A. WHAT IS A TEST?
A TEST an in simple terms, is a method of measuring a person’s ability,
knowledge, or performance, in a given domain. Let’s look at the components
of this definition. A test is first, a
method. It is an instruments – a set of techniques,
procedures, or items that requires performance on the part of the test taker. To
qualify as a test, the method that requires must be explicit and structured. : Multiple
– choice question with prescribed correct answers: a writing prompt with a
scoring rubric an oral interview based on a question script and a checklist of
expected responses to be filled in by the administrator.
Second, a test measure. Some test measure general ability, while
others focus on very specific competencies or objectives. A multi – skill
proficiency test determines a general ability level: a quiz on recognizing
correct use of definite articles measure specific knowledge. The way the result
or measurements are communicated may vary. Some test, such as classroom – based
short – answer essay test, may earn the test – taker a letter grade accompanied
by the instructor’s marginal comments.
Next,
a test measures an individual’s ability, knowledge, or performance. Testers need to understand who the test
–takers are. What is their previous experience and background? Is the test appropriately
matched to their abilities? How should test = takers interpret their scores?
A
test measures performance, but the result imply the test – taker ability, or,
to use a concept common in the field of linguistic, competence. Most
language test measure one’s ability to perform language that is, to speak write,
read, or listen to a subset of language. On the other hand, it is not uncommon
to find test designed to subset of language: defining a vocabulary item, reciting,
a grammatical rule, or identifying a rhetorical feature in written discourse.
Performance based test sample the test – takers actual use of language, but
from those sample the test administrator infers general competence. A test of
reading general comprehension, for example, may consist of several short
reading behavior. But from the result of that test, the examiner may infer a
certain level of general reading ability. Finally, a test measures a given domain.
In the proficiency test, even though the actual performance on the test
involves only a sampling of skills, that domain is overall proficiency in a
language – general competence in all skills of a language.
B.
ASSESSMENT AND TEACHING
Assessment is a popular and sometime
misunderstood terms in current educational practice. You might be tempted to
think of testing and assessing as synonymous terms, but they are not. Test are
prepared administrative procedures that occur that occur at identifiable times
in a curriculum when learners muster all their faculties to offer peak performance,
knowing that their responses are being measured and evaluated.
Test
then, are subset of assessment: they are certainly not the only form of
assessment that a teacher can make. Test
can be useful devices, but they are only one among many procedures and task
that teachers can ultimately use to assess students.
But
now, you might be thinking, if you make assessment every time you teach
something in the classroom, does all teaching involve assessment? Are teachers
constantly assessing students with no interaction that is assessment- free?
The
answer depends on your perspective. For optimal learning to take place,
students in the classrooms must have the freedom to experiment, to try out
their own hypothesis about language without feeling that their overall
competence is being .Teaching set up the practice games of language learning
the opportunities for learners to listen. Think, take, set goals, and process
feedback from the “coach” and then recycle through the skill that they are
trying to master. (Of diagram of the relationship among testing, teaching, and
assessment is found in figure 1.1).
At
the same time, during these practice activities, teachers (and tennis coaches)
are indeed observing students’ performance were better than others in the same
learning community? In the ideal classroom, all these observation feed into the
way the teachers provides instruction to each students.
- Informal And Formal Assessment
One way to begin untangling the
lexical conundrum created by distinguishing among tests, assessment, and
teaching is to distinguish between informal and formal assessment. Informal assessment can take a number forms,
starting with incidental, unplanned comments and responses, along with coaching
and other impromptu feedback to the students. Examples include saying “nice job
““good work “! Did you say can or cannot? “I think you mean to say you broke
the glass, not you break the glass, “or putting on same work. Informal
assessment does not stop there. A good deal of a teacher informal assessment is
embedded in classroom tasks designed to elicit performance without recording
result and making fixed judgments about a student’s competence.
