2. IMPORTANCE OF TESTING
Tests have shaped the way we teach.
Tests scores determine:
• achievement,
lingusitic level,
graduation,
promotion ,
life or death situations
3. Tests used in schools affect the curriculum
content, textbook materials, teaching methods,
teacher preparation , language medium of
instructions
The higher the stakes of a test – the greater is its
impact in education
Therefore
High stakes tests act as de facto language
education policies
4. So what is the connection between testing and
language policy?
Definition:
Spolsky (2004), language policy is defined as all of the
“language practices, beliefs and management of a
community or polity” (p. 9).
Shohamy (2003) makes a distinction between language
policy and language education policy:
Language policy is concerned with the decisions that
people make about languages and their use in
society, whereas language education policy refers
to carrying out such decisions in the specific
contexts of schools and universities in relation to
home languages and to foreign and second
languages . . . (Shohamy, 2003, p. 279).
5. Language education policy establishes:
• which language(s) will be the medium of
instruction in schools,
• which languages will be taught,
• how they will be taught,
• and to whom they will be taught.
6. SOME HISTORY ….
The creation of IQ Tests
Alfred Binet created the first IQ test in 1904, to place
children in special education programs.; later on applied
to immigrants, and students (as a sorting mechanism in
education)
IQ Test scores ranked students within schools of
that era (Mensh and Mensh, 1991).
Congress passed an act restricting immigration
by “non-Nordics.”
“English literacy became a gatekeeping tool to bar unwanted
immigrants from entering the United States ….
Although claimed to be neutral and impartial, tests very
effectively sort, select, and punish (Shohamy, 1998;
Spolsky, 1995).
7. HIGH-STAKES TESTING FROM A LANGUAGE
POLICY PERSPECTIVE
Why is testing a language policy issue? (Shohamy, 2001,
The Power of Tests.)
…. I again learned about the power of tests as it became clear to me that the
‘language testing policy’ was the de facto ‘language policy’.
In Israel, a new national reading test was introduced in
grades 4 and 5 which aimed to assess and monitor
reading comprehension levels. ‘
Consequences:
• increased focus on reading comprehension and
‘test-like’ teaching which, in essence, became the
new curriculum (Shohamy, 1998).
8. A new test of Arabic as a foreign language was
introduced in Israel for seventh, eighth, and
ninth grades- -- intended to raise the prestige of
Arabic among Hebrew speakers.
Shohamy (2001) found that the test had influenced
teaching, learning, and the curriculum, to the
extent that teaching and testing essentially
became synonymous.
Policymakers use tests to create de facto policies
characterized by Shohamy as unethical,
undemocratic, and unbeneficial to the test-
taker.
9. Three major language policy implications of testing:
• determining prestige and status of languages,
• standardizing and preserving language correctness,
• and suppressing language diversity
In Europe, a ‘Common European Framework’ - unifying
language testing and assessment across different
countries.
Teachers believe the Common European Framework
represents a sequence of how and what learners learn
and they interpret it as as prescriptive.
10. SOME TESTING CASES
Testing ‘washback’ : effects of tests on teaching and
learning (Cheng, Watanabe, and Curtis, 2004; Wall, 1997).
• Case of Britain:
Revised writing tests did not lead to improved student
performance, but rather impeded the curriculum and
caused it to change in negative ways.
• Case of New Zealand:
Changes to the English language testing system showed
washback effects (with teachers and students focused on
test tasks rather than on academic language proficiency
in the broader sense).
11. • Case of China
National Matriculation English Test (NMET) --type
of language taught is limited to the skills tested.
• Case of Hong Kong
The washback effects are negative because high-
stakes exams drive teaching and learning in the
direction of drilling what is required in the
exam.
12. WORK IN PROGRESS
- Bilingual Education Act,
It encourages English-only approaches
-No Child Left Behind Act
Schools must demonstrate student progress in
order to continue to receive federal funding.
Menken (2005) has documented the effects that NCLB
testing policies are having on ELLs from a language
policy perspective.
- The effects of a recent requirement that ELLs pass state
exams in order to graduate from high school .
- The study found that all of the exams rely heavily on
language proficiency, which poses enormous challenges
for ELLs and their teachers.
13. Crawford (2004) reports that NCLB testing policies
undermine bilingual education programs when
the tests are provided in English only.
Children took a full range of language and content
courses in both languages;
-instructional time was balanced equally
between English and Spanish
14. PROBLEMS, DIFFICULTIES, AND FUTURE
DIRECTIONS
• Classroom curriculum and instruction covers
primarily or solely the material on the test;
within a high-stakes testing context, ‘teaching
to the test’ becomes commonplace.
• Tests wield enormous power over the lives of
the students and educators.
