Types of tests used in English Language Teaching Bachelor Paper

Types of tests used in English Language Teaching Bachelor Paper

University of Latvia

Faculty of Modern Languages

English Department

Types of Tests Used in English Language.

Bachelor Paper

An?elika Ozerova

Riga

2004

Declaration of academic Integrity

I hereby declare that this study is my own and does not contain any

unacknowledged material from any source.

Signed:

12 May, 2004

Abstract.

The present paper attempts to investigate various types of tests and

their application in the language classroom. The theoretical part deals

with the basic data about testing, the comparison of such issues as

assessment and valuation, reasons for testing, types of tests, such as

diagnostic, progress, achievement, placement and proficiency tests; test

formats and ways of testing.

It relates theory to practice by analyzing two proficiency tests:

TOEFL and CFC tests. They are carefully discussed and compared to find

any similarities or differences in their structure and design. The

conclusions drawn are based on the theory and analyses of the tests. The

data obtained indicate that the both tests though being sometimes

different in their purpose, design and structure, are constructed

according to the universally accepted pattern.

Table of Contents

Introduction …………………………………………………........................1

Chapter 1

What is test?……………………………………………………………………3

Chapter 2

2.1 Inaccurate tests……………...…………………………………………….7

2.2 Validity……………………..……………………………………………..8

2.3 Reliability………….. ……………………………………………………11

Chapter 3

3.1 Diagnostic tests………………………………. ………………………….13

3.2 Placement tests…………………………...……………………………….15

3.3 Progress tests……………………………………………...........................17

3.4 Achievement tests………………………..……………………………….18

3.5 Proficiency tests…………………………………………………………..20

Chapter 4

4.1 Direct and Indirect testing…..…………………………………………....22

4.2 Discrete point and integrative testing……………………………………..24

4.3 Criterion-refernced and Norm-referenced testing…………………………25

4.4 Objective and Subjective testing...………………………………………..26

4.5 Communicative language testing…………………………………………26

Chapter 5

5.1 Multiple choice tests………………………………………………………29

5.2 Short answer tests…………………………………………………………32

5.3 The Cloze tests and Gap-filling tests……………………………………..33

5.4 C-Test……………………………………………………………………..35

5.5 True/false items……………………………………………………………36

5.6 Dictation…………………………………………………………………...36

5.7 Listening Recall……………………………………………………………38

5.8 Testing Grammar through Error-recognition Items……………………….38

5.9 Controlled Writing…………………………………………………………39

5.10 Free Writing………………………………………………………………40

5.11 Test Formats Used in Testing Speaking Skills…………………………..41

Chapter 6

Analysis of the Test of English as a Foreign Language and Cambridge

First

Certificate test according to test design criteria………………………………..43

Conclusions…………………………………………………………………...55

Theses. ………………………………………………………..........................57

Bibliography…………………………………………………….......................59

Appendix

Introduction

Among all words used in a classroom there is the only word that

usually makes the students shudder: “test”. There is hardly a person who

would claim that s/he favours tests and finds them very motivating.

However, tests cannot be avoided completely, for they are inevitable

elements of learning process. They are included into curriculum at schools

and are to check the students’ level of knowledge and what they are able to

do; they could be accomplished at the beginning of the study year and at

the end of it; the students could be tested after working on new topics and

acquiring new vocabulary. Moreover, the students are to face the tests in

order to enter any foreign university or reveal the level of their English

language skills for themselves. For that purpose they take specially

designed tests that are Test of English as a Foreign Language, or TOEFL

test (further in the text) and CFC (further in the text), or Cambridge

First Certificate. Although, these tests can sometimes serve for different

purposes and are unrelated, they are sometimes quite common in their design

and structure. Therefore, the author of the paper is particularly

interested in the present research, for she assumes it to be of a great

significance not only for herself, but also for the individuals who are

either involved in the field or just want to learn more about TOEFL and CFC

tests, their structure, design and application. Therefore, the present

research will display various aspects of the theory discussed, accompanied

with the practical part vastly analyzed.

Thus, the goal of the present research is to investigate various types

of test formats and ways of testing, focusing particularly on TOEFL and CFC

tests, in order to see how the theory is used and could be applied in

practice.