Examples
at this end of the continuum are marginal comments on papers, responding to a
draft of an essay, advice about how to better pronounce a word, suggestion for
a strategy for compensating for a reading difficulty, and showing how to modify
a student’s note – taking to better remember the content of a lecture.
On
the other hand, Formal Assessment are
exercise or procedures specifically designed to tap into a store house of
skills and knowledge. They are systematic, planned sampling techniques
constructed to give teacher and student achievement. Is formal assessment the
same as a test? We can say that all tests are formal assessments, but not all formal
assessment is testing. For example you might use a student’s journal or
portfolio of materials as a formal assessment of the attainment of certain
course object but its problematic to call those two procedures “ tests “ . Test
are usually relatively time – constrained (usually spanning a class period or
at most several hours) and draw on a limited sample of behavior.
- Formative and
Summative Assessment
Another useful distinction to bear in mind is the
function of an assessment: How is the procedure to be used? Two functions are
commonly identified in the literature: formative and summative assessment. Most
of our classroom assessment is formative assessment: evaluating students in the
process of “forming” their competencies and skills with the goal of helping
them to continue that growth process. The key to such formation is the delivery
(by the teacher) and internalization (by the student) of appropriate feedback
on performance, with an eye toward the future continuation (or formation) of
learning.
For all practical purposes, virtually all kinds of
informal assessment are (or should be) formative. They have as their primary
focus the ongoing development of the learner’s language. So when you give a
student a comment or a suggestion, or call attention to an error, that feedback
is offered in order to improve the learner’s language ability.
Summative assessment aims to measure, or summarize,
what a student has grasped, and typically occurs at the end of a course or unit
of instruction. A summation of what a student has learned implies looking back
and taking stock of how well that student has accomplished objectives, but does
not necessarily point the way to future progress. Final exams in a course and
general proficiency exams are examples of summative assessment.
One of the problems with prevailing attitudes toward
testing is the view that all tests (quizzes, periodic review tests, midterm
exams, etc.) are summative. At various points in your past educational experiences,
no doubt you’ve considered such tests as summative. You may have thought,
“Whew! I’m glad that’s over. Now I don’t have attitude among your students: Can
you instill a more formative quality to what your students might otherwise view
as a summative test? Can you offer your students an opportunity to convert
teats into “learning experiences”? We will take up that challenge in subsequent
chapters in this book.
- Norm-Referenced
and Criterion-Referenced Tests
Another dichotomy that is important to clarify here
and that aids in sorting out common terminology in assessment is the
distinction between norm-referenced and criterion-referenced testing. In
norm-referenced tests, each test-take’s score is interpreted in relation to a
mean (average score), median (middle score), standard deviation (extent of
variance in scores), and/or percentile rank. The purpose in such tests is to
place test-takers along a mathematical continuum in rank order. Scores are
usually reported back to the test-taker in the form of a numerical score (for
example, 230 out of 300) and a percentile rank (such as 84 percent, which means
that the test-taker’s score was higher than 84 percent of the total number of
test-takers, but lower than 16 percent in that administration). Typical of
norm-referenced tests are standardized tests like the Scholastic Aptitude Test
(SAT) or the test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), intended to be
administered to large audiences, with result efficiently disseminated to
test-takers. Such test must have fixed, predetermined responses in a format
that can be scored quickly at minimum expense. Money and efficiency are primary
concerns in these tests.
Criterion-Referenced tests, on the other hand, are
designed to give test-takers feedback, usually in the form of grades, on
specific course or lesson objectives. Classroom tests involving the students in
only one class, and connected to a curriculum, are typical or criterion-referenced
testing. Here, much time and effort on the part of the teacher (test
administrator) are sometimes required in order to deliver useful, appropriate
feedback to students, or what Oller (1979, p. 52) called “instructional value.”
In a criterion-referenced test, the distribution of students’ scores across a
continuum may be of little concern as long as the instrument assesses
appropriate objectives. In Language Assessment, with an audience of classroom
language teachers and teachers in training, and with its emphasis on
classroom-based assessment (as opposed to standardized, large-scale testing),
criterion-referenced testing is of more prominent interest than norm-referenced
testing.
