See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/337075272

Testing English Language Skills: Changes and Challenges

Article in SSRN Electronic Journal · February 2012

DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3487904

CITATIONS READS
2 6,012

1 author:

John Sekar Jeyaraj

The American College, Madurai
107 PUBLICATIONS 34 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by John Sekar Jeyaraj on 07 November 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1

Testing English Language Skills: Changes and Challenges

DR J. JOHN SEKAR, M.A., M. Phil., PGDTE (CIEFL), PGDHE (IGNOU), PGDCE (UH), PH.D.,
Associate Professor
Research Department of English
The American College
MADURAI – 625 002
INDIA
[email protected]
9486782184

Abstract
The objective of formally teaching English as a second language at any level through
institutionalized General English curriculum is to produce learning. English language
learning means the acquisition of language skills (both macro- and micro-skills) and study
skills for use in the various domains and departments of life. Testing is part of the teaching-
learning process. The aim of language testing is to inform the learner their competency level
so that the teacher/learner could take remedial measures for further learning. Further, testing
should reflect the objectives of teaching/learning that are transacted through the prescribed
syllabus which is only a means for realization of course objectives. In reality, learners are
tested in their knowledge of the syllabus and its contents, and not the course objectives.
Many students do not even know the objectives of the language courses that are mandatory
for graduation. And many teachers treat/teach the syllabus in such a fashion that they too do
not seem to be aware of the existence of learning objectives. Critical self-assessment of their
learning by learners could also form part of testing. The present paper proposes to examine
the existing methods of testing English language skills, explore the possibility of critical self-
assessment by learners themselves and teachers’ attitudes towards such an attempt, and
finally, to analyse the feasibility of alternative assessment in the context of the institutional
challenges to develop tests that provide a reliable, accurate, and comprehensive assessment of
an individual’s English proficiency.
Introduction
Testing and teaching the English language skills are two inseparable activities in the
teaching-learning process. In other words, testing as an educational activity should not be
appended at the end of teaching. It is an integral part of teaching and learning, and in fact, it
serves as a bridge between teaching and learning. For both the teacher and learners as
stakeholders of language education, testing (continuous internal assessment & end-of-
semester) is a learning experience because it reflects on teaching/learning, and provides new
directions to teachers on the suitability of their methodology, effectiveness of teaching
 2

materials, learners’ needs and goals, failure or success, and so on. The terms ‘testing’ and
‘assessment’ are often used interchangeably in the literature on language testing, but there is
much confusion in distinguishing between the terms ‘test,’ ‘assessment,’ and ‘evaluation.’
Though the terms ‘testing’ and ‘assignment’ are treated as synonyms in this paper, the latter
is preferred for the interrogation. Since traditional assessment procedures in second language
testing are by and large a failure, there have been non-traditional forms of assessment which
is variously known as authentic assessment, alternative assessment, or informal assessment.
Tests are an integral part of assessment. Assessment refers to “a variety of ways of
collecting information on a learner’s language ability or achievement” (Brindley, 2001: 137).
It can be either formative assessment (continuous internal assessment) whose aim is to
improve instruction, or summative assessment (end-of-semester examination) which aims at
providing aggregated information on the course outcomes to the education authorities.
Further, it can be functionally classified as proficiency assessment and achievement
assessment. While the former indicates general language abilities that learners acquire not
through any specific course of study, the latter establishes to what extent learners have
achieved in relation to a course of study.
Background to the Study
In the present day context of ELT in India, English is taught more as a contents
subject than a skills subject and this is reflected in the question paper that includes tasks such
as essay, paragraph, short question, ERC/annotation, fill-in-the-blanks type for grammar
items, continue-the-following-conversation type, or fill-in-the-conversation, or write-a-
conversation type, translation of a paragraph, transcription into orthography/phonetic forms,
multiple-choice type for reading, note-making, and precise writing. The macro-/micro-skills
of the English language are not normally tested. Interestingly, English language teachers
never problematize testing as an issue or a crisis. It, however, becomes the subject matter of
an unproductive academic gossip among them during central valuation or informal discussion
after valuation. Traditional testing procedures like standardized tests and teacher-made tests
have certain inherent problems. They produce so much anxiety in students that they are
unable to think clearly; they ignore test-taking skills; they rather test students’ memory of the
contents of the subject; they do not simply test what students ‘can do’ with English; they
make students mark-oriented/-conscious, and hence they assess students’ performance in
terms of not individual achievement but intra-class achievement. It leads to unhealthy
competition among students in class causing an academically unpleasant division into low,
medium, and high achievers. It does not reflect the learners’ potentials of what they ‘can.’ In
 3

