The paper consists of five chapters, each of them presenting different aspects of testing language skills. [311288]

Introduction

If you hear the word “test” [anonimizat], pleasant or affirming. The anticipation of a [anonimizat]. Courses of study in every discipline are marked by periodic tests.

It is obvious to all educators that the issue of grading and reporting on student: [anonimizat], more is known at the beginning of the 21st century than ever before about the complexities involved and how certain practices can influence teaching and learning.

The aim of this paper is to identify methods and techniques of testing language skills that can beneficially influence teaching and learning. One of the main goals is to demonstrate that the purposes of measurement and evaluation are positive and are essential to sound educational decision making. Moreover, the practical side is to encourage the design and use of effective techniques in English language testing.

If we visualize teaching/learning as a [anonimizat]. Indeed, we do want to measure our new students’ language level when they start a school year so that we can choose the most appropriate course book and plan our teaching. We do need to weigh how much learning has taken place after teaching a unit, [anonimizat]. [anonimizat]’t our students need to know as accurately as possible where they are with their learning and what they need to do to improve their knowledge?

[anonimizat].

[anonimizat], [anonimizat], and evaluation and lists the reasons of evaluation. Moreover, different types of tests are described. A short history of approaches to testing and qualities of good tests are also presented.

[anonimizat], is divided into two subchapters: Testing receptive skills and Testing productive skills. They discuss the various ways in which we can test the four language skills: listening, reading, writing, and speaking.

[anonimizat], will familiarize you with the characteristics of alternative assessment and with the different alternative ways in which we can test language skills. Besides these, a parallel between traditional and alternative assessment is drawn. This chapter presents the theoretical part applied in the following chapter dealing with another form of alternative assessment.

[anonimizat] – [anonimizat], each of them discussing a different issue: [anonimizat].

The last chapter represents a practice part where my testing site www.enedu.webdah.com and the activities on it are presented.

[anonimizat]/assessment, education, [anonimizat]. Read (2000) points out that computer assisted methodologies are essential for an understanding of vocabulary that is needed to move vocabulary assessment forward. Similarly, Buck (2001) introduces the idea that the future of listening comprehension assessment is presentation of oral language with support of computer-delivered multimedia. Weigle (2002) suggests that the future of writing assessment lies on the computer assisted methods and on the computer scoring of written language. Alderson (2000) discusses the development of computer based tests, as well as the construct of reading online.

All together, the standards of technology lead to an important change in the “fabric of language assessment” (Chapelle&Douglas 2006:1).

1. Formal Assessment – What and why we assess

“Assessment is an integral part of teaching and learning, but it should be subordinate to both.” (Bailey 1999:173).

The terms testing, evaluation, assessment are occasionally used interchangeably, but there are some distinctions that can be made.

Testing is a much-misunderstood word. When people hear it, they normally envisage formal written tests, taken by students working on their own to a time-limit. In fact, a good teacher is “testing” the students all the time, throughout the lessons and throughout the timetable. Whenever he/she checks that a student is understanding, following, making progress, assimilating a new word, pronouncing a correct sound, whenever he informally assesses whether his teaching is being effective, he is testing the students. Thus, a test is a method of measuring a person’s ability, knowledge, or performance in a given domain. It is a prepared administrative procedure that occurs at identifiable times in a curriculum. (Cehan 2003: 15).

Assessment, on the other hand, is an ongoing process that refers to a variety of ways of collecting information on learners’ ability or achievement. It encompasses measurement instruments such as tests, as well as qualitative methods of monitoring and recording student learning such as observation, simulations, or project works. Its purpose is to help teachers to gather as much information as possible about students, language abilities and to do this in such a manner that is appropriate, consistent, and encouraging to learning. (Coombe 2012:2)

Evaluation is a process of collecting, analyzing and interpreting information about teaching and learning in order to make informed decisions that enhance student achievement and the success of educational programmes. It means that evaluation is concerned with the overall language programme. It is a final judgement about a student’s level of performance which has been measured by using different tools. Evaluation refers to the extent to which the teaching/learning objectives stated at the beginning of a school year, term, or lesson have been achieved. This judgement is formally expressed in marks from 1 to 10 in the Romanian system. As opposed to this, assessment is the process which will eventually lead to evaluation. (Cehan 2003:16)

Experience has demonstrated that teachers, even successful and experienced ones, are relatively unsophisticated and careless when it comes to the design, operation, and interpretation of evaluation instruments, and the interpretation and presentation of results.

The principle of formal testing is that the written work that is produced provides a basis for assessment and analysis.

Formal assessments are systematic, preplanned methods of testing students that are used to determine how well students have learned the material that had been taught in the classroom. Other uses of formative assessments include: comparing a student to other students in the classroom, identifying a student’s strengths and weaknesses compared to peers and finding out new information about the student (www.study.com/academy/lesson/formal-assessment-examples-types-quiz.html).

The first stage in the preparation of an evaluation instrument is the setting of appropriate parameters.

As it can be seen in figure 1, the purpose of evaluation is to determine the extent to which a chapter had achieved its stated aims. Another reason is to measure pupils’ reaction and to provide basis for comparison of different approaches, techniques and methods. Moreover, tests enable us to measure progress in a more individualised way, but also to classify, grade students, or provide statistics. They can motivate students to think about their problems and do something about them. Thus, testing has an impact on students’ self- esteem which becomes a factor in determining future learning; more than that it adds variety to students’ learning experience. How assessment of students’ learning is reported back to the pupils affects motivation to learn. Our feedback should focus on how to improve or build on what has been done (task-related feedback) rather than on marks which are formally or informally compared with those of others. Motivation is increased if we explain the purpose of tests and provide task-related feedback.

Figure 1.1 (Dorobat 2007:4)

As shown in figure 2, the next step is to think about what is to be evaluated, when it is to be evaluated, how the evaluation will be carried out, what form it will take, it will be a pen-and paper, computer-based or be conducted orally and whether it seeks to elicit quantitative or qualitative data or both. Among these questions the “why” and the “what” are of major importance. In the real world there will certainly be constraints such as time, space, resources that will operate on these parameters.

Once parameters are defined, we have to clarify valid objects for evaluation and to agree on appropriate methodology. Before administrating a test, we should establish if it is information that is tested or how well information is used for synthesis or analysis and if all skills are tested or only one at a time. It is essential to think if the time/context is specific and to consider such questions as validity, format and administration. Other aspects that must be taken into consideration are the types of assessment (summative, formative), the aimed results and the type of work that is assessed (individual or group work).

What do you really want to assess?

Figure 1.2 (Dorobat 2007:5)

All these will be developed and expanded in the next subchapters which are about types of tests and design of language tests and also in the following chapter where alternative forms of assessment are discussed.

1.1. Types of tests

Different types of test are administrated before, during and at the end of courses. The key is the purpose of the test. Different tests are administrated for different purposes and are used at different stages of the course. As a result, we may use tests to fulfil any of the following aims:

to compare a student’s present performance with his performance at some time in the past. This is a Progress or Achievement test and is based on what has been taught, the test content being based on the objectives of the course. It provides accurate information about individual and group achievement and it is likely to promote a more beneficial backwash effect on teaching (Hughes 1991:11). A progress test does not relate to a particular course book, but to the aim of the syllabus. When linked with self-assessment, feedback can help learners to identify their own problems and to set their own goals in the future.

to find out if a student’s language abilities compare satisfactorily with the minimum requirements for a task demanding a certain level of English. This is a Proficiency test and is based on what the student needs to be able to do with the language to perform a certain task (Cehan 2003:218). It measures global ability in a language and is not developed with reference to some previous course. It shows what students are capable of doing in a foreign language and are usually set by external bodies such as examination boards who are seen as reliable and valid. Some proficiency tests, while claiming to be communicative, often have a large language component such as grammar and vocabulary. This can have a negative washback effect on teaching in terms of examination preparation. Cambridge Examinations (FCE, CAE, CPE), IELTS and American TOEFL are proficiency tests that have a future orientation and are often used by further education bodies, employers and immigration authorities to determine acceptable standards for applicants.

to find out which of the classes or courses available is best suited to learner’s needs. This is a Placement/Entry test and is most often used on entry into a school (Cehan 2003:4). The aim is to produce groups which are homogenous in level that will use teacher’s time most effectively. They show general standard rather than test specific language points and a variety of test activities will give us better results than a single assessment. The subject matter of any reading and listening texts, speaking and writing tasks is usually based on common human experience (www.teachers-corner.co.uk/four-types/of /tests)

to find out what a group of learners’ specific needs are within a class or type of course; what are they good at/weak on?, which skills need more work and what kind of work? etc (Cehan 2003:4) This is a Diagnostic test and one way of looking at this type of test is to consider eliciting errors rather than correct answers or language. It is based both on what the student should know and on what may need to be covered. Diagnostic testing is present in many progress tests for the reason that progress tests identify problem areas.

to see if students have achieved the objectives set out in the syllabus. This is a summative test. While these tests can be used effectively as a way of deciding whether students move on to a higher level, this can be done better at secondary school level by progress tests throughout the year in combination with informal assessment by the teacher. A lot of information gained from a summative test is often wasted because it does not feed back into the learning process. Also, tests at the end of year can put a lot of pressure on both teachers and students. (Brown 2004:6)

A synthesis of the above information can be seen in figure 1.1.1 where all test types are presented.

Figure 1.1.1

Key: closely connected with test content

Sometimes connected with test content

Overall, as the figure above displays, all the tests overlap to a certain extent in terms of content as they all have a similar aim: language and the use of it. But each one has a different relationship to teaching.

1.2. Approaches to testing – design of language tests

Essential to the activities of designing tests and interpreting the test scores is the view of language and language use embodied in the test. The term “design of language tests” refers to those aspects of knowledge or skill possessed by the candidate which are being measured (McNamara 2007:13).

Historically, language testing trends and practices have followed the changes in teaching methodology. In the 1950s, for instance, testing focused on specific language elements such as grammatical and lexical contrasts between two languages. In the 1970s and 1980s, communicative theories of language led to a more integrative view of testing. Today, test designers are still challenged when it comes to finding more authentic, valid instruments that simulate real world interaction (Brown 2004:8).

