Testing and evaluation

Research Methodology :https://www.facebook.com/groups/689682314444236/
Testing and Evaluation
By : Abla BEN BELLAL
1. DEFINITION OF TESTING:
It is a technique of obtaining infomation needed for evaluation purposes. (Tests,
quizzes, measuring instruments) are devices used to obtain such information.
A TEST is « a method of measuring a person’s ability on knowledge in a given
area »
2. DEFINITION OF ASSESSMENT :
 It is the process of collecting information or evidence of a learner’s learning
progress and achievement over a period of time in order to improve teaching
and learning.
 Assessment is typically used to describe processes to examine or measure
student learning that results from academic programs.
 Assessment is an ongoing process aimed at imroving student learning.
 Assessment is not based on one test or one task, nor it is expressed by mark or
grade, but rather in a report form with scales or levels as well as description and
comment from the teacher.
2.1. TYPES OF ASSESSMENT:
2.1.1. Formative Assessment : when teachers use it to check on the progress of
their students, to see how far they have mastered what they should have
learnt, and then use this information to modify their future teaching plans.
*Informal assessment is a part of formative assessment. It can take a
number of forms : Unplanned comments, verbal feedback to students,
observing students perform a task of work in small groups and so on.
2.1.2. Summative Assessment :is used at the end of the term, semester, or year
in order to measure what has been achieved both by groups and by
individuals.

*Formal assessment is part of summative assessment. i.e. Exercises or
procedures which are systematic and give students and teachers an appraisal
of students’ achievement.
3. DEFINITION OF EVALUATION:
It is the process of making overall judgment about one’s work or a whole
school’s work.
Evaluation is typically broader concept than assessment as it focuses on the
overall, or summative experience.
when we ASSESS our students we commonly are interestedin“how and
how much our students have learnt” , but when we EVALUATE them we
are concerned with “how the learning process is developing” .
4. WHAT ARE THE MAIN REASONS FOR TESTING ?
a. Achievement/Attainment tests: usually more formal, designed to show
mastery of a particular syllabus (e.g. end-of-year tests, school-leaving exams,
public tests) though similar (re-syllabus) to progress tests. Rarely constructed
by classroom teacher for a particular class. Designed primarily to measure
individual progress rather than as a means of motivating or reinforcing
language.
b. Progress Tests: Most classroom tests take this form. Assess progress students
make in mastering material taught in the classroom. Often given to motivate
students. They also enable students to assess the degree of success of teaching
and learning and to identify areas of weakness & difficulty. Progress tests can
also be diagnostic to some degree.
c. Diagnostic Tests : can include Progress, Achievement and Proficiency tests,
enabling teachers to identify specific weaknesses/difficulties so that an
appropriate remedial programme can be planned. Diagnostic Tests are primarily
designed to assess students' knowledge & skills in particular areas before a
course of study is begun. Reference back to class-work. Motivation. Remedial
work.

d. Placement Tests : sort new students into teaching groups so that they are
approx. the same level as others when they start. Present standing. General
ability rather than specific points of learning. Variety of tests necessary.
Reference forward to future learning. Results of Placement Tests are needed
quickly. Administrative load.
e. Proficiency Tests : measure students' achievements in relation to a specific
task which they are later required to perform (e.g. follow a university course in
the English medium; do a particular job). Reference forward to particular
application of language acquired: future performance rather than past
achievement. They rarely take into account the syllabus that students have
followed. Definition of operational needs. Practical situations. Authentic
strategies for coping. Common standard e.g. driving test regardless of previous
learning. Application of common standard whether the syllabus is known or
unknown.
f. Aptitude Tests: measure students probable performance. Reference forward
but can be distinguished from proficiency tests. Aptitude tests assess
proficiency in language for language use (e.g. will S experience difficulty in
identifying sounds or the grammatical structure of a new language?) while
Proficiency tests measure adequacy of control in L2 for studying other things
through the medium of that language.
5. TYPES OF TESTS :
Proficiencytests Achievement tests Diagnostic tests Placement tests
*They are designed to
measure students’ aility in
a language.
*The content is not based
on the content or
objectives of language
courses that people taking
may have followed.
*It is based on a
specification of what
candidates have to be able
to do in the language in
*Achievement tests are “more
formal”, whereas Hughes
(1989:8) assumes that this type
of tests will fully involve
teachers, for they will be
responsible for the preparation
of such tests and giving them to
the learners.
*Are directly related to language
courses, their purpose being to
establish how successful
individual students, or the
*Are used to identify
learners’ strengths and
weaknesses.
*They are intended to
ascertain what learning still
needs to take place.
a diagnostic test is helps us
evaluate our teaching ,the
syllabus, as well as the
material used in addition to
locating difficulties and
planning appropriate
*intended to provide
information that will
help to place students
at the stage of the
teaching programme
most appropriate to
their abilities.
*They are used to
assign students to
classes at different
levels.
placement tests are

