Language testing needs revolution<\/p>\n
By Bambang Sugeng<\/p>\n
YOGYAKARTA (JP): When the communicative methodology in
\nlanguage teaching was gaining momentum 20 years ago, one of its
\nproponents reminded the rest of the world that new testing
\ntechniques were needed to be developed to accompany the speeding
\npopularity, growth and application of the communicative
\nmethodology.<\/p>\n
This language-teaching methodologist predicted further that
\nfive years would be needed before new tests and examinations
\nwould become available to fulfill precisely that expectation --
\nthe measurement of communicative proficiency (Morrow, 1979).<\/p>\n
This seems to have proven an over-prediction, at least, in
\nIndonesia.<\/p>\n
Language-teaching practitioners are still struggling to find a
\ntesting mode which will fit in the frame of the communicative
\nmethodology. Efforts have been attempted and a test development
\nis under way. In Yogyakarta, for example, high-school English
\nteachers have been involved in activities to construct batteries
\nof achievement English tests for the three high-school grades
\nbased on the communicative syllabuses. The results are still
\nbeing awaited.<\/p>\n
The slow pace in the development of tests for the
\ncommunicative methodology is due to several reasons.<\/p>\n
First of all, the evolution in language testing does not match
\nthe revolution in language-teaching methods. Quantitatively, for
\nexample, while language-teaching methods have bulged to some 30
\nto 40 in number, Spolsky (Morrow, 1979) could point at only three
\ntypes of language tests. Qualitatively, the revolutionary effects
\nof changes in teaching methods have given great impacts in the
\npractices of language instruction.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, changes in language testing have hardly been felt
\nby language-education practitioners. One can always recall how
\nthe implementation of a direct aural-oral approach in the late
\n1950s and early 1960s swept aside practically everything that
\ncame before, and replaced it with the new practices.<\/p>\n
The same thing happened in the late 1960s and early 1970s,
\nwhen the eclectic method took over.<\/p>\n
And recently, the communicative methodology has rung the bell
\nand occupied language education. Language testing, on the other
\nhand, dragged frantically along these revolutionary changes.<\/p>\n
A second difficulty is inherent of the communicative
\nmethodology itself. To date, there has not been a clear-cut
\nidentification of the so-called communicative proficiency which
\nbecomes the goal of the teaching-learning process.<\/p>\n
In fact, there is a latent debate among theorists concerning
\nlinguistic competence, on one side, and performance, on the
\nother, as the basis for communicative proficiency.<\/p>\n
The former stance considers the mastery of grammatical rules
\nas valid evidence for a learner's communicative proficiency. This
\nmeans that a valid test would be one that measures the abilities
\nof the learner to work out the grammar of the language.<\/p>\n
The latter, however, regards what the learner actually
\nperforms as a measure of the learner's communicative proficiency.
\nIn this stance, how the learner manages to survive in a
\ncommunicative event is the only valid measure for his
\ncommunicative proficiency.<\/p>\n
This controversy alone has given a head-breaking problem in
\nthe development of communicative tests.<\/p>\n
A third difficulty is related to a lack of coordination in
\nlanguage-education planning.<\/p>\n
It has been a fact that the Ministry of Education and Culture,
\nvia its competent division, has done a substantial amount of work
\nin the field of curriculum development but less in the field of
\ninstructional evaluation.<\/p>\n
National and regional projects have been dedicated to the
\nrevision of curricula, development of standard textbooks and
\nprovision of instructional media and facilities. The construction
\nof a form of standard tests for the instructional evaluation has
\nbeen much ignored. This problem is doubled by the fact that there
\nis a scarcity of experts in the field of language-teaching
\nevaluation. However, this is not a local phenomenon, as it has
\nbeen stated above.<\/p>\n
A fourth difficulty lies in the powerful administrative status
\nquo of the management of education affairs. Times and again, the
\nacademic sectors put forward suggestions, most commonly based on
\nempirical research, to the effects of improving language tests to
\nmatch the changes in language-teaching methodologies.<\/p>\n
And, time and again, such suggestions would be halted before
\nthe strong wall of administrative forces. Everybody is aware of
\nthe need for test instruments, which include such tasks as
\nspeaking and writing, only to be told that administering such
\ntests would only disturb the established practices of the
\ndiscrete paper-and-pencil language testing.<\/p>\n
The demand is still there for development of a communicative
