language assessment and proficiency standards

8/13/2019 Language Assessment and Proficiency Standards

1/3

Language Assessment and Proficiency Standards Chris Khonngam EDUC 6187 1

Language Assessment and Proficiency Standards

I concur with authors Kunan and Grabowski (2013) when they state that without

assessment, teaching would be incomplete (p. 304); and I would add that without an indicator of

student achievement, learningis incomplete. Large-scale assessment and the standards that

underpin them have a special place in assessment in that they set a bar for student achievement

and thus can stimulate motivation. This is especially true for high-stakes exams such as the Test

of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), which is used my many American institutions to

determine English proficiency for university intake purposes (Llosa, 2011, pp. 206-7); and the

Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC), which is used by many multi-lingual

businesses (and some institutions in Asia) to determine English competency in the workplace

(Ibid, p. 207-8). These exams establish a baseline standard of achievement for educational and

workforce institutions that are highly valid and reliable (Kunan & Grabowski, 2013, pp. 311-12).

However, as pointed out by Lorena Llosa (2011), the downside for instruction is less

attention paid to classroom-based assessment which can be more authentic and meaningful

(p. 368). Despite the inclusion of direct measures in large-scale tests for some tasks, such as

reading and writing (Murray & Christison, 2011, p. 206), the majority consist of indirect

measures such as multiple-choice, which are less authentic indicators of proficiency (Ibid, p.

200). Standardized tests are designed to measure competence in a specific target-language use

(TLU) domain as opposed to general-use, which limits their validity (Kunan & Grabowski, 2013,

p. 308). As a result of the limited TLU domain and use of indirect measures, standardized tests

such as TOEFL and TOEIC may be unreliable indicators of real-lifefluency. In addition,

students may place too much reliance on exam-study courses rather than fluency-building

classes. This can result in the unfortunate scenario of learners passing the standardized exams but


2/3


failing to achieve real-world fluency. Therefore, students with proficiency in one register, such

as the workplace, may be deficient in another register, such as in social situations. I believe this

inhibits psychosocial identity integration, a process which can strengthen motivation to learn a

second language (Masgoret & Gardner, 2003) and improve fluency by fostering willingness to

communicate (MacIntyre, Baker, Clement, & Conrad, 2001).

Lorena Llosa (2011) observes that speaking is an interactivemedium that is

collaboratively co-constructed (p. 203), a process that is difficult to measure using primarily

indirect measures. A key factor in conversational English is the ability to negotiate meaning

(Bell, 2009), a context that can only be observed where there are multiple actors. Vygotsky

(1986) famously declared that all learning, but especially language, was a social activity. If

the purpose of assessment is to provide a systematic indication ofabilities with respect to what

has been taught (Kunnan & Grabowski, 2013, p. 304), then it is questionable whether a social

skill can be accurately measured in a non-social context.

Large-scale proficiency tests have an important role in the field of Second Language

Acquisition influencing the establishment and attainment of specific standards. However, they

may not be accurate indicators of real-world ability. This is not a fault of the test developers, but

a misapplication of the exams usefulness by stakeholders, including students themselves.

Evidence claims published by major test developers are usually quite clear regarding the

consistency and applicability of their products (Kunnan & Grabowski, 2013, p. 311).

Unfortunately, the popularity of the exams invites their misuse and application in contexts for

which they were not originally intended. The high-stakes nature of standardized exams ensures

they will continue to receive a disproportionate amount of attention, but the importance

attributed to them needs to be mitigated by a clear appreciation of their inherent limitations.


3/3


References

Bell, N. (2009).A students guide to the MA TESOL.New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kunnan, J. K. & Grabowski, K. (2013). Large-scale second language assessment. In Celce-

Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., & Snow, M. A. (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or

foreign language(304-319). Boston, MA: Heinle, Cengage Learning.

Llosa, L. (2011). Standards-based classroom assessments of English proficiency: A review of the

issues, current developments, and future directions for research.Language Testing, 28(3),

367382.

MacIntyre, P., Baker, S., Clement, R., & Conrad, S. (2001). Willingness to communicate, social

support, and language-learning orientations of immersion students. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 23, 369-388.

Masgoret, A. M., & Gardner, R. C. (2003). Attitudes, Motivation, and Second Language

Learning: A MetaAnalysis of Studies Conducted by Gardner and Associates.Language

Learning, 53(1), 123.

Murray, D. E., & Christison, M. (2011). What English language teachers need to know, Volume

II: Facilitating learning. New York, NY: Routledge.

Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. MIT Press.

language assessment and proficiency standards

Documents