order to be considered
proficient.
* proficiency test is a test,
which measures how much
of a language a person
knows or has learnt. It is
not bound to any
curriculum or syllabus, but
is intended to check the
learners’ language
competence
The examples of such tests
could be the American
Testing of English as
Foreign Language test
(further in the text
TOEFL) that is used to
measures the learners’
general knowledge of
English in order to allow
them to enter any high
educational establishments
or to take up a job in the
USA
*proficiency test is used to
assess the general
knowledge or skill
commonly required to
entry into a group of
similar institution. Because
of the general nature of
proficiency decisions, a
proficiency test must be
designed so that the
general abilities and skills
of students are reflected in
a wide distribution of
scores. Thus, proficiency
decisions must be based on
the best obtainable
proficiency test scores as
well as other information
about students
courses themselves have been in
achieving objectives.
*An achievement test at the end
of the course to check the
acquisition of the material
covered during the study year
*There are of 2 types :
Final achievement tests :
administered at the end of a
course of a study. They may be
written and administered by
ministries of education, official
examining boards, or by
memebers of teaching
institutions. The content of
these tests must be related to the
courses with which they are
concerned.
*Progress achievement tests :
intended to measure the progress
that the students are making.
They contribute to formative
assessment.
*Achievement tests must be not
only very specifically designed
to measure the objectives of a
given course but also flexible
enough to help teachers readily
respond to what they learn from
the test about the students’
abilities, the students’ needs, and
the students’ learning of the
course objectives.
*Achievement tests are mainly
given at definite times of the
school year. Moreover, they
could be extremely crucial for
the students, for they are
intended either to make the
students pass or fail the test.
Alderson (ibid.) mentions two
usage types of achievement
tests: formative and summative.
The notion of a formative test
remedial teaching.
* diagnostic testing often
requires more
detailed information about
the very specific areas in
which students have
strengths and weaknesses.
*The purpose is to help
students and their
teachers to focus their
efforts where they will be
most effective.
* the most effective use of
a diagnostic test is to report
the performance level on
each objective (in a
percentage) to each student
so that he or she can decide
how and where to invest
time and energy most
profitably.
*They are designed to
determne the degree to
which the specific
objectives of the course
have been accomplished as
well as to assess students’
strengths and weaknesses to
correct individual
deficiencies before it’s too
late. These tests aim at
fostering achievement by
promoting strengths and
eliminating weaknesses of
students. In other words,
the purpose of this type of
tests is to diagnose
students’ problems during
the learning process to
focus their efforts where
they will be most effective.
designed to help
decide what each
student’s
appropriate level will
be within a specific
program, skill area, or
course.
*The purpose of such
tests is to reveal which
students have more of,
or less
of, a particular
knowledge or skill so
that students with
similar levels of
ability can be grouped
together
*the placement test
typically could be
represented in the form
of dictations,
interviews, grammar
tests, etc.
*a placement test is
designed and given in
order to use the
information of the
students’ knowledge
for putting the students
into groups according
to their level of the
language.

