English Language Testing

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

English Language Testing A COMPILATION MATERIAL OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TESTING Compiled By: BERTARIA SOHNATA HUTAURUK Prodi PendidikanBahasaInggris FAKULTAS KEGURUAN DAN ILMU PENDIDIKAN UNIVERSITAS HKBP NOMMENSEN PEMATANGSIANTAR 2015 English Language Testing 1 INTRODUCTION This book is a compilation material for English Language Testing. General outlines of material as an introduction to English Language Testing that has been compiled for the students in S1 degree. This collection of material consists of Testing, Assessment, Meassurement, Evaluation, Kinds of Testing, Validity and Reliability of the tests, and Interpreting the test Score. Hopefully, this compilation will be useful for the students and yet not perfect, so any critism is welcomed. Compiled by: Bertaria Sohnata Hutauruk English Language Testing 2 CONTENS 1. What is the difference between assessment and evaluation?…………. 1 2. Testing, Assessment, Measurement and Evaluation…………………... 4 3. Informal vs. Formal Assessments: Tests are not the only end-all-be-all of how we assess.………………………………………………………….. 6 4. Norm-referenced test and Criterion-referenced test…………………... 11 5. Discrete Point Testing and Integrative Testing………………………… 19 6. Communicative Language Testing……………………………………… 22 7. Testing Communicative Competence…………………………………… 24 8. Testing Reading and Writing……………………………………………. 30 9. Performance-Based Assessment……………………………………….... 32 10. Validity and Reliability…………………………………………………... 42 11. Constructing Tests……………………………………………………….. 61 12. Types of Listening Testing………………………………………………. 75 13. Testing Grammar………………………………………………………… 97 14. Interpreting Test Score…………………………………………………... 103 English Language Testing 3 1 What is the difference between assessment and evaluation? There is a lot of confusion over these two terms as well as other terms associated with assessment, testing, and evaluation. The big difference can be summarized as this: assessment is information gathered by the teacher and student to drive instruction, while evaluation is when a teacher uses some instrument (such as the CMT or an end-of-unit test) to rate a student so that this information can be used to compare or sort students. Assessment is for the student and the teacher in the act of learning while evaluation is usually for others. “If mathematics teachers were to focus their efforts on classroom assessment that is primarily formative in nature, students’ learning gains would be impressive. These efforts would include gathering data through classroom questioning and discourse, using a variety of assessment tasks, and attending primarily to what students know and understand” (Wilson & Kenney, page 55). Assessment is a lot more important because it is integral to instruction. Unfortunately, it is being hampered by the demands of evaluation. The biggest demand for evaluation is grading or report cards. There shouldn’t be a problem with that, except historically evaluation (grades) were determined exclusively by computing a student’s numeric average on paper and pencil assessments called quizzes or tests. “Most experienced teachers will say that they know a great deal about their students in terms of what the students know, how they perform in different situations, their attitudes and beliefs, and their various levels of skill attainment. Unfortunately, when it comes to grades, they often ignore this rich storehouse of information and rely on test scores and rigid averages that tell only a small fraction of the story. English Language Testing 4 The myth of grading by statistical number crunching is so firmly ingrained in schooling at all levels that you may find it hard to abandon. But it is unfair to students, to parents, and to you as the teacher to ignore all of the information you get almost daily from a problem-based approach in favor of a handful of numbers based on tests that usually focus on low-level skills” (Van de Walle and Lovin, page 35). The reason this is a problem is that students learn what is valued and they strive to do well on those things. If the end-of-unit tests are what are used to determine your grade, guess what kids want to do well on, the end-of-unit test! You can do all the great activities you want, but if the bottom line is the test, then that is what is going to be valued most by everyone: teachers, students, and parents, alike. What we need to get better at is valuing the day-to-day activities we do and learn how to use them for both assessment and evaluation. This will not be an easy task. It is very different from what we are used to doing. We are used to teaching and then assessing. In reality, the line between teaching and assessment should be blurred (NCTM, 2000). “Interestingly, in some languages, learning and teaching are the same word”(Fosnot and Dolk, page 1). We need to assess on a daily basis to give us the information to make