In countries with centralized educational systems national tests are used as primary devices through which changes in the educational system are introduced. This article examines the impact over time of two national tests which have been in operation for a number of years: one in Arabic as a second language (ASL) and one in English as a foreign language (EFL) through questionnaires, interviews and document analysis from a sample of teachers, students and language inspectors. Results showed different washback patterns for the two tests. Slight modifications in the ASL test created no effect in classroom activities, test preparation, or the status and prestige of the subject tested, yet, the inspectors expressed satisfaction and wished to continue the administration of the test as they feared that without the tests proficiency levels would drop. Slight modifications in the EFL test, on the other hand, created major impact in terms of teaching activities, time devoted for test preparation, production of new teaching material, etc. Although negative attitudes were expressed by teachers regarding the quality of the test, they would like it to continue. Inspectors believe that the test creates a meaningful change and is powerful enough to trigger changes without a need to provide training and a new curriculum. The study shows that washback varies over time, owing to many factors such as the status of the language and the uses of the test.
All assessment policies and practices are based on monolingual constructs whereby test‐takers are expected to demonstrate their language proficiency in one language at a time. Thus, the construct underlying these assessment approaches and/or scales (e.g., the CEFR) is of language as a closed and finite system that does not enable other languages to “smuggle in.” This view is in stark contrast to the current understanding of multilingual competencies for which various languages and aspects “bleed” into one another in creative ways as manifested by a growing number of users, especially immigrants, who are born into one language and acquire additional language(s), resulting in multilingual competencies. This is manifested in codeswitching and in the simultaneous use of different language functions (e.g., reading in one and speaking in another in the process of academic functioning). Yet, this multilingual functioning receives no attention in language testing practices. Further, multilingual users who rarely reach language proficiency in each of the languages that is identical to that of their monolingual counterparts are always being compared to them and thus receive lower scores. Consequently, they are penalized for their multilingual competencies, sending a message that multilingual knowledge is a liability. Given the current policies of cultivating multilingualism in schools and societies as expressed in the articles in this special issue, I critique the current monolingual assessment approaches within a political and social context. I argue that these approaches are rooted in nation‐state ideologies that are still attempting to promote national collective agendas of “wishful thinking” and ignore the reality of how languages are being used. This is followed by empirical data pointing to the cost of the continued use of monolingual tests for individual students, especially those who are bilingual, as is the case with immigrants. All of these will lead to initial proposals and examples for the adoption of different types of multilingual testing and assessment policies and practices in various contexts. These approaches, I argue, are more construct valid, as they enable the manifestation of fuller knowledge in integrated ways, thus highlighting the advantages, rather than the problems, that multilingual users possess.
The paper reports on a study which investigated the effect of both texts and question types on test taker's scores on listening comprehension tests. Listening comprehension tests were administered to 150 EFL learners in their last year of secondary school. The listening stimuli consisted of three text types, a newsbroadcast, a lecturette, and a consultative dialogue, varying in the degree of oral features they contained. The consultative dialogue was the most orally-oriented version, followed by the lecturette and followed then by the newsbroadcast which constituted the most literate version of the three text types. Test takers listened to two different versions about the two topics and answered identical questions to enable comparison of performance on the different text types. The questions were classified into global and local types, according to the strategies utilized for text processing. A third category, trivial questions type, referred to items relating to trivial factual details, such as numerical figures and names. Results indicated that different types of texts located at different points on the oral/literate continuum resulted in different test scores, so that the more 'listenable' texts were easier. In terms of the ques tion types, the results showed that subjects performed better on items referring to local cues than on items referring to global cues. This was observed across topics as well as across text types and across students' levels. Trivial questions were seen to affect performance differently. Implications of the results for the selection of texts and tasks on listening comprehension tests are drawn to arrive at highly construct valid listening comprehension tests.
The article describes the strong power of tests and the fact that tests lead to far-reaching and high-stakes decisions and consequences about individuals and groups. Further, there is evidence that tests are often introduced by those in authority as disciplinary tools, often in covert ways for the purpose of manipulating educational systems and for imposing the agendas of those in authority. Yet, such uses of tests as instruments of power violate fundamental values and principles of democratic practices. The article proposes a number of assessment strategies which are based on democratic principles so that society can guard and protect itself from such undemocratic practices. The principles include the need: • for citizens in democratic societies to play a participatory and active role and transfer and share power from elites to and with local bodies; • for those who develop powerful tools to be responsible for their consequences; • to consider voices of diverse and different groups in multicultural societies; and • to protect the rights of citizens from powerful institutions. These lead to assessment practices which are aimed at monitoring and limiting the uses of tests, especially those that have the potential to exclude and discriminate against groups and individuals. Specifically, assessment practices include the need: • to examine the uses of tests through critical language testing (CLT); • to develop assessment models that are based on shared and collaborative models; • to assume a growing responsibility for those who are engaged in test development and use; • to examine the consequences of tests; • to include different voices in assessment, especially in multicultural societies; and • for test-takers to protect and guard their rights from the authority and misuses of tests.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.