• Tests shape the instruction and educational
experiences of students in school, and also
determine students’ futures.
15. Tests affect the status of languages and limit their
diversity in schools.
At the school level, curriculum and teaching is
narrowed to the material on the tests, and
certain languages are privileged over others in
education.
16. More research is needed:
• to explore how testing shapes language
education policy
• Examine the impact that language
education policy has on testing policy
and vice versa.
Determine what impact testing has beyond
schools,
his review begins by exploring the history of the standardized testing movement, with particular atten- tion to the implementation of such tests with language minorities and immigrants. Because the link between testing and language education policy is very recent in research, this section discusses testing alone while later sections clarify the connection between testing and language policy.
Brigham categorized Europeans as “Nordics, Alpines, and Mediterranean races,” and found that Alpine and Mediterranean races were inferior to the Nordic race (Hakuta, 1986; Wiley and Wright, 2004; Wright, 2004). Hakuta (1986) critiques these findings with regard to immigrants, for failing to acknowledge the critical role that language proficiency plays in poor exam performance.
In Israel, a new national reading test was introduced in grades 4 and 5 which aimed to assess and monitor reading comprehension levels. The introduction of this test resulted in an increased focus on reading comprehension and ‘test-like’ teaching which, in essence, became the new curriculum (Shohamy, 1998).
According to the local education inspector, the test was intended to cause major changes to teaching; as such, the actual purpose was different from the stated one (Shohamy, 2001).
Similarly, a new test of Arabic as a foreign language was introduced in Israel for seventh, eighth, and ninth grades, which a government official explained was intended to raise the prestige of Arabic among Hebrew speakers. After several years, Shohamy (2001) found that the test had influenced teaching, learning, and the curriculum, to the extent that teaching and testing essentially became synonymous. While the test had changed teaching and learning, it had not successfully raised the status of Arabic. These cases show how policymakers use tests to create de facto policies that will promote their agendas and communicate their priorities, a top-down practice which Shohamy (1998, 2001) characterizes as unethical, undemocratic, and unbeneficial to the test-taker.
teachers believe the Common European Framework represents a sequence of how and what learners learn (Fulcher, 2004). In spite of what the document states are its intentions, teachers interpret it as prescriptive, so it is creating a single system in actuality.
More recently, in Britain, Freedman (1995) found that revised writing tests did not lead to improved student performance, but rather impeded the curriculum and caused it to change in negative ways. Hayes and Read (2004) demonstrate how changes to the English language testing system in New Zealand show washback effects, with teachers and students narrowly focused on test tasks rather than on academic language proficiency in the broader sense.
Qi (2005) shows that the exam has not had the positive effects that were intended, as teaching of linguistics knowledge rather than communicative competence is still emphasized and the type of language taught is limited to the skills tested.
Washback research explores the ways that testing changes teaching and learning, though little attention is paid in this literature to the effects of testing on the lives of educators and students in schools. This differs from research on testing from a language policy perspective, which considers the impact of testing on language education, but also explores the social justice implications when a test acts as de facto language policy.
Hong kong
Cheng (2004) studied changes to language testing in Hong Kong that, like the NMET in China, were intended to change instruction in a top-down way. She found that the Hong Kong Examinations Authority had successfully changed “the what in teaching and learning”; however, “the extent to which this new examination has changed the how of teaching and learning was limited” (Cheng, 2004, p. 164).
The author con-cludes that the washback effects are negative because high-stakes exams drive teaching and learning in the direction of drilling what is required of the exam. By definition, the scope of what is learned is limited, and dril- ling or rote memorization activities overshadow possibilities for authentic language use.
the Bilingual Education Act, which was part of the preceding federal education legislation. Because the law no longer mentions bilingual education or the use of languages other than English in instruction, researchers argue that it encourages English-only approaches (Evans and Hornberger, 2005). Moreover, because the assessments being used by states to comply with NCLB are usually in English, they place ELLs at a disadvantage. In addition, by intertwining the English language with content learning, Byrnes (2005) shows how foreign language learning has become sidelined.
Crawford (2004) reports that NCLB testing policies undermine bilingual education programs when the tests are provided in English only.
However, the school district became concerned with poor reading scores by ELLs on high-stakes exams, and mandated two and a half hour blocks of English phonics each day. This increased the amount of English instruction, which disrupted the bilingual program’s equal instructional time in each
language. This language policy change was not explicitly mandated by NCLB, but rather done implicitly (Crawford, 2004).
classroom curriculum and instruction is narrowed as a consequence, covering primarily or solely the material on the test; within a high-stakes testing context, ‘teaching to the test’ becomes commonplace.
This is extremely crucial for immigrant, minority, and poor students who are most vulnerable to inequitable educational decisionmaking based on test scores;
