related to the communicative testing and assessment.

2.1 Communicative Syllabus.

In this section, I am going to review the literature on the Communicative Syllabus

Design.

Ellis (1993) favours communicative syllabus over the other types of syllabus because
it teaches the language in the way it is naturally acquired (i.e. through
communication). Yet the concept of communicative syllabus strongly suffers at the
hands of different scholars. One of the commonly held beliefs is that communicative
syllabus includes learning through communication, at the cost of neglecting the
structures (grammar), a definition not complete in itself. Larsen-Freeman (1986)
explains communicative syllabus in that way. She says, many other methods also have
similar goal as the communicative method to syllabus design, but communicative
approach has a broader notion of communicative competence. She says, here, the
teacher creates and promotes situations for communication. Negotiating meaning is
the task to be achieved even when the form is incorrect. Learning to communicate is
done through communication.

Now, this concept of ‘negotiating meaning even when form is incorrect’, above, gives
rise to the misunderstanding for a communicative syllabus. Swan (1981), therefore,
does not favour the all-purpose use of a communicative syllabus. He is rather of the
view that all syllabus types should be integrated (not giving equal importance to all of
course, but following the learners needs) to form a course. Likewise, Morrow

Kashmir Journal of Language Research Vol. 17 /1 (2014)

 (1981b:65) justifies acquisition of form to be an important aspect of language learning
process and believes it to be avoided by the communicative syllabus. He writes,
“Communicating involves using appropriate forms in appropriate ways, and the use of
inappropriate or inaccurate forms militates against communication even when it does
not totally prevent it.” Against this view, Allwright (1979) notes through the
following diagram that except a small part, the linguistic competence is a part of the
communicative competence.

Figure: 2
Linguistic Competence against
Communicative competence CC
Allwright (1979:168)

LC

LC =Linguistic competence
CC= Communicative competence

Johnson (1982) also agrees with Allwright (1979) on the mentioned point. Besides,
Johnson says that a language teacher has to make sure that the learners are acquiring
both the knowledge of language structures and language use. Therefore, acquiring
linguistic competence becomes a part of communicative syllabus.

But this was not the only misunderstanding towards a communicative syllabus. There
are more disagreements on the question of what comprises communicative syllabus.
Johnson (1982) defines Communicative syllabus as a syllabus that ‘links structures to
meaning categories’. But Harmer (1982) writes that syllabus or its content cannot be
communicative, but the activities in the syllabus and methodology make it
communicative. Melrose (1991) considers only that type of syllabus to be
communicative, which does not follow a well-developed plan and is, rather,
negotiable and grants maximum learner autonomy. Yalden (1983) seems the most
convincing in her explanation of a communicative syllabus, its types and its
components. She presents six types of communicative syllabus as follows:

Kashmir Journal of Language Research Vol. 17 /1 (2014)

 Type 1 Structural-Functional

Type 2 Structures and Functions

Type 3 Variable Focus

Type 4 Functional

Type 5 Fully Notional

Type 6 Fully Communicative

Of all these syllabus types, Yalden mentions that type 5 is the strongest input syllabus
and type 6 is the most minimal input syllabus (type 6 is the one mentioned by
Melrose).

Besides, Yalden (1983) lists ten essential components of any communicative syllabus
to comprise detailed consideration of:

1. The purposes of the learners to acquire target language.

2. The setting in which the target language will be used.

3. The socially defined role of the learner in the target language.

4. Communicative events in which the learner will participate.

5. Communicative functions involved in these events.

6. The notions involved in these events.

7. Discourse and knitting skills involved.

8. The target level and the variety of the target language required.

9. The required grammatical content.

10. The required lexical content.

Kashmir Journal of Language Research Vol. 17 /1 (2014)

Yalden’s requirements of communicative syllabus match Munby’s (1978) variables of
the Communication Needs Processor, which are:

1. Purposive domain.

2. Setting.

3. Interaction.

4. Instrumentality

5. Dialect.

6. Target level.

7. Communicative event.

8. Communicative key.

Thus, these only seem to have been reshuffled by Yalden. And again reshuffled by
Savignon (2002). Savignon’s components of a communicative curriculum also
support the idea that applying the communicative approach does not mean putting
language structures aside. It is only another approach to the syllabus design. Her five
components are as follows:

1. Language Arts: The focus on forms of English, including syntax, morphology,

structures of language, phonology etc.

