Measures of Language Proficiency from the
Learner’s Perspective*
For many years, language testers have focused on the theoretical and statistical
dimensions of language testing. However, there is another dimension which has not
received sufficient attention, namely, the people who take these tests.
As early as 1961, Carroll pointed out that the diversity of students’ backgrounds and
their previous preparations would make the task of language testers very demanding.
Probably, because of the complexities involved in this issue, language testers have
virtually ignored a very crucial factor in language testing, one that involves the
characteristics of the test taker.
In this article, some of the theoretical and practical issues in ESL testing will be
examined. More specifically, a) some of the inadequacies of various definitions of
language proficiency with respect to test taker characteristics will be discussed, b)
empirical evidence in support of the relationship between test taker characteristics and
performance on language tests will be provided, and c) guidelines to dealing with test
taker characteristics in language testing will be suggested.
Theoretical Problems
One of the principles of a scientific theory is the generation of hypotheses in which
variables can be defined as clearly as possible. By a scientific theory, I mean a theory
which can be substantiated and validated through empirical investigation. And by a
hypothesis, I mean a tentative statement which predicts the relationship between two
or more variables.
In language testing, various theories, including those of discrete-point (Lado, 1961),
integrative (Carroll, 1961), pragmatic (Oller, 1978), and functional testing (Upshur,
1979; Farhady, 1980a) have been developed, and some have been supported by
research results. These theories have generated numerous hypotheses involving such
variables as the structure of language, instruments, test takers, and so forth. However,
because of inadequate definitions, some of these hypotheses need to be reconsidered
and the variables involved reexamined.
It should be noted that the lack of a scientific theory will weaken the external and/or
internal validity of research and thus the validity of the results obtained from such
research projects. Furthermore, if the hypotheses of the theory are poorly stated, they
will result in poorly defined variables which will also make the interpretation of the
results less defensible.
Language proficiency is one of the most poorly defined concepts in the field of
language testing. Nevertheless, in spite of differing theoretical views as to its
definition, a general issue on which many scholars seem to agree is that the focus of
proficiency tests is on the students’ ability to use language. Proficiency tests are
supposed to be independent of the ways in which language is acquired. Brière (1972)
points out that the parameters of language proficiency are not easy to identify.
Acknowledging the complexities involved in the concept of language proficiency,
Brière states:
The term ‘proficiency’ may be defined as: the degree of competence or the
capability in a given language demonstrated by an individual at a given point
in time independent of a specific textbook, chapter in the hook, or
pedagogical method (1972, p.332).
Such a complicated definition could very well result in vague hypotheses about
language proficiency and language proficiency tests. They could be vague with
respect to unspecified terms such as “competence”, “capability”, “demonstrated”, and
“individual”. The term competence could refer to linguistic, socio-cultural, or other
types of competence. The term capability could refer to the ability of the learner to
recognize, comprehend, or produce language elements (or a combination of them).
Demonstration of knowledge could be in either the written or the oral mode. Finally,
the expression individual could refer to a language learner as listener, speaker, or
both. These concepts should be clarified and their characteristics should be identified
in order to develop explicit hypotheses.
Clark (1972) defines language proficiency as the language learner’s ability
… to use language for real-life purposes without regard to the manner in
which that competence was acquired. Thus, in proficiency testing, the
frame of reference … shifts from the classroom to the actual situation in
which the language is used (p.5).
In this statement, another parameter is added to the function of language proficiency
tests, namely, the use of language in real-life situations. That is, the statement includes
all the complexities of previous definitions in addition to one more general concept, a
‘real-life situation’.
Considering the difficulty of defining language proficiency, it is conceivable that the
development and use of proficiency tests would involve more complex steps than
other types of language tests. This may be one of the factors that have slowed progress
in testing language proficiency. Some scholars believe that language proficiency
testing is the least advanced area in language testing (Clark, 1972). Although it is not
an easy task to account for all aspects of language proficiency, it may be possible to,
at least, clarify some of the ambiguous concepts involved in the definition of
proficiency.