The hypothesis is as follows: Serving for almost similar purpose, however

being sometimes different in their design and structure, the TOEFL and CFC

tests are usually constructed according to the accepted universal pattern.

The enabling objectives are as follows:

. To review literature on the nature of tests in order to make

theoretically well-motivated discussions on the choice of testing types;

. To analyse the selected types of tests, such as TOEFL and CFC tests;

. To draw relevant conclusions.

Methods of Research:

Theoretical:

1) Analytical and selective study of the theory available;

2) Juxtaposition of the ideas selected from theory and tested against

practical evidences;

3) Drawing conclusions.

Practical:

. Selecting and adapting appropriate tests types, such as TOEFL and CFC, to

exemplify the theory.

The paper consists of six chapters each including sub-chapters.

Chapter 1 discusses the general data about tests. Chapter 2 describes

reliability and validity. Chapter 3 focuses on various types of tests.

Chapter 4 deals with ways of testing. Chapter 5 speaks on four language

skills. Chapter 6 offers the practical part of the paper.

Chapter 1

What is test?

Hicks (2000:155) considers that the role of tests is very useful and

important, especially in language learning. It is a means to show both the

students and the teacher how much the learners have learnt during a course.

The author of the paper agrees with the statement, for she believes that in

order to see whether the students have acquired the material and are making

constant progress, the teacher will inevitably have to test his/her

learners. It does not mean that a usual test format with a set of

activities will be used all the time. To check the students’ knowledge the

teacher can apply a great range of assessment techniques, including even

the self-evaluation technique that is so beloved and favoured by the

students. Moreover, according to Heaton (1990:6), tests could be used to

display the strength and weaknesses of the teaching process and help the

teacher improve it. They can demonstrate what should be paid more attention

to, should be worked on and practised. Furthermore, the tests results will

display the students their weak points, and if carefully guided by the

teacher, the students will be even able to take any remedial actions.

Thompson (Forum, 2001) believes that students learn more when they

have tests. Here we can both agree and disagree. Certainly, preparing for a

test, the student has to study the material that is supposed to be tested,

but often it does not mean that such type of learning will obligatory lead

to acquisition and full understanding of it. On the opposite, it could

often lead to the pure cramming. That, consequently, will result in a

stressful situation the student will find her/himself before or during the

test, and the final outcome will be a complete deletion of the studied

material. We can base that previous statement on our own experience: when

working at school, the author of the present research had encountered such

examples for many times.

However, very often the tests can facilitate the students’ acquisition

process, i.e.: the students are to be checked the knowledge of the

irregular verbs forms. Being constantly tested by means of a small test,

they can learn them successfully and transfer them to their long-term

memory, as well. Although, according to Thompson tests decrease practice

and instruction time. What he means is that the students are as if limited;

they are exposed to practice of a new material, however, very often the

time implied for it is strictly recommended and observed by a syllabus.

That denotes that there will be certain requirements when to use a test.

Thus, the students find themselves in definite frames that the teacher will

employ. Nevertheless, there could be advantages that tests can offer: they

increase learning, for the students are supposed to study harder during the

preparation time before a test.

Thompson (ibid.) quotes Eggan, who emphasises the idea that the

learners study hard for the classes they are tested thoroughly. Further, he

cites Hilles, who considers that the students want and expect to be tested.

Nonetheless, this statement has been rather generalized. Speaking about the

students at school, we can declare that there is hardly a student who will

truly enjoy tests and their procedure. Usually, what we will see just sore

faces when a test is being mentioned. According to Thompson, the above-

mentioned idea could be applied to the students who want to pass their

final exams or to get a certificate in Test of English as a Foreign

Language (TOEFL) or First Certificate (FCE). Mostly this concerns adults or

the students who have their own special needs, such as going abroad to

study or work. This again supports the idea that motivation factor plays a

significant role in the learning process.

Moreover, too much of testing could be disastrous. It can entirely

change the students’ attitude towards learning the language, especially if

the results are usually dissatisfying and decrease their motivation towards

learning and the subject in general.