a nutshell, testing and scoring fails to gauge students’ ability to use English in real life
contexts.
Objective of the Study
This paper proposes to examine the feasibility of alternative assessment and critical
self-assessment by learners, and teachers’ attitude toward such alternative assessment modes
and self assessment.
Research Questions
The following research questions are set to provide clear directions to the present
investigation:
1. How can language tests assess students in a way that consistently reflects their true
ability in English?
2. Is self-assessment by learners/peers possible in the Indian context?
3. How would teachers react to the idea of alternative assessment, and self assessment
by learners?
Methodology
A short ‘self-assessment’ questionnaire was prepared for administration among
students, and two questionnaires were designed for teachers (eight) and future teachers (two
M Phil students who are currently doing project in ELT). The contents of the questionnaires
were based on consultations among teachers and on the existing literature in the field. The
investigator prepared students’ questionnaire on the basis of students’ reflection and oral feed
back collected informally outside of the classroom on their learning experience in a course
called “Functional English I: Speaking” during the first semester under General English at the
American College, Madurai. The first part of the teachers’ questionnaire that aims at eliciting
their attitudes towards self-assessment by learners is a slightly modified version of the one
designed by Deborah Bullock. The second part of the teachers’ questionnaire elicits their
views on desirability and feasibility of alternative assessment modes for both formative and
summative tests.
Theoretical Reflections
Traditional assessment focuses on language and not communication, is teacher-
centred and not learner-centred, tests isolated skills and not integrated skills, stresses product
and not process, looks for one answer, and not multiple solutions, and above all, it tests and
doesn’t teach. (Richards, J.C. & Renandya, W.A. 2002) Both teachers and learners are aware
that tests do not test their ability to use language in real life situations and therefore test
scores at any given level are not reliable. They do not test what learners ‘can do’ with
 4

English. ‘Recall’ and ‘reproduce’ are the clarion calls of the present testing forms. Hence,
new alternative assessment becomes relevant in English language testing. Garcia and Pearson
(1994: 357) sum up the main aim of alternative assessment as to “gather evidence about how
students are approaching, processing, and completing ‘real-life’ tasks in a particular domain.”
It measures learners’ ability and competency to use English holistically in real-life situations
and it is continuously carried out over a period of time without demanding separate block of
time. It is part of classroom activities such as writing, conversing, and listening, reading and
comprehending, role-playing, group discussion and so on.
English language teachers should realize and recognize that alternative assessment is
an important means of assessing learners’ English language acquisition. Hamayan (1995:
213) refers to alternative assessment as “procedures and techniques which can be used within
the context of instruction and can be easily incorporated into the daily activities of the school
or classroom.” Speaking-based assessments can be categorized as fact-oriented talks and
evaluation talks. While the former includes mock interviewing, oral reporting, role playing,
describing, instructing, summarizing, paraphrasing/retelling stories or text material, and
comparing, the latter refers to explaining, justifying, predicting, and deciding. Luoma (2004)
refers to the division of functional competence into macro and micro categories. Macro-
functional competence means chunks of spoken language serving the same functional
purpose, such as description, narration, explanation, commentary and demonstration while
micro-function means individual actions, such as describing, reporting, asking,
agreeing/disagreeing, inviting, thanking and responding to it, apologising and responding to
it, seeking/granting permission, suggesting, requesting, warning, greeting, and introducing.
Writing-based assessments are content area logs (when learners read expository texts, they
can make entries under two headings: what they understood and what they did not
understand), reading response logs (writing their reflections on the text), dialogue journals
(ongoing correspondence between students and teachers), audio-video cassettes (of learners’
oral readings, presentations, dramatics, interviews or conferences with teachers and fellow
students), and portfolios (collection of samples of learners’ work longitudinally to track their
development).
The strengths of alternative assessment are that its focus is on documenting
longitudinal learner growth and not on comparing students with one another as in the
traditional assessment, and emphasis is on learner strengths of what they know, and not on
weaknesses of what they don’t know. Alternative assessment is carried out through
communicative tasks. Communicative tasks/activities that are designed for teaching should
 5