Research suggests that traditional types of formal test may test a measure of linguistic competence, but they probably do not test general linguistic awareness or communicative competence. Three different approaches to testing can therefore be identified:

discrete item tests – which test individual grammar rules or vocabulary items

integrative tests – which test a more global linguistic awareness (cloze tests, essay writing, etc)

communicative tests – which test a student’s communicative effectiveness in each of the four language skills, and which also test socio – cultural awareness of language choice in a range of contexts (Cehan 2003:219-221).

Discrete item tests are constructed on the assumption that language can be broken down into its component parts and that those parts can be tested individually. These are the skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing and various units of language (discrete items). Brown (2004:8) notes that “an overall language proficiency test should sample all four skills and as many linguistic discrete items as possible”. This practice of testing separate, individual points of knowledge was reinforced by theory and practice within psychometrics, the emerging science of the measurement of cognitive abilities. This could be best achieved through constructing a test consisting of many small items all directed at the same general target. In order to test this, multiple choice questions were most suitable. This period of language testing has been called the “psychometric – structuralist period, but the practices adopted at that time (1950 – 1960) have remained hugely influential.

Within a decade, the necessity of assessing the practical language skills of foreign students wishing to study in the UK and the USA, together with the communicative movement in teaching for tests led to a demand for language tests which involved an integrated performance on the part of the language user” (McNamara 2007:14). Thus, by contrast to the discrete item tests, integrative tests require the students to combine many language elements in the completion of a task. As Hughes (1991:16) mentions, “this may involve writing a composition, completing a cloze passage, taking a dictation or making notes while listening to a lecture”. The new orientation resulted in the development of tests which integrated knowledge of relevant systematic features of language with an understanding of context. The problem was that such integrative tests were expensive, as they were time consuming and difficult to score, requiring trained raters. A solution was offered by John Oller, in the 1970s. He came up with a new view of language, focusing less on knowledge of language and more on the psycholinguistic processing involved in the language use. Further, Oller proposed what came to be known as the unitary competence hypothesis, which means that, performance on a whole range of tests depended on the ability to integrate grammatical, lexical, contextual and pragmatic knowledge in test performance. Such a test is the cloze test, which is a reading passage in which every sixth or seventh word has been deleted and the test taker has to supply words that fit into those blanks (Douglas 2000:9). The cloze became a popular form of test in the 1970s and 1980s and it is still widely used today. But, unfortunately, further work showed that cloze tests, on the whole, seemed mostly to be measuring the same kinds of things as discrete item tests of grammar and vocabulary.

Another type of integrative test is the dictation. It requires careful listening, reproduction in writing of what is heard and efficient short-term memory. Further, dictation test results tend to correlate with other tests of proficiency. A disadvantage of this is that it is quite impractical from a scoring standpoint. Reliability of scoring criteria for dictation tests can be improved by designing multiple choice or exact-word cloze test scoring, all these leading to more objective assessment. (Douglas 2000:9).

Although the terms discrete and integrative are relatively new, in fact, both kinds of testing have long been in existence. Essay writing, dictations, written answers to comprehension passages are all classic examples of integrative testing techniques rejected in the 1960s by the stucturalist approach to language learning, precisely because they tested more than one skill at once. Hence, there came an era of multiple choice, gap-filling, true/false statements etc. The development of discrete item techniques, however, had the advantage of making us all consider more carefully what we were testing. By comparison, early integrative testing appeared to be loose and often ineffective because of a lack of awareness which was involved in the language skill (Cehan 2003:219).

From the 1970s, a new theory of language use has begun to have a significant influence on language teaching and testing. It is the communicative competence theory which focuses on the ability to use language in context, particularly in terms of the social demand of performance. Being competent in a language means more than mastering its rules of grammar.

Communicative tests have two features. Firstly, they are performance tests, requiring that assessment should be carried out when the learner is engaged in an extended act of communication, either receptive or productive, or both. Secondly, they pay attention to the social roles candidates are likely to assume in real world situations. The latter characteristic distinguishes communicative language tests from the integrative testing tradition. The theory of communicative competence focuses on the social functions of language (McNamara 2007:17). Examples of communicative tests are: letter writing, role-play, following instructions, problem-solving or oral interview.

Seven features of communicative tests which follow communicative teaching have been depicted along the years and were mentioned by Richard West in his book Assessing students without tests (2004:14):

Interaction-based: in most cases, language in use is based on an interaction. Even letter writing can be considered a weak form of interaction as it involves an addressee, whose expectations will be taken into account by the writer. These expectations will affect both the content of the message and the way in which it is expressed. A more characteristic form of interaction is represented by face-to-face oral interaction which involves both receptive and productive skills.

Unpredictability: the fact that the development of an interaction is unpredictable is extremely significant for the language user.

Context: any use of language will take place in a context and the language forms which are appropriate will vary in accordance with this context.

Purpose: any communicative situation as a test item has to have a reason and the students should demonstrate their ability to recognize and use it.

Performance: the test should measure the students’ ability to use both their knowledge of language and strategies for dealing with real life conditions such as lapses, misunderstandings caused by distractions, shift of attention and errors.

Authenticity: the language used in the test should replicate the language used in real world because what we need to measure is our students’ ability to perform in realistic language situations.

Behaviour-based: the success or failure in a communicative test should be judged on the basis of outcomes, i.e. students should genuinely produce language or (physically) react to it.

1.3. Qualities of a good test

Assessment is not an end in itself, but a vehicle for educational improvement. Educational values should determine what we choose to assess and how. When questions about educational mission and values are skipped over, assessment threatens to be an exercise in measuring what is easy, rather a process of improving what we really care about. Assessment is most effective when it reflects on understanding of learning as multidimensional, integrated, and revealed in performance over time. It should also reflect that learning is a complex process involving knowledge, values, attitudes and habits of mind that affect both academic success and performance in real life. These can be done by employing a diverse array of methods including those that call for actual performance, using methods that cover time so as to reveal change, growth and increasing degrees of integration.

Assessment works best when the programmes it seeks to improve have clear, explicitly stated purposes. It is a goal-oriented process which compares educational performance with educational purposes and expectations – these being derived from the institution’s mission, from teachers’ intentions in programme and course design, and from knowledge of students’ own goals. That means assessment as a process pushes an institution of learning towards clarity about where to aim and what standards to apply (Dorobat 2007:13).

Another principle of assessment is that it requires attention to outcomes but also to the experiences that lead to those outcomes. Moreover, it can help us understand which students learn best under what conditions. With such knowledge comes the capacity to improve the whole of their learning (students’ experience, curricula, teaching).

Assessing students’ learning is ongoing, not episodic, being a process whose power is cumulative. The teacher should monitor progress towards intended goals in a spirit of intended improvement.

How do we know if a test is effective? When choosing or designing a test we need to be sure that it will do its job properly, whatever its aim (Brown 2004:19). A good test has to have a number of qualities, the most important ones being: reliability, validity, practicality, authenticity and washback.

1.3.1. Test Validity

By far the most complex criterion of an effective test, validity is, according to Gronlund, quoted by Brown (2004:22) “the extent to which inferences made from assessment results are appropriate, meaningful, and useful in terms of the purpose of the assessment”. It refers not only to the degree to which the test actually measures what is intended to measure, but also to the adequacy and appropriateness of the way we interpret and use test scores. A valid test is one in which a testee’s score gives a true reflection on his ability on the trait. Statistical and descriptive means have been used to check validity. Content analysis of tests determines: the language items present in a test (quality, number, whether they are representative samples), the skills, or some aspects of a skill (the reading speed, the variety of text types etc).

Validity is a unique concept which reveals a number of aspects: content validity, criterion-related validity, construct validity and face validity (Hughes 1991:22).

Content validity implies that the test is based on the syllabus (in the case of progress and placement tests) and on the real expectations of the students (in the case of diagnostic tests). Content validity also refers to the way the test items are constructed (i.e. if you want to find out if students can produce a particular structural item, a valid test would not include a multiple choice question since this only tests recognition (Cehan 2003:224). It can be identified observationally if you define the achievement that you are measuring. For example, if you are trying “to assess a person’s ability to speak a second language in a conversational setting, asking the learner to answer paper-and-pencil multiple choice questions requiring grammatical judgements does not achieve content validity. A test that requires the learner to speak within some sort of authentic context does. And if a course has ten objectives but only two are covered in a test, then content validity suffers” (Brown 2004:23).

A second form of evidence of the validity of a test is to be found in the criterion-related validity, or the extent to which the criterion of the test has actually been reached. In the case of teacher-made classroom assessments, criterion-related evidence is best demonstrated through a comparison of results of an assessment with results of some other measure of the same criterion. Criterion-related validity is a concept usually discussed together with those of concurrent validity and predictive validity.

When the test and the criterion are administrated at about the same time, we speak about concurrent validity. To give an example, we suppose that the course objectives call for an oral part of the final achievement test. The student is expected to perform orally a large number of functions. The duration of the test might take 40’ for each student. Because of the great number of students, only ten minutes can be devoted to each of them. Does the test have content validity? In order to check this, a number of students chosen at random are fully tested (40’). The result of this extension becomes the criterion against which the shorter tests will be judged. A high level of agreement between the two tests indicates that the shorter version of the oral component may be considered valid (Dorobat 2007:20). The criterion for concurrent validation might be also considered the teacher’s assessment of his student.

The predictive validity of an assessment becomes important in the case of placement tests, language aptitude tests, and the like. The assessment criterion in such cases is not to measure concurrent ability, but to assess and predict a test-taker’s likelihood of future success (Brown 2004:25).

A third kind of evidence that supports validity, but does not play as large a role for classroom teachers is construct validity. The word “construct” refers to a complex idea formed by combining single ideas. Examples of constructs are the reading ability and the writing ability. Construct validity is central to the appropriate interpretation of test scores and provides the basis for the view of validity as a unitary concept. Construct validation requires both logical analysis and empirical investigation. It also reflects the extent to which the content of a test reflects the current understanding of the skill(s) or sub-skill(s) being used. In his book The Methodology of Evaluation and Testing (2007:18), Dorobat mentions Messik who considers the following types of empirical evidence among the means of construct validation:

the examination of patterns of correlations among item scores and test scores, and between characteristics of items and tests and scores on items and test;

analysis and modelling of the processes underlying test performance;

studies of group differences

studies of changes over time

investigation of the effect of experimental treatment.