choices about what to teach the next day. If we just teach the whole unit and wait until the end-of-unit test to find out what the kids know, we may be very unhappily surprised. On the other hand, if we are assessing on a daily basis throughout the unit, we do not need to average all those assessments to come up with a final evaluation. Instead, we could just use the most recent assessments to make that evaluation. In this way, we do not penalize the student that did not know much at the beginning of the unit and worked really hard to learn what you felt were the big ideas. Instead we rate them on where they are when you finished the unit. This gives a more accurate report or evaluation of where they are performing when the evaluation is made. English Language Testing 5 English Language Testing 6 2 Testing, Assessment, Measurement and Evaluation The definition for each are: Test: a method to determine a student’s ability to complete certain tasks or demonstrate mastery of a skill or knowledge of content. Some types would be multiple choice tests, or a weekly spelling test. While it is commonly used interchangeably with assessment or even evaluation, it cab be distinguished by the fact that a test is one form of an assessment. Assessment: The process of gathering information to monitor progress and make educational decisions if necessary. As noted an assessment may include a test, but also includes methods such as obeservations, interviews, behavior monitoring etc. Evaluation: Procedured used to determine whether the subject (i.e. student) meets a preset criteria such as qualifying for special education services. This uses assessment (remember that an assessement may be a test) to make a determination of qualification in accordance with a predetrmined criteria. Meassurement, beyond its general definition, refers to the set of procedures and the principles for how to use the procedures in educational evaluations would be raw scores, percentiles ranks, derrived scores, standard scores etc. English Language Testing 7 English Language Testing 8 3 Informal vs. Formal Assessments: Tests are not the only end-all-be-all of how we assess. Formal assessment Formal assessment uses formal tests or structured continuous assessment to evaluate a learner's level of language. It can be compared to informal assessment, which involves observing the learners' performance as they learn and evaluating them from the data gathered. Example At the end of the course, the learners have a final exam to see if they pass to the next course or not. Alternatively, the results of a structured continuous assessment process are used to make the same decision. In the classroom Informal and formal assessments are both useful for making valid and useful assessments of learners' knowledge and performance. Many teachers combine the two, for example by evaluating one skill using informal assessment such as observing group work, and another using formal tools, for example a discrete item grammar test. Formative assessment Formative assessment is the use of assessment to give the learner and the teacher information about how well something has been learnt so that they can decide what to do next. It normally occurs during a course. Formative assessment can be compared English Language Testing 9 with summative assessment, which evaluates how well something has been learnt in order to give a learner a grade. Example The learners have just finished a project on animals, which had as a language aim better understanding of the use of the present simple to describe habits. The learners now prepare gap-fill exercises for each other based on some of their texts. They analyse the results and give each other feedback. In the classroom ,One of the advantages of formative feedback is that peers can do it. Learners can test each other on language they have been learning, with the additional aim of revising the language themselves. It has been once said that ““Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.” Our students must be assessed relative to what their skills are. It could be done by doing formal assessments or informal assessments or combination of both. I realized that beyond giving formal assessments (i.e. Summative assessments: Quizzes, long tests, periodical exams, etc.), our main role as teachers is determined by English Language Testing 10 how we recognize our students’ progress/stagnation through informal assessments (i.e. formative assessments: port folios, role play, record tracking, etc.) These methods allow the teacher to easily maneuver where and how his/her instuction is going. The result of a formal test (e.g. long test) alone would not necessarily dictate the entire academic ability of our students. It does not mean that when a student fails a formal test (e.g. periodical test), we could already conclude that he’s entire learning capabilities for that subject failed as well. Assessing students is not monopolized by just doing it formally (e.g.