\nlanguage test. This demand is justified by the fact that the
\nlearners, as the focus of the language instruction, need one.<\/p>\n
In a more macro measure, communicative language education
\ncannot be regarded as accountable until a good communicative test
\nis devised for its evaluation purposes.<\/p>\n
Efforts have been initiated somewhere within the country to
\ndevelop batteries of communicative language tests. The following
\nsuggestions are proposed with the hope that such efforts shall
\nmeet favorable results.<\/p>\n
First of all, the communicative syllabus needs working out to
\nfix what exactly is meant by communicative proficiency. Competent
\nparties may sit once again at the round table to review the
\ngrammar sector of the syllabus content, which has, up to the
\npresent time, dismayed language teachers and designers alike.<\/p>\n
The \"ban\" on the teaching of grammar should be lifted a little
\nto ease the teachers' fright and hesitation in the teaching-
\nlearning process.<\/p>\n
For a start, for example, Professor Wilkins' minimum adequate
\ngrammar (popularly referred to by the acronym MAG) can be used as
\na framework for communicative English grammar (Wilkins, 1974).<\/p>\n
At any rate, this grammar is a part of the situational-
\nfunctional syllabus which was created 20 years ago to lead the
\nway to a communicative English grammar. This being done, it will
\nbe easier for language-testing experts to formulate a blueprint
\nfor a valid communicative language test.<\/p>\n
Second, the ministry should loosen its grip of control and
\ngive more freedom to local school management to devise language
\ntests which would suit to the communicative needs of local
\nstudents.<\/p>\n
While nationally based examinations can function as a check
\nfor quality and accountability of instruction, local conditions
\nand demands determine relevance.<\/p>\n
For example, it has long been hoped that individual schools
\ndevelop their own entrance tests, complementary to the national
\nexamination, for the purpose of obtaining recruits who will best
\nserve the needs of the local community.<\/p>\n
Third, and in relation to the preceding suggestion, one needs
\nto have the intent and courage to break the administrative status
\nquo of education management by replanning and reworking of the
\nadministering of language tests.<\/p>\n
It should be admitted that the administration of a
\ncommunicative-type test would require a lot of work, time and
\nfunds on the part of the school management which, in its turn,
\nwould disturb the peace of educational administrators. But this
\nis a price, an accountable price, of education innovation. It was
\nhinted at by Kemp two decades ago that education innovation can
\nbe realized where educational practices are not run for the
\nconvenience and comfort of administrators, but are run for the
\nsake and benefit of the learner (Kemp, 1977).<\/p>\n
Finally, lack of test designers needs handling. This does not
\nmean sending people, in or outside the country, to take courses
\nin testing. There are language-education practitioners and
\nteachers throughout the country who are interested in testing and
\nwho would be quite willing to devote their time and expertise to
\nthe development of communicative-language tests.<\/p>\n
With resources and facilities from the department of
\neducation, these colleagues can be asked to do just these things.<\/p>\n
There are also fresh graduates of Strata-2 (master's degree)
\nprograms in research and evaluation who specialize in language
\neducation. These people are invaluable human resources who have
\nthe capabilities of dealing with language-teaching evaluation.<\/p>\n
A revolution, instead of evolution, is needed to enhance the
\ndevelopment of testing and evaluation in English education. Where
\nlanguage education curriculum and methodology have had
\nrevolutionary changes, it is high time language testing underwent
\none.<\/p>\n
Let the Ministry of Education and Culture not only be busy
\nwith curriculum changes, but let it also be busy with testing
\nchanges. Give more opportunities for national and regional
\nprojects to deal with the development of a standard form of
\ncommunicative language tests.<\/p>\n
On concluding one presentation, Professor Morrow did not take
\nthe stance whether the development of communicative tests should
\nbe evolutionary or revolutionary. He did state, however, that
\n\"there is some blood to be spilt yet\". Unless brave steps are
\ntaken, communicative-language testing will still be dragging
\nbehind.<\/p>\n
The writer is a lecturer at the English Education Department
\nof the Yogyakarta Teachers Training Institute, Yogyakarta.<\/p>\n
Window: ...One needs to have the intent and courage to break the
\nadministrative status quo of education management by replanning
\nand reworking of the administering of language tests.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/language-testing-needs-revolution-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}