C.
APPROACHES
TO LANGUAGE TESTING: A BRIEF HISTORY
Now that you have a reasonably clear grasp of some
common assessment terms, we now turn to one of the primary concerns of this
book: the creation and use of tests, particularly classroom tests. A brief
history of language testing over the past half-century will serve as a backdrop
to an understanding of classroom-based testing.
Historically, language-testing trends and practices
have followed the shifting sands of teaching methodology (for a description of
these trends, see Brown, Teaching by Principles [hereinafter TBP], Chapter 2).
For example, in the 1950s, an era of behaviorism and special attention to contrastive
analysis, testing focused on specific language elements such as the phonological,
grammatical, and lexical contrasts between two languages. In the 1970s and
1980s, communicative theories of language brought with them a more integrative
view of testing in which specialists claimed that “the whole of the
communicative event was considerably greater than the sum of its linguistic
elements” (Clark, 1983, p. 432). Today, test designers are still challenged in
their quest for more authentic, valid instruments that simulate real-world iterance.
a.
Discrete Point and Integrative Testing
This
historical perspective underscores two major approaches to language testing
that were debated in the 1970s and early 1980s. These approaches still prevail
today, even if in mutated form: the choice between discrete-point and
integrative testing methods (Holler, 1979). Discrete point tests are constructed
on the assumption that language can be broken down into its component parts and
that those parts can be tested successfully. These components are the skills of
listening, speaking, reading and writing, and various units of language (discrete
points) of phonology/graphology, morphology, lexicon, syntax, and discourse. It
was claimed that an overall language proficiency test, then, should sample all
four skills and as many linguistic discrete points as possible.
Such
an approach a demanded a decontextualization that often confused the test-taker.
So, as the profession emerged into an era of emphasizing communication,
authenticity and context, new approaches were sought. Holler (1979) argued that
language competence is a unified set of interacting abilities that cannot be
tested separately. His claim was that communicative competence is so global and
requires such integration (hence the term "integrative" testing) that
it cannot be captured in additive tests of grammar, reading, vocabulary, and
other discrete points of language. Others (among them Cziko, 1982, and
Savignon, 1982) soon followed in their support for integrative testing.
What
does an integrative test look like? Two types of tests have historically been
claimed to be examples of integrative tests: cloze tests and dictations. A
cloze test is a reading passage (perhaps 150 to 300 words) in which roughly
every sixth or seventh word has been deleted; the test-taker is required to
supply words that fit into those blanks. Holler (1979) claimed that cloze test
results are good measures of overall proficiency. According to the theoretical
constructs underlying this claim, the ability to supply appropriate words in blanks
requires a number of abilities that lie at the heart of competence in a language:
knowledge of vocabulary, grammatical structure, discourse structure, reading
skills and strategies, and an internalized "expectancy" grammar (enabilizing
one to predict an item that will come next in a sequence). It was argued that successful
completion of cloze items taps into all of those abilities, which were said to
be the essence of global language proficiency.
Dictation
is a familiar language-teaching technique that evolved into a testing technique. Essentially, learners listen to a passage of
100 to 150 words read aloud by an administrator (or audiotape) and write what
they hear, using correct spelling. The listening portion usually has three
stages: an oral reading without pauses; an oral reading with long pauses
between every phrase (to give the learner time to write down what is heard);
and a third reading at normal speed to give test-takers a chance to check what
they wrote. (See Chapter 6 for more discussion of dictation as assessment
device)
Supporters
argue that dictation is an integrative test because it taps into grammatical
and discourse competencies required for other modes of performance in language. Success on a dictation requires careful
listening, reproduction in writing of what is heard, and efficient short-term
memory and, to an extent, some expect rules to aid the short-term memory. Further,
dictation test results tend to correlate strongly with other tests of proficiency.