Activities: translation, dictation, rote memorization, synonyms and antonyms, true and
false cognates, spelling tests, pronunciation exercises and patterned repetition of verb
paradigms or arts games.

2. Language for a Purpose:

 Using English for real and immediate communicative goals.

 Attention to the specific communicative needs of the learners.

 Using strategies to interpret, express, and negotiate meaning.

Kashmir Journal of Language Research Vol. 17 /1 (2014)

3. Personal English: The learner’s emerging identity in English, Learner attitude,
which concentrates the focus on meaning rather than form.

4. Theater Arts: The focus on the tools they need to act, that is, to interpret, express,
and negotiate meaning in a new language.

Activities: The occasions for language use, role-playing (both scripted and unscripted)
simulations, and even pantomime, ensemble building, and the many related activities.

1. Beyond the Classroom: The focus on the after the class activity.

Activities: English language radio and television programs, videos, and feature-length
films, newspapers and magazines, World Wide Web sites, computer-mediated
communication.

She notes that the cultural expectations, language goals and learning styles vary from
context to context. Therefore the language teachers should arrange the mentioned
components in the syllabus according to the learner needs.

Breen and Candlin (1980) also present similar views when they say that the purpose
of language learning is ‘to communicate as a member of a particular socio-cultural
group’. Thus according to them, as according to Munby and Yalden, besides the
analysis of sociolinguistic requirements and uses of the target language, the syllabus
designer has to be sure of the required the target level, at the time of designing the
syllabus.

2.2 Communicative Testing and Assessment.

Now I will be looking at the literature on Communicative Testing and Assessment.

Weir (1990) mentions that communicative testing is intended to assess the knowledge
of the language as well as the ability to implement that knowledge in use. Weir
(1981) marks ‘communicative competence’ and ‘communicative performance, to be
tested through communicative testing. But here (1990), Weir clarifies that the
communicative performance is the ability to use language in an isolated situation; in
contrast to that, communicative language testing tests the ability to use language in all
and any situation. Therefore, he mentions that communicative competence and

Kashmir Journal of Language Research Vol. 17 /1 (2014)

communicative performance, both, are to be assessed through communicative testing.
He mentions that Widdowson (1983) uses the term ‘capacity’ for the knowledge and
the ability to use that knowledge in any context. Bachman (1989) names it
‘communicative language ability’. Therefore, Weir (1990) notes that a communicative
language test evaluates the learners’ communicative capacity or language ability in a
specific context such that it reflects his competence or knowledge of the language in
any context. Harrison (1983) also present the same view, when he says, “A
communicative test should assess language used for a purpose beyond itself”.

The nature of the communicative tests is not fully agreed upon. Savignon (2002)
mentions that essay writing, in-class presentations, and other more holistic
assessments of learner competence are currently favoured methods for communicative
testing. Morrow (1981b) points that a communicative language test is essentially
qualitative in nature but it can be marked numerically. Morrow (1981b) mentions that
a communicative test determines whether a learner can perform a type of language
activity. And he makes it clear to the test designer to assess and evaluate what a
communicative test is intended to assess and evaluate. And as I clarified in the last
stanza, Weir (1990) elucidates what the communicative tests are expected to assess.

Weir (1990) considers reliability and validity as the fundamental criterion against
which any test may be judged. He adds that reliability can be sacrificed for the
purpose of increased validity but validity cannot be sacrificed at any cost. He,
therefore, lays greater importance to validity without which, according to him, a test
will not test what it is intended to test. Kelly (1978; cited in Weir, 1981) notes that the
objectives on test needs should be made clear to construct a valid test. Madsen (1983),
however, proclaims that good tests are not only valid and reliable; they also improve
class attitude, motivation and student performance. Hughes (1989) writes that due to
the invalid test content or unreliable test scoring, backwash effect can become
harmful. He finds content and criterion related validity and reliability to be essential
for an accurate test. While Heaton (1975) also mentions face validity.

Carroll (1980) expects a test to possess Relevance (of the test content to the
communicative needs), Acceptability (of the testee on the test content and format),
Comparability (of the test scores regardless of the space and time) and Economy (of
time, effort and resources against information provided) (commonly called RACE).