Recommended publications
  • Manual for Language Test Development and Examining
    Manual for Language Test Development and Examining For use with the CEFR Produced by ALTE on behalf of the Language Policy Division, Council of Europe © Council of Europe, April 2011 The opinions expressed in this work are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the Council of Europe. All correspondence concerning this publication or the reproduction or translation of all or part of the document should be addressed to the Director of Education and Languages of the Council of Europe (Language Policy Division) (F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex or [email protected]). The reproduction of extracts is authorised, except for commercial purposes, on condition that the source is quoted. Manual for Language Test Development and Examining For use with the CEFR Produced by ALTE on behalf of the Language Policy Division, Council of Europe Language Policy Division Council of Europe (Strasbourg) www.coe.int/lang Contents Foreword 5 3.4.2 Piloting, pretesting and trialling 30 Introduction 6 3.4.3 Review of items 31 1 Fundamental considerations 10 3.5 Constructing tests 32 1.1 How to define language proficiency 10 3.6 Key questions 32 1.1.1 Models of language use and competence 10 3.7 Further reading 33 1.1.2 The CEFR model of language use 10 4 Delivering tests 34 1.1.3 Operationalising the model 12 4.1 Aims of delivering tests 34 1.1.4 The Common Reference Levels of the CEFR 12 4.2 The process of delivering tests 34 1.2 Validity 14 4.2.1 Arranging venues 34 1.2.1 What is validity? 14 4.2.2 Registering test takers 35 1.2.2 Validity
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing L2 Academic Speaking Ability: the Need for a Scenario-Based Assessment Approach
    Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in Applied Linguistics & TESOL, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 36-40 The Forum Assessing L2 Academic Speaking Ability: The Need for a Scenario-based Assessment Approach Yuna Seong Teachers College, Columbia University In second language (L2) testing literature, from the skills-and-elements approach to the more recent models of communicative language ability, the conceptualization of L2 proficiency has evolved and broadened over the past few decades (Purpura, 2016). Consequently, the notion of L2 speaking ability has also gone through change, which has influenced L2 testers to constantly reevaluate what needs to be assessed and how L2 speaking assessment can adopt different designs and techniques accordingly. The earliest views on speaking ability date back to Lado (1961) and Carroll (1961), who took a skills-and-elements approach and defined language ability in terms of a set of separate language elements (e.g., pronunciation, grammatical structure, lexicon), which are integrated in the skills of reading, writing, listening, and speaking. According to their views, speaking ability could be assessed by test items or tasks that target and measure different language elements discretely to make inferences on one’s speaking ability. On the other hand, Clark (1975) and Jones (1985) put emphasis on communicative effectiveness and the role of performance. Clark (1975) defined speaking ability as one’s “ability to communicate accurately and effectively in real-life language-use contexts” (p. 23), and this approach encouraged the use of performance tasks that replicate real-life situations. However, the most dominant approach to viewing L2 speaking ability and its assessment has been influenced by the models of communicative competence (Canale, 1983; Canale & Swain, 1980) and communicative language ability (Bachman, 1990; Bachman & Palmer, 1996), which brought forth a multicomponential approach to understanding speaking ability in terms of various underlying and interrelated knowledge and competencies.
