Language testing needs revolution

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.