Kashmir Journal of Language Research Vol. 17 /1 (2014)

She (1980:13), however, presents the various phases of the test construction process
in the following table:

Table: 2 Test construction phases

Phase 1: Design 1. Description of participant(s);

2. Analysis of communicative needs;
3. Specification of test content.
Phase 2: Development 4. Realization of tests;
5. Trial application;
6. Validation and test analysis.
Phase 3: Operation 7. Full-scale application;
8. Operational use;
9. Revision of test system.
Carroll (1980:13)

The next section of the assignment brings forward the practical implications drawn on
the historical overview presented.

3. IMPLICATIONS

This part of the assignment covers the solutions to the problems in my target situation.
I reached these solutions only after applying the existing theories to my target
situation. This section consists of few sub-sections. In the succeeding sub-section, I
will talk about the present conditions in my target situation with respect to the target
language, learners and the society.

3.1 Present in-class practices in my target situation

English language is taught as a compulsory subject to the undergraduate students at

the University of Sindh, Pakistan. The subject is known as “Remedial English.” And
Johnson (1982) describes remedial course to be for “students who have already
followed one (structural) course, and have failed to learn properly.” In case of my

Kashmir Journal of Language Research Vol. 17 /1 (2014)

target situation also, students already have had English Language as one of their core
subjects for at least seven years of their study, but due to poor education system at
primary and secondary levels, the majority is still at the elementary level. Therefore
the subject is taught to them for two years with two assessments per year, through a
written examination.

The details on the learner and the learning are provided:

Learners versus Target language:

AGE: early 20s

SEX: both male and female

NATIONALITY: mostly Pakistanis (few Arabs and Africans)

MOTHER TONGUE: Sindhi (with Urdu as L2) or Urdu (rarely Arabic)

TARGET LANGUAGE: English

PRESENT LEVEL OF COMMAND: Mixed ability learners (majority: elementary)

PURPOSIVE DOMAIN: ESP Academic (discipline-based)

EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE: Under graduation in Arts, Humanities, Social Science,

Computer Science, Physical Science, Biological Science, Technological Science
(separate classes for different disciplines).

SUBJECT MATTER OF TARGET LANGUAGE: general and field related

PHYSICAL SETTING: in the University during University times.

SOCIAL CONSTRAINTS: Learners share the same language (either L1 or L2). They
do not find any purpose, other than academic, to communicate in the target language.

SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS AVILABLE FOR THE TARGET LANGUAGE:

 teacher to learner

 learner to learner

Kashmir Journal of Language Research Vol. 17 /1 (2014)

 male to female

 adult to adult

INSTRUMENTALITY:

Medium: Spoken and Written (each productive and receptive)

Mode: dialogue, monologue (spoken and written)

Channel: face-to-face (bilateral), print (unilateral/bilateral)

TARGET LEVEL: Intelligible (can understand others and make oneself understood)

COMMUNICATIVE EVENTS: group work, pair work, individual assignments,

discussions, reading texts, lectures by teachers, oral and written in-class presentations
by students, written and oral examination.

COMMUNCATIVE ACTIVITIES: listening to the teacher/fellow-students, asking

questions, delivering presentations, note-taking, reading texts, writing up notes, oral
interaction with teachers/peers, exams.

COMMUNICATIVE KEY: interested, honest, approving, authoritative, certain,

uncertain, thinking, formal, informal, social, active, respectful, praising, pleased,
displeased, regretting, pleasant, grateful etc.

SYLLABUS CONTENT: communicative tasks, activities, skills that can help

acquiring fluency as well as accuracy.

After noticing the present in class situation it is now essential to know where exactly
the target language is required, besides the required proficiency level. To find out this,
needs analysis has to be conducted.

3.2 Needs Analysis:

Before designing a syllabus, the designer needs to have considerations regarding:

 Educational setting

 Learner needs and motivations.

Kashmir Journal of Language Research Vol. 17 /1 (2014)

  Educational and social environment.

In the target situation, needs analysis of has to be conducted from three different
perspectives which are going to influence the target level. The learner needs,
requirements and motivation seem foremost. Therefore, a needs analysis will be
conducted from the learner about their expectations from the course, the resources and
the learning environment. The suggestions can be acquired on whether to develop a
completely new syllabus or modify the existing syllabus.

After that, the needs analysis of the academic requirements, from the course, will be
conducted. The teachers and the administration can comment on the present level of
command of the students generally. Besides, they can describe the target level and are
in a better position to comment on the social constraints involved in the acquisition of
the target language.