Furthermore, as Alderson (1996:212) assumes, we should not forget that

the tests when administered receive less support from the teacher as it is

usually during the exercises in a usual language classroom. The students

have to cope themselves; they cannot rely on the help of the teacher if

they are in doubt. During a usual procedure when doing various activities

the students know they can encounter the teacher’s help if they require it.

They know the teacher is always near and ready to assist, therefore, no one

is afraid to make a mistake and try to take a chance to do the exercises.

However, when writing a test and being left alone to deal with the test

activities, the students panic and forget everything they knew before. The

author of the paper believes that first what the teacher should do is to

teach the students to overcome their fear of tests and secondly, help them

acquire the ability to work independently believing in their own knowledge.

That ability according to Alderson is the main point, “the core meaning” of

the test. The students should be given confidence. Here we can refer to

Heaton (1990:7) who conceives, supported by Hicks, that students’

encouragement is a vital element in language learning. Another question

that may emerge here is how to reach the goal described above, how to

encourage the students. Thus, at this point we can speak about positive

results. In fact, our success motivates us to study further, encourages us

to proceed even if it is rather difficult and we are about to lose

confidence in ourselves. Therefore, we can speak about the tests as a tool

to increase motivation. However, having failed for considerable number of

times, the student would definitely oppose the previous statement. Hence,

we can speak about assessment and evaluation as means for increasing the

students’ motivation.

Concerning Hicks (2000:162), we often perceive these two terms –

evaluating and assessment – as two similar notions, though they are

entirely different. She states that when we assess our students we commonly

are interested in “how and how much our students have learnt”, but when we

evaluate them we are concerned with “how the learning process is

developing”. These both aspects are of great importance for the teacher and

the students and should be correlated in order to make evaluation and

assessment “go hand in hand”. However, very frequently, the teachers assess

the students without taking the aspect of evaluation into account.

According to Hicks, this assessment is typically applied when dealing with

examinations that take place either at the end of the course or school

year. Such assessment is known as achievement test. With the help of these

tests the teacher receives a clear picture of what his/her students have

learnt and which level they are comparing with the rest of the class. The

author of the paper agrees that achievement tests are very essential for

comparing how the students’ knowledge has changed during the course. This

could be of a great interest not only for the teacher, but also for the

authorities of the educational establishment the teacher is employed by.

Thus, evaluation of the learning process is not of the major importance

here. We can speak about evaluation when we deal with “small” tests the

teachers use during the course or studying year. It is a well-known fact

that these tests are employed in order to check how the learning process is

going on, where the students are, what difficulties they encounter and what

they are good at. These tests are also called “diagnostic” tests; they

could be of a great help for the teacher: judging from the results of the

test, analysing them the teacher will be able to improve or alter the

course and even introduce various innovations. These tests will define

whether the teacher can proceed with the new material or has to stop and

return to what has not been learnt sufficiently in order to implement

additional practice.

With respect to Hicks, we can display some of her useful and practical

ideas she proposes for the teachers to use in the classroom. In order to

incorporate evaluation together with assessment she suggests involving the

students directly into the process of testing. Before testing vocabulary

the teacher can ask the students to guess what kind of activities could be

applied in the test. The author of the paper believes that it will give

them an opportunity to visage how they are going to be tested, to be aware

of and wait for, and the most important, it will reduce fear the students

might face. Moreover, at the end of each test the students could be asked

their reflections: if there was a multiple choice, what helped them guess

correctly, what they used for that – their schemata or just pure guessing;

if there was a cloze test - did they use guessing from the context or some

other skills, etc. Furthermore, Hicks emphasises that such analysis will

display the students the way they are tested and establish an appropriate

test for each student. Likewise, evaluation will benefit the teacher as

well. S/he not only will be able to discover the students’ preferences, but

also find out why the students have failed a particular type of activity or

even the whole test. The evaluation will determine what is really wrong

with the structure or design of the test itself. Finally, the students

should be taught to evaluate the results of the test. They should be asked

to spot the places they have failed and together with the teacher attempt

to find out what has particularly caused the difficulties. This will lead

to consolidation of the material and may be even to comprehension of it.

