Paper Language Testing: Construct and Models
Paper Language Testing: Construct and Models
Paper Language Testing: Construct and Models
This paper was submitted to fulfill the assignment for Language Testing and Assessment Course
By
FADHILAH SANTRI
Reg. Num. 2020203879102002
ENGLISH EDUCATION
POSTGRADUATE PROGRAM
STATE ISLAMIC INSTITUTE (IAIN)
PAREPARE
2021
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. Background
Generally, test can be interpreted as a measure in determining an individuals’ ability,
knowledge and performance in relation to learning. A good test is valid, reliable, practical and
authentic test. The test must really measure what it has been designed to measure. Testers need
to know who the test takers are. What is their previous experience and background? Then, a test
measures performance, but the result imply the test taker’s ability or competence. Most
language tests measure one’s ability to perform language, that is to speak, write, read , and listen
to a subset of language. On the other hand, it is not uncommon to find tests designed to tap into
a test-taker’s knowledge about language: defining a vocabulary item, reciting a grammatical
rule, or identifying a rhetorical feature in written discourse.
Finally, a test measures a given domain. In the case of a proficiency test, even though the
actual performance on the test involves only a sample of skills, that domain is overall
proficiency in a language- general competence in all skills of a language. Other tests may have
very specific criteria. A test of pronunciation might be only a test of only a limited set of
phonemic minimal pairs. A vocabulary test may focus on only the set of words covered in a
particular lesson or unit. One of the biggest obstacles to overcome in constructing adequate tests
is to measure the desired criterion and not include other factors inadvertently
A well construction test is an instrument that provides an accurate measure of the test taker’s
ability within a particular domain. The definition may sound very simple, but in fact,
constructing a good test is a complex task involving both science and art. So, in this paper will
discuss about the models
B. Problem statements
1. What is the nature of models, frameworks and construct in language testing?
2. What are the specifications of models?
3. What are the models of communicative competence?
CHAPTER II
DISCUSSION
B. Specifications of Models
McNamara (1996: 48) argues that all models of language ability have three
dimensions, constituted by statements about:
a) what it means to know a language (a model of knowledge)
b) underlying factors relating to the ability to use language (a model of performance)
c) how we understand specific instances of language use (actual language use).
The first dimension is called knowledge and the second dimension is what he called ability for
use. The second dimension mentioned about the factors that could impact upon our ability to use
language generally or in certain contexts such as how we fee, our general health or personality
factors. They are not always related to language, but impact upon our ability to use language
generally or in certain contexts. These first two dimensions that are often referred to as
‘communicative competence’ or ‘communicative language ability’, while the third dimension
is actual language use, rather than the knowledge or ability for use that makes language use
possible. McNamara notes that models ‘help us to articulate the “theoretical rationale” for such
inferences’ as we may draw from test scores to the abilities of an individual test taker. It is
impossible to test everything that model contains in a single test because of course a certain
model contains a lot competences. If a test producer claims to be able to do that, it shows a
fundamental misunderstanding of validity issues. When we use language, we can trace the
meaning of the score to its meaning in a framework, and then to a model of communicative
competence. This is a key part of what it means to consider the validity of the score meaning.
b. Actual communication
The demonstration of knowledge in actual language performance.
This seminal model of communication is relevant to language testing for several reasons,
namely: 1) this is a theoretical rationale for the view that pencil and paper tests of knowledge
alone cannot directly indicate whether a language learner can actually speak or write in a
communicative situation, 2) discrete point tests were seen as useful for some purposes as
communicative competence was viewed as knowledge. 3) Criteria could be developed for the
evaluation of language performance at different level of proficiency.
2. Bachman’s Model of Language Competence
One of the substantial advancements in the realm of language testing was Bachmans’
comprehensive model of communicative competence which was an improvement over the
previous models, from diverse perspectives. This model not only specified different components
of communicative competence but also indicated how these components interact with each other
in a complex manner. Another major achievement of Bachman’s model over the previous ones
was its emphasis on the central role of strategic competence including meta-cognitive strategies
or higher order process that explain the interaction of knowledge and affective components of
language use.
The 1990 model was amended and restructured in Bachman and Palmer’ Model. A text
which took forward and made more explicit some of the changes that Bachman had made to the
Canale and Swain formulations, and which sought to articulate the model for the teaching of
language testing. The changes that are most significant, as discussed by McNamara (1996: 72)
and Celce-Murcia et al. (1995), are:
a) the introduction of affective (non-cognitive) factors in language use
b) re-labelling ‘knowledge structures’ as ‘topical knowledge’, and
c) reconceptualizing strategic competence as a set of metacognitive strategies.
Alsalihi, Hanan Dhia Akef “Characteristic of a good test” Article Journal. Online accessed on
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336891350
Bachman, Lyle. F. 1991. “What Does Language Testing Have to Offer?”. Teachers of English to
Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL), Vol. 25, No. 4.
Brown, H. Douglas. 2003. Language assessment: Principles & Classroom Practices (Califronia:
Longman Pearson).
Deville, Micheline C. “Second language interaction: current perspectives and future trends”
Aritcle Journal of University of Lowa.
Fulcher, G., & Davidson, Fred. 2007. Language Testing & Assessments: Ad Advanced Resources
Book (London: Routledge).