denotes the idea that the teacher
will be able after evaluating the
results of the test reconsider
his/her teaching, syllabus design
and even slow down the pace of
studying to consolidate the
material if it is necessary in
future
Summative usage will deal
precisely with the students’
success or failure. The teacher
will immediately can take up
remedial activities to improve a
situation.
*students are tested to find out
how much each person has
learnt within the program.
Achievement decisions are about
the amount of learning that
students have done. They are
flexible to help teachers respond
to what they learn from the test
about students’ ability, students’
needs and students’ learning of
the course objective
6. PRINCIPLES OF LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT
There are five principles of language assessment; they are practicality, reliability,
validity, authenticity, and washback.
6.1. PRACTICALITY
An effective test is practical. This means that it:
 is not excessively expensive.
 A test that is prohibitively expensive is impractical.
 stays within appropriate time constraint.
A test of language proficiency that takes a student 10 hours to complete is
impractical.
 is relatively easy to administer

A test that takes a few minutes for a student to take and several hours for an examiner
to evaluate for most classroom situation is impractical.
 has a scoring/evaluation procedure that is specific and time efficient.
A test that can be scored only by computer if the test takes place a thousand miles
away from the nearest computer is impractical.
Furthermore, for a test to be practical:
 administrative details should clearly be established before the test,
 students should be able to complete the test reasonably within the set time
frame,
 all materials and equipment should be ready,
 the cost of the test should be within budgeted limits,
 the scoring/evaluation system should be feasible in the teacher’s time frame.
Validity and reliability are not enough to build a test. Instead, the test should be
practical across time, cost, and energy. Dealing with time and energy, tests should be
efficient in terms of making, doing, and evaluating. Then, the tests must be affordable.
It is quite useless if a valid and reliable test cannot be done in remote areas because it
requires an inexpensive computer to do it (Heaton, 1975: 158-159; Weir, 1990: 34-35;
Brown, 2004: 19-20).
6.2. RELIABILITY
A reliability test is consistent and dependable. A number of sources of unreliability
may be identified:
·
a. Students-related Reliability
A test yields unreliable results because of factors beyond the control of the test taker,
such as illness, fatigue, a “bad day”, or no sleep the night before.
b. Rater (scorer) Reliability

Rater reliability sometime refers to the consistency of scoring by two or more scorers.
Human error, subjectivity, and bias may enter into the scoring process. Inter-
rater unreliability occurs when two or more scorers yield inconsistent score of the
same test, possibly for lack of attention to scoring criteria, inexperience, or
inattention. Intra-rater unreliability is because of unclear scoring criteria, fatigue, and
bias toward particular “good” and “bad” students.
· Test Administration Reliability
Unreliability may result from the condition in which the test is administered. For
example is the test of aural comprehension with a tape recorder. When a tape recorder
played items, the students sitting next to windows could not hear the tape accurately
because of the street noise outside the building.
c. Test Reliability
If a test is too long, test-takers may become fatigued by the time they reach the later
items and hastily respond incorrectly.
d. Test and test administration reliability can be achieved by making sure that all
students received the same quality of input. Part of achieving test reliability
depends on the physical context-making sure, for example, that every students has
a cleanly photocopied test sheet, sound amplification is clearly audible to everyone
in the room, video input is equally visible to all, lightning, temperature, and other
classroom conditions are equal (and optimal) for all students.
Reliability refers to consistency and dependability. A same test delivered to a same
student across time administration must yield same results. Factors affecting reliability
are (Heaton, 1975: 155-156; Brown, 2004: 21-22):
1. student-related reliability: students personal factors such as motivation,
illness, anxiety can hinder from their ‘real’ performance,
2. rater reliability: either intra-rater or inter-rater leads to subjectivity, error,
bias during scoring tests,
3. test administration reliability: when the same test administered in
different occasion, it can result differently,