One of the major problems with the definitions above, and others as well, is that none
of them includes test taker characteristics as a potential dimension in language testing.
Theoreticians as well as practitioners have simply assumed that what the learners have
learned and how they have learned it are irrelevant to language proficiency. This is, in
my view, a gross and misleading assumption.
It has been demonstrated that learners from different educational backgrounds have
certain performance profiles which indicate strengths and weaknesses in different
language skills (Farhady, 1978; Hisama, 1977, 1978). Due to the educational policies
in their home countries, students have differing views, conceptions, and perceptions of
language tests as well as language instruction. Most of them differ in their relative
needs for the use of language in their academic and social lives. The seriousness of the
problem was observed twenty years ago by Carroll, who stated:
It is small wonder that a proposed external examination on English
proficiency, designed for the testing of candidates from many countries and
courses, will have to face the fact of profound differences in the kinds of
preparations these candidates will have had (1961, p.314).
Of course, including learner variables in the definition of language proficiency will
entail numerous problems, but they are worth considering. We claim that what the
learner knows and how s/he has learned it can no longer be assumed to be irrelevant to
the definition of language proficiency and that the parameters of language proficiency
should be identified on the basis of learner as well as test characteristics.
There are many variables on which present tests are simply not designed to provide
information. For example, factors such as learners’ experience with test types, their
weak and strong areas in various language skills, their knowledge of how and where
to use language, the objectives of language courses they may be taking, and the
relevance of these objectives to the students’ academic as well as social lives, to name
a few, have not been incorporated into the design of language proficiency testing.
Including each and any of these variables in a theory of language testing will require
careful investigation and detailed examination of the nature of language tests. Testers
should consider what the tests are measuring and what they should be measuring;
what they expect a test to accomplish and what they should expect; which learner
characteristics are included in language testing and which learner characteristics
should be included. In short, the critical issue which deserves serious attention is what
language testing is versus what it should be.
It is important to note that coining terminologies such as general language
proficiency, of which no clear definition exists at this point, will not only make the
problems go unnoticed but also misdirect research in the field. I do not intend to
review the arguments for and against such terminology because they have been
frequently discussed in the literature (Oller, 1976, 1978; Spolsky, 1972, 1978; Clark,
1979; Hinofotis, 1976; Rand, 1972; Vollmer, 1979). What I intend to do is attempt to
define some of the terms and propose research hypotheses which are empirically
testable.
I have argued elsewhere (Farhady, 1980) that language proficiency is not a
unidirectional phenomenon and that learners are not homogeneous in their proficiency
in various language skills. Since the purpose of an instrument is to evaluate an
attribute (which is multi-dimensional in this case) of people (who are heterogeneous
in this case), language tests will have to serve multiple purposes in order to satisfy the
requirements of an adequate information gathering process.
There is ample evidence in the literature which supports the multi-dimensionality of
language behavior and the heterogeneity of test takers’ abilities in different language
skills. Research indicates that there are several factors underlying language
proficiency tests (Oller & Hinofotis, 1980; Farhady, 1980a, b, c, and d; Vollmer,
1980, and many others). These factors could be identified as different skills such as
listening comprehension, reading comprehension, speaking ability, and so forth.
Furthermore, the heterogeneity of the language proficiency of test takers has also been
demonstrated (Hisama, 1977; Farhady, 1978, 1979b). However, the hypothesis that
learner variables are as important as other variables in language testing has not been
fully investigated. Therefore, in the next section recent findings in support of this
hypothesis are presented
المادة المعروضة اعلاه هي مدخل الى المحاضرة المرفوعة بواسطة استاذ(ة) المادة . وقد تبدو لك غير متكاملة . حيث يضع استاذ المادة في بعض الاحيان فقط الجزء الاول من المحاضرة من اجل الاطلاع على ما ستقوم بتحميله لاحقا . في نظام التعليم الالكتروني نوفر هذه الخدمة لكي نبقيك على اطلاع حول محتوى الملف الذي ستقوم بتحميله .
|