The needs analysis of the market requirements seems essential too, because the
learners are at the tertiary level and after this they have to find jobs and face the
market. So the syllabus must prepare them for the needs and requirements of the
market. This is a lengthy process since the requirements of the market vary in various
fields and the learners belong to different fields. For this, the requirements in the
market of the common jobs that our learners prefer can be looked for.

The learners can be taught same syllabus initially (for the first year) and specific to
their market requirement at the later stage (during the second year).

3.3 Syllabus design

The previous two sections highlighted the conditions in my target situation. I also
mentioned the present state of the learners and their target requirement, followed by
the process of conducting needs analyses. I would now like to give practical
suggestions on the syllabus.

Of all the types of the communicative syllabus presented by Yalden (1983), I prefer
Type 5 the Fully Notional syllabus for my target situation. I do not prefer any of the
other type because, as in type 1 ‘Structural-Functional’ so in type 2 ‘Structures and
Functions’, grammatical forms are the core of the syllabus. In type 1, the functions are

Kashmir Journal of Language Research Vol. 17 /1 (2014)

taught only after a mastery over the linguistic forms and in type 2, the functions,
notions and structures are taught from the beginning but the structures are the units of
organization. The learners in my target situation have already had their syllabus at
primary and secondary levels with grammar as the unit of organization. Therefore, I
do not think that they will find the new language syllabus as nothing more than a
refined repetition of the earlier syllabuses. Besides, Wilkins (1976) mentions that
though structural syllabus is systematic yet it not for those studying for limited time
duration for communicative needs. But, not to assume everything on its own, this
point can be focused in needs analysis. The reason behind rejecting the type 3, that is,
Variable Focus syllabus, is that through this type structures, functions and situations
are taught one after the other. So a student will come to learn functions only after he
will master the structures and situations when he/she masters the functions. The
learners, in my target situation, would demand certain immediate improvements in
their language use. This is very important for them to remain motivated. But type 3
syllabus does seem to fulfill the criteria. I do not want my learners to take their
language syllabus as just another language syllabus and like those earlier, which, they
assume, would not be going to work too.

As type 6 ‘Fully Communicative’ syllabus is the most minimal input syllabus and that
is why unsuitable. The target learners need a well-developed plan of action in the
form of a syllabus. Besides, they also require complete teacher support, self-direction
does not seem possible for them at the initial level. Yalden (1983) also says that this
type is not suitable for elementary learners. Therefore the target learners can be
granted some liberty to choose and decide at times, later in the course but they cannot
be granted complete autonomy.

Type 4 Functional syllabus can be seen as a possibility but type 5 Notional Syllabus
seems more appropriate to me because it has developed from a sociolinguistic
viewpoint. The main purpose of type 5 syllabus is to identify and cover those
elements of the target language which are suitable to the needs of particular social and
occupational group. A fully notional syllabus, as described by Wilkins (1976) focuses
on what will be communicated through language, instead of how, when and where the
language is used. Besides, Yalden (1983) writes that a notional syllabus is learner-

Kashmir Journal of Language Research Vol. 17 /1 (2014)

centred, therefore its focus is on the needs, motivations, limitations and resources of
the learners. This is exactly what I am looking for.

I would prefer notions as the units of organization for the syllabus from the following
list of inventory:

Situations
Topics
Functions
Notions
Roles/activities
Structures

Wilkins (1976) compares the notional syllabus with grammatical and situational
syllabuses and mentions that the notional syllabus starts from the point of the desired
‘communicative capacity’.

As far as the unit ordering is concerned, I will do that on the basis of:
i) Simplicity criteria
ii) Priority of needs
iii) Sequencing potential.

In order to develop the language program, the steps suggested by Yalden (1983) will
be followed. (see Appendix A)

3.3 Testing

In this sub-section on the implications, I will suggest a testing system, following my

review of the scholars.

In a test during the term time, testees will be given tasks/problems/activities related to
their academic field along with “source material” in the form of files, booklets, tapes,
etc. (idea taken from Carroll, 1980).

Before starting with the process of test construction, the test devisers have to discuss
the contents under the heading Learners versus Target language in section 3.1 (or see

Kashmir Journal of Language Research Vol. 17 /1 (2014)

Appendix B on the Parameters and procedures for test design). Then they must follow
the steps below on test construction:

Test Construction:

1. Before writing

Communicative testing demands that before writing the tests, the deviser must be
clear about:

 The type of test.

 The abilities/skills to be tested.

 The contents of the course.

 The operations (tasks/texts) performed in the class.

 The format of the test.

 Total time allocated for the test (time per component also).

