McNamara, T. (2008). Language Testing. (pp. 3-11). Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-43222-7.
First of all I wasn't aware of the importance of language testing. McNamara describes this importance issues in language testing as gateways to transition from country to country, placements and to measure language proficiency. I can see how language testing fits into this process of not just data gathering but to aide us into deciding the future and fate of ELL. This seems to be a huge reason and I would hope that language teachers all are aware of these life changing tests.
The chapter describes two general types of tests. The first being fixed response formant assessments in which the learner takes pencil and paper tests and the most common example of this is the multiple choice test. The strengths of this is its easy to administer. The caveat is that this test does not show speaking and writing skills, further the teacher may want to test for speaking and writing, but this format is not conducive to those skills. Performance assessments can assess their communicative skills where a speaker is recorded and raters analyze their data. This would provide better language skills in speaking and writing.
Purposes of tests differ also. Some reasons to test languages include distinguishing between achievement and proficiency. Achievement tests include end of the course, portfolio and observation assessments. Achievements assessment coincide with their education progress and process. Some strengths in achievement test is that they see the progress from begin, middle and end of the sessions. A caveat to achievement testing is that it may not directly show evidence of language use. Proficiency tests are tests that measure what students are capable of and not as a result of what was taught as in the achievements. The strengths of criterion tests are that it tests the language and communicative abilities. A caveat of criterion testing is the data is not an actual representation of the real life event they may be applying for. An example may be a nurse applying and show casing her communicative abilities to a recorder, but not an ideal hospital situation where she would converse with real patients and staff
What I take from this chapter is that I am aware now of the impacts of language testing as it relates to learners' future. Obviously it is encouraged to test language in the most neutral situations where ELL are not under scrutiny and they feel a sense of comfort, but keep in mind that any test taking situations may not be ideal or practical in real life unless of course it is real life situations. So I am thinking of ways I can address this within my classroom where students are aware they are being assessed but show no indifference to learning and testing, they are completely comfortable and confident. I hope that makes sense!
1 comment:
Well hello, Superwoman! "Wow!" Authentic assessment sounds so much better than the ones with the fill in the bubble test that our IEP test records and use for the state mandated tests. This week my K students are going to get tested with a 20 minute individual session. I am cringing, thinking about the funds of knowledge that is going to waste because the test does not show the whole child, just whether or not they can fill in the "right" bubble. I am interested to see what was the first assessment's purpose and how it was originally set up to help ELL's gain skills in English.
Post a Comment