4. test reliability: dealing with duration of the test and test instruction. If a test
takes a long time to do, it may affect the test takers performance such as
fatigue, confusion, or exhaustion. Some test takers do not perform well in
the timed test. Test instruction must be clear for all of test takers since they
are affected by mental pressures.
Some methods are employed to gain reliability of assessment (Heaton, 1975:
156; Weir 1990: 32; Gronlund and Waugh, 2009: 59-64). They are:
1. test-retest/re-administer: the same test is administered after a lapse of
time. Two gained scores are then correlated.
2. parallel form/equivalent-forms method: administrating two cloned tests at
the same time to the same test takers. Results of the tests are then correlated.
3. split-half method: a test is divided into two, corresponding scores obtained,
the extent to which they correlate with each other governing the reliability of
the test as a whole.
4. test-retest with equivalent forms: mixed method of test-retest and parallel
form. Two cloned tests are administered to the same test takers in different
occasion.
5. intra-rater and inter-rater: employing one person to score the same test in
different time is called intra-rater. Some hits to minimize unreliability are
employing rubric, avoiding fatigue, giving score on the same numbers, and
suggesting students write their names at the back of test paper. When two
people score the same test, it is inter-rater. The tests done by test takers are
divided into two. A rubric and discussion must be developed first in order to
have the same perception. Two scores either from intra- or inter-rater are
correlated.
6.3. VALIDITY
Validity is the extent to which inferences made from assessment result are appropriate,
meaningful, and useful for the purpose of the assessment. It is the most complicated
yet the most important principle. Validity can be measured using statistical correlation
with other related measures.

According to Bynom (Forum, 2001), validity deals with what is tested and degree to
which a test measures what is supposed to measure (Longman Dictionary, LTAL). For
example, if we test the students writing skills giving them a composition test on Ways
of Cooking, we cannot denote such test as valid, for it can be argued that it tests not
our abilities to write, but the knowledge of cooking as a skill.
A. Content-related Validity
A test is said to have content validity when it actually samples the subject matter about
which conclusion are to be drawn, and require the test–taker to perform the behavior
being measured. For example, speaking ability is tested using speaking performance, not
pencil and paper test. It can be identified when we can define the achievement being
measured.
It can be achieved by making a direct test performance. For example to test pronunciation
teacher should require the students to pronounce the target words orally.
There are two questions are used to applying content validity in classroom test:
1. Are classroom objectives identified and appropriately framed? The objective should
include a performance verb and specific linguistic target.
2. Are lessonobjectives represented in the form of test specification? A test should
have a structure that follows logically from the lesson or unit being tested. It can be
designed by dividing the objectives into sections, offering students a variety of item
types, and gives appropriate weight to each section.
B. Criterion-relatedValidity
The extent to which the “criterion” of the test has actually been reached. It can be best
demonstrated through a comparison of result of an assessment with result of some other
measure of the same criterion.
Criterion-related validity usually falls into two categories:
1. Concurrent Validity: if the test result supported by other concurrent performance
beyond assessment. (e.g.: high score in English final exam supported by actual
proficiency in English)

2. Predictive Validity: to asses or predict the test-taker’s likelihood of future success.
(e.g.: placement test, admission assessment)
C. Construct-related Validity
Construct validity ask “Does the test actually touch into the theoretical construct
as it has been defined?”. An informal construct validation of the use of virtually every
classroom test is both essential and feasible. For example, the scoring analysis of
interview includes pronunciation, fluency, grammatical accuracy, vocabulary used and
sociolinguistics appropriateness. This is the theoretical construct of oral proficiency.
Construct validity is a major issue in validating large-scale standardized test of
proficiency.
D. Consequential Validity
It includes all the consequences of a test, such as its accuracy in measuring the
intended criteria, its impact on the test-takers preparation, its effect on the learner, and
the social consequences of the test interpretation and use. One aspect of consequential
validity which draws special attention is the effect of test preparation courses and
manual on performance.
E. Face Validity
Face validity is the extent to which students view the assessment as fair, relevant, and
useful for improving learning. It means that students perceive the test to be valid. It
will be perceived valid if it samples the actual content of what the learners has
achieved or expect to achieve. Nevertheless the psychological state of the test-taker
(confidence, anxiety) is an important aspect in their peak performance.
Test with high face validity has the following characteristics:
• Well constructed, expected format with familiar task.
• Clearly doable within the allotted time.
• Clear and uncomplicated test item.
• Crystal clear direction.
• Task that relate to students course work.
• A difficulty level that present a reasonable challenge.