Establishing the validity of a test or assessment may include an evaluation of the intended or unintended consequences of a test/s interpretation and use.

Face validity is another important facet of validity and it refers to the extent to which “students view the assessment as fair, relevant, and useful for improving learning”, says Gronlund, quoted by Brown (2004:26). It emphasizes the importance of the client’s reaction to our product. This means designing tests which are clearly connected with what they have done in class. In order to achieve this we should: use a carefully constructed format, include items that are clear and be sure that the tasks are familiar and relate to their course of study. As a conclusion we can say that face validity is a kind of impressionistic reaction on the part of the examinees which increases their motivation and take the test seriously.

1.3.2. Test Reliability

A reliable test is consistent and dependable. If you give the same test to the the same student or matched students on two different occasions, the test should yield similar results”(Brown 2004:19). In other words, if a test is officially important, then it is paramount that the results of the test do not vary even if marked by different people, or by the same person at a different time, or if the same students took the test again under the same conditions. Reliable results are also vital if we want to compare one group with another. This is much easier with written tests than spoken ones. There are a few things that have to be taken into consideration in order to make a test reliable:

make sure that the test is long enough and tests the same things more than one way.

if you can, pilot your test (try it out on a group and note any problems that emerge when administering it).

when it comes to marking, give it to somebody else to mark to see if she/he agrees with your marking (Cehan 2003:223).

However, the issue of reliability of a test may be best addressed by considering a number of factors that may contribute to the unreliability of a test. There a re fluctuations in the student, in scoring, in test administration, and in the test itself.

The most common student-related issue in reliability is caused by temporary illness, anxiety, “bad day” and other physical or psychological factor. Then, human error, subjectivity and bias may affect the scoring process. Rater reliability is common for classroom teachers because of unclear scoring criteria, fatigue or simple carelessness. Unreliability also results from the conditions in which the test is administrated i.e. the CD player plays items for comprehension, but because of the street noise, students sitting next to the windows cannot hear the CD accurately. Other sources of unreliability are: photocopying variations, the amount of light in different parts of the room, variations in temperature and the condition of desks and chairs.

Sometimes the nature of the test itself can cause measurement errors: the test may be too long and students become careless with the last items or there are students who do not perform well on a test with a time limit.

“There will always be some tension between reliability and validity. To be valid a test must provide consistently accurate measurements. It must therefore be reliable. A reliable test, however, may not be valid at all. For example, as a writing test we might require candidates to write down the translation equivalents of 500 words in their own language. This could be a reliable test; but it is unlikely to be a valid test of writing. In our efforts to make tests reliable, we must be warry of reducing their validity” (Hughes 1991:42).

1.3.3. Test Practicality and Authenticity

Practicality is an integral part of the concept of test usefulness and affects many different aspects of an examination. It can be defined as the extent to which an examination is practicable in terms of the resources necessary to produce and administer it in its intended context and use. A practical examination is one that does not place an unreasonable demand on available resources (http://www.cambridgeenglish.org/images/22695-principles-of-good-practice.pdf).

When we write a test we have to be realistic, as well.. It must not take too long to solve or mark, to be too difficult to organize or involve equipment and resources that we do not possess (Brown 2004:19). An effective test is practical. This means it is not excessively expensive, stays within appropriate time constraints, is relatively easy to administer and has scoring/evaluation procedure that is specific and time-efficient. For instance, a test of language proficiency that takes a student several hours to complete is impractical, it consumes time and money. Another situation is when a test takes a few minutes for a student to solve and a longer time for the teacher to score it.

Another major principle of language testing is authenticity. According to Bachman an Palmer mentioned by McNamara (2007:38), authenticity is “the degree of correspondence of the characteristics of a given language test task to the features of a target language task”. In a test, authenticity may be present in the following ways:

the language in the test is as natural as possible

topics are meaningful for the learner

items are contextualized rather than isolated

tasks represent real-world or closely approximate tasks

some thematic organization to items is provides, such as through a storyline or episode

(Brown 2004:28).

The authenticity of test tasks in recent years has increased noticeably. Several decades ago, boring, contrived items were accepted as a necessary component of testing, but now reading passages are selected from real word sources, listening comprehension sections feature natural language with noise, interruptions and hesitations and test items are episodic in that they are sequenced to form meaningful paragraphs or stories.

1.3.4. Washback

Washback is “the effect of testing on teaching and learning” (Hughes 1991:1). It refers to the effects the tests have on instruction in terms of how students prepare for the test. Another form of washback occurs more in the classroom assessment and represents the information that “washes back” to students in the form of useful diagnoses of strengths and weaknesses. Informal assessment is more likely to have positive washback effects because the teacher usually provides interactive feedback. Formal tests can also have positive washback, but they provide no washback if the students receive a simple grade or a single overall numerical score (Brown 2004:29). Finally, washback also implies that students have ready access to you to discuss the feedback you have given.

Tests have the power of influencing over the method and content of language courses. Their backwash effect may be positive or negative. Positive backwash on teaching and learning can be achieved by: testing the skill whose development we want to promote (if we want to develop oral skill, then we should test oral skills), employing direct testing (tests/tasks are as authentic as possible), making testing criterion-referenced (use a series of criterion-referenced tests representing different levels of achievement and allow learners to choose the tests they are able to pass), constructing achievement test on objectives rather than on textbook content and being sure that students understand the test demand. Some examples of negative washback are when teaching is dominated by coaching for the testing session or when the test content and testing techniques differ from the objective of the course.

In an ideal world, our assessment tasks would be practical and reliable with high validity and a beneficial washback effect. In practice, however, this is not so easy to achieve. If we want high reliability, discrete item tests are the most suitable. These tests are also very practical, usually being quick and easy to mark. Such tests, however, have low validity, as doing a multiple choice test, for example, is not a test of real communication (http://www.cal.org/flad/tutorial/impact/5washbackinstruction.html).

As both discrete item and integrative tests have their advantages and disadvantages, the solution is to mix them (integrative tasks for productive skills like writing and speaking and discrete item tasks for receptive skills).

2. Assessing Language Skills

The fact that the four skills are discussed separately does not mean they should be assessed in isolation. Integration of skills is of paramount importance in language learning; likewise, assessment is more authentic and provides more washback when skills are integrated.

All language users perform the acts of listening, speaking, reading and writing. Brown introduces the concepts of performance and observation and highlights the interaction between them. According to him (2004:117) learners “rely on their underlying competence in order to accomplish these performances. When you propose to assess someone’s ability in one or a combination of the four skills, you assess the person’s competence, but you observe the person’s performance. Sometimes the performance does not indicate true competence: a bad night’s rest, illness, an emotional distraction, test anxiety, a memory block, or other student-related reliability factors could affect performance, thereby providing an unreliable measure of actual competence. So, one important principle for assessing a learner’s competence is to consider the fallibility of the results of a single performance, such as that produced in a test. As with any attempt at measurement, it is your obligation as a teacher to triangulate your measurements: consider at least two (or more) performances and/or contexts before drawing a conclusion”. Teachers can do this combining several tests to form an assessment, giving a single test with multiple tasks or by using the alternative forms of assessment (i.e. portfolio, journal, observation, conference, self-assessment). It is a demonstrated fact that multiple measures lead to a more reliable, and valid assessment than a single measure.

The second concept Browns mentions, the observable performance, is one that teachers often forget about. The concept refers to our capacity as teachers „to see or hear the performance of the learner” (Brown 2004:117). What is observable among the four skills can be seen in figure 2.1

Observable performance of the four skills (after Brown)

Figure 2.1

It can be easily noticed that in the case of receptive skills we can observe neither the process of performing nor a product. One can say that we can observe when someone is listening because of his/her body language (frowning, smiling, nodding his/her head), but, in fact, it is not the listening performance that we are noticing, but the result of the listening. The product of listening and reading is not the spoken or the written response, the product is within the structure of the brain. On the other hand, the productive skills of speaking and writing allow us to hear and see the process as it is performed. Writing gives a permanent product in the form of a written piece, while in speaking, unless the speech is recorded, there is no permanent observable product. “the upshot is that all assessment of listening and reading must be made on the basis of observing test-taker’s speaking or writing (or nonverbal response), and not on the listening or reading itself. So, all assessment of receptive performance must be made by inference!” (Brown 2004:118)

The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment, abbreviated in English as CEFR or CEF or CEFRL is a guideline used to describe achievements of learners of foreign languages across Europe. It was set up by the Council of Europe as the main part of the project "Language Learning for European Citizenship" between 1989 and 1996. Its main aim is to provide a method of learning, teaching and assessing which applies to all languages in Europe. In November 2001, a European Union Council Resolution recommended using the CEFR to put together systems of validation of language ability. The six reference levels (see below) are becoming widely accepted as the European standard for grading an individual's language proficiency.

The Common European Framework divides learners into three broad divisions that can be divided into six levels; for each level, it describes what a learner is supposed to be able to do in reading, listening, speaking and writing. These levels are:

Figure 2.2 (www.cambridgeenglish.org)

Different ways of assessing the four skills are discussed in the following subchapters.

2. 1. Assessing Receptive Skills

The receptive skills are listening and reading, because learners do not need to produce language to do these, they receive and understand it. These skills are sometimes known as passive skills. They can be contrasted with the productive or active skills of speaking and writing. When testing receptive skills, the test items should require little writing or no writing at all. The tests should focus mainly on students’ comprehension of the main message, not on details and should be practical (i.e. easy for the teacher to set and mark) (https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/receptive-skills).

2.1.1. Assessing Listening

It may seem odd to tests listening separately from speaking, since the two skills are exercised together in oral interaction. However, there are situations (i.e. listening to the radio, listening to airport announcements, listening to lectures when no speaking is called for (Hughes 1991:134).

As with all effective tests, designing appropriate assessment tasks in listening starts with the specification of objectives. These can be classified in terms of several types of listening performance: recognizing speech sounds and „imprint” them in short-term memory, determining the type of speech (i.e. monologue, dialogue), interpreting the message, retaining relevant information in long-time memory. Each of these stages has a potential assessment objective: comprehending surface structure elements (i.e. phonemes, words, intonation etc), understanding of pragmatic context, determining meaning, developing the gist. According to Brown (2004:120), four types of listening performance can be derived from these stages:

Intensive: listening for perception of the components (phonemes, words, intonation, etc.).

