Language testing needs revolution

By Bambang Sugeng

YOGYAKARTA (JP): When the communicative methodology in language teaching was gaining momentum 20 years ago, one of its proponents reminded the rest of the world that new testing techniques were needed to be developed to accompany the speeding popularity, growth and application of the communicative methodology.

This language-teaching methodologist predicted further that five years would be needed before new tests and examinations would become available to fulfill precisely that expectation -- the measurement of communicative proficiency (Morrow, 1979).

This seems to have proven an over-prediction, at least, in Indonesia.

Language-teaching practitioners are still struggling to find a testing mode which will fit in the frame of the communicative methodology. Efforts have been attempted and a test development is under way. In Yogyakarta, for example, high-school English teachers have been involved in activities to construct batteries of achievement English tests for the three high-school grades based on the communicative syllabuses. The results are still being awaited.

The slow pace in the development of tests for the communicative methodology is due to several reasons.

First of all, the evolution in language testing does not match the revolution in language-teaching methods. Quantitatively, for example, while language-teaching methods have bulged to some 30 to 40 in number, Spolsky (Morrow, 1979) could point at only three types of language tests. Qualitatively, the revolutionary effects of changes in teaching methods have given great impacts in the practices of language instruction.

Meanwhile, changes in language testing have hardly been felt by language-education practitioners. One can always recall how the implementation of a direct aural-oral approach in the late 1950s and early 1960s swept aside practically everything that came before, and replaced it with the new practices.

The same thing happened in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the eclectic method took over.

And recently, the communicative methodology has rung the bell and occupied language education. Language testing, on the other hand, dragged frantically along these revolutionary changes.

A second difficulty is inherent of the communicative methodology itself. To date, there has not been a clear-cut identification of the so-called communicative proficiency which becomes the goal of the teaching-learning process.

In fact, there is a latent debate among theorists concerning linguistic competence, on one side, and performance, on the other, as the basis for communicative proficiency.

The former stance considers the mastery of grammatical rules as valid evidence for a learner's communicative proficiency. This means that a valid test would be one that measures the abilities of the learner to work out the grammar of the language.

The latter, however, regards what the learner actually performs as a measure of the learner's communicative proficiency. In this stance, how the learner manages to survive in a communicative event is the only valid measure for his communicative proficiency.

This controversy alone has given a head-breaking problem in the development of communicative tests.

A third difficulty is related to a lack of coordination in language-education planning.

It has been a fact that the Ministry of Education and Culture, via its competent division, has done a substantial amount of work in the field of curriculum development but less in the field of instructional evaluation.

National and regional projects have been dedicated to the revision of curricula, development of standard textbooks and provision of instructional media and facilities. The construction of a form of standard tests for the instructional evaluation has been much ignored. This problem is doubled by the fact that there is a scarcity of experts in the field of language-teaching evaluation. However, this is not a local phenomenon, as it has been stated above.

A fourth difficulty lies in the powerful administrative status quo of the management of education affairs. Times and again, the academic sectors put forward suggestions, most commonly based on empirical research, to the effects of improving language tests to match the changes in language-teaching methodologies.

And, time and again, such suggestions would be halted before the strong wall of administrative forces. Everybody is aware of the need for test instruments, which include such tasks as speaking and writing, only to be told that administering such tests would only disturb the established practices of the discrete paper-and-pencil language testing.

The demand is still there for development of a communicative language test. This demand is justified by the fact that the learners, as the focus of the language instruction, need one.

In a more macro measure, communicative language education cannot be regarded as accountable until a good communicative test is devised for its evaluation purposes.

Efforts have been initiated somewhere within the country to develop batteries of communicative language tests. The following suggestions are proposed with the hope that such efforts shall meet favorable results.

First of all, the communicative syllabus needs working out to fix what exactly is meant by communicative proficiency. Competent parties may sit once again at the round table to review the grammar sector of the syllabus content, which has, up to the present time, dismayed language teachers and designers alike.

The "ban" on the teaching of grammar should be lifted a little to ease the teachers' fright and hesitation in the teaching- learning process.

For a start, for example, Professor Wilkins' minimum adequate grammar (popularly referred to by the acronym MAG) can be used as a framework for communicative English grammar (Wilkins, 1974).

At any rate, this grammar is a part of the situational- functional syllabus which was created 20 years ago to lead the way to a communicative English grammar. This being done, it will be easier for language-testing experts to formulate a blueprint for a valid communicative language test.

Second, the ministry should loosen its grip of control and give more freedom to local school management to devise language tests which would suit to the communicative needs of local students.

While nationally based examinations can function as a check for quality and accountability of instruction, local conditions and demands determine relevance.

For example, it has long been hoped that individual schools develop their own entrance tests, complementary to the national examination, for the purpose of obtaining recruits who will best serve the needs of the local community.

Third, and in relation to the preceding suggestion, one needs to have the intent and courage to break the administrative status quo of education management by replanning and reworking of the administering of language tests.

It should be admitted that the administration of a communicative-type test would require a lot of work, time and funds on the part of the school management which, in its turn, would disturb the peace of educational administrators. But this is a price, an accountable price, of education innovation. It was hinted at by Kemp two decades ago that education innovation can be realized where educational practices are not run for the convenience and comfort of administrators, but are run for the sake and benefit of the learner (Kemp, 1977).

Finally, lack of test designers needs handling. This does not mean sending people, in or outside the country, to take courses in testing. There are language-education practitioners and teachers throughout the country who are interested in testing and who would be quite willing to devote their time and expertise to the development of communicative-language tests.

With resources and facilities from the department of education, these colleagues can be asked to do just these things.

There are also fresh graduates of Strata-2 (master's degree) programs in research and evaluation who specialize in language education. These people are invaluable human resources who have the capabilities of dealing with language-teaching evaluation.

A revolution, instead of evolution, is needed to enhance the development of testing and evaluation in English education. Where language education curriculum and methodology have had revolutionary changes, it is high time language testing underwent one.

Let the Ministry of Education and Culture not only be busy with curriculum changes, but let it also be busy with testing changes. Give more opportunities for national and regional projects to deal with the development of a standard form of communicative language tests.

On concluding one presentation, Professor Morrow did not take the stance whether the development of communicative tests should be evolutionary or revolutionary. He did state, however, that "there is some blood to be spilt yet". Unless brave steps are taken, communicative-language testing will still be dragging behind.

The writer is a lecturer at the English Education Department of the Yogyakarta Teachers Training Institute, Yogyakarta.

Window: ...One needs to have the intent and courage to break the administrative status quo of education management by replanning and reworking of the administering of language tests.