Principles of Language Assessment

PRINCIPLES OF LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT

  There are five principles of language assessment; they are practicality, reliability, validity, authenticity, and wasback.

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.

2.    RELIABILITY

  A reliability test is consistent and dependable. A number of sources of unreliability may be identified:

·      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. 

·      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.

·      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.

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.

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.

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 lesson objectives 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-related Validity

  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.

3.  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.

4.    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.

REFERENCE:

Brown, H.D. 2004. Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.