    [Show full text]
  • Call for Proposals: Language Testing Special Issue 2021
    February 28, 2019 Call for Proposals: Language Testing Special Issue 2021 The editors of Language Testing invite proposals from prospective guest editors for the 2021 special issue of the journal. Each year Language Testing devotes a special issue to papers focused on an area of current importance in the field. Guest editors are responsible for overseeing the solicitation, review, editing, and selection of articles for their special issue. Upcoming and past special issue topics have included the following: 2020: Repeated Test Taking and Longitudinal Test Score Analysis, edited by Anthony Green and Alistair Van Moere 2018: Interactional Competence, edited by India Plough, Jayanti Banerjee and Noriko Iwashita 2017: Corpus Linguistics and Language Testing, edited by Sara Cushing 2016: Exploring the Limits of Authenticity in LSP testing: The Case of a Specific-Purpose Language Tests for Health Professionals, edited by Cathie Elder 2015: The Future of Diagnostic Language Assessment, edited by Yon Won Lee 2014: Assessing Oral and Written L2 Performance: Raters’ Decisions, Rating Procedures and Rating Scales, edited by Folkert Kuiken and Ineke Vedder 2013: Language Assessment Literacy, edited by Ofra Inbar-Lourie 2011: Standards-Based Assessment in the United States, edited by Craig Deville and Micheline Chalhoub-Deville 2010: Automated Scoring and Feedback Systems for Language Assessment and Learning, edited by Xiaoming Xi The Language Testing editors will be happy to consider proposals on any coherent theme pertaining to language testing and
    [Show full text]
  • British Council, London (England). English Language *Communicative Competence
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 258 440 FL 014 475 AUTHOR Alderson, J. Charles, 54.; Hughes, Arthur, Ed. TITLE Issues in Language Testing. ELT Documents 111. INSTITUTION British Council, London (England). English Language and Literature Div. REPORT NO ISBN-0-901618-51-9 PUB DATE 81 NOTE 211p, PUB TYPE Collected Works - General (020)-- Reports - Descriptive (141) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC09 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Communicative Competence (Languages); Conference Proceedings; *English (Second Language); *English for Special Purposes; *Language Proficiency; *Language Tests; Second Language Instruction; Test Validity ABSTRACT A symposium focusing on problems in the assessment of foreign or second language learning brought seven applied linguists together to discuss three areas of debate: communicative language testing, testing of English for specific purposes, and general language proficiency assessment. In each of these areas, the participants reviewed selected papers on the topic, reacted to them on paper, and discussed them as a group. The collected papers, reactions, and discussion reports on communicative language testing include the following: "Communicative Language Testing: Revolution or Evolution" (Keith Morrow) ancl responses by Cyril J. Weir, Alan Moller, and J. Charles Alderson. The next section, 9n testing of English for specific purposes, includes: "Specifications for an English Language Testing Service" (Brendan J. Carroll) and responses by Caroline M. Clapham, Clive Criper, and Ian Seaton. The final section, on general language proficiency, includes: "Basic Concerns /Al Test Validation" (Adrian S. Palmer and Lyle F. Bachman) and "Why Are We Interested in General Language Proficiency'?" (Helmut J. Vollmer), reactions of Arthur Hughes and Alan Davies, and the `subsequent response of Helmut J. Vollmer.
    [Show full text]
  • LINGUISTICS' Selected Category Scheme: Wos
    Journal Data Filtered By: Selected JCR Year: 2020 Selected Editions: SSCI Selected Categories: 'LINGUISTICS' Selected Category Scheme: WoS Rank Full Journal Title ISSN Journal Impact Factor 1 APPLIED LINGUISTICS 0142-6001 5.741 2 Language Teaching 0261-4448 5.327 3 Computer Assisted Language Learning 0958-8221 4.789 4 MODERN LANGUAGE JOURNAL 0026-7902 4.759 5 LANGUAGE LEARNING 0023-8333 4.667 6 LANGUAGE LEARNING & TECHNOLOGY 1094-3501 4.313 7 International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 1367-0050 4.159 8 STUDIES IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION 0272-2631 3.988 9 Language Teaching Research 1362-1688 3.899 10 TESOL QUARTERLY 0039-8322 3.692 11 Language Testing 0265-5322 3.551 12 JOURNAL OF SECOND LANGUAGE WRITING 1060-3743 3.538 13 Bilingualism-Language and Cognition 1366-7289 3.532 14 Annual Review of Linguistics 2333-9691 3.512 15 SYSTEM 0346-251X 3.167 16 RESEARCH ON LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL INTERACTION 0835-1813 3.077 17 JOURNAL OF MEMORY AND LANGUAGE 0749-596X 3.059 18 Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 2083-5205 3.036 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE & 19 COMMUNICATION DISORDERS 1368-2822 3.020 20 LANGUAGE SPEECH AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS 0161-1461 2.983 21 ReCALL 0958-3440 2.917 JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL 22 DEVELOPMENT 0143-4632 2.814 23 ENGLISH FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES 0889-4906 2.804 24 APHASIOLOGY 0268-7038 2.773 25 International Journal of Multilingualism 1479-0718 2.714 26 JOURNAL OF PHONETICS 0095-4470 2.670 27 Applied Linguistics Review 1868-6303 2.655 28 JOURNAL OF FLUENCY DISORDERS