And again the teacher’s role is very essential, for the students alone are

not able to cope with their mistakes. Thus, evaluation is inevitable

element of assessment if the teacher’s aim is to design a test that will

not make the students fail, but on the contrary, anticipate the test’s

results.

To conclude we can add alluding to Alderson (1996:212) that the usual

classroom test should not be too complicated and should not discriminate

between the levels of the students. The test should test what was taught.

The author of the paper has the same opinion, for the students are very

different and the level of their knowledge is different either. It is

inappropriate to design a test of advanced level if among your learners

there are those whose level hardly exceeds lower intermediate.

Above all, the tests should take the learners’ ability to work and

think into account, for each student has his/her own pace, and some

students may fail just because they have not managed to accomplish the

required tasks in time.

Furthermore, Alderson assumes (ibid.) that the instructions of the

test should be unambiguous. The students should clearly see what they are

supposed and asked to do and not to be frustrated during the test.

Otherwise, they will spend more time on asking the teacher to explain what

they are supposed to do, but not on the completing of the tasks themselves.

Finally, according to Heaton (1990:10) and Alderson (1996:214), the teacher

should not give the tasks studied in the classroom for the test. They

explain it by the fact, that when testing we need to learn about the

students’ progress, but not to check what they remember. The author of the

paper concurs the idea and assumes that the one of the aims of the test is

to check whether the students are able to apply their knowledge in various

contexts. If this happens, that means they have acquired the new material.

Chapter 2

Reliability and validity

1. Inaccurate tests

Hughes (1989:2) conceives that one of the reasons why the tests are not

favoured is that they measure not exactly what they have to measure. The

author of the paper supports the idea that it is impossible to evaluate

someone’s true abilities by tests. An individual might be a bright student

possessing a good knowledge of English, but, unfortunately, due to his/her

nervousness may fail the test, or vice versa, the student might have

crammed the tested material without a full comprehension of it. As a

result, during the test s/he is just capable of producing what has been

learnt by tremendous efforts, but not elaboration of the exact actual

knowledge of the student (that, unfortunately, does not exist at all).

Moreover, there could be even more disastrous case when the student has

cheated and used his/her neighbour’s work. Apart from the above-mentioned

there could be other factors that could influence an inadequate completion

of the test (sleepless night, various personal and health problems, etc.)

However, very often the test itself can provoke the failure of the

students to complete it. With the respect to the linguists, such as Hughes

(1989) and Alderson (1996), we are able to state that there are two main

causes of the test being inaccurate:

. Test content and techniques;

. Lack of reliability.

The first one means that the test’s design should response to what is

being tested. First, the test must content the exact material that is to be

tested. Second, the activities, or techniques, used in the test should be

adequate and relevant to what is being tested. This denotes they should not

frustrate the learners, but, on the contrary, facilitate and help the

students write the test successfully.

The next one denotes that one and the same test given at a different time

must score the same points. The results should not be different because of

the shift in time. For example, the test cannot be called reliable if the

score gathered during the first time the test was completed by the students

differs from that administered for the second time, though knowledge of the

learners has not changed at all. Furthermore, reliability can fail due to

the improper design of a test (unclear instructions and questions, etc.)

and due to the ways it is scored. The teacher may evaluate various students

differently taking different aspects into consideration (level of the

students, participation, effort, and even personal preferences.) If there

are two markers, then definitely there will be two different evaluations,

for each marker will possess his/her own criteria of marking and evaluating

one and the same work. For example, let us mention testing speaking skills.

Here one of the makers will probably treat grammar as the most significant

point to be evaluated, whereas the other will emphasise the fluency more.

Sometimes this could lead to the arguments between the makers;

nevertheless, we should never forget that still the main figure we have to

deal with is the student.

2.2. Validity

Now we can come to one of the important aspects of testing – validity.

Concerning Hughes, every test should be reliable as well as valid. Both

notions are very crucial elements of testing. However, according to Moss

(1994) there can be validity without reliability, or sometimes the border

between these two notions can just blur. Although, apart from those

elements, a good test should be efficient as well.