Another phrase associated with face validity is” biased for best”. Teachers can
make a test which is” biased for best” by offering students appropriate review and
preparation for the test, suggesting strategies that will be beneficial, or structuring the
test so that the best students will be modestly challenged and the weaker students will
not be overwhelmed.
The concept of face validity according to Heaton (1975: 153) and Brown (2004:
26) is that when a test item looks right to other testers, teachers, moderators, and test-
takers. In addition, it appears to measure the knowledge or abilities it claims to
measure. Heaton argues that if a test is examined by other people, some absurdities
and ambiguities can be discovered.
Face validity is important in maintaining test takers’ motivation and
performance (Heaton, 1975; 153; Weir, 1990: 26). If a test does not have face validity,
it may not be acceptable to students or teachers. If students do not take the test as
valid, they will show adverse reaction (poor study reaction, low motivation). In other
words, they will not perform in a way which truly reflects their abilities.
Brown (2004: 27) states that face validity will likely be high if learners
encounter:
1. a well-constructed, expected format with familiar tasks,
2. a test that is clearly doable within the allotted time limit,
3. items that are clear and uncomplicated,
4. directions that are crystal clear,
5. tasks that relate to their course work (content validity), and
6. a difficulty level that presents a reasonable challenge.
To examine face validity, no statistical analysis is needed. Judgmental
responses from experts, colleagues, or test takers may be involved. They can read
thoroughly to the whole items or they can just see at glance the items. Then, they can
relate to the ability that the test want to measure. If a speaking test appears in
vocabulary items, it may not have face validity.
6.4. AUTHENTICITY

Authenticity is the degree of correspondence of the characteristics of a given
language test task to the features of a target language task. It also means a task that is
likely to be encountered in the “real world”.
Authenticity can be presented by:
• Using a natural language
• Contextualizing the test item
• Giving meaningful (relevant, interesting) topics for the learners.
• Providing thematic organization to the item (e.g. through story line or episode)
• Giving test which represent or closely approximate real world task.
6.5. WASHBACK
In general terms, washback means the effect of testing on teaching and learning. In
large-scale assessment, it refers to the effects that test have on instruction in the terms
of how the students prepare for the test. While in classroom assessment, washback
means the beneficial information that washesback to the students in the form of useful
diagnoses of strengths and weaknesses.
In enhancing washback, the teachers should comment generously and specifically
on test performance, respond to as many details as possible, praise strengths, criticize
weaknesses constructively, and give strategic hints to improve performance.
The teachers should serve classroom tests as learning device through which
washback is achieved. Students’ incorrect responses can become windows of insight
into further work. Their correct responses need to be praised, especially when they
represent accomplishments in a student’s inter-language.
Washback enhances a number of basic principles of language acquisition: Intrinsic
motivation, autonomy, self-confidence, language ego, inter-language, and strategic
investment, among others.
One way to enhance washback is to comment generously and specifically on test
performance. Washback implies that students have ready access to the teacher to
discuss the feedback and evaluation he/she has given.

The effects of tests on teaching and learning are called washback. Teachers must be
able to create classroom tests that serve as learning devices through which washback is
achieved. Washback enhances intrinsic motivation, autonomy, self-confidence,
language ego, interlanguage, and strategic investment in the students. Instead of giving
letter grades and numerical scores which give no information to the students’
performance, giving generous and specific comments is a way to enhance washback
(Brown 2004: 29).
Heaton (1975: 161-162) mentions this as backwash effect which falls into
macro and micro aspects. In macro aspect, tests impact society and education system
such as development of curriculum. In micro aspect, tests impact individual student or
teacher such as improving teaching and learning process.
Washback can also be negative and positive (Saehu, 2012: 124-127). It is easy
to find negative wash back such as narrowing down language competencies only on
those involve in tests and neglecting the rest. While language is a tool of
communication, most students and teachers in language class only focus on language
competencies in the test. On the other hand, a test can be positive washback if it
encourages better teaching and learning. However, it is quite difficult to achieve. An
example of positive washback of a test is National Matriculation English Test in
China. It resulted that after the test was administered, students’ proficiency in English
for actual or authentic language use situation improved.
Washback can be strong or weak (Saehu, 2012: 122-123). An example of strong
effect of the test is national examination; meanwhile weak effect of the test is the
impact of formative test. Let us compare and decide how most students and teachers
react on those two kinds of test.
7. WAYS OF TESTING:
7.1. Direct and Indirect Testing:
Direct Indirect
*Hughes (1989:14) : the involvement of a skill that is
supposed to be tested. The following view means that
when applying the direct testing the teacher will be
interested in testing a particular skill, e.g. if the aim of
*Indirect testing. It differs from direct one in the way
that it measures a skill through some other skill. It
could mean the incorporation of various skills that
are connected with each other, e.g. listening and