Responsive: listening to short stretch of language (a command, greeting, question, instruction, etc.) in order to make an equally short response.

Selective: processing stretches of discourse such as short monologues in order to scan for certain information. Assessment tasks in selective listening could ask students to listen for names, numbers, directions or certain facts and events.

Extensive: listening to develop a global understanding of spoken language. It ranges from listening to lengthy lectures to listening to a conversation and deriving a comprehensive message. Listening for the main idea is also part of the extensive listening.

There are two types of listening: based on context and discourse variables (face-to-face, remote, live, recorded, with a friend, with a stranger, between social equals, between people of different ages, sexes and status, with or without visual or non-visual cues, surrounded by noise or in a quiet background, over the phone) and based on production and processing variables, the speech being slow or fast, formal or informal, full of hesitation, pauses, repetition, polished or casual, linguistically complex or simple, whispered, clearly articulated and native or non-native (Buck 2001:187).

When discussing about performance of listening comprehension, two lists of micro- and macroskills are implied. The micro skills attend to smaller chunks of language and macroskills focus on the larger elements involved in a top-down approach to a listening task. Both types of skills are useful in specifying objectives for learning and force teachers to identify specific assessment objectives.

Microskills may include:

Discrimination among the sounds of English

Recognize sound patterns, rhythmic structures, intonation and their role in signalling information

Recognize forms of words, grammatical word classes, tense and agreement, patterns, rules, communicative functions, reduced forms of words

Infer situations, participants

Infer links and connections between events, deduce cause and effects

Detect main idea supporting new information

Process speech containing pauses, errors, corrections and other performance variables

Retain chunks of language of different lengths in short-tem memory

Macroskills include:

Recognize the communicative functions of utterances, according to participants, situations and goals

Infer situations, participants, goals using real-world knowledge

Infer links and connections between events, deduce causes and effects, and detect main idea, supporting idea, new/given information, generalization and exemplification

Distinguish between literal and implied meaning

Use body language to decipher meaning

Develop and use listening strategies such as detecting key words, guessing the meaning of words from context (Brown 2004:121)

Once objectives are determined, the next step is to design the tasks, including making decisions about how performance will be elicited and how students are expected to perform.

Teachers may want to know permanently if their students comprehend. They can do that if they learn to “read” their pupils’ faces and gestures and listen to the overall communicability of their responses (i.e. whispering, restlessness might mean that the input is too difficult). Correction is part of the evaluation process, but on the whole, listening does not require correction; you can make mistakes in hearing, but most of these mistakes are self-evident. In principle, listening is an easy skill to measure; in practice, objective testing requires high-quality sound, and special testing materials. In his book The Methodology of Testing and Evaluation (2007:103), Dorobat refers to R. Lund who “identifies eight ways in which we can check listeners’ comprehension:

Doing – the testee responds physically to a command

Choosing – the testee selects from alternatives or pictures, objects, tests

Transferring – the testee draws a picture of what is heard

Answering – the testee answers questions about a message

Extending – the testee provides an ending to a story heard

Duplication – the testee translates the message into the native language or repeats it verbally

Modeling – the testee may order, for example, a meal after listening to a model order

Conversing – the testee engages in a conversation that indicates appropriate processing information”

All these can be done through multiple procedures.

Teacher talk The most useful listening experience is when the teacher is saying something real and students are responding (i.e. “Listen to this story about…, Today we are going to talk about…”).

Total Physical Response Give the following commands: “Sit down”, “Pick up a pencil and a piece of paper” etc.

Imaginary movement Say the following sentences and ask students to act them out: ‘You push the door open slowly and quietly. You put your head through and you look around.”

Non-verbal and short response Follow the movement on the map. “Begin at … go out the front door and turn left … walk along … cross the street … where are you now?”

True or false Say true or false after you hear the following sentences “The journey lasted two weeks.”

Definitions “It lives in the ocean, breathes air, is smaller than a whale, and likes to jump in and out of the water playfully. Answer?”

Unnamed biography Describe a famous person. After you finish ask who the person is.

Connected discourse Use stories of all types; select those appropriate for the age and level of the class. You can also use pictures and general story line.

Dialogues Take both sides of this dialogue, shifting posture, tone of voice, and identify which of the two characters is speaking (Dorobat 2007:105).

Individual responses In one-to –one setting you can talk about pictures and can have the student point, you can make reports and see if the learner can follow them, or if the level is high enough, you can have conversational interchanges and see if the learner can respond to what you are saying.

Auditory scanning (i.e. listen for detail/specific information). You must give the questions in advance and tell students that they will only hear the selection once.

True – false Provide a series of statements that must be comprehended for their general meanings. They are clearly true or false; the students mark a standard answer sheet.

Pictures You say something about one of the group 4 or 5 pictures, then the student picks the one you referred to and works the answer sheet.

Multiple choice You can make statements, ask questions, or have short conversations. The test contains 3 or 4 choices which the students read and pick the one most related to what they hear.

Completion multiple choice Students choose the best way of completing the lines of a conversation from among 3 or 6 choices and mark them on their answer sheets.

Oral cloze Students see a passage that has blanks. As they listen the second time, they fill in the blanks

Note taking Learners take notes during the talk. After the talk is finished they see the questions they have to answer.

Dictation This is a specialized, but useful listening activity which requires writing as well. It is an integrative test that requires some sophistication in the language in order to process and write down all segments correctly (Buck 2001:73). When using dictation, a comprehensible and writeable passage must be chosen. It should be read three times: first, at normal speed, then with long pauses between phrases during which time students write down what they have just heard, and finally, at normal speed once more so that they ca check their work. “The difficulty of a dictation task varies with the length of the word groups, the length of the pauses, the speed at which the text is read, and the complexity of the discourse, grammar and vocabulary used in the passage” (Brown:2004:131). The more plausible and realistic the content of the text to be dictated, the more acceptable it is. The written version of dictation can take the form of a full text or just notes, which, of course, should include relevant information from the dictated message.

Scoring is another matter. Teachers should decide on scoring criteria for several possible kinds of errors:

spelling error only, but the word appears to have been heard correctly

spelling and/or obvious misrepresentation of a word

grammatical error

skipped word or phrase

permutation of words

additional word not in the original

replacement of a word with an appropriate synonym

Specialists disagree almost more than they agree on the importance of the above characteristics. They do agree that dictation is not a spelling test and that the first item in the list above should not be considered an error, and suggest that point systems be kept simple (for maintaining practicality and reliability) and that a deductible scoring method, in which points are subtracted from a hypothetical total, is usually effective Buck 2001:75).

When it comes to scoring listening tests, we have to know that tests may be classified into non-productive exercises (only listening is involved) – scoring is objective and productive exercises (integrated with other skulls like speaking or writing) – scoring is subjective.

In the next table there is a check list of listening types that may be used in formal and informal testing.

Figure 2.1.1.1 (Dorobat 2007:107)

2. 1.2. Assessing Reading

Reading is one of the skills which is widely developed in the classroom teaching/learning, but almost ignored when it comes to be tested. Given its importance in a person’s everyday life, testing reading skill should be given an equal place to that of other skills like speaking or writing. Testing reading is not, as in the case of testing listening, a test of writing, so writing should be kept to a minimum and it will not be marked (Cehan 2003:230).

In foreign language learning, reading is a skill that teachers simply expect learners to acquire. “Reading, arguably the most essential skill for success in all educational contexts, remains a skill of paramount importance as we create assessments of general language ability” (Brown 2004:185).

The genres of reading can be classified into three main categories, each of them having its governing rules and conventions which readers must be able to anticipate in order to process the meaning efficiently.

Academic reading which includes: general interest articles (in magazines, newspapers), technical reports (i.e. lab reports), professional journals, reference materials journals), textbooks, essays, papers, test directions, editorials and opinion writing.

Job-related reading which consists of messages, letters/emails, memos, reports (i.e. job evaluations, project reports), schedules, labels, signs, announcements, forms, applications, questionnaires, financial documents (i.e. bills, invoices), manuals, directions.

Personal reading which refers to newspapers and magazines, letters, emails, greeting cards, invitations, messages, notes, lists, schedules (train, bus, plane), recipes, menus, maps, calendars, advertisements, novels, short stories, drama, poetry, jokes, financial documents (i.e. checks, tax forms, loan applications), forms, questionnaires, medical reports, immigration documents, comic strips, cartoons (Alderson 2000: 98).

The content validity of an assessment procedure is determined by the genre of a text. For example, if learners in a programme of English for tourism have been learning how to deal with customers needing to arrange bus tours, then assessment should include maps, guidebooks, calendars.

Aside from attending the genres of text, the skills necessary to accomplish reading are of crucial importance in the assessment of reading ability. The macro- and microskills bellow represent the possible objectives in the assessment of reading comprehension.

Macroskills include:

Recognize the rhetorical forms of written discourse and their significance for interpretation

Recognize the communicative functions of written texts, according to form and purpose

Infer context that is implicit

From described events and ideas, infer connections between events, deduce causes and effects and detect such relations as main idea, supporting idea, new information, given information, generalization and exemplification

Develop and use reading strategies such as scanning, skimming, guess the meaning of the words from the context

Distinguish between literal and implied meaning

Detect culturally specific references and interpret them in a context of the appropriate cultural environment

Microskills include:

Discriminate among the graphemes and orthographic patterns of English

Send chunks of language at different length in short-term memory

Process writing at an efficient rate of speed

Recognize and interpret word order patterns and their significance

Recognize grammatical word classes, patterns, rules, elliptical forms

Recognize that a particular meaning may be expressed in different grammatical forms (Brown 2004:187-188)

In order to achieve comprehension of written texts, it may be important to follow some strategies as: identify your purpose in reading a text, use lexical analysis (prefixes, roots, suffixes, etc.) to determine meaning, guess at meaning (of words, idioms, collocations, etc.) when you are not certain, skim the text for gist and for main ideas, scan the text for specific information, use silent reading techniques for rapid processing, use marginal notes, outlines, charts for understanding and retaining information (Alderson 2000:204).