According to Bynom (Forum, 2001), validity deals with what is tested and

degree to which a test measures what is supposed to measure (Longman

Dictionary, LTAL). For example, if we test the students writing skills

giving them a composition test on Ways of Cooking, we cannot denote such

test as valid, for it can be argued that it tests not our abilities to

write, but the knowledge of cooking as a skill. Definitely, it is very

difficult to design a proper test with a good validity, therefore, the

author of the paper believes that it is very essential for the teacher to

know and understand what validity really is.

Regarding Weir (1990:22), there are five types of validity:

. Construct validity;

. Content validity

. Face validity

. Wash back validity;

. Criterion-related validity.

Weir (ibid.) states that construct validity is a theoretical concept that

involves other types of validity. Further, quoting Cronbach (1971), Weird

writes that to construct or plan a test you should research into testee’s

behaviour and mental organisation. It is the ground on which the test is

based; it is the starting point for a constructing of test tasks. In

addition, Weird displays the Kelly’s idea (1978) that test design requires

some theory, even if it is indirect exposure to it. Moreover, being able to

define the theoretical construct at the beginning of the test design, we

will be able to use it when dealing with the results of the test. The

author of the paper assumes that appropriately constructed at the

beginning, the test will not provoke any difficulties in its administration

and scoring later.

Another type of validity is content validity. Weir (ibid.) implies the

idea that content validity and construct one are closely bound and

sometimes even overlap with each other. Speaking about content validity, we

should emphasise that it is inevitable element of a good test. What is

meant is that usually duration of the classes or test time is rather

limited, and if we teach a rather broad topic such as “computers”, we

cannot design a test that would cover all the aspects of the following

topic. Therefore, to check the students’ knowledge we have to choose what

was taught: whether it was a specific vocabulary or various texts connected

with the topic, for it is impossible to test the whole material. The

teacher should not pick up tricky pieces that either were only mentioned

once or were not discussed in the classroom at all, though belonging to the

topic. S/he should not forget that the test is not a punishment or an

opportunity for the teacher to show the students that they are less clever.

Hence, we can state that content validity is closely connected with a

definite item that was taught and is supposed to be tested.

Face validity, according to Weir (ibid.), is not theory or samples

design. It is how the examinees and administration staff see the test:

whether it is construct and content valid or not. This will definitely

include debates and discussions about a test; it will involve the teachers’

cooperation and exchange of their ideas and experience.

Another type of validity to be discussed is wash back validity or

backwash. According to Hughes (1989:1) backwash is the effect of testing on

teaching and learning process. It could be both negative and positive.

Hughes believes that if the test is considered to be a significant element,

then preparation to it will occupy the most of the time and other teaching

and learning activities will be ignored. As the author of the paper is

concerned this is already a habitual situation in the schools of our

country, for our teachers are faced with the centralised exams and

everything they have to do is to prepare their students to them. Thus, the

teacher starts concentrating purely on the material that could be

encountered in the exam papers alluding to the examples taken from the past

exams. Therefore, numerous interesting activities are left behind; the

teachers are concerned just with the result and forget about different

techniques that could be introduced and later used by their students to

make the process of dealing with the exam tasks easier, such as guessing

form the context, applying schemata, etc.

The problem arises here when the objectives of the course done during the

study year differ from the objectives of the test. As a result we will have

a negative backwash, e.g. the students were taught to write a review of a

film, but during the test they are asked to write a letter of complaint.

However, unfortunately, the teacher has not planned and taught that.

Often a negative backwash may be caused by inappropriate test design.

Hughes further in his book speaks about multiple-choice activities that are

designed to check writing skills of the students. The author of the paper

is very confused by that, for it is unimaginable how writing an essay could

be tested with the help of multiple choices. Testing essay the teacher

first of all is interested in the students’ ability to apply their ideas in

writing, how it has been done, what language has been used, whether the

ideas are supported and discussed, etc. At this point multiple-choice

technique is highly inappropriate.

Notwithstanding, according to Hughes apart form negative side of the

backwash there is the positive backwash as well. It could be the creation

of an entirely new course designed especially for the students to make them

pass their final exams. The test given in a form of final exams imposes the

teacher to re-organise the course, choose appropriate books and activities

to achieve the set goal: pass the exam. Further, he emphasises the

importance of partnership between teaching and testing. Teaching should

meet the needs of testing. It could be understand in the following way that

teaching should correspond the demands of the test. However, it is a rather

complicated work, for according to the knowledge of the author of the paper

the teachers in our schools are not supplied with specially designed

materials that could assist them in their preparation the students to the

exams. The teachers are just given vague instructions and are free to act

on their own.