    [Show full text]
  • Koalas, Kiwis and Kangaroos
    http://lexikos.journals.ac.za Koalas, Kiwis and Kangaroos: The Challenges of Creating an Online Australian Cultural Dictionary for Learners of English as an Additional Language Julia Miller, School of Education, The University of Adelaide, Australia ([email protected]) Deny A. Kwary, Department of English Literature, Airlangga University, Indonesia ([email protected]) and Ardian W. Setiawan, The State Polytechnic Manufacture Bangka Belitung, Sungai Liat, Indonesia ([email protected]) Abstract: This article reports on an online cultural dictionary for learners of English as an Addi- tional Language (EAL) in Australia. Potential users studying English for academic purposes in an Australian university pre-entry program informed each stage of the dictionary's creation. Consid- eration was given to the need for such a dictionary; terms to be included; information necessary for each entry (including audio and visual material); use of a limited defining vocabulary; example sentences; notes on each term's usage; and evaluation of user feedback once the dictionary had been launched online. Survey data indicate that users particularly value the dictionary's ease of use, example sentences, and specifically Australian content (including pronunciation given in an Australian accent). It is suggested that more entries be added, and that cultural dictionaries be created for other varieties of English, as well as for other languages. Keywords: AUSTRALIAN, CULTURE, DICTIONARY, ENGLISH AS AN ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE, LEARNER'S DICTIONARY, ONLINE Opsomming: Koalas, kiwi's en kangaroes: Die uitdagings in die skep van 'n aanlyn Australiese kulturele woordeboek vir aanleerders van Engels as 'n addisionele taal. In hierdie artikel word verslag gedoen oor 'n aanlyn kulturele woordeboek vir aanleerders van Engels as 'n Addisionele Taal (EAT) in Australië.
    [Show full text]
  • Language Testing and Assessment: an Advanced Resource Book Glenn Fulcher and Fred Davidson Language Testing and Assessment an Advanced Resource Book
    LANGUAGE TESTING AND ASSESSMENT Routledge Applied Linguistics is a series of comprehensive resource books, pro- viding students and researchers with the support they need for advanced study in the core areas of English language and Applied Linguistics. Each book in the series guides readers through three main sections, enabling them to explore and develop major themes within the discipline. • Section A, Introduction, establishes the key terms and concepts and extends readers’ techniques of analysis through practical application. • Section B, Extension, brings together influential articles, sets them in context and discusses their contribution to the field. • Section C, Exploration, builds on knowledge gained in the first two sections, setting thoughtful tasks around further illustrative material. This enables readers to engage more actively with the subject matter and encourages them to develop their own research responses. Throughout the book, topics are revisited, extended, interwoven and deconstructed, with the reader’s understanding strengthened by tasks and follow-up questions. Language Testing and Assessment: • provides an innovative and thorough review of a wide variety of issues from prac- tical details of test development to matters of controversy and ethical practice • investigates the importance of the philosophy of pragmatism in assessment, and coins the term ‘effect-driven testing’ • explores test development, data analysis, validity and their relation to test effects • illustrates its thematic breadth in a series of exercises and tasks, such as analysis of test results, study of test revision and change, design of arguments for test validation and exploration of influences on test creation • presents influential and seminal readings in testing and assessment by names such as Michael Canale and Merrill Swain, Michael Kane, Alan Davies, Lee Cronbach and Paul Meehl and Pamela Moss.