For considering assessment procedures, four types of reading performance are identified and these will serve as organizers of various assessment tasks:

Perceptive reading tasks which involve attending to the components of larger stretches of discourse: letters, words punctuation, and other graphemic symbols; bottom-up processing is involved.

Selective reading tasks. In order to ascertain one’s reading recognition of lexical, grammatical or discourse features, certain tasks are used: picture-cued tasks, matching true/false, multiple choice, etc. There are included stimuli as sentences, brief paragraphs, simple charts and graphs and brief responses are intended as well. A combination of bottom-up and top-down processing may be used.

Interactive reading tasks include stretches of language of several paragraphs in which the reader must interact with the text. Thus, reading becomes a process of negotiating meaning. Such genres are: anecdotes, short narratives and descriptions, excerpts from longer texts, questionnaire, memos, announcements, directions, recipes. The focus is to identify relevant features (lexical, symbolic, grammatical and discourse) within texts of moderately short length with the objective to retain information that is processed. Top-down processing is used, although some instances of bottom-up performance may be necessary.

Extensive reading applies to texts more than a page, also including professional articles, essays, technical reports, short stories and books. The purpose is to tap into a learner’s global understanding of a text. Top-down processing is assumed. (Hughes 1991:117)

In the next table there is a check list of reading types that may be used testing reading.

Figure 2.1.2.1

Marking reading texts is objective and generally one point is awarded for each correct answer. For more complex test items such as gapped texts with sentences missing two points for each correct answer can be given. In a reading test, as in one of listening, grammar, spelling or punctuation errors “should not be penalized, provided that it is clear that the candidate has successfully performed the reading task which the item set” (Hughes 1991:131).

2.2. Assessing productive skills

The productive skills are speaking and writing. They are called like this because students need to produce language. They are also known as active skills. They can be compared with the receptive skills of listening and reading {ttps://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/productive-skills).

In general, the assessment of productive skills poses more problems than the assessment of receptive skills because it is more difficult to control responses in productive tasks.

2.2.1. Assessing writing

Writing appears to be the most complex, and the most variable of all skills. It is also the means through which assessment and testing of learning regularly takes place. Apart from these, it is the major way of recording, assimilating and reformulating knowledge, and of developing and working through his/her own ideas, as well as a means of creativity and self-expression (Dorobat 2007:122).

It follows logically that writing is not a simple task and as you consider assessing students’ writing ability, we must establish our objectives clearly and know exactly what we want to test. Do we want our students to merely produce a written sample of language for evaluation or to produce an effective piece of written communication that is similar to the real world communication? If we teach writing for communication, then we should test it in the same way.

When writing in real life we have to be aware of a number of aspects of our writing in order to make it communicatively effective. In this respect we should establish the principal characteristics of the final text: the purpose of our writing, the person to whom we are writing and the relationship between us which will dictate the register we are going to use, relevant content information and the format of our writing (i.e. letter, report, proposal, etc.).

As in the case of the other skills, there is a multiplicity of options of written genres that a second language learner need to acquire. They are mentioned by Brown (2004:219) under the following classification:

Academic writing – papers and general subject reports, technical reports, theses, dissertations, essays, compositions, academically focused journals, short-answer test responses

Job-related writing – letters, emails, messages, memos, job evaluations, project reports, schedules, labels, signs, advertisements, announcements, manuals

Personal writing – letters, emails, greeting cards, invitations, messages, notes, shopping lists, reminders, financial documents (i.e. checks, tax forms, loan applications), forms, questionnaires, medical reports, immigration documents, diaries, personal journals, short stories, poetry.

The test items should be built in such a way that they replicate real life situations in classroom settings. They must be as authentic as possible and allow the students to use their imagination. In this way it will be impossible for students to produce identical pieces of writing if the task is realistic and creative.

There are several types of writing performance which resemble the categories defined for the other skills, but which reflect the uniqueness of the skill area. They were mentioned by Weigle (2002:112) under the following classification:

Controlled/intensive writing tasks They refer to producing appropriate vocabulary within a context, collocations, idioms and correct grammatical features up to the length of a sentence. Most assessment tasks focus on form and are controlled by the test design. Such examples are: close tests, error correction, and proof reading/editing.

Guided writing tasks/ responsive At this level students must be able to connect sentences into a paragraph and create a logically connected sequence of several paragraphs. It includes brief narratives and descriptions, short reports, summaries, brief responses to reading and interpretations of charts and graphs. Some form of freedom of choice among alternatives forms of expression of ideas is implied. Learners are focused on the discourse conventions of content and meaning that will achieve the objectives of the written text.

Free/extensive writing tasks Free writing supposes successful management of all the processes and strategies of writing for all purposes, up to the length of an essay, research project report or term paper. Students focus on achieving purpose, organizing and developing ideas logically demonstrating syntactic and lexical variety. Free writing tasks include: opinion/for-and-against essays, writing to given topic and free compositions (narratives, descriptions).

Turning to a taxonomy of macro and microskill, it can be noticed that macroskills apply more to guided and free writing tasks and microskills to controlled writing tasks.

Macro and microskills as defined by Brown (2004:221) are:

Macroskills:

Use the rhetorical forms and conventions of written discourse

Accomplish the communicative functions of written texts according to form and purpose

Establish links and connections between events and communicate such relations as main idea, supporting idea, new information, given information, generalization and exemplification

Discriminate between literal and implied meaning when writing

Correctly convey culturally specific references in the context of the written text

Develop and use writing strategies such as using prewriting devices, writing with fluency in the first drafts, using paraphrases and synonyms, asking for teacher’s feedback for revising and editing.

Microskills include:

Produce writing at an efficient rate of speed to suit the purpose

Produce an acceptable core of words and use appropriate word order patterns

Use grammatical systems, patterns and rules correctly (i.e. tense, agreement, pluralization)

Express a particular meaning in different grammatical forms

A checklist of writing types that may be used in testing writing is found in figure 2.2.1.1

Figure 2.2.1.1

In order to have valid, reliable and practical writing tests we must be careful about some technical details that must be taken into consideration:

Be clear what tasks students should be able to perform. These tasks should be chosen among those worked in class in terms of text types, topic and function.

If want to give them a choice of tasks, two or three are enough and they should be equally difficult.

Some restrictions need to be imposed on students. Some restrictions refer to space (number of words and lines) while others refer to providing clear requirements for performing the tasks in the form of offering them notes or pictures to refer to.

Test only writing ability and not how intelligent, creative or imaginative our students are (Cehan 2003:240).

Scoring methods of the writing skill include three major approaches which are commonly used by test designers: holistic, primary trait and analytical. Holistic scoring means that a single score is assigned to an essay, which represents a reader’s overall assessment. ‘Each point on the scoring system is defined by a set of statements that address topic, organization and development, supporting ideas, facility (fluency, naturalness, appropriateness) in writing, and grammatical and lexical correctness and choice’ (Brown 2004:238). Primary trait scoring focuses on ‘how well students can write within a narrowly defined range of discourse’ (Weigle 2002:110). It assesses the accuracy of the account of the original (i.e. summary), the clarity of the steps of the procedure and the final result (i.e. lab report), the description of the main features of a graph and the expression of the writer’s opinion. Analytical scoring breaks a student’s written text down into some subcategories (organization, logical development of ideas, grammar, punctuation and spelling, style and quality of expression) and gives a separate rating for each.

2.2.2. Assessing speaking

Speech is probably the most socially visible skill, the one which involves the greatest amount of interaction and the one that will most quickly lead people to conclude that you are proficient. However, we must remember that speaking comes from listening (Dorobat 2007:92). In real life speaking is most often associated with listening, since speaking is a two-way process, involving a speaker and a listener. While speaking is a productive task that can be directly observed, those observations depend on the accuracy and effectiveness of a test-taker’s listening skill, which compromises reliability and validity of an oral production tests.

Saying that teaching or testing speaking is almost meaningless due to the fact that oral production varies by: content, purpose, emotional and social context and proficiency. Many different types of speech exist. They are affected by topic, context, relationship between speakers, and proficiency “Speaking skills are an important part of the curriculum in language teaching, and this makes them an important object of assessment as well. Assessing speaking is challenging, however, because there are so many factors that influence our impression of how well someone can speak a language, and because we expect test scores to be accurate, just and appropriate for our purpose” (Luoma 2005:3). A taxonomy similar to that applied to listening skills emerges for oral production, too (Brown 2004:141).

Imitative (imitate a word, phrase or sentence) This is a phonetic level of speaking and we are interested only in pronunciation, although a number of lexical and grammatical features of language can be included in the criterion performance.

Intensive It refers to the production of short stretches of oral language. The speaker must be aware of grammatical, phrasal, lexical or phonological relationships, but interaction with an interlocutor is minimal. Examples of intensive assessment tasks are: directed response tasks, reading aloud, sentence and dialogue completion, limited picture-cued tasks including simple sentences.

Responsive assessment tasks include interaction and test comprehension, but at the level of short conversations, standard greetings, simple requests and comments.

Interactive assessment tasks include longer and more complex forms of interaction than in the case of responsive assessment tasks. They suppose multiple exchanges and/or multiple participants. A casual register or colloquial language can be used in oral production, as well as ellipsis, humour and other sociolinguistics conventions.

Extensive oral production tasks refer to speeches, oral presentations and story-telling. Formal language is used in extensive tasks and planning is involved, too.

As you consider designing tasks for assessing speaking, certain skills (micro and macroskills) can serve as a checklist of objectives. Even though macroskills appear to be more complex than microskills, both contain elements of difficulty.

Macroskills are:

Accomplish communicative functions according to situations, participants and goals

Use appropriate styles, registers and other sociolinguistic characteristics

Establish connections between events

Use speaking strategies such as: emphasizing key words, rephrasing, and accurately assessing how well your interlocutor is understanding you

Microskills are:

Produce chunks of language of different lengths

Produce fluent speech at different rates of delivery

Use grammatical word classes, systems, word order, rules and elliptical forms

Produce speech in appropriate phrases, pause groups and sentence constituents

Express a particular meaning in different grammatical forms

Use cohesive devices in spoken discourse

(Brown 2004:143)

Assessing speaking is a process with many stages. At each stage, people act and interact to produce something for the next stage. The major role is played by the assessment developers (i.e. students), but examinees or interlocutors also have a role to play in these activities. A graph of the activity cycle is shown in Figure 2.2.2.1.

