1) Language testing (LT) findings can be useful for second language acquisition (SLA) researchers to measure and test SLA hypotheses, confirm theories of language acquisition, and reproduce methods of acquiring SLA. 2) Differential item functioning (DIF) analysis shows how different groups of learners, such as those with different first languages, may perform differently on language tests. Background, teaching methods, language development process, and language type can impact test performance. 3) Discourse features in testing situations, such as type, processing, domain and style, can highlight the role and effectiveness of discourse in language assessment and show how results may not generalize due to each discourse's uniqueness.

1. Applying LT findings to test SLA
Hypotheses
 How can LT findings be useful to SLA Reserchers?
Apllying the data from the exposed tests to:
 Measure/test the SLA hypotheses (How can tests be
valid measurement for the aquisition of the language)
Confirm
Generate (reproducing other methods of aquiring
SLA)

2. Data Analysis Techniques
 DIF (differential item functioning)
Group of students perform differently in some test
items ;for example (TOEFL :Test of English as a forieng
language)
Why?
Group of learners with L1 perform differently on
tests than did group of test takers using other
languages.If testing is on English subject ,natives
will perform better than nonnative.Thus,there is
no special care about the test takers.

3. Differencial success of test
takers depends on:
o Background on the language
o Different teaching methods were applied
o The process of the language development
o The type of the language

4. Discourse features manifest in
testing situations
 Type
 Processing
The data and fndings obtained
from the discourse can highlight the role
And effectiveness of the latter in testing
situations
 Domain
 Style

5. Discourse type example
Effect of subject matter on reading comprehension scores
Performance and scores differ
according to the choice of the topic subject.
 Familiarity and engagement with the context domain
affected performance of the respondents,nature and
fluency in communication.Thus,generalization might not
justified because each taken discourse has its peculiarity.

6. Some studies on the process of
discourse features
 Study The effect of some discourse styles on
Listening Comprehention:
 Interviews (oral features) as one of the discourse
styles didn’t provide valid assessment and credible
findings in favour of SLA as other discourse styles:role
plays,variety of speech acts,and reports ( highest
scores)
 Short lecture(oral and written features)
 News broadcast resulted on the lowests scores

7. .
 Some studies have examined the type of discourse
(interviews)depending on some features in this
process:
 The degree of planning
 Predictibilty of the results
 Equal distribution of rights and duties to talk

8. .
 Discourse processing on both L1 and L2 :
Discourse processing on L1 reading comprehension
tests differs from that used in nontest reading
situations.
The different question types –multiple choice and
open ended questions are widely used in reading
comprehention to examin textual processing on both
L1 and L2.

9. Course placement interviews
 Interviewers modify their questions during interviews
which make interviewees perplexed and doubtful.
 This clearly related to what extent the interlocuter
can accommodate with changeable questions and even
the topic. Oral proficiency.
Native speakers can accommodate easily with subjet
than nonnative speakers because of their high
potentiality in oral proficiency.

10. Procedures to identify the type of
the discourse
 The discourse with different procedures has different
features:
 Procedures bound to human interaction (face to face)
 Some contexts demand the use of the language directly
without pragmatic devices(telephone,video
recorder,and audio recorder)
Hence,The way of percieving the results and
findings from LT should be considered seriously.

11. .
Question:
To what extent can findings from testing research can
be extended to nontesting situations?