the test is to check listening comprehension, the students
will be given a test that will check their listening skills,
such as listening to the tape and doing the
accompanying tasks. Such type of test will not engage
testing of other skills.
*Testing is direct when it requires the learner to perform
precisely the skill that we wish to measure. If we want
to know how well learners can write compositions, we
get them to write compositions. The tasks and the texts
used should be as authentic as possible
*It is said that the advantages of direct testing is that it is
intended to test some certain abilities, and preparation
for that usually involves persistent practice of certain
skills. Nevertheless, the skills tested are deprived from
the authentic situation that later may cause difficulties
for the students in using them.
speaking skills.
*Indirect testing, regarding to (Hughes), tests the
usage of the language in real-life situation
*indirect testing is more effective than direct one, for
it covers a broader part of the language. It denotes
that the learners are not constrained to one particular
skill and a relevant exercise. They are free to
elaborate all four skills; what is checked is their
ability to operate with those skills and apply them in
various, even unpredictable situations. This is the
true indicator of the learner’s real knowledge of the
language.
7.2. Discrete point and Integrative Testing:
Discrete point Integrative
_discrete point test is a language test that is meant to test
a particular language item, e.g. tenses. The basis of that
type of tests is that we can test components of the
language (grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and
spelling) and language skills (listening, reading,
speaking, and writing) separately
_The integrative test intends to check several
language skills and language components together or
simultaneously. Hughes (1989:15) stipulates that the
integrative tests display the learners’ knowledge of
grammar, vocabulary, spelling together, but not as
separate skills or items.
7.3. Norm referenced and CriterionreferencedTesting:
They are not focused directly on the language items, but on the scores the students
can get
Norm Referenced(proficiency & placement tests) Criterion Referenced (achievement & diagnostic)
*Norm-referenced tests refer to standardized tests that
are designed to compare and rank test takers in relation
to one another. This type of tests reports whether test
takers performed better or worse than a hypothetical
average student. It is designed to measure global
language abilities, such as overall English language
proficiency and academic listening ability, in which
each student’s score is interpreted relative to the scores
of all other students who took the test.
*Criterion-referenced tests are designed to measure
students’ performance against a fixed set of criteria
or learning standards. That is to say, they are written
descriptions of what students are expected to know
and be able to do a lot at a specific stage of their
education. CRTs provide information on whether
students have attained a predetermined level of
performance called “mastery”.

* Norm-referenced test that measures the knowledge of
the learner and compares it with the knowledge of
another member of his/her group. The learner’s score is
compared with the scores of the other students
*In NRTs, testers interpret each student’s performance
in relationship to the performances of other students in
the norm group. In other words, NRTs examine the
relationship of a given student’s performance to that of
all other students in percentile terms. Scores are
expressed with no references to the actual number of
test questions answered correctly .This means that
teachers are mainly concerned with the student’s
percentile score which informs them about the
proportion of students who scored above and below the
student in question.
*Tests are used to measure general abilities such as
language proficiency in English. This type of tests has
subtests that are general in nature. For example,
measuring listening comprehension, reading
comprehension and writing
*the purpose is to generate scores that spread the
students out along a continuum of general abilities.
Thus, any existing difference between individuals can
be distinguished since a student performance is
compared to others in the same group
*the test is very long and contains a variety of different
types of question content. The content is diverse and
students find difficulties to know exactly what will be
tested because the test is made up of a few subtests on
general language skills such as reading and listening
comprehension
* students know the general format of the questions but
not the language points or content to be tested by those
questions
* The aim of testing is not to compare the results of
the students. It is connected with the learners’
knowledge of the subject. As Hughes (1989:16) puts
it the criterion-referenced tests check the actual
language abilities of the students. They distinguish
the weak and strong points of the students. The
students either manage to pass the test or fail it.
* the primary focus in interpreting scores is on how
much of the material each student has learnt in
absolute terms. That is, teachers are concerned with
how much of the material the students know (The
Percentage). They care about the percentage of
questions the students answered correctly in
connection with the material at hand without
reference to students’ positions. A high percentage
score means that the test was very easy for students
who knew the material being tested.
* CRTs are designed to provide precise information
about each individual’s performance on well-defined
learning points. Subtests for a notional functional
language course might consist of a short interview
where ratings are made of students’ ability to
perform greetings, express opinions and so on.
*the purpose is to assess the amount of skill learnt by
each student. That is to say, the focus here is on a
student’s performance compared to the amount of
material known by that student, and not on scores’
distribution.
* a CRT consists of numerous and short subtests in
which each objective in the course will have its own
subtest. To save time and efforts, subtests will be
collapsed together which makes it difficult for an
outsider to identify the subtests.
* students can predict both the questions formats on
the test and the language points to be tested.
Teaching to such a test should help teachers and
students stay on track .Besides, the results should
provide a useful feedback on the effectiveness of
teaching and learning processes.