Figure 2.2.2.1

The first stage, when someone realises that there is a need for speaking assessment, is the planning and development stage. During it, students define exactly what needs to be assessed and then develop, revise tasks, rating criteria and administration procedures. They also monitor what happens in the assessment cycle by setting up quality assurance procedures. The following stage consists of two interactive processes that are needed for doing speaking assessment. In the first process students interact with each other and/or with the examiner (i.e. the teacher). The second process is the evaluation process, which produces the scores (i.e. numerical scores, verbal feedback or both) which ought to satisfy the need that was identified at the beginning of the cycle. At the end, a new cycle can begin again. (Luoma 2004:5).

A checklist of speaking tasks that may be used in testing speaking is found in figure 2.2.2.2.

Figure 2.2.2.2

During a speaking test students must give proof of their communicative competence which is the sum of several separate components: use a range of various structures, appropriate vocabulary, accuracy, pronunciation, fluency, coherence and cohesion of the discourse, interaction abilities. To measure their oral competence as objective as possible we should use a marking scheme. It consists of a series of rubrics which list the criteria for a piece of work and adds descriptors (gradations of quality) to each criteria. To build a reliable marking scheme you should take into consideration: the linguistic competence required of students at that specific language level which is stipulated in the National Curriculum, the vocabulary range, grammar structures and the skill you have taught for that period of time, what you want to assess and why you want to test that at that particular moment (Cehan 2003:235). The marking scheme should be made known to the students at the beginning of the school year.

3. Alternative assessment

All tests are assessment, but not all assessments are tests. In the 1990s, in a culture of rebellion against the notion of traditional tests, a new concept appeared: “alternative assessment” (Brown 2004:251). It is based on the idea that, sometimes, it is unfair to mark students on one product only at one time which is chosen by the teacher. Learning is a process and communicative teaching is centred on the process more than on the product. Then, why should we not evaluate the process as well? There are some means of evaluation that we have to take into consideration in order to have a broader view of the students’ progress (Cehan 2003:247). The defining characteristics of these various alternatives in assessment were summed up by Brown and Hudson in a TESOL Quarterly article mentioned by Brown in his book Language Assessment: Principle and Classroom Practices:

“require students to perform, create, produce, or do something

use real-world contexts or simulations

are nonintrusive in that they extend the day-to-day classroom activities

allow students to be assessed on what they normally do in class every day

use tasks that represent meaningful instructional activities

focus on processes as well as products

tap into higher-level thinking and problem-solving skills

provide information about both the strengths and weaknesses of students

are multiculturally sensitive when properly administrated

ensure that people, not machines, do the scoring, using human judgments

encourage open disclosure of standards and rating criteria

call upon teachers to perform new instructional and assessment roles” (Brown 2004:252)

Moreover, alternative assessment uses activities that reveal what students can do with language, emphasizing their strengths instead of their weaknesses, helping instructors emphasize that the point of language learning is communication for meaningful purposes (https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/productive-skills)

The main purpose of assessment is a double one: on the one hand to provide learners with a corrective feedback, so that they might know their strong and weak points and, on the other hand, to rank students in an educational institution according to their performance. This second role of testing, to namely rank learners, makes the pre-testing activities of the assessor important, as the format of the test will trigger certain results. Most linguistic tests are based on tasks assessing the student’s four main linguistic abilities developed by courses: reading, writing, listening, and speaking, or in other words they test grammar, vocabulary, orthography. It is understandable that students will prepare for obtaining good results in only certain directions of language learning. The existence of more learning styles should most logically trigger the existence of more different assessment methods and testing formats that might accurately describe the students’ progress (www.cambridgeenglish.org/images/139585-teaching-and-testing-the-language-skills-of-first-and-second-language-speakers-philida-schellekens-2011.pdf).

The concept of alternative testing was coined to define all those possible activities which are not formal tests but which can be used for assessing learning performance, as alternatives to the conventional methods of evaluating linguistic progress and performance. Concepts such as alternative assessment, authentic assessment, portfolio based assessment, holistic assessment, integrative assessment are used with the same value as alternative testing (Brown2004:254).

Alternative testing is a strategy based on the permanent assessment of students’ linguistic level, which is why it is also called formative assessment. There are however methods of alternative assessment such as the portfolio or the project which, due to the amount and the complexity of information they involve, share the characteristics of formative and summative evaluation, especially if their deadline is the end of the semester or of the academic year. The idea of a richer assessment framework for students and pupils is not a new one; its advantages were noticed more than eighty decades ago (Tylor 2003:193), but it is only recently that it has started to be seen as a correct path and a key tool towards reform in education. Gathering information on the students’ linguistic level from educational tasks in which they are involved regularly is, especially at a higher education level, an inspired way of testing not only the students’ linguistic competence but also their communicative competence, the ultimate goal of any foreign language course. Alternative assessment has got two characteristics, two terms that are reiterated: performance and authentic. Performance means that the student has to produce a directly or indirectly observable response by means of a product whereas authentic entails that the nature of the task and the context in which the assessment is made are relevant and represent aspects of real life. The purposes of the alternative testing methods are considerably wider than those of conventional tests for the very reason that they are themselves much richer and offer a wide range of possibilities (www.learnnc.org/lp/pages/7041) .

Alternative testing may include the demonstration of certain abilities by the student, the writing of specific papers or the formulation of answers to open questions. In such activities, it is not only the final product that matters and that can be assessed and graded, but also the very process of reaching the result, which demonstrates the quality and complexity of the learners’ process of thinking involved in the formulation of a final answer. The teaching -learning process moves, thus, to a superior, richer and more reflexive level, a level which encourages critical thinking and reflection. From the point of view of the communicative approach, conventional or traditional testing is neither authentic nor communicative. And as far as the teaching and learning of foreign languages are concerned, this phenomenon is more visible and stronger than in the case of any other academic subject (Dorobat 2007:156).

3.1. Advantages of alternative assessment – A contrastive view on alternative and traditional testing

There are numerous and obvious reasons why reformed curricula tend to use alternative assessment methods on an even wider scale in the teaching of foreign languages. To begin with, they offer a comprehensive image of the student’s overall competence in a foreign language. Then, they test much more than the students’ ability to sit an examination. Furthermore, they change and enrich the student’s attitude towards learning and communication patterns and they increase the students’ linguistic self confidence. (Nunan 1999:157). Alternative assessment methods have the great advantage of being context specific, as they use and adapt those assessment tools that should best reflect the purposes of learning (Taylor 2003:124). Other two characteristics that make alternative assessment superior to the traditional one are the facts that it is process oriented and authentic, based on real life activities. Alternative evaluation is very much related to the content of teaching learning process. Researchers have also noticed further advantages of alternative assessment: it is systematic, dynamic and flexible, managing to build up competences that last in time, as it does not concentrate only on grading and ranking immediate and punctual performance (Chirimbu 2013:91).

Standardized tests tend to be one-shot performances that are timed, multiple-choice, decontextualized, norm-referenced and foster extrinsic motivation. On the other hand, portfolios, journals, etc are open-ended in their time orientation and format, contextualized to a curriculum, referenced to the objectives of the curriculum and likely to build intrinsic motivation. This contrast poses a challenge to me as a teacher. Formal tests are highly practical, reliable instruments, they minimize time and money and are accurate in their scoring. Alternatives suppose checking drafts of students’ written work or observe the learners over time. All these require time and effort on the part of the teacher and the student. But the alternative means of assessment offer greater washback, are superior formative measures and due to their authenticity, carry greater face validity.

Figure 3.1.1 (Brown 2004:253)

This relationship can be depicted in the above figure which shows practicality/reliability on one axis and washback/authenticity on the other. A negative correlation is also implied: as a technique increases in its washback and authenticity, its practicality and reliability tend to be lower. Conversely, the greater the practicality and reliability, the less likely you are to achieve beneficial washback and reliability. The figure implies as well that large-scale multiple-choice tests cannot offer much washback or authenticity, nor can portfolios and such alternatives achieve much practicality or reliability (Brown 2004:253).

Alternative assessment methods work well in learner-centred classrooms because they are based on the idea that students can evaluate their own learning and learn from the evaluation process. These methods give learners opportunities to reflect on both their linguistic development and their learning processes (what helps them learn and what might help them to learn better). Alternative assessment, thus, gives instructors a way to connect assessment with review of learning strategies.

Successful use of alternative assessment depends on using performance tasks that let students demonstrate what they can actually do with language. These activities replicate the kinds of challenges that learners could encounter in communication outside the classroom.

The following criteria define authentic assessment activities:

They are built around topics or issues of interest to the students

They replicate real-world communication contexts and situations

They involve multi-stage tasks and real problems that require creative use of language rather than simple repetition

They require learners to produce a quality product or performance

Their evaluation criteria and standards are known to the student

They involve interaction between assessor (instructor, peers, self) and person assessed

They allow for self-evaluation and self-correction as they proceed (www.ctl.byu.edu/using-alternative-assessments).

With alternative assessment, students are expected to participate actively in evaluating themselves and one another. Learners who are used to traditional teacher-centered classrooms have not been expected to take responsibility for assessment before and may need time to adjust to this new role. They also may be skeptical that peers can provide them with feedback that will enhance their learning.

Instructors need to prepare students for the use of alternative assessments and allow time to teach them how to use them, so that alternative assessment will make an effective contribution to the learning process.

Introduce alternative assessment gradually while continuing to use more traditional forms of assessment. Begin by using checklists and rubrics, move to self and peer evaluation later.

Create a supportive classroom environment in which students feel comfortable with one another.

Explain the rationale for alternative assessment.

Engage students in a discussion of assessment. Elicit their thoughts on the values and limitations of traditional forms of assessment and help them to notice the ways in which alternative assessment can enhance evaluation of what learners can do with language.

Give students guidance on how to reflect on and evaluate their own performance and that of others.

As students find they benefit from evaluating themselves and their peers, the instructor can expand the amount of alternative assessment used in the classroom (Brown 2004: 255).