The last type that could be discussed is criterion-related validity. Weir

(1990:22.) assumes that it is connected with test scores link between two

different performances of the same test: either older established test or

future criterion performance. The author of the paper considers that this

type of validity is closely connected with criterion and evaluation the

teacher uses to assess the test. It could mean that the teacher has to work

out definite evaluation system and, moreover, should explain what she finds

important and worth evaluating and why. Usually the teachers design their

own system; often these are points that the students can obtain fulfilling

a certain task. Later the points are gathered and counted for the mark to

be put. Furthermore, the teacher can have a special table with points and

relevant marks. According to our knowledge, the language teachers decide on

the criteria together during a special meeting devoted to that topic, and

later they keep to it for the whole study year. Moreover, the teachers are

supposed to make his/her students acquainted with their evaluation system

for the students to be aware what they are expected to do.

3. Reliability

According to Bynom (Forum, 2001) reliability shows that the test’s

results will be similar and will not change if one and the same test will

be given on various days. The author of the paper is of the same mind with

Bynom and presumes the reliability to be the one of the key elements of a

good test in general. For, as it has been already discussed before, the

essence of reliability is that when the students’ scores for one and the

same test, though given at different periods of time and with a rather

extended interval, will be approximately the same. It will not only display

the idea that the test is well organized, but will denote that the students

have acquired the new material well.

A reliable test, according to Bynom, will contain well-formulated tasks

and not indefinite questions; the student will know what exactly should be

done. The test will always present ready examples at the beginning of each

task to clarify what should be done. The students will not be frustrated

and will know exactly what they are asked to perform. However, judging form

the personal experience, the author of the paper has to admit, that even

such hints may confuse the students; they may fail to understand the

requirements and, consequently, fail to complete the task correctly. This

could be explained by the fact that the students are very often

inattentive, lack patience and try to accomplish the test quickly without

bothering to double check it.

Further, regarding to Heaton (1990:13), who states that the test could be

unreliable if the two different markers mark it, we can add that this

factor should be accepted, as well. For example, one representative of

marking team could be rather lenient and have different demands and

requirements, but the other one could appear to be too strict and would pay

attention to any detail. Thus, we can come to another important factor

influencing the reliability that is marker’s comparison of examinees’

answers. Moreover, we have to admit a rather sad fact but not the

exceptional one that the maker’s personal attitude towards the testee could

impact his/her evaluation. No one has to exclude various home or health

problems the marker can encounter at that moment, as well.

To summarize, we can say that for a good test possessing validity and

reliability is not enough. The test should be practical, or in other words,

efficient. It should be easily understood by the examinee, ease scored and

administered, and, certainly, rather cheap. It should not last for

eternity, for both examiner and examinee could become tired during five

hours non-stop testing process. Moreover, testing the students the teachers

should be aware of the fact that together with checking their knowledge the

test can influence the students negatively. Therefore, the teachers ought

to design such a test that it could encourage the students, but not to make

them reassure in their own abilities. The test should be a friend, not an

enemy. Thus, the issue of validity and reliability is very essential in

creating a good test. The test should measure what it is supposed to

measure, but not the knowledge beyond the students’ abilities. Moreover,

the test will be a true indicator whether the learning process and the

teacher’s work is effective.

