Assignment Three: Language Testing Philosophy, Rationale, and Ideas File

Anthony Kazanjian

EDUC8540

Dr. Kathleen Bailey

Coming to the Monterey Institute after a few years of teaching English as a

Foreign Language in Japan and Thailand, I felt like I had a decent foundation of

pedagogical knowledge and skills that I could build upon with my studies in the MA-

TESOL graduate program. After our Language Assessment class, I’ve begun to grasp

some concepts that I feel best represent my beliefs about language teaching, testing,

and learning. The information I’ve compiled on a Google site titled Language Ideas

represents my philosophies on these subjects, and I hope one day to utilize these

ideas as a tool to help me become an effective language tester. I have organized my

ideas file under six main categories: teaching beliefs, testing beliefs, language

teaching and testing in Japan, testing statistics, and projects.

Teaching Beliefs

In my teaching beliefs section, I have included references to articles which

support my views that language instruction should be focused on subject content,

language form, and task-based learning. These concepts take into account the

importance of context and discourse in teaching language meaning and use, which is

a central tenet in my teaching philosophy. I have subdivided the teaching beliefs

category into four key concepts I believe have an effect on teaching and learning:

autonomy, language competencies, skill integration, and teacher and learner

attitudes. The concept of autonomy can be defined as "an attitude to learning that

the learner develops in which the learner is willing and able to make the significant

decisions about her learning” (Dickinson, 1999, p. 2). The material I have chosen for

this file supports my beliefs that student autonomy is best obtained through
collaborative, learner-centered tasks in which the teacher facilitates. In my own

teaching I have always strived to create an environment where students can feel

free to take advantage of their own learning opportunities through group work,

discussion, or active interaction with class materials.

I have also included information in how I believe language competence can

be divided into linguistic, sociolinguistic, strategic, and discourse competencies. As

outlined by Van Lier (1995), linguistic competency can be seen as the ability to use

the phonological, morphological, and syntactical structures of a given language to

convey meaning. These are the basics of language that students that students need

in order to develop their more pragmatic abilities of sociolinguistic, strategic, and

discourse competence. However, even though these are separate domains of

language, I believe an integrated approach to language teaching in which content,

language competencies, and language skills are taught in conjunction with each

other provides students with opportunities to use language in the most authentic

ways possible.

Finally, I believe an understanding of the learner’s attitudes and beliefs about

language learning will help teachers understand students’ motivations. In particular,

Murphey (1995) asserts that students in Japan have preconceived notions about

language learning that can hinder their acquisition, and that teachers need to

understand what these beliefs are so that they can work to dispel them. Similarly,

teachers must know how students want to learn in order to provide them with the

most effective methods that address their needs.

The front page of the testing beliefs section of my language assessment ideas

website contains articles and references that proved helpful to me in writing my

review of the TOEIC as well as developing and analyzing my own test, a diagnostic

assessment of language skills for intensive programs. I have subdivided this section

into two categories that represent concepts I believe are crucial for an effective

language test: communicative language testing and washback.

I strongly believe in the notion that a test should assess the students’

communicative competence, meaning their ability to use language appropriately in

real situations. Language elements, such as grammar and vocabulary, do not exist in

a vacuum, and should be assessed within a context that clearly defines their

discursive function. These contexts should be relevant to the learners and their

purpose for studying the language, a notion defined by Swain (1984) as concentrate

on content.

As a teacher, if I want to produce students who are able to use language to

communicate effectively in the real world, then my assessment methods must match

the kind of learning I want to take place. This is the concept of washback, meaning

the impact a test has on teaching and learning (Bailey, 1996). I believe good

washback towards communicative competence is achieved through a test that

assesses the meaning of language as it appears in a context that is realistic and

relevant to the students’ ultimate learning goals.

Language education in Japan is a peculiar problem indeed. The washback of

the university and high school entrance exams, which are mostly discrete-point,

indirect assessments of isolated grammar and vocabulary knowledge, has resulted

in students who can barely communicate even the most basic meanings in English.

Sadly, because of the impact the entrance exams have on students’ future livelihood,

students believe they must concentrate solely on grammar just to pass the test.

Therefore, it is what teachers end up teaching. I believe that language testers in

Japan should shift their focus towards assessing direct, integrated measures of

language meaning and function in context so that students will need components of

sociolinguistic, strategic, and discourse competence in order to pass the tests. Only

then will students and teachers realize that these components of language are

crucial to communicating effectively in English.

As my dream job is to one day work in a Japanese university, I have included

material that reflects the aforementioned issues with testing in Japan as well as

ways in which it can be improved through adding components of communicative

language testing to these exams. Furthermore, both in this section and in other

thematically relevant categories, I have included material which addresses issues of

learner motivation and identity particular to Japanese students. Due to the negative

washback of entrance examinations, as well as myriad of other cultural factors

beyond the scope of this paper, Japanese students have been conditioned to believe

that they can not and never will be able to speak English. If students lower their
affective filter, their negative inhibitions towards language learning, they will realize

their ability to express themselves and develop an identity in English.

Testing Statistics

The knowledge of statistical procedures to analyze whether or not a test is a

valid and reliable assessment of students’ language ability is critical to developing a

solid test. In our language assessment class, I learned that in order for a test to be a

valid measure of the construct we want to assess, it must first be reliable and

consistent. Therefore, I have included criteria for test validity, plus the mathematical

formulas needed to calculate correlations, standard error of measurement, and

measures of internal consistency and inter-rater reliability under the subsection of

validity and reliability. I have organized information containing ways to interpret

these measures under the main heading of testing statistics. Finally, I have included

information designed to help in creating test items, construct definitions, and

subjective scorings specifications under the subsection test making.

Projects

I have included information on the design, piloting, and statistical analyses

process of the Diagnostic Assessment for English Skills for an Intensive Program, my

original test development project. I have also included the scores, writing rubric,

and the construct definition and test specifications needed to help get me started on

creating the test. Finally, I have included my review of the TOEIC, the articles and

official information from ETS that was helpful in writing my review, plus summaries

of test reviews from other classmates.

authentic, contextualized discourse, with integrated components of language skills

and competencies. Tests should be designed with utmost consideration for positive

washback in fostering communicative abilities, so that they result in students who

not only know English, but can use it effectively. My dream job is to one day teach

English at a Japanese university, and I’m hopeful that many of the concepts and

ideas I’ve learned about language testing through this course will help me improve

the quality of English education in Japan. Finally, as I continue to develop tests in the

future I will make sure to calculate the appropriate measures of internal consistency

and reliability to ensure that my test is a valid assessment of the constructs I want to

measure.
References:

Bailey, K. M. (1998). Learning about language assessment: Dilemmas, decisions, and

directions. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Dickinson, L. (1999, June 4). Questions 9 and 10: Part 2 of 2 parts. Autonomy List.

[email protected].

Murphey, T. (2000). Encouraging critical collaborative autonomy. JALT journal, 22

(2), 228-244.

Swain, Merril. (1984). Large-scale communicative language testing: A case study. In

Sandra J. Savignon and Margie Berns (eds.), Initiatives in communicative

language teaching. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 185-201.

van Lier, Leo. (1995). Introducing Language Awareness. London: Penguin.