Alternative assessment has incontestable advantages over traditional testing methods, since it takes the learning of each student into consideration, as well as each student’s cultural background and level of knowledge. The focus is definitely placed on what the students know and can do and not on what they do not know. Therefore, alternative assessment has the clear advantage of emphasizing the student’s strong points while minimizing their weak points. More than that, alternative testing offers the teacher the opportunity not to compare levels and knowledge but to follow a student’s evolution individually and in time.

The most widely used types of alternative testing, used in the teaching of foreign languages can be grouped into two categories. The most important ones are the tasks accomplished by the student, such as the portfolio, the diary, the project, the self assessment, the case study and the investigation. Such activities involve the completion, by the learner, of certain specific stages: planning, research, the making up of the final product. It becomes obvious, then, that both the product and the process turn out to be equally important and can be assessed by the teacher. There are also tasks accomplished by the teacher and/or by peers: peer assessment, conferencing and the systematic observation of the student’s academic activity and behaviour (www.cotf.edu/earthinfo/classroom/teachers/FTtopic8.htm).

Alternative assessment represents a direct evaluation of the learners’ performance by using contexts and tasks similar to those in real life, while traditional testing measures performance indirectly, by checking knowledge and abilities outside their real context of usage. Teachers have the freedom to use alternative evaluation permanently during the academic year while conventional tests are scheduled on certain dates; students’ learning process will be therefore fluctuating. Offering the students the challenge to solve tasks involving a variety of knowledge and abilities, facing ambiguities and unexpected outcomes represents a type of holistic evaluation, while traditional testing, due to its very structure, can only assess “pieces” of knowledge and competences (www.hltmag.co.uk/feb16/sart03.htm). Concerning the answers or solutions to the tasks to be solved, there are no such concepts used in the activities involved by alternative assessment; there is no right or wrong answer when drawing up a portfolio or completing a project, the learner being offered the opportunity to progress without fear of providing an incorrect answer. Alternative assessment activities are complex and open, the teacher playing the role of a partner and collaborator while, when administering traditional tests, the teacher has a much narrower role, that of a test generator and examiner. At the same time, tasks such as a portfolio or a project are formative by their very nature, their purpose extending beyond being assessment tools only. They are ways of learning by doing, of improving the learner’s communicative competence. Tasks such as projects and portfolios offer future assessors and even future employers the opportunity to visualize samples of a student’s previous work; therefore, in the case of alternative testing, the measure of a student’s competencies and abilities is not given only by a number of grades (Dorobat 2007:155).

Differences between the traditional and alternative approaches to assesssment (after Brown)

Figure 3.1.2 (Dorobat 2007:155)

3.2. Types of alternative assessment

Sometimes it is unfair to mark students on one product only at one time which is chosen by the teacher. Learning is a process and communicative teaching is centred on the process more than on the product. Then, we should evaluate the process as well using some alternative means of assessment (portfolios, projects, journals, conferences, interviews, self-assessment) which offer us a broader view of the students’ progress (Cerghit 2002:7).

3.2.1. Portfolio assessment

One form of authentic assessment being widely adapted in schools today is portfolio assessment (www.teachervision.com/assessment/resource/5942.html). Until recently, portfolios were thought to be applicable only to younger students who assemble a portfolio of artwork and written work for presentation to a teacher. Now, learners of all ages are benefiting from the tangible nature of portfolio development (Brown 2004:256). The portfolio is a systematic collection of student’s work and other information about the student in order to determine whether he/she has maintained progress in accomplishing his/her own or teacher-set learning goals. The portfolio should enable the teacher to judge students’ achievement, growth, and thinking processes. Portfolios provide teachers evidence about the students’ progress and serve as support in communicating this progress (Cehan 2003:247). Teachers should use portfolio assessment for a number of reasons. It is basically systematic. It assembles the information collected about student’s participation in class and serves to monitor the student’s progress. More than this, the portfolio provides evidence of the student’s progress. It is important for the teacher and student to have more than simple test scores to show to those who are interested whether progress has been made or not. Additionally, they are useful for making instructional decisions. Because portfolios show evidence of the student’s progress over a period of time, teachers can assess the effectiveness of various teaching approaches and modify the materials and teaching methods for individual students or groups of students. The portfolio is also accessible. It can be placed in a location where both the teacher and the student can have access to it. One particular useful approach is to give the learner the option to enter samples of their “best work” or work that shows on-going progress. And least but not last, portfolio assessment is focused and efficient. It is focused in that the information in the portfolio can be related to the instructional goals, and is efficient because this approach forces choices about the type of information that should be maintained in the portfolio (Cehan 2003:247-248).

The advantages of engaging students in portfolio development are to be found in many sources over the years. A synthesis of those characteristics is found in Brown’s book Language Assessment Principles and Classroom Practices,(2004:257). According to Brown, portfolios “foster intrinsic motivation, responsibility and ownership; promote student-teacher interaction with the teacher as facilitator; individualize learning; facilitate critical thinking, self-assessment and revision processes; offer opportunities for collaborative work with peers and permit assessment of multiple dimensions of language learning. At the same time, we must take care that portfolios should not become a pile of ‘junk’, and not forget about our objectives. In order to accomplish these, we have to state objectives clearly, give guidelines on what materials to include, communicate assessment criteria to students, design time within the curriculum for portfolio development, establish periodic schedules for review, and provide positive washback giving final assessment “.

Portfolios are systematic collections of student work over time. These collections help students and teachers assess student growth and development. It is essential that students develop a sense of ownership about their portfolios so they can understand where they have made progress and where more work is needed.

The content of portfolios will vary with the level of the student and will depend on the types of assignments they are given in class. Figure 3.2.1.1 displays what a portfolio should contain, in general. In addition to completed reports, poems, letters, portfolios often contain first and second drafts. Reading logs, charts, graphs, audiotape recordings and lists of read books/summaries can also be included. Tests, quizzes and even self evaluation may be added. As portfolios are assembled, it is important that students keep them in a place where they have easy access to them. Students should be encouraged to browse through their portfolios and share them with classmates (https://www.teachervision.com/educational-testing/teaching-methods/6378.html).

Figure 3.2.1.1 (Dorobat D., p. 160)

Figure 3.2.1.2 (Dorobat D., p.161)

Figure 3.2.1.2 contains some useful advice on development of portfolios.

Set a goal, or purpose, for the portfolio and think about what data you want to collect and how you plan to use it. Choose the type of assessment that best meets the goals and objectives of a particular unit and be sure each item is dated so that you can assess the evaluation of progress. Student involvement is very important in the portfolio process. It is vital that students understand the purpose of the portfolio, how it will be used to evaluate their work, and how grades for it will be determined. Make sure students are given a checklist of what is expected in the portfolio before they begin submitting work. Take time at the beginning of the unit to explain the type of evaluation it is, so students clearly understand what is expected in terms of work product. It also is important that you allow students a choice of what is placed in their portfolios. Although you might have a few specific pieces you require, permit students to include two or three pieces of their own choosing. Additionally, be sure to offer students the opportunity to reflect about the work included in the portfolio. What are their thoughts and feelings about each piece? Does it represent their best work or were they goofing off when they completed it? Why did a student choose a particular piece? What was his or her thought process in determining which pieces to submit? Those kinds of questions force students to actively think about their work and the portfolio as a whole rather than simply throwing any old assignment into a folder. Reflection provides further meaning to the assessment. Eventually, parents should be involved in examining their children’s portfolios and be aware of evidence of progress and areas of needed improvement. Teachers can develop their own teaching portfolio as a means of facilitating their professional development (http://www.educationworld.com/a_curr/columnists/mcdonald/mcdonald025.shtml).

Scoring portfolios is problematic since they are personal and unique. In this respect scoring will be criterion-referenced and individual-referenced (i.e. how well the learner has performed relative to his/her own previous performance).

Portfolio evaluation often occurs at three levels: the student, the student's peers, and the teacher. For each piece selected, students may be asked to describe briefly why they chose it, what they learned, and what their future goals are. Students can also be asked to prepare an overall evaluation of their portfolio.

Classmates are frequently enlisted in portfolio evaluation. Their evaluation can focus on what they see as the special strengths of the portfolio, their personal response to some item in the portfolio, and a suggestion of one thing their classmate could work on next.

Portfolio evaluation by the teacher should build on that of the student's and peer's. Although the teacher evaluation may result in a grade, it is important that an opportunity be found for discussion with the student. This discussion should culminate in agreement on future goals. Although not a part of the formal evaluation process, it is helpful, particularly for elementary school children, for parents to review the portfolios. Portfolios can be sent home or they can be reviewed at the time of the parent-teacher conferences. It is essential that teachers take steps to help parents understand that their role should be to provide encouragement and that they should focus on the positive and not be (https://www.teachervision.com/educational-testing/teaching-methods/6378.html).

3.2.2. Projects

Projects are another method of alternative assessment. Whether individual or group ones, they help bridge the gap between language study and language use at all levels. A project starts in the classroom, moves out into the real world and returns to the classroom (Cehan 2003:248). The role of the teacher is that of consultant not controller and he/she works with the students during each stage. The whole process of devising a project implies lots of revision, learning from others and from the materials which are used. Acquisition takes place, as does self- and peer correction and evaluation and the use of skills in order to produce a piece of work to be presented to the whole class. During the whole process, the teacher can watch and take notes on students’ language abilities and needs and use this material for future teaching.

Projects can be created individually or as a group. They can possess authenticity, real life related concepts as well as prior experience of the learners. Any type of method that displays what students know about a specific topic, i.e. development of plans, art work, research proposals, multimedia presentations, is considered as project. Problem-based learning requires learners to use their problem solving skills to respond to a given situation. For instance, they can be presented a scenario and asked to provide strategies or solutions. The task is assigned to either individuals or groups. They present with the findings they come up with in various forms, such as multimedia presentation, role-play or written report.

Even though projects are not necessarily meant to be scored, students will like that because they believe projects show them at their best and would like to be rewarded for their hard work. One of the ways to score oral presentation is to use marking scales for testing speaking skill to which you can add descriptors for oral presentations. Such a grid is presented in Figure 5 where several descriptors (introduction, audibility, body language and eye contact, sensitivity to audience, quality of materials presented) are monitored. A practical solution is to have group presentations – each member of the group presents his/her share of the project. Then, equal time limit for each group can be established, but this issue has to be clarified from the beginning of the project. An evaluation sheet, like the one presented below, can be distributed to the “audience” and used for the final evaluation of all presentations and will also keep the students’ attention focused.