be used for testing because they are beneficial for learners in the sense that they do not
artificially prepare (wasting time) for tests. Communicative activities are defined in terms of
language use. In other words, tasks are activities that learners do. Testing should assess
learners’ ability to use English in real life situations. Nunan (1993: 59) defines a
communicative task as:
…a piece of classroom work which involves learners in comprehending,
manipulating, producing or interacting in the target language while their
attention is principally focused on meaning rather than form….In addition,
tasks will have…goals, roles of teachers and learners and a setting.
Communicative tasks set for learning and testing ask learners what they can do. They should
particularly elicit the use of academic English, such as explaining, analyzing, describing,
hypothesizing, and vocabulary pertinent to the topic.
Instead of amassing linguistic knowledge (knowing English), learners should learn
English in terms of skills and performance (using English). Before the teacher assesses
learners’ newly acquired ability to use a particular aspect of English language usage either
during the course of study or at the end of a semester, learners should be encouraged to
develop capacity to assess their proficiency. This self-assessment by learners, according to
Nunan (1988), provides a means of developing critical self-awareness. If classroom teaching
is learner-centred, learners need to be involved in the process of assessment and evaluation
consequently. Moreover, Bullock (2011: 115) claims that “self-assessment becomes an
integral part of everyday classroom activities.” For learner self-assessment to be successful,
teachers’ attitude toward such an idea should first of all be favourable because any curricular
innovation and implementation can end in failure without teachers’ conviction and
cooperation. If teachers are committed to learner autonomy, they should naturally exhibit
favourable attitude toward this innovation because learners ought to have a say over their
learning and evaluation of learning.
Self assessment by learners becomes imperative for the following reasons. One,
learners need to be involved in the entire process of learning if the curriculum claims and
encourages learner-centred approach. Each and every activity in language learning and
teaching should revolve around learners who replace teachers from the centre to the margin
even in assessment. The objectives of the assessment should be in terms of learners’
achievement as well as instructions to be inferred for better teaching. Two, it promotes
learner autonomy by reflection over their own performance and responsibility for their
learning. They should first discover to what extent they could realize the course objectives
 6

both quantitatively and qualitatively. Three, it facilitates learners to re-set or reformulate the
goals that are desirable and achievable. Learners are important stakeholders in language
education and hence they should also be heard as far as language curriculum is concerned. It
serves as a feedback for teachers to change teaching method, contents of the course of study,
and testing modes. Four, it does not cause fear psychosis in learners toward language
assessment since it becomes an integral part of their routine classroom activities. It does not
include surprises and anxieties; it does not encourage route learning; it does not make
learners mark-oriented. On the other hand, self assessment empowers them with testing and
learning skills so that they can prepare themselves to face any real life situation with English.
After all, English language learning does not stop with classroom teaching because it is a life
long process independent of teaching and testing.
For successful implementation of any ELT innovation, teachers’ involvement and
participation has a huge academic and pedagogic value. However, it is quite natural that any
innovation will initially be resisted, but resistance will ultimately quicken their academic
conscience and professional ethics. After all, resistance to innovation is preferable to
ignorance of it. It is therefore a necessity to know how teachers react to the concept of either
self assessment by learners or alternative assessment forms. Generally, attitudes can not be
directly observed and quantified for any enlightened discussion. Sarnoff (1970: 279) views
attitude as “a disposition to react favourably or unfavourably to a class of objects.” Attitudes
are related to disposition, and indications of feelings. Edwards (1982) makes an inference
from this definition that the disposition is often understood as having three components:
feelings (affective element), thoughts (cognitive element), and predispositions to act
(conative or behavioural element). It also implies that the subject knows or believes the
object, and naturally has some emotional reaction to it, and therefore, may be presumed to act
on this basis. Of course, the reaction to the object could be favourable or unfavourable,
affirmative or negative because he knows it. In other words, people cannot have attitudes
towards the object that they have never heard of.
Discussion of Results
All the student subjects were able to assess their performance in the course over a full
semester. Statistically, 60 per cent of the subjects think that the twenty statements that were
presented to them on the basis of the course curriculum and teaching were true while 30 per
cent of them assess that it was partly true. Only the remaining 10 per cent think that the
curricular objectives were not translated into achievement during the course of the semester.
During the informal chat with the subjects individually and in a group of three on their
 7

