Project 3 language assessment
PRINCIPLES OF LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT
PRACTICALITY
An effective test practical this means that it.
is not excessively expensive,
stay within appropriate time constrains,
is relatively easy to administer, and
has a scoring/evaluation procedure that is specific and time efficient.
A test that is prohibitively expensive is impractical. A test of language proficiency that takes a student five hours to complete to impractical it consumes more time (and money) than necessary to accomplish its objective. A test that requires individual one on one proctoring is impractical for of group several hundred test takers and only a handful of examiner. A test that takes a few minutes for a student to take and several hours for an examiner to evaluate is impractical for most classroom situation. A test that can be scored only by computer is impractical if the test takes place a thousand miles away from the nearest computer. The value and quality of a test sometime hinge on such nitty- gritty, practical considerations.
2. RELIABILITY
A reliability test is consistent and dependable. If you give the same test to same student or matched student on to two different occasions, the test should yield similar result.The issue of reliability of a test may best addressed by considering a number of factors hat may contribute to the reliability of test. Consider the following possibilities (adapted from Mousavi, 2002,P.804). fluctuation min the student, in scoring, in test administrations, and in the test itself.
Student Related Reliability
The mom common learner related in reliability is caused by temporary illness, fatigue, a bad day, anxiety, and other physical or psychological factor, which may make an observed score deviate from one true score. Also included in the category as such factors as a test takers test wiseness or strategies for efficient test taking (Mousavi, 2002, p. 804).
Rater Reliability
Human error, subjectivity, and bias may enter into the scoring process. Inter rater reliability occurs when two or more scorers yield inconsistent scores of the same test, possibly for lack of attention to scoring criteria, inexperience, inattention, or even preconceived biases. In the story above about the placement test, the initial scoring plan for the dictations was found to be unreliable that is, the two scorers were not applying the same standards.
Test Administrations reliability
Unreliability may also result from the conditions in which the test is administered. I once witnessed the administrations of a test of aural comprehension in which a tape recorder played items for comprehension, but because of street noise outside the building, student sitting next window could not hear the tape accurately.
Test Reliability
Sometime the nature of the test itself can cause measurement errors. A test is too long, test takers may become fatigued by the time they reach the later items and hastily respond incorrectly.
3. VALIDITY
By far the most complex criterion of an effective test and arguably the most important principle is validity, the extent to which inferences made from assessment result appropriate, meaningful, and useful in terms of the purpose of the assessment (Gronlund, 1998, p. 226). A valid test of reading ability not 20/20 vision, nor previous knowledge in a subject nor some other variable of questionable relevance.
Content Related Evidence
If a test actually samples the subject matter about which conclusions are to be drawn, and if requires the test takers to perform the behavior that is being measured, it can claim content related evidence of validity, often popularly referred to as content validity ( e.g., Mousavi, 2002;Hughers, 2003)
.
Criterion Related Evidence
A second form evidence of the validity of a test may be found in what is called criterion related evidence, also referred to as criterion related validity, or the extent to which the criterion of the test has actually been reached.
Construct Related Evidence
A third kind of evidence that can support validity, but one that does not play as large a role for classroom teachers. Is construct related validity commonly referred to as construct validity. A construct to any theory hypothesis, or model that attempt to explain observed phenomena in ours universe of perceptions. Construct may or may not directly or empirically measured their perception constructs entail date. Proficiency and communicative competence are linguistic constructs; self esteem and motivation are psychological constructs.
Consequential Validity
As well as the above three widely accepted form of evidence that may be introduced to support the validity of an assessment , two others categories may of some interest and utility in your own quest for validating classroom test. Messick ( 1989).,Gronlund (1998), Mcnamara (2000),and Brinley (2001) others, underscore the potential important of the consequences of using assessment.
Face validity
An important facet of consequential validity is the extent to which student view assessment as fair, relevant, and useful for improving learning’ (Gronlud, 1998, p. 201), or what is popularly knows as face validity.
4. AUHTENTICITY
A fourth major principle of language testing is authenticity, a concept that is little slippery to define, especially within the art and science of evaluating and designing test, Bacham and Palmer (1996,p. 23) define authenticity as the degree correspondence of the characteristic of a given language test task to the feature of a target language task,” and then suggest an agenda for identifying those target language tasks and for transforming them into valid test items.
5. WASHBACK
A facet of consequential validity discussed above, is of testing on teaching and learning ( Hugher, 2003, p.1) otherwise know among language testing specialists as washback. In large scale assessment, washback generally refers to the effect the test have on instruction in terms of how student prepare for the test.
REFERENCES
American council on teaching foreign language (ACTFL), for material from ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines: speaking (1986); oral proficiency inventory (OPI):summary HIgblibts.
