Communicative Testing Communicative Testing Communicative testing

What should be the different? Testing, assessment and evaluation Testing or test: instrument of elicitation of
Testing, assessment and evaluation. Applied linguists interchangeably one’s behavior (bachman:1990:20)
Do they mean different things to different In generation: a form of assessment or
people? evaluation for decision making
1 2 (clark:1987; Rowntree:1987)
3
Communicative Testing Communicative Testing Communicative Testing
Bachman(1990:53) sees 2nd use as being of Assessment: ca be carried out in the form of Evaluation: attempts to identify and the effects
interest in research on language teaching tests or quizzes, examinations, observations, of the courser as a whole;
Observes two major uses of test score in etc.Attempts to discover the loran’s Evaluation takes care of all the different
educational settings weaknesses and strengths in a language aspects involved and have an effect on the
1) Making decision about people, or micro- programmer learning programmer outcomes, such as, the
evaluation. (clark:1987 and Rowntree:1987) teacher, materials, the syllabus,
2)Making decision about educational
programmer- or major-evaluation 5 6
4
The role of testing in language teaching The role of testing in languages Test types
Educational system-testing is seen as an attempt teaching Test types are determined by
to identify and explain the effects and Testing provides very useful information for Data that the tester wants
effectiveness of a teaching programmer variety of people in the system about the The purpose that he needs the information
Attempt to find out what the student has results or effect of the programmer for for,ie
achieved in a course of teaching possible and necessary changes which might The nature of decision to be made
(Rowntree:1977) lead to the improvement of the programmer as (Harrison:1983;Hughes;Bachman)
In general:valette(1977)sees testing as having a while
three major roles: Testing is viewed as extension of the
 defining course objectives classroom work (oller:1979;Hutchison and
 stimulating students’ progress waters; Bachan:1990) 9
 providing info

7 8
Test types Test types Placement test
Bachman (1990) identifies features which Placement test Placement test: aims at placing or rather
determine test types as: Diagnostic test grouping learners according to their abilities or
1)the purpose, or use Proficiency test level of attainment (harrison’1983 and
2)the content upon which they are based Achievement test HughesL:1989), language use needs ,
3)the frame of reference within which their professional or academic specification
results are to be interpreted (Bachman:1990)
4)the way they are scored , and Test based on:
5)the specific technique or method they employ Theory of language proficiency ,and
10 11 Learning goals of the syllabus to be used
12
Diagnostic test Proficiency test Proficiency test
Diagnostic test used to ascertain students Proficiency test: measures student’s general Proficiency test :
strengths and weaknesses so that appropriate ability without taking cognizance of any Tester’s performance is measured according to
types and levels of teaching and learning particular language content or objectives of a the performance of particular task or range of
activities are chosen adequately language course tasks that are expected of him in the future
Help to determine how well students have It is used to measure overall mastery of (Hurrison:1989)
mastered an aspect of the teaching course and English for a particular course (TOEFL)
can a based as basis for remedial work if needed
13
14 15
Achievement test Achievement test Qualities of a good test
Achievement test or attainment test Progress achievement-ongoing assessment Reliability
Used to assess how effectively and efficiently the Provides very useful information to the How consistently a test measures what it is
student has followed a particular course of teacher for formative evaluation(allows supposed to measure
instruction (valette:1977:5) in terms of syllabus, modification in the course ) Produces similar results on different occasion
course book or materials employed Final achievement tests –often standardized under similar circumstances
Hughes distinguishes achievement test of 2 types and are admistered at the end of instructional (Harris:1979;oller:1990;madsen: 1983;B
1)progress achievement tests, and learning programmer (final exams by achman:1990; Hall;1993
2)final achievement test Ministries)
16 17 18
Qualities of a good test Quality of a good test Qualities of good test
Reliability consistency in its measuments Validity Practicality and usefulness
independently of 1) when ,and Concerned with how well or effectively a test In terms of finance, time effort, materials
2) Who marks the test measures what it claims to measure? Listening including preparation ,administration, scoring
Reliability can be influenced by: tested through multiple choice which requires and interpretation of the test scores
Nr .of items (mcq) ;sample of testee; conditions a lot of reading (oller:1979; Harrison:1973)
under which the test is taken Construct validity (how it takes into acc. Should diagnose both teacher and student
Theory) effectiveness for improvement in specific
Construct validity (sample representation) ways.
Face validity and empirical validity
19 Test cannot be valid without being reliable 21
20
The issue of communicative Language The issue of communicative language The issue of communicative language
testing testing testing
Researchers on communicative language testing Use of theory and practice aspect of language Communicative language ability comprises
challenged with insights from: to develop tests which reflect current views of both knowledge, or competence and the
Linguistics language and language use capacity of handling that competence in
Language learning, and language teaching Capability of measuring a wide range of a language use (Bachman:1990)
abilities associated with communicative
22 competence” or “communicative ability” 24
23
Features of communicative testing Features of communicative testing Features of communicative testing
Feature to be considered but neglected in the Information-gap
traditional testing: Task dependence (interdependence among the Non- communicative
Language is interactive test tasks building upon the content of the test) Communicative
Unpredictable Integration of tasks Discrete-point integrative
Purposeful Language knowledge and cognitive process Indirect form direct form
Authentic (Bachman:1991) Norm-referenced Criterion-referenced
Contextualized
Assessed in terms of behavourial outcome
(carrol:1980:12)in (wright:1990:53)
26
 27
25

