Universidad Católica de la Santísima ConcepciónFacultad de Educación Departamento de Lenguas Language Assessment

Theoretical Framework

(Language Assessment)

Dannae Del Campo & Gabriela Quezada

Introduction

The acquisition of a second language is the subconscious acceptance of knowledge

stored in the brain through communication. Learning, on the other hand, is the conscious

acceptance of language knowledge. According to Krashen (1982) the optimal way to teach

a language is through natural communication and creating situations that fulfill authentic

purposes. Therefore, teaching and learning a second/foreign language requires evaluating

the process of learning not only to demonstrate students’ progress but also to confirm if the

teachers’ methodology is the adequate. In order to that several authors provide theories for

the improvement of the assessment process. According to Coombe et al. (2007) the term

assessment is often misunderstood by people as they associate the term of assessment with

a paper and pencil test designed to tell teachers and students how much material the student

does not know. Nevertheless, assessment includes a wide range of activities and tasks to

evaluate students’ progress and growth on a daily basis. In the following pages, the theories

carried out by Bachman and Palmer (2007), Coombe et al. (2007) and Brown (2004) will

be compared.

Principles of language assessment

Both Coombe, et al (2007) and Bachman & Palmer (2007) have studied the concept

of usefulness. However, Bachman and Palmer (2007) considered usefulness as the final

product of six different qualities which are reliability, construct validity, authenticity,

interactiveness, impact and practicality. On the other hand, Coombe et al. (2007)

considered usefulness as part of nine qualities. Coombe et al. (2007) proposed that to obtain

a good test design there are nine qualities that must be followed. These qualities are

usefulness, validity, reliability, practicality, washback, authenticity, transparency and

security. In contrast to the authors named above, Brown (2004) did not make reference to

the concept of usefulness.

The first quality which is considered by the three authors is validity. Bachman and

Palmer (2007) referred to this quality as construct validity. It is explained that construct

validity is the interpretation of test scores. Moreover, Bachman and Palmer (2007)

emphasized that a valid test needs to reflect the area of the ability that the teacher wants to

measure and very little else. Supporting this idea, Coombe (2007) explained that the

concept of validity is to test what you teach and how you previously teach it in class.

Moreover, Coombe et al. (2007) name three types of validity which are content, construct

and face validity. The first type is content validity which is related to how the course

content and outcomes are used in a familiar format to the students. The second type is

construct validity which is the way of how the methodology of language learning fits with

the type of assessment. Finally, the third one is called face validity which is how teachers

measure the language abilities that are supposed to measure. According to Brown (2004)

validity is the most relevant quality of an effective test and he agrees with Coombe et al.

(2007) and Bachman and Palmer (2007) when it was stated that validity is effective when

the test measures the language abilities the teacher wanted to measure. Furthermore, Brown

(2004) explained that there are five types of evidence that support validity. The first type is

content-related evidence, in this concept it is explained that the teacher clearly states the

aim of the evaluation. The second type is called criterion-related evidence, in this concept it

is explained the importance of the evidence to support the criterion the teacher wants to use

at the moment of assessing. The third type is construct-related evidence, in this concept it is

explained that the test must be consistent with the theoretical constructs previously

established by the teacher. The fourth type is consequential validity, in this concept it is

explained that all the consequences of a test will impact the instrument or the design of the

test. Finally, the fifth type is face validity which refers to the degree to which a test looks

right. In this concept it is explained that teachers should design test with tasks that students

are familiar and give clear instructions. Consequently, the test takers will feel confident.

The three authors Brown (2004), Bachman and Palmer (2007) and Coombe et al.

(2007) agreed that reliability is the consistency of measurement which means that a test

would have similar results if it is given at any other time. However, Brown (2004)

mentioned four factors that contribute to reliability. These factors are student-related

reliability, rater reliability, test administration reliability and test reliability. The first one is

student-related reliability which has an influence on the test results due to students’

physical or psychological factors. The second one is rater reliability and it is related to

human error and subjectivity which may affect the test results. This one is subdivided in

inter-rater reliability in which two or more raters have differences at the moment of scoring

the same test. The third one is test administration reliability which is related to the

conditions in which the test is administered. Finally, the fourth factor is called test

reliability which consists in the nature of the test itself which may possess errors.

