Ch.+35+by+Geoff+Brindley

Issues in Language Assessment This chapter identifies current issues and approaches in the field of language assessment as well as to explore their theoretical and practical implications for testing and teaching practice. There are //four// central themes that have been the subject of discussion and debate in the assessment literature in recent years. The term //assessment// is an umbrella term that encompasses formal measurement instruments such as tests, observations, journals and portfolio assessment. **Defining Language Proficiency: Approaches to Construct Definition** Construct definition is a central issue in language assessment (Chapelle 1999).
 * The nature of language ability
 * The assessment of language performance
 * The role of assessment in the language curriculum
 * The social, political and ideological context of assessment

**“Real-Life” Approaches** Two approaches toward defining “ what it means to know how to use a language (Spolsky 1985) have been identified. The first one involves specifying the features of the language performance that the language learner will have to carry out in the future situation of language use. Therefore, proficiency rating scales such as the U.S. Foreign Service Institute scale are one of the best manifestations of this approach to language performance assessment that is classified by Bachman (1990) as the “real-life” approach. However, such tests confuse the observation of a performance with the ability itself and Bachman suggests a different approach to authenticity by saying that authenticity lies not only in the resemblance between assessment tasks and real-world behavior but also in the extent to which different areas of language skills and knowledge are sampled in the task. He refers to “interactional authenticity”.

**Models of Language Ability** Language test developers and researchers have turned to theoretical models as a guide for test construction and validation. The Bachman (1990) model builds on the Canale and Swain model and contains three components.
 * //Language competence// (organizational competence and pragmatic competence)
 * //strategic competence// (identifies the information needed to achieve particular communicative goals, planning)
 * //psycho physiological mechanisms//

Bachman also sets out framework for describing specific features or //“facets”// of test method. These include facets of the testing environment, facets of the test rubric, facets of the input, facets of the expected response and the relationship between input and response. Thus, the Bachman (1990) model has been amended by Backman and Palmer (1996) in several ways. One of the most significant changes is the addition of personal characteristics of the individual language user. Under this category, the authors include //topical knowledge and affective schemata.// Test method facets are renamed //task characteristics// and presented in the form of a checklist that can be used as a guide to describe and compare target language use tasks and test tasks. Besides, strategic competence is presented in the revised model as a “set of metacognitive components or strategies. Hence, these models have problems. One of them is the fact that Bachman and Palmer model is “strangely one sided” and fails to take into account the fact that communication is constructed through social interaction.

Task Variability and Generalizability In recent years many researchers studied different aspects of language assessment. Skehan (1998a, 1998c) studied the impact of task features and task on language test performance. These consist of task planning (wigigglesworth,1997) task type ( Fulcher 1996) speaker behavior. Much researchers have discovered that significant variability in written and spoken performance due to the types of tasked that are used and the conditions under which the test taker is. The existence of theses variability often causes some problems both for the rater and the test taker. The difficulties in generalizing and interpretation of the assessment results are one of the consequences of the above mentioned situation. It becomes very complicated to generalize from one context to another.



Rater Variability

When speaking about language performance assessment we should also touch upon the role of rater variability. The records in this sphere are controversial. Some evidence suggests that there is a high level of rater agreement (Dandonoli and Henning, 1990). But there is also certain evidence suggesting major divergence between the raters’ scores (Brindley, 2000). This divergence may be accounted for by numerous factors such as raters’ prior experience, subconscious expectations and subjective attitudes (Brown, 1995). Lumley and McNamara (1995) mention that rater behavior may undergo changes over time. McNamara (1996) believes that the problems of rater differences may be treated through the use of measurement technology (e.g. many-faceted Rasch analysis) and statistical compensation. Moss, by contrast, proposes the hermeneutic approach which implies that a social process mediates judgments of performance.

Assessment in the Language Curriculum

Communicative tests are on the way of substituting standardized tests standardized tests. In the past decade outcomes-based approaches have been predominant in the context of assessment. Outcomes-based approaches appear to be advantageous in comparison with the system of standardized tests. These approaches make the link between assessment and learning clearer, the process of reporting more transparent and the communication between the stakeholders – better. Still, the implementation of these approaches is not a smooth process. It causes hardships to use outcomes statements simultaneously so as to meet external requirements for accountability and supply diagnostic information (McCay, 2000). Empirical research has revealed a number of problematic issues pertaining to performance assessment. The main area of concern is establishing inter-rater reliability.

Social Consequences of Language Assessment: Test Impact and Fairness

There was a concern related to the misuse of language tests over the past decade. Particularly the subject for examination was validity of the test. The examination also focuses attention on the social consequence of test use. Different studies suggest that language tests have their influences and consequences in manipulating languages in educational and societal contexts

Researchers conducted studies to examine “wash-back”, the effect of tests or assessment on teaching and learning. Studies demonstrated that the impact of a test or assessment may vary according to contextual and individual variables.

Future direction

The author states that there are many unanswered questions remain in the field of language assessment. More work needs to be done to develop assessment criteria and tools that reflect the theories of language learning. More studies should be conducted on how and what is used by the teachers for assessment classroom achievement in the context of language learning.