 Accepted criteria of answering.

 Scoring procedure.

Apart from all this, it is also essential that the communicative language testers must
be provided with a set of blueprints to devise tests. Fulcher and Davidson (2007) mark
that in order to keep the validity and reliability, it is important to provide the test
devisers with a range of blueprints.

2. Writing the test

Since the notional syllabus is taught to the students, therefore, tests will be
constructed keeping in mind, the sociolinguistic perspective. The tests will assess the
learners on their expected encounters with the language. As the syllabus is learner-
centred, so should the tests be. They should test the learners on their competence and
ability to use the linguistic knowledge, focusing their limitations and resources. For
writing up the tests following steps need to be taken:

Kashmir Journal of Language Research Vol. 17 /1 (2014)

 Take a wide and unpredictable sample.

 Try to write items of moderate difficulty level.

 Rework on the clarity of the tasks.

 Be sure about the appropriate ratio between task and the time allocated.

 Prepare a scoring key.

 Pretest if possible.

A good test always results in a beneficial backwash effect. As Heaton (1975) writes
that test are conducted so that teaching could be adjusted for better learning.
Therefore:

For achieving beneficial backwash effect:

 Test will be valid, reliable and efficient (these affect all aspects of test design
regardless of the paradigm, says Weir, 1990).

 Test content will be based on course objectives rather than course content.

 Direct testing will be preferred over indirect testing (agreeing with Hughes,
1989).

 Integrative testing will be preferred over discrete point testing (suiting the
learners’ level).

 Criterion-referenced testing will now be adopted, instead of norm-referenced

testing, which has been used till now.

 The learners will be made familiar with the format and testing techniques.

 Test content will not be predictable.

 The instructions will be made clear and explicit.

 Sample of the test will contain wide range of specification.

Kashmir Journal of Language Research Vol. 17 /1 (2014)

 The demands of the test will be made clear to the learners.

 Prepare cost-effective tests will be preferred.

 Multiple-choice tests will be avoided as they allow for economy and

comparability (objectivity of scoring) yet they lack in relevance and
authenticity greatly.

Madsen (1983:180) and Heaton (1975:172) help language teachers to prepare “Item
Analysis” of the difficulty level and discrimination level which can also be used for
setting a test.

Not just the test construction but also the assessment on the tests is a very important
issue. According to Fulcher and Davidson (2007), “the models and frameworks
describes the what of language testing…the tasks tell us about the how of language
testing… scoring is concerned with the how much or how good of language testing.

For marking a language test, Morrow (1981a) presents two schemes: first, which he
calls quantitative analytic tradition, the marker marks the performance on each of the
criteria already decided and then adds the marks to find out total score. Whereas,
following the second, i.e. qualitative synthetic approach, which he prefers, the marker
marks on the overall impression of the performance on the basis of the mentioned
criteria. Larsen-Freeman (1986) notes that in assessment through communicative
approach, the errors of form can be avoided as natural outcome of the language
learning process. And Brown et al. (2004) give tips on fair assessment out of which
validity, reliability, fairness, equitability and efficient. They also suggest on the timely
assessment and ask to give feedback to the students. Brown, et al. (2004) also suggest
that assessments should be taken throughout the semester or year.

4. CONCLUSION

Through this assignment, I have explained the communicative syllabus and

communicative testing. In the introduction, through the curriculum triangle, I
presented the relation between communicative needs, language programme and
testing system. Then, I explained the terms ‘syllabus’ and ‘testing’, followed by the
specifications added to the communicative syllabus and the communicative testing. In

Kashmir Journal of Language Research Vol. 17 /1 (2014)

the next section, I reviewed the literature on the communicative syllabus and
communicative testing. The section on the suggested implications includes the present
in-class practices in my target situation followed by the suggestions on conducting the
needs analysis. I also presented the syllabus designed to apply in the classroom. The
last section of implications includes the view on constructing good communicative
tests.