Chapter 3

Types of tests

Different scholars (Alderson, 1996; Heaton, 1990; Underhill, 1991) in

their researches ask the similar question – why test, do the teachers

really need them and for what purpose. Further, they all agree that test is

not the teacher’s desire to catch the students unprepared with what they

are not acquainted; it is also not the motivating factor for the students

to study. In fact, the test is a request for information and possibility to

learn what the teachers did not know about their students before. We can

add here that the test is important for the students, too, though they are

unaware of that. The test is supposed to display not only the students’

weak points, but also their strong sides. It could act as an indicator of

progress the student is gradually making learning the language. Moreover,

we can cite the idea of Hughes (1989:5) who emphasises that we can check

the progress, general or specific knowledge of the students, etc. This

claim will directly lead us to the statement that for each of these

purposes there is a special type of testing. According to some scholars

(Thompson, 2001; Hughes, 1989; Alderson, 1996; Heaton, 1990; Underhill,

1991), there are four traditional categories or types of tests: proficiency

tests, achievement tests, diagnostic tests, and placement tests. The author

of the paper, once being a teacher, can claim that she is acquainted with

three of them and has frequently used them in her teaching practice.

In the following sub-chapters we are determined to discuss different

types of tests and if possible to apply our own experience in using them.

3.1. Diagnostic tests

It is wise to start our discussion with that type of testing, for it

is typically the first step each teacher, even non-language teacher, takes

at the beginning of a new school year. In the establishment the author of

the paper was working it was one of the main rules to start a new study

year giving the students a diagnostic test. Every year the administration

of the school had stemmed a special plan where every teacher was supposed

to write when and how they were going to test their students. Moreover, the

teachers were supposed to analyse the diagnostic tests, complete special

documents and provide diagrams with the results of each class or group if a

class was divided. Then, at the end of the study year the teachers were

demanded to compare the results of them with the final, achievement test

(see in Appendix 1). The author of the paper has used this type of test for

several times, but had never gone deep into details how it is constructed,

why and what for. Therefore, the facts listed below were of great value for

her.

Referring to Longman Dictionary of LTAL (106) diagnostic tests is a

test that is meant to display what the student knows and what s/he does not

know. The dictionary gives an example of testing the learners’

pronunciation of English sounds. Moreover, the test can check the students’

knowledge before starting a particular course. Hughes (1989:6) adds that

diagnostic tests are supposed to spot the students’ weak and strong points.

Heaton (1990:13) compares such type of test with a diagnosis of a patient,

and the teacher with a doctor who states the diagnosis. Underhill

(1991:14.) adds that a diagnostic test provides the student with a variety

of language elements, which will help the teacher to determine what the

student knows or does not know. We believe that the teacher will

intentionally include the material that either is presumed to be taught by

a syllabus or could be a starting point for a course without the knowledge

of which the further work is not possible. Thus, we fully agree with the

Heaton’s comparison where he contrasts the test with a patient’s diagnosis.

The diagnostic test displays the teacher a situation of the students’

current knowledge. This is very essential especially when the students

return from their summer holidays (that produces a rather substantial gap

in their knowledge) or if the students start a new course and the teacher

is completely unfamiliar with the level of the group. Hence, the teacher

has to consider carefully about the items s/he is interested in to teach.

This consideration reflects Heaton’s proposal (ibid.), which stipulates

that the teachers should be systematic to design the tasks that are

supposed to illustrate the students’ abilities, and they should know what

exactly they are testing. Moreover, Underhill (ibid.) points out that apart

from the above-mentioned the most essential element of the diagnostic test

is that the students should not feel depressed when the test is completed.

Therefore, very often the teachers do not put any marks for the diagnostic

test and sometimes even do not show the test to the learners if the

students do not ask the teacher to return it. Nevertheless, regarding our

own experience, the learners, especially the young ones, are eager to know

their results and even demand marks for their work. Notwithstanding, it is

up to the teacher whether to inform his/her students with the results or

not; however, the test represents a valuable information mostly for the

teacher and his/her plans for designing a syllabus.

Returning to Hughes (ibid.) we can emphasise his belief that this

type of test is very useful for individual check. It means that this test

could be applicable for checking a definite item; it is not necessary that

it will cover broader topics of the language. However, further Hughes

assumes that this test is rather difficult to design and the size of the

test can be even impractical. It means that if the teacher wants to check

the students’ knowledge of Present simple, s/he will require a great deal

of examples for the students to choose from. It will demand a tiresome work

from the teacher to compose such type of the test, and may even confuse the

learners.

At that point we can allude to our experience in giving a diagnostic

test in Form 5. It was the class the teacher had worked before and knew the

students and their level rather good. However, new learners had joined the

Страницы: 1, 2, 3