Blackwell publishers, for material Brown, James Dean & Bailey, Katheleen M. (1984). A categorical instrument for scoring second language writing skill. Language learning 34, 21-42
PRACTICALITY
An effective test practical this means that it.
is not excessively expensive,
stay within appropriate time constrains,
is relatively easy to administer, and
has a scoring/evaluation procedure that is specific and time efficient.
A test that is prohibitively expensive is impractical. A test of language proficiency that takes a student five hours to complete to impractical it consumes more time (and money) than necessary to accomplish its objective. A test that requires individual one on one proctoring is impractical for of group several hundred test takers and only a handful of examiner. A test that takes a few minutes for a student to take and several hours for an examiner to evaluate is impractical for most classroom situation. A test that can be scored only by computer is impractical if the test takes place a thousand miles away from the nearest computer. The value and quality of a test sometime hinge on such nitty- gritty, practical considerations.
2. RELIABILITY
A reliability test is consistent and dependable. If you give the same test to same student or matched student on to two different occasions, the test should yield similar result.The issue of reliability of a test may best addressed by considering a number of factors hat may contribute to the reliability of test. Consider the following possibilities (adapted from Mousavi, 2002,P.804). fluctuation min the student, in scoring, in test administrations, and in the test itself.
Student Related Reliability
The mom common learner related in reliability is caused by temporary illness, fatigue, a bad day, anxiety, and other physical or psychological factor, which may make an observed score deviate from one true score. Also included in the category as such factors as a test takers test wiseness or strategies for efficient test taking (Mousavi, 2002, p. 804).
Rater Reliability
Human error, subjectivity, and bias may enter into the scoring process. Inter rater reliability occurs when two or more scorers yield inconsistent scores of the same test, possibly for lack of attention to scoring criteria, inexperience, inattention, or even preconceived biases. In the story above about the placement test, the initial scoring plan for the dictations was found to be unreliable that is, the two scorers were not applying the same standards.
Test Administrations reliability
Unreliability may also result from the conditions in which the test is administered. I once witnessed the administrations of a test of aural comprehension in which a tape recorder played items for comprehension, but because of street noise outside the building, student sitting next window could not hear the tape accurately.
Test Reliability
Sometime the nature of the test itself can cause measurement errors. A test is too long, test takers may become fatigued by the time they reach the later items and hastily respond incorrectly.
3. VALIDITY
By far the most complex criterion of an effective test and arguably the most important principle is validity, the extent to which inferences made from assessment result appropriate, meaningful, and useful in terms of the purpose of the assessment (Gronlund, 1998, p. 226). A valid test of reading ability not 20/20 vision, nor previous knowledge in a subject nor some other variable of questionable relevance.
Content Related Evidence
If a test actually samples the subject matter about which conclusions are to be drawn, and if requires the test takers to perform the behavior that is being measured, it can claim content related evidence of validity, often popularly referred to as content validity ( e.g., Mousavi, 2002;Hughers, 2003)
.
Criterion Related Evidence
A second form evidence of the validity of a test may be found in what is called criterion related evidence, also referred to as criterion related validity, or the extent to which the criterion of the test has actually been reached.
Construct Related Evidence
A third kind of evidence that can support validity, but one that does not play as large a role for classroom teachers. Is construct related validity commonly referred to as construct validity. A construct to any theory hypothesis, or model that attempt to explain observed phenomena in ours universe of perceptions. Construct may or may not directly or empirically measured their perception constructs entail date. Proficiency and communicative competence are linguistic constructs; self esteem and motivation are psychological constructs.
Consequential Validity
As well as the above three widely accepted form of evidence that may be introduced to support the validity of an assessment , two others categories may of some interest and utility in your own quest for validating classroom test. Messick ( 1989).,Gronlund (1998), Mcnamara (2000),and Brinley (2001) others, underscore the potential important of the consequences of using assessment.
Face validity
An important facet of consequential validity is the extent to which student view assessment as fair, relevant, and useful for improving learning’ (Gronlud, 1998, p. 201), or what is popularly knows as face validity.
4. AUHTENTICITY
A fourth major principle of language testing is authenticity, a concept that is little slippery to define, especially within the art and science of evaluating and designing test, Bacham and Palmer (1996,p. 23) define authenticity as the degree correspondence of the characteristic of a given language test task to the feature of a target language task,” and then suggest an agenda for identifying those target language tasks and for transforming them into valid test items.
5. WASHBACK
A facet of consequential validity discussed above, is of testing on teaching and learning ( Hugher, 2003, p.1) otherwise know among language testing specialists as washback. In large scale assessment, washback generally refers to the effect the test have on instruction in terms of how student prepare for the test.
REFERENCES
American council on teaching foreign language (ACTFL), for material from ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines: speaking (1986); oral proficiency inventory (OPI):summary HIgblibts.
Blackwell publishers, for material Brown, James Dean & Bailey, Katheleen M. (1984). A categorical instrument for scoring second language writing skill. Language learning 34, 21-42
Komentar
Posting Komentar