REFERENCES:

 Alderson, J.C. and Hughes, A. (Eds.) (1981). ELT Documents 111- Issues in
Language Testing. London: The British Council.
 Allwright, R. (1979). ‘Language learning through communication practice.’ In
Brumfit, C. and Johnson, K. (Eds.). (1979). Pp- 167-82.
 Bachman, L.F. (1989). Fundamental Considerations in Testing. London: OUP.
 Bourke, J.M. (2006). ‘Designing a topic-based syllabus’. ELT Journal 60/3:
279-86
 Breen, M. and Candlin, C. (1980). ‘The essentials of communicative
curriculum in language teaching’. Applied Linguistics 1/2:89-112.
 Brumfit, C. and Johnson, K. (Eds.). (1979). The Communicative Approach to
Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Carroll, B.J. (1980). Testing Communicative Performance: an Interim Study.
Oxford: Pergamon.
 Ellis, R. (1993). ‘The structural syllabus and second language acquisition’.
TESOL Quarterly 27/1:91-113.
 Fulcher, G. and Davidson, F. (2007). Language Testing and Assessment: An
Advanced Resource Book. London: Routledge.
 Harmer, J. (1982). ‘What is communicative?’ ELT Journal 36/3: 164-8.
 Harrison, A. (1983). ‘Communicative testing: jam tomorrow?’ In Hughes, A.
and Porter, D. (eds.) (1983). Pp-77-85.
 Heaton, J.B. (1975). Writing English Language Tests. Harlow: Longman
Group Limited.
 Hughes, A. (1989). Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Kashmir Journal of Language Research Vol. 17 /1 (2014)

 Hughes, A. and Porter, D. (eds.) (1983). Current Developments in Language
Testing. London: Academic Press.
 Johnson, K. (1982). Communicative Syllabus Design and Methodology.
Oxford. Pergamon Press Ltd.
 Johnson, K. and K. Morrow. (Eds.) (1981). Communication in the Classroom:
Applications and Methods for a Communicative Approach. Harlow: Longman.
 Kelly, R. (1978). On the construct validation of comprehension tests: an
exercise in applied linguistics. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Queensland.
 Larsen-Freeman, D. (1986). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Madsen, H.S. (1983). Techniques in Testing. New York: Oxford University
Press.
 Melrose, R. (1991). The Communicative Syllabus. London: Pinter Publishers.
 Morrow, K. (1981a). ‘Communicative language testing: revolution or
evolution.’ In Alderson, J.C. and Hughes, A. (Eds.) (1981).
 Morrow, K. (1981b). ‘Principles of communicative methodology’. In Johnson,
K. and K. Morrow. (Eds.) (1981). Pp- 59-69
 Munby, J. (1978). Communicative syllabus design. Cambridge: Cambridge
 University Press.
 Neville, M. (1988). Assessing and Teaching Language. London: Macmillan
Education Ltd.
 Savignon, S.J. (2002). ‘Communicative Curriculum Design for the 21st
Century.’ English Teaching Forum 40: 2-7.
 Shaw, A.M. (1977). ‘Foreign language syllabus development: some recent
approaches’. Language Teaching and Linguistics: Abstracts, 10/4:217-33.
 Swan, M. (1981).’False Beginners.’ In Johnson, K. and K. Morrow. (Eds.)
(1981). Pp-38-45
 Weir, C.J. (1981). ‘Reaction to the Morrow paper (1).’ In Alderson, J.C. and
Hughes, A. (Eds.) (1981).
 Weir, C.J. (1990). Communicative Language Testing. Hempstead: Prentice
Hall International.
 Widdowson, H.G. (1983). Learning Purpose and Language Use. Oxford:
OUP.

Kashmir Journal of Language Research Vol. 17 /1 (2014)

 Wilkins, D. (1976). Notional Syllabuses: A Taxonomy and its Relevance to
Foreign Language Curriculum Development. London: Open University Press.
 Yalden, J. (1983). The Communicative Syllabus: Evolution, Design and
Implementation. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Kashmir Journal of Language Research Vol. 17 /1 (2014)

 APPENDIX –A
Stages in Language Program Development
Stage Description

1 Needs Survey.
2 Description of purpose to be prepared in terms of
 Student characteristics
 Student skill on entry to and on exit from the program
3 Selection or development of syllabus type in terms of 4 and physical
constraints on the program.
4 The proto-syllabus: description of language and language use to be
covered in the program.
5 The pedagogical syllabus: development of teaching, learning and
testing approached.
 Development of teaching materials (as far as possible)
 Development of testing sequence and decisions on testing
instruments.
6 a) Development of classroom procedures
 selection of exercise types and teaching techniques
 preparation of lesson plans
 preparation of weekly schedules
b) Teacher training: briefings and workshops on
 principles
 desired outcome
 exploitation/creation of teaching material
7 Evaluation
 Of students
 Of program
 Of teaching
8 Recycling stages
 Congruence or ‘fit’ between goals set and student
performance is determined
 Content is reassessed
 Materials and methodological procedures are revised.

