Chapter 3: Designing classroom language tests

DESIGNING CLASSROOM LANGUAGE TESTS

Since the beginning of our learning process, we were asked to answer tests in order to be promoted to the next level. But at some point we have never asked ourselves if they are appropriate designed, what is the real purpose of the test? What are the objectives of it? and what kind of grading or feedback is expected?. Due to this we as teachers have to pay close attention when constructed them for our students. Consequently, it is suggested to choose one test type according to what we want to evaluate.

One of them is called Language aptitude test, designed to measure capacity or general ability to learn a foreign language which predicts a person´s success prior to exposure to the second language. Other is Proficiency test, designed to test global competence in a language and consisted of standardized multiple choice items on grammar, vocabulary, reading; sometimes writing and oral production performance. Placement test, is the third of them, its purpose is to place a student in a level of a language curriculum. Diagnostic test specified aspects of a language as the phonological features in a pronunciation test. Finally Achievement test is the one that we have as a final test ,related to our classroom lessons, units or a total curriculum.

Knowing the different types of tests we should take in mind the steps to test construction.  

    1. Assessing clear, unambiguous objectives: here you should know the purpose of the test you are crating and a very important fact, what do you want to test, they should be according with curriculum objectives, of course, you cannot possibly test each one of the objectives but choose a possible one in order to evaluate it.

2  2. Test specifications: in this criterion, you have to create a practical outline of your test  and which you take into account what skills you test. So the objectives must be according to the skill that is going to be examined.

Chapter 2: EFFECTIVE PRACTICE GUIDELINES: SELECTION ASSESSMENT METHOD

EFFECTIVE PRACTICE GUIDELINES: SELECTION ASSESSMENT METHOD

Organizations compete fiercely in the war for talent. Many invest an enormous amount of money, time and other resources in advertising and recruiting strategies to attract the best candidates. This is because today’s executives understand that one of the most important resources in organizations—if not the most important—is human resources.  Yet, when it comes to actually assessing which job candidates are likely to perform most effectively and make the most significant contributions, a large number of organizations employ rudimentary and haphazard approaches to selecting their work forces.

            This represents a serious disconnect for organizations that purport to have a strategic focus on increasing their competitive advantage through effective talent management. The disconnect stems from the fact that many organizations fail to use scientifically proven assessments to make selection decisions, even though such assessments have been shown to result in significant productivity increases, cost savings, decreases in attrition and other critical organizational outcomes that translate into literally millions of dollars. Thus, there are real and very substantial bottom-line financial results associated with using effective assessments to guide selection decisions. One reason why more organizations do not use rigorous assessments to select employees is because many executives and HR professionals have misconceptions about the value of using them. Some of the most common misconceptions are presented below.

Effective Practice Guidelines:

Selection Assessment Methods. Common Misconceptions About Selection Tests. Myth: Screening applicants for conscientiousness will yield better performers than screening applicants for intelligence. Myth: Screening applicants for their values will yield better performers than screening applicants for intelligence. Myth: Integrity tests are not useful because job candidates misrepresent themselves on these types of tests. Myth: Unstructured interviews with candidates provide better information than structured assessment processes. Myth: Using selection tests creates legal problems for organizations rather than helps solve them.

Rynes, S. L., Colbert, A. E., & Brown, K. G. (2002). HR professionals’ beliefs about effective human resources practices: Correspondence between research and practice. Human Resource Management, 41,149-174. Another reason why formal assessments are not used more in organizations is that there tends to be a lack of knowledge about the types of assessment methods that research has shown to be most effective for identifying who will perform best on a job.

This, coupled with the fact that the area of selection testing is inherently technical and difficult to understand, leads many organizational decision makers and HR professionals to shy away from using formal assessments to guide their selection decisions. A final reason why more organizations do not use effective assessments may be attributable to the multitude of consulting firms selling different selection products and tools. It is important for organizational decision makers and HR practitioners to be educated consumers regarding these products to ensure they are bringing competently developed and effective assessment methods into their organizations.  Most organizations use a funneling approach to selection, where more informal tools and procedures are used initially to reduce the pool of candidates to a manageable number of individuals who may then be put through a more extensive assessment process. Common initial screening devices include resumes, application blanks and reference checks, which are generally used to identify and exclude obvious misfits or poor performers from further consideration. Another initial screening device is the informal meeting or phone interview, which is often used to allow organizational members direct interaction with potential candidates. While these initial screening devices have a useful place in the overall selection process, the focus of this paper is on more formal assessment methods. We specifically focus on those that research has shown to have a proven track record of helping organizations build high-quality workforces by identifying individuals who will perform effectively, achieve results and make important contributions on the job. This report has three important goals: Present and summarize what is known from the research literature about the value of different types of formal assessment methods that are used to select employees in organizations. Remove some of the mystique, complexity and confusion that can drive HR professionals away from implementing formal assessment methods by providing brief tutorials on the most important technical, legal and measurement issues inherent in selection testing. Provide a useful roadmap to help make decisions about what assessment methods are most useful and practical in different situations.