Oral testing in a communicative Testing oral communication Communicative curriculum

curriculum Why test oral communication Features of oral testing in a communicative
Oral communicative 1)Encouragement of conscious learning due to approach
Primary goal of learning a foreign language- the assessment-motivational factor Tests have to address problems which are
communicative orally 2)Definition of what is to be learn helps the similar to those in real context
Oral communication is normally a two-way student towards a conscious control of Valid communicative oral test has to display
process between listener and speaker in which language forms and content features which are of language use, i.e.:
they change their roles naturally and 3)makes the teacher aware of what he is
interchangeable teaching and what is being learn
False starts, repetitions, gestures redundancy Away (1988:49) 29 30
Littlewood:1992; Underhill,
28
Oral testing in communicative Making system on oral testing COMMON PRACTICE IN
curriculum In order to score validly and reliably: ASSESSMENT
Contextualization, Be consistent with aims of the course A) Reading aloud, and
Unpredictability Take into account the needs and interests of B) Question and Answer
Purposeful learners C) Transformation of the linguistic
Authenticity Have more than one assessor forms
Behavior-based Establish mark categories (mark for each
category)
31 (underhill:1987;weir:1990) 32 33
Shortcomings of the common format Core objective of the proposal Core objective of the proposal
How often does one read aloud in the real To encourage the development of test types Incorporate in the test, elements which are
world which can measure the true communicative normally found in the real world and with
Why does one ask questions if he himself language ability of the candidates based on what the students are likely to
already knows the answer? Confirm? takes encounter(e.g. single answers instead of
Why does one need to produce full and well Present test takers with the tasks which will complete sentence)
grammatically constructed sentences? encourage the use of language by focusing Involve candidates in tasks which are
How often will one say, e g”john is a noun” in on the topic of their interest and needs purposive, interactive and reflect authentic
the middle of Oxford street situations which learners are likely to be
34 35 involve in outside the classroom
36
Core objectives of the proposal Proposal Communicative tasks for the
Encourage the use of some important features Use of a task-based approach so that assessment of oral ability
of oral face- to face interaction, e.g., learners who will leave school will be able to 1.Description task-types (static relationship)
hesitations, repetions as components of function efficiently and effectively in 2 .Telling a story or giving an eye-witness
language use. authentic situations of English language use account (dynamic relationship)
Encourage design of test tasks which might Use of multi-test approach so that
display constraints as they would appear in examiners appreciate the learner’s
authentic situations of language use, e .g , time communicative language ability in different
pressure situations of language use 39
37 38
MARKING CRITERIA MAKING CRITERIA MAKING CRITERIA
Marking Based On Marking scheme Marking schedule( adapted from Weir 1990)
1)Impression mark(HOLISTIC) Accuracy
2)Marking scheme (ANALYTIC) using scale Appropriateness
adapted from Hughes (1989)and weir40 Range 42
Communicative 41
Skills
Total score
Question Reference Reference
CAN THIS ,why Bachman, L.F. Fundamental Consideration in Hall, c”the direct testing of oral skill in
Language Testing .Oxford. OUP, 1990 university foreign language.”LRaL, Vol.31.1
 CARROLL, B.J. Testing communicative pp .23-38, 1993.
performance: An intern study, Oxford. Harris, P.D Testing English as a second
Paragon press,1980 language. New York. McGraw-Hill Book
CLARK, j .L.classroom assessment in a company, 1969
communicative approach.” British journal of HaRRISON, A.Language Testing
43 language teaching, Vol. 25.1 pp.19, 1987. Handbook:ELTS.London. Macmillan,1983
44 HUGHES, A. Testing for Language
Teachers.cambridge. CUP,1989

45

Implications Implications What do we say

What implications are there for not having Teacher will neglect promoting ability Yes to oral examination
English oral testing in secondary education? Learner won’t develop oral ability effectively Or
Learner Work market 46 Hard to get better work opportunities No to English oral exam
Work market face problem of competent If yes ,who and how was it decided
English speakers 48
47
Question Reference Reference
CAN THIS WORK? ,why? Bachman, L.F. Fundamental Consideration in Hall, c”the direct testing of oral skill in
Language Testing .Oxford. OUP, 1990 university foreign language.”LRaL, Vol.31.1
If cannot, why? CARROLL, B.J. Testing communicative pp .23-38, 1993.
performance: An intern study, Oxford. Harris, P.D Testing English as a second
Paragon press,1980 language. New York. McGraw-Hill Book
CLARK, j .L.classroom assessment in a company, 1969
communicative approach.” British journal of HaRRISON, A.Language Testing
language teaching, Vol. 25.1 pp.19, 1987. Handbook:ELTS.London. Macmillan,1983
HUGHES, A. Testing for Language
Teachers.cambridge. CUP,1989