Kashmir Journal of Language Research Vol. 17 /1 (2014)

APPENDIX –B

Parameters and procedures for test design

Information banks Procedural guide

1. Participant identification Broadly describe typical participants.
2. Purpose for language use Describe main uses of English and classify under
ESP headings: academic, occupational or social
survival.
3. Events/activities Choose the major events to be met with, and select
several activities for each.
4. Instrumentality Select media – listening, speaking, reading or
writing, or multiple-mode combinations.
Channels: face-to-face, tape, print, film etc.
5. Socio-cultural Specify social relationships, dialect and socio-
cultural factors.
6. Performance level Using nine-point scale, give target levels of
performance for each medium and multiple-mode.
7. Topic areas Identify semantic areas for each specified event.
8. Language skills Choose the skills necessary for carrying out the
different activities at given target levels.
9. Language function/ tones Indicate functions needed, and appropriate
units attitudinal tones, for those activities involving
sizeable person-to-person interaction.
10. Test format Choose types of item for each activity- closed-
ended, open-ended or restricted response (note
RACE and authenticity).
(Carroll 1980:24)

Kashmir Journal of Language Research Vol. 17 /1 (2014)

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Figures
1. The curriculum triangle.
2. Linguistic Competence against Communicative competence

Tables
1. The characteristics of communicative and non-communicative activities.
2. Test construction phases
3. Time table class VIII
4. Parameters and procedures for test design

Kashmir Journal of Language Research Vol. 17 /1 (2014)

GLOSSARY

Achievement test: the test conducted to find the success of individuals, groups or the
course in achieving the objectives.
Backwash effect: the effect of testing on teaching and learning.
Communicative competence: knowledge of the rules of grammar and discourse and
of communicative strategies.
Communicative performance: the ability to produce/use language in a
communicative setting.
Content validity: a test with representative sample of relevant language skills,
structures etc.
Cost-effective: practical i.e. easy and cheap to construct, administer, score and
interpret.
Criterion-referenced testing: a test that classifies a person according to whether or
not he can perform a task. (Compare with Norm-referenced testing)
Criterion related validity: the results of the test agree with the candidate’s
performance on another dependent or independent test.
Diagnostic test: the test taken to find students’ strength and weaknesses.
Direct testing: the test that requires the candidate to perform those skills precisely
which are to be measured. (Compare with indirect testing)
Discrete point testing: testing of a single item at a time. (Compare with Integrative
testing).
Grammatical competence: knowledge of the rules of grammar/language.
Face validity: a language test designed, for one part of the world, has a specific
relative vocabulary, which, if used in another part, lacks face validity.
Focused communicative task: a task which results in the prominence of some
linguistic feature (not by paying more attention to form than meaning).
Indirect testing: the test that attempts to measure the skills through the underlying
abilities. (Compare with direct testing)
Integrative testing: the test that require many language items to be combined to
complete a task. (Compare with discrete point testing)
Language Arts: focus on forms of English, including syntax, morphology, and
phonology.

Kashmir Journal of Language Research Vol. 17 /1 (2014)

Methodology: Classroom practice.
Multi-dimensional syllabus: A syllabus in which various units of organization are
used.
Norm-referenced testing: a test that relates a candidate’s performance with other
candidates. (Compare with Criterion-referenced testing)
Placement test: the test indeed to help placing the student at the right stage of a
course, according to his ability.
Proficiency test: the test designed to measure the ability of a person in a language
regardless of any training etc.
Reliability: the condition when a test measures consistently, regardless of any
physical conditions.
Role play: Learners’ are asked to act as somebody else. The teacher tells them what
the situation is, who they are, what they are talking about but the learners decide what
they will say and how.
Sociolinguistic competence: knowledge of the socio cultural rules and the rules of
discourse, combine to organize language structures into meaningful texts
Strategic competence: knowledge of verbal and non-verbal strategies, used to get
ones meaning across during communication breakdowns.
Syllabus inventory: the unordered series of lists specifying teaching content.
Unfocused communicative task: a communicative task which is not based on any
particular linguistic feature.
Uni-dimensional syllabus: A syllabus which selects one inventory item type as the
unit of organization.
Validity: it is achieved when a test measures accurately what it intends to measure.

Kashmir Journal of Language Research Vol. 17 /1 (2014)