Dictation testing usually classroom-centered since large-scale administration
of dictations quite impractical from scoring standpoint. Reliability of scoring
criteria for dictation tests can be improved by designing multiple-choice or exact-word
cloze test scoring.
Proponents
of integrative test methods soon centered their arguments on what became known
as the unitary trait hypothesis, which suggested an "indivisible" view
of language proficiency: that vocabulary, grammar, phonology, the "four
skills", and other discrete points of language could not be disentangled
from catch other of tasks for at language performance. The unitary trait
hypothesis contended that there that is a general factor of language
proficiency such that all the discrete points do not add up to that whole.
Others
argued strongly against the unitary trait position. In a study of students in
Brazil and the Philippines, Farhady (1982) found significant and widely varying
differences in performance on an ESL proficiency test, depending on subject’s
native country, major field of study, and graduate versus undergraduate status.
For example, Brazilians scored very low in listening comprehension and
relatively high in reading comprehension. Filipinos, whose scores on five of
the six components of the test were considerably higher than Brazilian's
scores, were actually lower than Brazilians in reading comprehension scores. Farhady's
contentions were supported in other research that seriously questioned the
unitary trait hypothesis. Finally, in the face of the evidence, Holler retreated
from his earlier stand and admitted that "the unitary trait hypothesis was
wrong" (1983, p.352).
b.
Communicative language teaching
By
the mid-1980s, the language testing field had abandoned arguments about the
unitary trait hypothesis and had begun to focus on designing communicative
language-testing tasks. Bachman and Palmer (1996, p. 9) include among “fundamental”
principles of language testing the need for a correspondence between language
test performance and language use: “in order for a particular language test to
be useful for its intended purposes, test performance must correspond in
demonstrable ways to language use in non-test situations. The problem that
language assessment experts faced was that tasks tended to be artificial,
contrived, and unlikely to mirror language use in real life. As Weir (1990, p.
6) noted, “Integrative tests such as cloze only tell us about a candidate’s
linguistics competence. They do not tell us anything directly about a student’s
performance ability.”
And
so a quest for authenticity was launched, at test designers centered on
communicative performance. Following Canale and Swain’s (1980) model of
communicative competence, Bachman (1990) proposed a model of language
competence consisting of organizational and pragmatic competence, respectively subdivided
into grammatical and textual components, and into illocutionary and
sociolinguistic components. (Further discussion of both Canale and Swain’s and
Bachman’s models can be found in PLLT). Bachman and Palmer (1996, pp. 70f) also
emphasized the importance of strategic competence (the ability to employ
communicative strategies to compensate for breakdowns as well as to enhance the
rhetorical effect of utterances) in the process of communication. All elements
of the model, especially pragmatic and strategic abilities, needed to be
included in the constructs of language testing and in the actual performance
required of test-takers.
Communicative testing presented challenges to
test designers. Test constructors began to identify the kinds of real-world
tasks that language learners were called upon to perform. It was clear that the
contexts for those tasks were extraordinarily widely varied and that the sampling
of texts for any one assessment procedure needed to be validated by what
language users actually do with language. Weir (1990, p.11) reminded his reader
that “to measure language proficiency … account must now to be taken of: where,
when, how, with whom, and why language is to be used, and on what topics, and
whit what effect”. And the assessment field became more and more concerned with
the authenticity of tasks and the genuineness of texts.
c.
Performance-Based assessment
In
this language course and programs around the world, test designers are now
tackling this new and more student-centered agenda (Alderson, 2001, 2002). Instead
of just offering paper-and-pencil selective response tests of a plethora of
separate items, performance-based assessment of language typically involve oral
production, written production, open-ended responses, integrated performance
(across skill areas), group performance, and other interactive tasks. To be
sure, such assessment is time-consuming and therefore expensive, but those
extra efforts are paying off in the form of more direct testing because
students are assessed as they perform actual or simulated real-world
tasks. In technical terms, higher
content validity is achieved because learners are measured in the process of
performing the targeted linguistic acts.