    [Show full text]
  • Constraints – Intersentential / Intrasentential • Codeswitching Is Structured (I.E., Rule-Governed) 1
    Programs and Proposals in Codeswitching Research: Unconstraining Theories of Bilingual Language Mixing Jeff MacSwan Arizona State University Overview of the Talk • Central claims – CS research has evolved into two distinct research programs • The Constraint-oriented Program • The Constraint-free Program – The constraint-free program is the more promising path for future research in CS •Outline – The search for a constraint-free solution in CS – The lexicalist solution available in the Minimalist Program • The model • Some sample analyses – A taxonomy of research programs (Lakatos, Feyerabend) – Directions for future research in CS What is Codeswitching? • Codeswitching, or CS for short, is a speech style in which fluent (i.e., simultaneous) bilinguals move in and out of two (or more) languages. • Topics in the literature – Social motivation / grammatical constraints – Intersentential / intrasentential • Codeswitching is structured (i.e., rule-governed) 1. Los estudiantes have seen the Italian movie ‘The students have seen the Italian movie’ 2. *Los estudiantes habían seen the Italian movie ‘The students have seen the Italian movie’ • The research question – What is the underlying structure? What do we mean by “constraint”? • Descriptive sense – Codeswitching is constrained in the descriptive sense – Some patterns are well-formed, others are not 1. My big brother va a comer con nosotros. 2. *He va a comer con nosotros. • Theoretical sense – In the theoretical sense, a constraint is a principle or rule of grammar that bars one or another structure. Constraint-oriented Approach Grammar Codeswitching 2 Grammar1 Constraints Codeswitched Utterances Constraint-free Approach Grammar2 Grammar1 Codeswitched Utterances Constraint-free Approach • Research Agenda – Nothing constrains CS apart from the requirements of the mixed grammars.
    [Show full text]
  • Language for Specific Purposes Testing: a Historical Review
    Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in Applied Linguistics & TESOL, Vol. 17, No. 2, 1-8 Historical Review of LSP Testing Language for Specific Purposes Testing: A Historical Review Scott E. Grapin1 New York University ABSTRACT Language for specific purposes (LSP) has a long history in the language testing literature. An outgrowth of the communicative language movement of the 1970s, LSP testing arose out of the practical need to assess individuals’ abilities to perform specific tasks in academic and professional settings. This historical review traces the evolution of LSP testing in the language testing literature, focusing specifically on theory and research in two key areas: (a) authenticity and (b) the interaction between language knowledge and background knowledge. The review then turns to how Douglas (2000), in the most comprehensive treatment of LSP testing to date, incorporates insights from these two lines of work into his conceptualization. Throughout the review, tensions and debates emerging from the literature are discussed. The final section addresses the uncertain future of LSP in the language testing landscape. INTRODUCTION Language for specific purposes (LSP) is the branch of applied linguistics concerned with the teaching and learning of language for some practical purpose (Robinson, 1989), such as Spanish for business, English for academic study, or German for mechanical engineering. Coinciding with the advent of communicative language teaching in the 1970s, LSP testing arose out of the need to make a variety of decisions about individuals’ abilities to perform specific tasks in academic and professional settings. One of the earliest examples of an LSP test was an exam designed by the British General Medical Council to assess the clinical competency and language proficiency of doctors from outside the UK applying to practice medicine in Britain (Rea- Dickins, 1987).