experience of self assessment, it was discovered that a) it gave them an opportunity to reflect
over their performance in the course, their learning styles, teachers’ input in the class,
question paper, and classroom activities, b) it empowered them with hope for better learning
and responsibility for their own learning, and c) it made them autonomous in their learning
effort. Some felt that they felt like responding to some of the scales favourably because they
thought it would otherwise amount to making negative assessment of the teacher who taught
certain portions of the course, but they did not do so because they did not learn them from
teaching. The subjects being first year students expressed their innocence on unguarded
moments. They were asked to discuss their experience with the others in the class who could
not take part in the present self assessment exercise and it was learnt that every one was
interested in such self assessment activities to be carried out periodically through out the
semester in all the courses.
Part I of teachers’ questionnaire had five positively worded and five negatively
worded statements on self assessment by learners. It had a four point scale: agree, tend to
agree, tend to disagree and disagree. Positively-worded statements meant to elicit their
attitude toward self assessment that aims at encouraging and motivating students to become
autonomous, self-reflective, and motivated learners. An average of eight teachers agreed to
and two tended to agree with these statements. It only indicates that teachers exhibit a highly
favourably attitude toward learner assessment affirming that learners could assess their
performance if properly motivated and supported and that it would bring out their strengths
and weaknesses. An average of six teachers disagreed and two tended to disagree with
negatively worded statements that express the idea that self assessment is a waste of time for
both teachers and students, that students cannot self assess their performance because they
themselves have limited knowledge of English, that they are not used to such assignments,
and that it is an exercise in futility since teachers’ assessment ultimately mattered. Their
overwhelming positive response only shows that they respect learners’ potentials to be
autonomous and responsible.
Part II of teachers’ questionnaire had thirty seven forms of alternative assessment of
the macro-/micro-skills of English language testing and the subjects were asked to choose on
a three-point scale: agree, disagree, and I don’t. The subjects ranging from 7 to 10 expressed
their ignorance over the alternative assessment forms, such as portfolio assessment, protocol
analysis, learning logs, journal entries, and dialogue journals. It points to the reality that there
should be in-service training programmes for teachers and inclusion of such techniques in the
ELT courses meant for final year undergraduate and postgraduate students of English who
 8