Selection Assessment Methods

Ryan, A. M., & Tippins, N. T. (2004). Attracting and selecting: What psychological research tells us. Human Resource Management,43,305-318. The report is organized into four major parts. First, a brief discussion of job analysis is presented. Job analysis is important because it provides information that is necessary to make decisions about what types of assessment methods are most appropriate for a given job. Next, to familiarize readers with the array of assessment methods that are available, the second part of the paper provides brief descriptions and examples of the most common tools that research has shown to be effective in predicting who will perform successfully on a job. The third part of the paper focuses on important criteria to consider in evaluating assessment methods and provides guidance on how to make rational choices among the available alternatives. The final part discusses other issues that are relevant to using assessments, including the mode of administration, utility and legal consideration

Chapter 1: The Relationship among Testing, Assessing and Teaching

The Relationship among Testing, Assessing and Teaching

Language assessment has played a significant role in recent educational settings worldwide. Brown (2004) in his book,” Language Assessment: Principles and Practices” mentioned assessment consists of two major testing concepts: testing and assessing. A test is “a method which measures a language learner’s ability, knowledge, or performance in a given domain” (Brown, 2004, p. 3). According to Brown’s explanation, testing is not only a method for test-takers to qualify a test but also measures a test-taker’s performance in a setting instrument. Compared to testing, assessing is to evaluate or appraise a learner’s level during an ongoing learning process (as cited in Mousavi, 2009, p. 36). Assessing a learner’s ability with productive performance not only lowers one’s anxiety but also improves one’s learning attitude. Besides, Teaching is to assess a learner’s learning ability not only by applying a given field of study, but also adapting pedagogical techniques along with amount of performance to a class. That is to say, any language-skill related activities with teacher’s observation are part of assessment in teacher’s teaching practice.       

Regarding Brown’s (2004) introduction to language assessment, the relationship among testing, assessing, and teaching through a diagram shows differences in language teaching practice.  Brown (2004) in his diagram shows that teaching overlaps assessment, measurement, and tests in order to evaluate learners’ competence (Brown, 2004, p. 6). During ongoing processes, teacher provides instructions along with assessment in order to evaluate how learners acquire and produce what they have learned in the classrooms. Thus, assessment, measurement, tests are interrelated to teaching.    

Major Issues in Current Classrooms

Brown (2004) provided major issues in current TESOL field: Multiple Intelligences, traditional and alternative assessment, and computer-based testing are discussed:  

Firstly, Gardner (1993) mentioned multiple intelligences, which consist of “linguistic (verbal), musical, spatial, logical-mathematical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal (understanding of others), intrapersonal (understanding of self), and natural (using cues from nature).” He adapted these intelligences into teachers’ materials for practices and activities in the classrooms (as cited in Diaz-Rico, 2004, p. 47).  Robert Sternberg (1988; 1997, as cited in Brown 2004, p. 17) also pointed out that creative thinking and manipulative strategies are part of intelligences. Likely, Daniel Coleman (1995, as cited in Brown 2004, p. 17) provided the aspect of EQ (Emotional Quotient) which is relevant to learners’ cognitive processing. Thus, new views on intelligences are helpful for “measure whole language skills, learning processes, and the ability” in the curriculum design along with well-organized instructions. 

Secondly, Armstrong (1994) and Bailey (1998) pointed out viewpoints about traditional and alternative assessment. Traditional assessment follows not only a standardized exams with norm-referenced scores, timed, decontextualized tests, score-preferred feedback, summative, but also promotes learners’ extrinsic motivation. On the other hand, alternative assessment is currently favored with performance-based classrooms. In the classrooms, teachers can design more authentic, more flexible, “more subjective evaluation, more individualization, and more interaction in the process of providing feedback” (Brown, 2004, p. 18-19).      

Thirdly, with higher technology, some computer-based testing such as TOEFL-CBT,TOEFL-IBT, Computer Adaptive Tests, and etc. offer four integrated skills containing listening, reading, speaking and writing sections together. Due to popular use of computer-assisted language learning (CALL), it has been a trend to develop teaching and testing with creativity, interaction, authenticity, and learning autonomy in the classrooms (Brown, 2004, p. 21). 

  

Reference

Brown, H. Douglas. (2004). Language assessment: Principles and classroom     practices. London: Longman.

Diaz-Rico, L. T. (2004). Strategies for teaching English learners. Boston, MA: Pearson.