7.4.Objective and Subjective Testing:
Objective Subjective
*A objective testing is one
that can’t be interpreted
differently because of
numerical values.
*when testing the students
objectively, the teacher
usually checks just the
knowledge of the topic
*A subjective testing is one that can possibly be interpreted differently
*The subjective test involves personal judgement of the examiner
*Testing subjectively could imply the teacher’s ideas and judgements. This
could be encountered during speaking test where the student can produce either
positive or negative impression on the teacher. Moreover, the teacher’s
impression and his/her knowledge of the students’ true abilities can seriously
influence assessing process. For example, the student has failed the test;
however, the teacher knows the true abilities of the student and, therefore, s/he
will assess the work of that student differently taking all the factors into
account.
7.5. Communicative Testing:
*It involves the knowledge of grammar and how it could be applied in written and oral language; the
knowledge when to speak and what to say in an appropriate situation; knowledge of verbal and non-
verbal communication. All these types of knowledge should be successfully used in a situation
*without a context the communicative language test would not function. The context should be as
closer to the real life as possible. It is required in order to help the student feel him/herself in the natural
environment.
*the student has to possess some communicative skills, that is how to behave in a certain situation, how
to apply body language, etc.
*Communicative language testing involves the learner’s ability to operate with the language s/he knows
and apply it in a certain situation s/he is placed in. S/he should be capable of behaving in real-life
situation with confidence and be ready to supply the information required by a certain situation.
Thereof, we can speak about communicative language testing as a testing of the student’s ability to
behave him/herself, as he or she would do in everyday life. We evaluate their performance.
8. A SHORT HISTORY OF LANGUAGE TESTING:
Spolsky (1975) identifies three stages in the recent history of language testing: 1) The
pre-scientific 2) the psychometric-structuralist and 3) the psycho-linguistic-
sociolinguistic.
8.1. The Pre-scientific Period:

Language testing has its roots in pre-scientific stage in which no special skill or
expertise in testing is required. This is characterized by lack of concern for statistical
considerations or for such notions as objectivity and reliability (Heaton 1988, Weir
1990; Farhady et al., 1994). In its simplest form, this trend assumes that one can and
must rely completely on the subjective judgment of an experienced teacher, who can
identify after a few minutes of conversation, or after reading a student’s essay, what
mark to give him/her in order to specify the related language ability.
The pre-scientific movement is characterized by translation tests developed
exclusively by the classroom teachers. One problem that arises with these types of
tests is that they are relatively difficult to score objectively; thus, subjectivity becomes
an important factor in the scoring of such tests (Brown, 1996). It is inferred from
Hinofotis’s article (1981) that the pre-scientific movement ended with the onset of the
psychometric structuralist movement, but clearly such movements have no end in
language teaching and testing because, such teaching and testing practices are
indubitably going on in many parts of the world depending on the needs which specific
academic contexts demand.
8.2. The Psychometric Structuralist Period :
With the onset of the psychometric-structuralist movement of language testing,
language tests became increasingly scientific, reliable, and precise. In this era, the
testers and psychologists, being responsible for the development of modern theories
and techniques of educational measurement, were trying to provide objective
measures, using various statistical techniques to assure reliability and certain kind of
validity. According to Carrol (1972), psychometric-structuralist tests typically set out
to measure the discrete structural elements of language being taught in audio-lingual
and related teaching methods of the time. The standard tests, constructed according to
discrete point approach, were easy to administer and score and were carefully
constructed to be objective, reliable and valid. Therefore, they were considered as an
improvement on the testing practices of the pre-scientific movement (Brown, 1996).