In
an English language teaching context, performance-based assessment means that
you may have a difficult time distinguishing between formal and informal
assessment. If you rely a little less on
formally structured tests and a little more on evaluation while students are
performing various tasks, you will be taking some steps toward meeting the
goals of performance-based testing
A characteristic of many (but not all)
performance-based language assessments is the presence of interactive
tasks. In such cases, the assessments
involve learners in actually performing the behavior that we want to measure. In interactive tasks, test-takers are
measured in the act of speaking, requesting, responding, or in combining
listening and speaking, and in integrating reading and writing. Paper-and-pencil tests certainly do not
elicit such communicative performance. A
prime example of an interactive language assessment procedure is an oral
interview. The test-taker is required to
listen accurately to someone else and to respond appropriately. If care is
taken in the test design process, language elicited and volunteered by the
student can be personalized and meaningful, and tasks can approach the
authenticity of real life language use.
D.
CURRENT ISSUES IN CLASSROOM TESTING
The
design of communicative, performance-based assessment rubrics continues to challenge
both assessment experts and classroom teachers. Such efforts to improve various
facets of classroom testing are accompanied by some stimulating issues, all of
which are helping to shape our current understanding of effective assessment.
Let's look at three such issues: the
effect of new theories of intelligence on the testing industry; the advent of
what has come to be called "alternative" assessment; and the
increasing popularity of computer-based testing.
a.
New
Views on Intelligence
Intelligence one once viewed strictly as the ability
to perform (a) linguistic and (b) logical mathematical problem solving. This
“IQ” (intelligence quotient) concept of intelligence has permeated the western
world and its way pf testing for almost a century, since “smartness” in general
is measured by timed, discrete-points tests consisting of a hierarchy of
separate items, why shouldn’t every field of study be so measured? For many
years, we have lived in a world of standardized, norm-referenced tests that are
timed in a multiple-choice format consisting of a multiplicity of logic
constrained items, many of which are inauthentic.
However, research on intelligence by psychologist
like Howard Gardner, Robert Sternberg, and Daniel Golemen has begun to turn the
psychometric world upside down. Gardner (1983, 1999), for example, intended the
traditional view of intelligence to seven different components. He accepted the
traditional conceptualizations of linguistic intelligence and logical
mathematical intelligence on which standardized IQ tests are based, but he
included five others “frames of mind” in this theory of multiple intelligence:
·
Spatial
intelligence (the ability to find your way around an environment, to form
mental images of reality)
·
Musical
intelligence (the ability to perceive and create pitch and rhythmic patterns)
·
Bodily-kinesthetic
intelligence (fine motor movement, athletic prowess)
·
Interpersonal intelligence
(the ability to understand others and how they feel, and to interact
effectively with them)
·
Intrapersonal
intelligence (the ability to understand oneself and to develop sense of
self-identify)
Robert Stenberg (1988; 1997) also charted new
territory in intelligence research in recognizing creative thinking and manipulative
strategies as part of intelligence. All “smart” people aren’t necessary adept and
fast, reactive thinking. They may be very innovative in being able to think
beyond the normal limits imposed by existing tests, but they may need a good
deal of processing time to enact this creativity. Other forms of smartness are
found in those who know how to manipulate their environment, namely, other
people, debaters, politicians, successful salespersons, smooth talkers, and con
artists are all smart in their manipulative ability to persuade others to think
their way, vote for them, make a purchase, or do something they might not
otherwise do...
More recently, Daniel Golemen’s (1995) concept
of”IQ” (emotional quotient) has spurred as to underscore the importance of the
emotions in our cognitive processing. Those who manage their emotions –
especially emotions that can be detrimental-tend to be more capable of fully
intelligence processing. Anger, grief, resentment, self-doubt, and other
feelings can easily impair peak performance in everyday tasks as well as
higher-order problem solving.