mostly opt for teaching at different levels. Sixty per cent of teachers resist commutainment
strategies like online chat while at least fifty per cent do not approve of the idea of using
matrimonial columns for testing. It may be because they are either conventional and
canonical in their approach to teaching and testing, or not aware of the micro skills that ought
to be tested. On average, 57 per cent of teachers are in favour of the majority of alternative
assessment modes, 27 per cent of them do not know some of the alternative assessment
procedures, and 16 per cent of them do not approve of the use of some of the forms.
It is imperative on the part of teacher educators to help teachers-in-service not only to
get to know the latest methods of alternative assessment that have salutary effects on
learning-teaching process, but also make them aware of what to be tested. Tests should aim at
assessing the language development of learners. Teachers should make inferences about
language ability and they should also make decisions based on those inferences so that they
will have washback effect on teaching and curricular instruction. Language ability means
“the ability to use language to achieve genuine communicative function” (Weigle, 2002: 42).
These communication skills are classified under the rubric of micro-skills of LSRW that
ought to be tested integrally and not in isolation as in the case of traditional assessment. The
division of these skills become inevitable for pedagogical reasons because of the differing
grammatical, textual, functional, and sociolinguistic knowledge of learners of a typical Indian
English language classroom.
LSRW have sub-skills to be consciously taught. Micro-skills of listening are
predicting what people are going to talk about, guessing at unknown words and phrases,
using one’s own knowledge of the subject to help one understand, identifying what is said
and restraining relevant points; rejecting irrelevant information, recognizing discourse
markers, e.g. now, finally, then, afterwards… and other cohesive devices understanding
different intonation patterns and uses of stress, and understanding inferred information, e.g.
speaker’s attitude or intentions. Speaking skills are the ability to think on one’s feet, skill in
the use of appropriate language, and skill in the use of devices that contribute to success in
oral communication and help make the speaker more fluent.
Reading skills include identifying the meanings of words, guessing intelligently the
meaning of unfamiliar words, understanding the relations among the intra-sentence
constituents, understanding the inter-sentence relations, comprehending the overtly stated
information, inferring covertly stated information, skimming—the getting of the essence of
material without reading all of it by quickly running eyes over it and judiciously and
selectively skipping non-essential or less essential matter, scanning—locating specific
 9

information by letting our eyes wander over the text until we find what we are looking for,
distinguishing between the central idea and supporting / additional ideas, and interpreting the
text from outside. The comprehension of a given text involves global comprehension, local
comprehension, referential comprehension, inferential comprehension, reorganization of
information, evaluative comprehension, and prediction. Micro-skills of writing include the
ability to write correct and appropriate sentences (language use), the ability to write a neat
hand, use correct punctuation and spelling (mechanical skills), the ability to think and
develop thoughts (treatment of content), the ability to manipulate sentences and paragraphs
(stylistic skills ), and the ability to write in an appropriate manner for a particular purpose
with a particular audience in mind, together with an ability to select, organize and order
relevant information (judgment skills). Mastering these sub skills help learners to develop
English language ability.
Conclusions
Changes and curriculum innovation are always challenges and they place demands
upon teachers whose cooperation is mandatory for successful implementation. Alternative
assessment is beneficial to English as-a-second-language learners. Though it is not that easy
to modify the existing testing/assessment methods and replace them with new approaches to
testing, creation of awareness among learners and teachers through in-service programmes
and incorporation of new testing methods as part of ELT curriculum at postgraduate and
MPhil levels will go a long way to achieve what seems to be insurmountable at present.
Testing should eventually become a learning experience for both learners and teachers.
References
Brindley, Geoff. (2001). Assessment. In Ronald Carter & David Nunan (Eds.), The
Companion guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (137-43). Cambridge:
Cambridge Univ. Press.
Bullock, Deborah. (2011). Learner self-assessment: an investigation into teachers’
beliefs. ELT Journal 65.2: 114-125.
Edwards, J.R. (1982). Language attitudes and their implications among English
speakers. In Ellen Bouchard Ryan and Howard Giles (Eds.), Attitudes towards language
variation: social and applied contexts (pp. 20-33). London: Edward Arnold.
Garcia, G.E & Pearson, P.D. (1994). Assessment and diversity. In Darling-Hammond
(Ed.), Review of research in education (pp.337-91). Washington, DC: American Education
Research Association.
 10

Hamayan, E.V. (1995). Approaches to alternative assessment. Annual Review of

Applied Linguistics 15: 212-26.
Luoma, Sari. Assessing speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Nunan, D. (1988). The learner-centred curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.
Press.
---. (1993). Task-based syllabus design: selecting, grading and sequencing tasks. In G.
Crookes and S. Gass (eds.), Tasks in a pedagogical context: integrating theory and practice
(pp.55-68). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Richards, J.C. & Renandya, W.A. (eds.) (2002). Methodology in language teaching:
an anthology of current practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sarnoff, I. (1970). Social attitudes and the resolution of motivational conflict. In M.
Jahoda and N. Warren (Eds.), Attitudes (pp.279-84). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Weigle, Sara Cushing. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

View publication stats