In psychometric structuralist period, there was a remarkable congruence between
American structuralist view of language and psychological theories and practical needs
of testers. On the theoretical side, both agreed that language learning was chiefly
concerned with the systematic acquisition of a set of habits; on the practical side,
testers wanted and structuralists knew how to deliver long lists of small items which
could be sampled and tested objectively.
However, the following triple objectives were achieved from discrete tests, which was
the result of the coalescence of the two fields.
1) diagnosing learner strengths;
2) prescribing curricula at particular skills;
3) developing scientific strategies to help learners overcome particular weakness
The psychometric-structuralist movement was important because for the first time
language test development followed scientific principles. In addition, Brown (1996)
maintains that psychometric-structuralist movement could be easily handled by trained
linguists and language testers. As a result, statistical analyses were used for the first
time. Interestingly, psychometric-structuralist tests are still very much in evidence
around the world, but they have been supplemented by what Carrol (1972)
called integrative tests.
8.3. The Integrative-Sociolinguistic Period :
With the attention of linguists inclined toward generativism and psychologist toward
cognition, language teachers adopted the cognitive-code learning approach for
teaching a second and/or foreign language. Language professionals began to believe
that language is more than the sum of the discrete elements being tested during the
psychometric-structuralist movement (Brown, 1996; Heaton 1991; Oller, 1979).
The criticism came largely from Oller (1979) who argued that competence is a unified
set of interacting abilities that cannot be tested apart and tested adequately. The claim

was that communicative competence is so global that it requires the integration of all
linguistic abilities. Such global nature cannot be captured in additive tests of grammar,
reading, vocabulary, and other discrete points of language. According to Oller (1983),
if discrete items take language skill apart, integrative tests put it back together;
whereas discrete items attempt to test knowledge of language a bit at a time,
integrative tests attempt to assess a learner’s capacity to use many bits all at the same
time.
This movement has certainly its roots in the argument that language is creative.
Beginning with the work of sociolinguists like Hymes (1967), it was felt that the
development of communicative competence depended on more than simple
grammatical control of the language; communicative competence also hinges on the
knowledge of the language appropriate for different situations.
Tests typical of this movement were the cloze test and dictation, both of which assess
the students’ ability to manipulate language within a context of extended text rather
than in a collection of discrete-point questions. The possibility of testing language in
context led to further arguments that linguistic and extralinguistic elements of
language are interrelated and relevant to human experience and operate in
orchestration.
Consequently, the broader views of language, language use, language teaching, and
language acquisition have broadened the scope of language testing, and this brought
about a challenge that was articulated by Canale (1984) as the shift in emphasis from
language form to language use. This shift of focus placed new demands on language as
well as language testing.
Evaluation within a communicative approach must necessarily address, for example,
new content areas such as sociolinguistic appropriateness rules, new testing formats to
permit and encourage creative, open-ended language use, new test administration
procedures to emphasize interpersonal interaction in authentic situations, and new
scoring procedures of a manual and judgmental nature (Canale 1984, p. 79, cited in
Bachman, 1995).

For both theory and practice, the challenge is thus to develop tests that reflect current
views of language and language use, in that they are capable of measuring a wide
range of abilities generally associated with ‘communicative competence’ or
‘communicative language ability’, and include tasks that themselves embody the
essential features of communicative language use (Bachman 1995, p. 296).

Testing and evaluation

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Testing and evaluation

Similar to Testing and evaluation (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Testing and evaluation