These new conceptualizations of intelligence have
not been universally accepted by the academic community (see while, 1998, for
example). Nevertheless, their intuitive appeal infused the decade of the 1990s
with a sense of booth freedom and responsibility in our testing agenda. Coupled
with parallel educational reforms at the time (Armstrong, 1994,) they helped to
free us from relying exclusively on timed, discrete-point, analytical tests in
measuring language. We were prodded to cautiously combat the potential tyranny
of “objectivity” and it’s accompanying impersonal approach. But we also assumed
the responsibility for tapping into whole language skills, learning processes,
and the ability to negotiate meaning. Our challenge was to test impersonal,
creative, communicative, interactive skills, and in doing so to place some
trust in our subjectivity and tuition.
b.
Traditional
and “Alternative” Assessment
Implied in some of the earlier descriptions of
performance-based classroom assessment is a trend to supplement traditional
test designs with alternatives that are more authentic in their elicitation of meaningful
communication.
Two caveats need to be stated here. First, the
concepts in table 1.1 represent some overgeneralization and should therefore be
considered with caution. It is difficult, in fact, to draw a clear line of
distinction between what Amstrong (1994) and Ballely (1998) have called
traditional and alternative assessment. Many forms of assessment fail in
between the two, and some combine the best of both.
Second, it is obvious that the table shows a blast
toward alternative assessment and one should not be misled into thinking that everything
one the left-hand side is tainted while the list on the right-hand side offers
salvation to the field of language assessment as Brown and Hudson (1998) aptly
pointed out, the assessment traditions available to us should be valued and
utilized for the function that they provide. At the same time, we might all be
stimulated to look at the right-hand list and ask ourselves if, among those
concepts, there are alternatives to assessment that we can constructively use
in our classroom.
It should be noted here that considerable more time
and higher institutional budgets are required to administer and score
assessment that presuppose more.
Table 1.1. Traditional and alternative assessment
Traditional
Assessment
|
Alternative
Assessment
|
One-shot,
standardized exams
Timed, multiple-choice
format
Decontextualized test
items
Scores-suffice for
feedback
Norm-referenced
scores
Focus on the “right”
answer
Summative.
Oriented to product
Non-interactive
performance
Fosters extrinsic
motivation
|
Continuous Long-Term
assessment
Untimed,
free-response format
Contextualized communicative
tasks
Individualized Feedback
and wash back
Criterion-referenced
scores
Open-ended, creative
answers
Formative.
Oriented to process
Interactive
performance
Fosters intrinsic
motivation
|
c.
Computer-Based
Testing
Recent years have seen a burgeoning of assessment in
which the test-taker performs responses on a computer. Some computer-based
tests (also known as “computer assisted” or” web-based tests) are small-scale
“home-grown” tests available on websites. Others are standardized, large-scale
test in which thousands or even tens of thousands of test-takers are involved.
Students receive prompts (or probes, as they are sometimes referred to) in the
form of spoken or written stimuli from the computerized test and are required
to type (or in some cases, speak) their responses. Almost all computer-based
test items have fixed, closed-ended responses; however, test like the test of
English as a foreign language (TOEFL) offer a written essay section that must
be scored by humans (as opposed to automatic, electronic, or machine scoring).
As this book goes to press, the designers of the TOEFL are on the verge of
offering a spoken English section.
A specific type of computer-based test, a
computer-adaptive test, has been available for many years but has recently
gained momentum. In a computer-adaptive test (CAT), each test-taker receives a
set of questions that meet the test specifications and that are generally
appropriate for his or her performance level. The CAT starts with questions of
moderate difficulty. As test-takers answer each questions, the computer scores
the questions and uses that information, as well as the responses to previous
question, to determine which question will be presented next. As long as
examinees respond correctly, the computer typically selects questions of
greater or equal difficulty. Incorrect answers, however, typically bring
question of lesser or equal difficulty. The computer is programmed to fulfill
the test design as it continuously adjust to find questions of appropriate
difficulty for test-takers at all performance levels. In CATs, the test-taker
sees only one question at a time, and the computer scores each questions before
selecting the next one. As a result, test-takers cannot skip questions, and
once they have entered and confirmed their answers, they cannot return to
questions or to any earlier part of the test.