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Language Testing: an Applied Linguistic Perspective
    International Journal of English Language Education ISSN 2325-0887 2013, Vol. 1, No. 2, Special Issue Evaluation of Language Testing: An Applied Linguistic Perspective Sadeq Ali Saad Al-Yaari (Corresponding author) Independent Researcher, Dept. of English, College of Arts, King Saud University (KSU) Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. E-mail: [email protected] Fayza Saleh Al Hammadi Associate prof., Dept. of English, College of Arts, King Faisal University, Al-Hassa Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. E-mail: [email protected] Salah Ayied Alyami Assistant professor, Dept. of English, Dammam College of Technology, Dammam University Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. E-mail: [email protected] Received: January 1, 2013 Accepted: January 10, 2013 Published: January 17, 2013 doi:10.5296/ijele.v1i2.3059 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/ijele.v1i2.3059 Abstract Background: Over the past few years, researchers started to pay great attention to studies on language testing to improve the methodologies of administering, constructing and evaluating tests. Aims: The present study aims at providing a new perspective as it contributes a new method based on scientific analysis that does not only diagnose the phenomenon, but also provides solutions and suggestions. Methods: The study was conducted at the Departments of English both in the College of Education and College of Arts & Linguistics, Thamar University, Yemen. Ten (10) final term tests administered by ten instructors within two colleges were evaluated. The tests were given to freshmen students to test their productive, receptive skills, as well as their language components. Conclusions: Results show that some tests lack validity, practicality, reliability, 27 www.macrothink.org/ijele International Journal of English Language Education ISSN 2325-0887 2013, Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Code-Switching in English Language Education: Voices from Vietnam
    ISSN 1799-2591 Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 6, No. 7, pp. 1333-1340, July 2016 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0607.01 Code-switching in English Language Education: Voices from Vietnam Nhan Trong Nguyen Faculty of Science, Health, Education and Engineering, University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia Peter Grainger Faculty of Science, Health, Education and Engineering, University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia Michael Carey Faculty of Science, Health, Education and Engineering, University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia Abstract—Why do bilingual language teachers and students switch between the two languages in their language classrooms? On the evidence of current research findings in relation to English-Vietnamese code- switching in the educational contexts of Vietnam, this article identifies that classroom code-switching between the second language and the first language has its own pedagogic functions and it can be a valuable language classroom resource to both teachers and learners. In Vietnam, the implementation of the monolingual approach of teaching English-through-English-only faces many challenges such as inadequate classroom resources, students’ low levels of English competence, motivation and autonomy, teachers’ limited English abilities, and inappropriate teaching methods. Many Vietnamese teachers of English support code-switching in the classroom and they teach English through the bilingual approach. English-Vietnamese code-switching is reported not to be a restriction on the acquisition of English; rather, it can facilitate the teaching and learning of general English in Vietnam. This practice of code-switching is not just due to a lack of sufficient proficiency to maintain a conversation in English; rather, it serves a number of pedagogic functions such as explaining new words and grammatical rules, giving feedback, checking comprehension, making comparison between English and Vietnamese, establishing good rapport between teachers and students, creating a friendly classroom atmosphere and supporting group dynamics.
    [Show full text]
  • Types of Language Tests
    University of Tlemcen Department of English Master 1: DAELE Dr. N. BENMOSTEFA Types of Language Tests The needs of assessing the outcome of learning have led to the development and elaboration of different test formats. Testing language has traditionally taken the form of testing knowledge about language, usually the testing of knowledge of vocabulary and grammar. Stern (1983, p. 340) notes that „if the ultimate objective of language teaching is effective language learning, then our main concern must be the learning outcome‟. In the same line of thought, Wigglesworth (2008, p. 111) further adds that “In the assessment of languages, tasks are designed to measure learners‟ productive language skills through performances which allow candidates to demonstrate the kinds of language skills that may be required in a real world context.” This is because a “specific purpose language test is one in which test content and methods are derived from an analysis of a specific purposes target language use situation, so that test tasks and content are authentically representative of tasks in the target situation” (Douglas, 2000, p. 19). Thus, the issue of authenticity is central to the assessment of language for specific functions. This is another way of saying that testing is a socially situated activity although the social aspects have been relatively under-explored (Wigglesworth, 2008). Yet, language tests differ with respect to how they are designed, and what they are for, in other words, in respect to test method and test purpose. In terms of method, we can broadly distinguish traditional paper-and-pencil language tests from performance tests.
    [Show full text]