Language Assessment and Proficiency Standards

Language Assessment and Proficiency Standards Chris Khonngam EDUC 6187 Language Assessment and Proficiency Standards I concur
with authors Kunan and Grabowski (2013) when they state that without
assessment, teaching would be incomplete (p. 304); and I would add that without an indicator of student achievement, learning is incomplete. Large-scale assessment and the standards that underpin them have a special place in assessment in that they set a bar for student achievement and thus can stimulate motivation. This is especially true for high-stakes exams such as the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), which is used my many American institutions to determine English proficiency for university intake purposes (Llosa, 2011, pp. 206-7); and the Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC), which is used by many multi-lingual businesses (and some institutions in Asia) to determine English competency in the workplace (Ibid, p. 207-8). These exams establish a baseline standard of achievement for educational and workforce institutions that are highly valid and reliable (Kunan & Grabowski, 2013, pp. 311-12). However, as pointed out by Lorena Llosa (2011), the downside for instruction is less attention paid to classroom-based assessment which can be more authentic and meaningful (p. 368). Despite the inclusion of direct measures in large-scale tests for some tasks, such as reading and writing (Murray & Christison, 2011, p. 206), the majority consist of indirect measures such as multiple-choice, which are less authentic indicators of proficiency (Ibid, p. 200). Standardized tests are designed to measure competence in a specific target-language use (TLU) domain as opposed to general-use, which limits their validity (Kunan & Grabowski, 2013, p. 308). As a result of the limited TLU domain and use of indirect measures, standardized tests such as TOEFL and TOEIC may be unreliable indicators of real-life fluency. In addition, students may place too much reliance on exam-study courses rather than fluency-building classes. This can result in the unfortunate scenario of learners passing the standardized exams but
Language Assessment and Proficiency Standards Chris Khonngam EDUC 6187 failing to achieve real-world fluency. Therefore, students with proficiency in one register, such as the workplace, may be deficient in another register, such as in social situations. I believe this inhibits psychosocial identity integration, a process which can strengthen motivation to learn a second language (Masgoret & Gardner, 2003) and improve fluency by fostering willingness to communicate (MacIntyre, Baker, Clement, & Conrad, 2001). Lorena Llosa (2011) observes that speaking is an interactive medium that is collaboratively co-constructed (p. 203), a process that is difficult to measure using primarily indirect measures. A key factor in conversational English is the ability to negotiate meaning (Bell, 2009), a context that can only be observed where there are multiple actors. Vygotsky (1986) famously declared that all learning, but especially language, was a social activity. If the purpose of assessment is to provide a systematic indication of abilities with respect to what has been taught (Kunnan & Grabowski, 2013, p. 304), then it is questionable whether a social skill can be accurately measured in a non-social context. Large-scale proficiency tests have an important role in the field of Second Language Acquisition influencing the establishment and attainment of specific standards. However, they
may not be accurate indicators of real-world ability. This is not a fault of the test developers, but a misapplication of the exams usefulness by stakeholders, including students themselves. Evidence claims published by major test developers are usually quite clear regarding the consistency and applicability of their products (Kunnan & Grabowski, 2013, p. 311). Unfortunately, the popularity of the exams invites their misuse and application in contexts for which they were not originally intended. The high-stakes nature of standardized exams ensures they will continue to receive a disproportionate amount of attention, but the importance attributed to them needs to be mitigated by a clear appreciation of their inherent limitations.
Language Assessment and Proficiency Standards Chris Khonngam EDUC 6187 References Bell, N. (2009). A students guide to the MA TESOL. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Kunnan, J. K. & Grabowski, K. (2013). Large-scale second language assessment. In CelceMurcia, M., Brinton, D. M., & Snow, M. A. (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (304-319). Boston, MA: Heinle, Cengage Learning.
Llosa, L. (2011). Standards-based classroom assessments of English proficiency: A review of the issues, current developments, and future directions for research. Language Testing, 28(3), 367382. MacIntyre, P., Baker, S., Clement, R., & Conrad, S. (2001). Willingness to communicate, social support, and language-learning orientations of immersion students. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 369-388. Masgoret, A. M., & Gardner, R. C. (2003). Attitudes, Motivation, and Second Language Learning: A MetaAnalysis of Studies Conducted by Gardner and Associates. Language Learning, 53(1), 123. Murray, D. E., & Christison, M. (2011). What English language teachers need to know, Volume II: Facilitating learning. New York, NY: Routledge. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. MIT Press.

Language Assessment and Proficiency Standards

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Language Assessment and Proficiency Standards

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Language Assessment and Proficiency Standards

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Language Assessment and Proficiency Standards Chris Khonngam EDUC 6187 Language Assessment and Proficiency Standards I concur

You might also like