Computer-based testing, with or without CAT
technology, offers these advantages:
·
Classroom-based
testing
·
Self-directed
testing on various aspects of a language (vocabulary, grammar, discourse, one
or all of the four skills, etc.)
·
Practice for high
stakes standardized tests
·
Some
individualizing, in the case of CATs
·
Large-scale
standardized tests that can be administered easily to thousands of test-takers
at many different stations, then scored electronically for rapid reporting of
results.
Of course, some disadvantages are present in our
current predilection for computerizing testing. Among them:
·
Lack of security
and the possibility of cheating are inherent in classroom-based, unsupervised
computerized tests.
·
Occasional
“home-grown” quizzes that appear on unofficial websites may be mistaken for
validated assessments.
·
The
multiple-choice format preferred for most computer-based tests contains the
usual potential for flawed item design (see chapter 3)
·
Open-ended
responses are less likely to appear because of the need for human scorers, with
all the attendant issue of cost, reliability, and turnaround time.
·
The human
interactive element (especially in oral production) is absent.
More is said about computer-based testing in
subsequent chapters, especially chapter 4, in a discussion of large-scale
standardized testing. In addition, the following website provide further
information and examples of computer-based tests:
Educational Testing Service www.ets.org
Test of English as a Foreign Language www.toefl.org
Test of English for International Communication www.toelc.com
International English Language Testing System www.lelts.org
Dave’s ESL Café (computer quizzes) www.eslcafe.com
Some argue that computer-based testing, pushed to
its ultimate level, might mitigate against recent efforts to return testing, to
its artful form of being tailored by teachers for their classrooms, of being
designed to be performance-based, and of allowing a teacher-student dialogue to
form the basis of assessment. This need not be the case. Computer technology
can be a boon to communicative language testing. Teachers and test-makers of the
future will have access to an ever-increasing range of tools to safeguard
against impersonal, stamped-out formulas for assessment. By using technological
innovations creatively, testers will be able to enhance authenticity, to
increase interactive exchange, and to promote autonomy.
As you read this book, I hope you will do so with an
appreciation for the place of testing in assessment, and with a sense of the
interconnection of assessment and teaching. Assessment is an integral part of
the teaching-learning cycle. In an interactive, communicative curriculum,
assessment is almost constant .tests, which are a subset of assessment, can
provide authenticity, motivation, and feedback to the learner. Tests are
essential components of a successful curriculum and one of several partners in
the learning process. Keep in mind these basic principles:
1.
Periodic
assessments, both formal and informal, can increase motivation by serving as
milestones of student progress.
2.
Appropriate
assessment aid in the reinforcement and retention of information.
3.
Assessment can
confirm areas of strength and pinpoint areas needing further work.
4.
Assessment can
provide a sense of periodic closure to modules within a curriculum.
5.
Assessments can
promote student autonomy by encouraging students’ self-evaluation of their
progress.
6.
Assessments can
spur learners to set goals for themselves.
7.
Assessments can
aid in evaluating teaching effectiveness.
By. 1st Group
Ariani Andespa
Ririn Ariani
Lusy Bebi Hertika
Rivaria Safitri
Tiya Rosalina
Mery Herlina
1. Testing, Assessing, Teaching ~ Lteclass English Department Baturaja University >>>>> Download Now
BalasHapus>>>>> Download Full
1. Testing, Assessing, Teaching ~ Lteclass English Department Baturaja University >>>>> Download LINK
>>>>> Download Now
1. Testing, Assessing, Teaching ~ Lteclass English Department Baturaja University >>>>> Download Full
>>>>> Download LINK