Regarding practicality, Bachman and Palmer (2007) stated that it should be take in

consideration the resources that will be required to develop a test and the allocation and

management of the resources that are available. Brown (2004) also mentioned that it is

important to considerate the resources in terms of the economical perspective, time and

administration. Moreover, Coombe et al. (2007) agreed with the other two authors by

explaining that a teacher should develop, administer and mark within the available time and

resources.

Another quality mentioned by the three authors is washback. According to Coombe

et al (2007) ,washback refers to the effect of teaching and learning and it can be positive or

negative for the teacher and the test takers. Brown (2004) stated that washback is related to

the consequences that the tests have on instruction and how the students prepare for the test.

Another form of washback is given to the students through feedback or diagnoses (their

weaknesses and strengths). According to Bachman and Palmer (2007) washback is a

subcategory of the quality named impact which is the main quality. Bachman and Palmer

(2007) defined impact as the effect that the test has on society and educational systems.

Regarding to authenticity, Bachman and Palmer (2007) defined this quality as the

degree of correspondence of the characteristics of a test task to the features of a target

language task. This means that, the tests should be created with a certain degree of elements

that students can find in real life so they can be exposed to items which are meaningful for

them. Thus, test takers will react to the test in terms of the perceived relevance. Coombe, et

al (2007) agreed with the author above adding the importance of creating language tasks

that reflect real-word situations so the test takers can be motivated to perform properly.

Brown (2004) added to the previous ideas that authenticity will be present when the

language in the test is as natural as possible and the items are contextualized.

Coombe, et al (2007) is the only author that made reference to transparency and

security as qualities to provide a good test design, development and analysis. Regarding

transparency, Coombe, et al (2007) emphasized how important is for test takers to have an

accurate information about testing which should include outcomes to be evaluated, formats

used, time allow to complete the test, etc…

Regarding security, Coombe, et al (2007) stated that teachers invest time and energy

developing good tests that accurately reflect the course outcomes. Therefore, the solution

proposed by Coombe, et al (2007) is recycling which is especially important if the test is

reliable, valid and secure to reapply on a new occasion.

The concept of interactiveness is only mentioned by Bachman and Palmer (2007).

Interactiveness is defined as the test taker’s involvement in a test. The characteristic most

relevant for language testing is the test taker’s language ability.

As a conclusion, it can be mentioned that the authors’ opinion are quite similar

regarding some of the principles of language assessing. However, it can be said that

Coombe et.al (2007) presented a more complete theory due to it was explained nine

qualities or cornerstones, were usefulness was included, for developing an effective

assessment process. Coombe et.al (2007) presented the information in a clear and

understandable way, giving good examples which help us as future teachers to be. Coombe

et.al (2007) added concepts that are not consider by the other two authors and that we

consider are important. These concepts are transparency which helps test takers to

understand clearly the instructions of the tasks which leads to a better performance. And

security which would help us as pre-service teachers and in-service teachers to save time by

recycling the test materials which are previously consider valid and reliable.

Another important aspect to mention is that we consider that the most important qualities

are validity, reliability and authenticity. The quality of validity was subdivided by the three

authors so it was explained in a more detailed and prominent way. We could noticed that

the concept of reliability was highlighted by the authors because as Bachman and Palmer

(2007) mentioned reliability is a necessary condition for construct validity, and hence for

usefulness. Reliability has the purpose of deliver trustful results regarding to the test takers’

performance. Finally, as Krashen (1982) mentioned an effective learning of a second

language depends directly on a natural communication that corresponds to the features of

the target language use.

References

Bachman, L. and Palmer, A. (1996). Language Testing in Practice: Designing and Developing

Useful Language Tests. Oxford Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Brown, D. (2004). Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom. New York: Longman.

Coombe, Ch., et. al. (2007). A Practical Guide to Assessing English Language Learners.

Michigan: University of Michigan Press.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition (pp. 65-78).

Pergamon: Oxford.