Figure 3.2.2.1 (Cehan 2003: 249)

Another part of the evaluation of projects is the interaction process when lots of functional language is used. The interaction process supposes discussions, negotiation, expressing opinions, giving arguments. In the end, an agreement must be reached in order to score the project as objectively as possible.

3.2.3. Journals

A third way through which learners can be assessed alternatively is the journal. “It occupies a prominent role in a pedagogical model that stresses the importance of self reflection in the process of student taking control of their own destiny” (Brown 2004:260). A journal is a log of one’s thoughts, feelings, reactions, ideas, assessments or progress toward goals usually written in a less careful way. Students can write their thoughts without the threat of being judged by the others, especially by the teacher. In this way, teachers can use journals for different purposes: language learning logs, grammar journals, responses to readings, self-assessment reflections, diaries of attitudes and feelings. Most classroom-oriented journals imply an interaction between the teacher and the student through dialogues or responses. By means of dialogue journals, teachers can become better acquainted with their students in terms of both their language progress and their affective states. At the same time, certain critics have expressed ethical concerns: students may be asked to reveal their inner self. However, it is important to turn the advantages of journals into positive guidelines for using them as alternative assessment instruments (Brown2004:261-264).

Journal writing is the‚ recording of daily events, personal reflections, questions about the environment, and reactions to experiences). According to Chapman, quoted by Nicole Williams in the article Reflective Journal Writing as an Alternative Assessment (http://www.otterbein.edu/files/pdf/education/jtir/volumeiii /williams.pdf) it “should reflect various types of writing as well as levels of complexity related to the task assigned in the prompt”. Examples of authentic writing in the journal include open-ended entries, where the student constructs an entry using background knowledge, or short answer entries that demonstrate understanding of the content taught . For the teacher, reflective journal writing serves as a window into student thinking and learning. Journal writing can become one of the most important components of the assessment process because it has the potential to promote critical thinking. It also reinforces the importance of writing across the curriculum with an emphasis on process rather than product, allows for personal expression, and serves as a record of thought. Journal writing helps students understand how they learn and it gives a voice to those who are not good at expressing themselves orally. Finally, because reflective journal writing requires active participation, the students take ownership of their learning. For students, journal writing serves as a permanent record of thoughts and experiences, establishes and maintains a relationship with the instructor, and aids internal dialogue. For the teacher, journal writing serves as a window into student thinking and learning; establishes and maintains a relationship with the student; and serves as a dialogical tool. Finally, reflective journal writing provides an opportunity for both the teacher and the student to assess learning (http://www.otterbein.edu/files/pdf/education/jtir/volumeiii/williams.pdf).

3.2.4. Conferences and Interviews

Conferences and interviews as alternative ways of assessing students have been a routine part of the language classroom. They are a verbal dialogue between a student or a group of students and the teacher and can be informal or formal. Additionally, they should always be an open environment where students feel comfortable being honest, teachers being careful not to ask leading questions, but to keep questioning open ended to encourage honest responses. In this way, students who are less verbal in a class environment have the opportunity ti share thoughts. Formal conferences or interviews can be scheduled at specified and deliberate times during a learning experience process to check in on student progress. A drawback of conferences is that they are time consuming, so they lend themselves to group situations (http://lis725assessment.pbworks.com/w/page/17757796/Conferences%20and%20Interviews).

Conferences have got a wide variety of functions:

Commenting on drafts of essays and reports

Reviewing portfolios

Responding to journals

Advising on a student’s plan for an oral presentation

Assessing a proposal for a project

Giving feedback on the results of performance on a test

Clarifying understanding of a reading.

Focusing on aspects of oral production

Checking a student’s self-assessment of a performance

Setting personal goals for the near future

Assessing general progress in a course (Brown 2004:265).

The teacher plays the role of a facilitator and guide and in this motivating atmosphere, students understand that the teacher is encouraging self-reflection and improvement. Conferences are formative and their purpose is to offer positive washback. There are also a series of questions that may be useful to pose in a conference:

What did you like about this work?

What do you think you did well?

Which are the improvements from the previous work?

Are there things about this work that you do not like?

Did you have any difficulties with this piece of work?

What strategies did you use to figure out the meaning of the words you could not understand? (Brown 2004:261-265).

A specialized kind of conference is the interview. It refers to a context in which a teacher interviews a student for a designated assessment purpose. Interviews have got several goals in which the teacher: assesses the student’s oral production, becomes aware of the student’s need before designing a course, seeks to discover a student’s learning styles and preferences, asks a student to assess his /her own performance and requests an evaluation of a course(www.kidsource.com/kidsource/content2/practical.assessment). It is easy for teachers to assume that interviews are just informal conversations and that they need little preparation. Moreover, in order to maintain the reliability factor, interview questions should be constructed carefully to elicit a focused response. To do that a few steps should be followed: offer a relaxed initial atmosphere (warm up), begin with relatively easy questions, continue with more difficult questions, but adapt to the interviewee as needed, frame questions simply and directly, focus on only one factor for each question (do not combine several objectives in the same question), be prepared to repeat questions that are not understood, give reassuring closing comments (Brown 2004:266).

Conferences and interviews with children can help them develop self-assessment skills, and can give teachers valuable information about how they perceive school and their own performance. Interviews can address the child's experience of a learning activity that has been just completed, or can address the child's overall experience of school and learning (http://www.unicef.org/teachers/teacher/conf.htm).

When it comes to scoring, conferences and interviews have got low practicality because they are time-consuming. Conferences also register low reliability because their whole purpose is to offer individualized attention, which will differ from student to student. For interviews, a relatively high level of reliability should be maintained with careful attention to objectives.

3.2.5. Self-assessment

Evaluating our students’ progress is of vital importance in our job, since the quality of our teaching and our students’ learning depends on it. Still, we can’t do too much if do not try to delegate the responsibility for the quality of learning to our students themselves. In this respect, developing our students’ self evaluation skills becomes crucial. Self-assessment is a complex mental process useful in any learning event. Students performing self-evaluation understand their goals for learning, monitor their success in achieving those goals, review the mental processes they have used to learn the content in order to get the desired results. Self-evaluation leads students to analyse their progress and plan their further language improvement (Cehan 2003:250). Self-assessment derives its theoretical justification from a number of well-established principles of second language acquisition. The principle of autonomy is the one that stands out and it implies the ability to set one’s own goals both within and beyond the structure of a classroom curriculum. Developing intrinsic motivation that comes from a self desire to excel is at the top of the list of successful acquisition of any set of skills.

Students can become better language learners when they engage in deliberate thought about what they are learning and how they are learning it. In this kind of reflection, students step back from the learning process to think about their language learning strategies and their progress as language learners. Such self assessment encourages students to become independent learners and can increase their motivation. The successful use of student self assessment depends on: goal setting and guided practice with assessment tools. Goal setting is essential because students can evaluate their progress more clearly when they have targets against which to measure their performance. In addition, students' motivation to learn increases when they have self-defined, and therefore relevant, learning goals. Students do not learn to monitor or assess their learning on their own; they need to be taught strategies for self monitoring and self assessment. The instructor models the technique (use of a checklist or rubric, for example); students then try the technique themselves; finally, students discuss whether and how well the technique worked and what to do differently next time. Students can share their self-assessments with a peer or in a small group, with instructions that they compare their impressions with other criteria such as test scores, teacher evaluations, and peers' opinions. This kind of practice helps students to be aware of their learning. It also informs the teacher about students' thoughts on their progress, and gives the teacher feedback about course content and instruction (http://www.nclrc.org/essentials/assessing/peereval.htm).

All in all, a summary of all six alternatives in assessment with regard to their fulfilment of the major assessment principles is presented in the grid below.

Figure 3.2.5.1 (Brown 2004:278)

Today, the availability of media opens up a number of possibilities for self-assessment beyond the classroom. Internet sites offer many self-correcting quizzes and tests. On these, a learner may access a grammar or vocabulary quiz and then self-score the result, which may be followed by comparing with a partner.

The new directions in computer-based language testing as a modern alternative of assessment, its advantages and disadvantages are to be discussed in the following chapter.

4. New directions – Computer-Based Language Testing

We live in a time of contradictions. The speed and impressiveness of technological advance suggest an era of great certainty and confidence. Rapid developments in computer technology have had a major impact on test delivery, too (McNamara 2007:79). It would be difficult to estimate how many second language learners today have taken or will take a language test delivered by computer, but many language tests are delivered by computer and the number is rapidly increasing (Chapelle 2003:1). Educators use computers to teach classes, send assignments to students who never have to enter into the classrooms and receive work online from the classes they teach. Many important international language tests are moving to computer based testing. Texts and prompts are presented on the screen with candidates being required to key in their responses. The advent of computer based testing does not necessarily suppose any change in the test content, but it simply represents a change in test method (Chapelle 2003:7).

Since 1935, when the computers were first used for scoring test items in the USA, until today, when not only computers but various types of laptops, tablets, Smartphones, iphones and iPads are used for assessing and testing purpose, computers have come to play a major role in the field of language assessment and testing. Today CALT (Computer Assisted Language Testing) is reshaping and restructuring the very nature of language assessment not only by highly individualizing the assessment process but also by helping overcome many of the administrative and logistical problems prevailing in the field of traditional testing (http://www.udel.edu/fllt/main/FLMediaCenter/Computer_Assisted_Language_Testing__CALT__Advantages__Implications_and_Limitations-libre).

Online testing is becoming more popular as a method of evaluating student performance. Computers provide: a user friendly testing environment to the candidates, a variety of options within a test and a way of recording information that both assess linguistic performance and help in identifying a candidate’s test-taking strategies (Dorobat 2007:152). Furthermore, computers may also be used as testing devices, especially for informal classroom test and as a tool for research into test-taking and language-learning strategies.

The latest technique of conducting examinations is through the Internet. The system allows educators and students to easily interact across borders and save time as well.

4.1. Computer-Based Language Testing – Origins and Development

The use of computer in the field of assessment and testing practice dates back to 1935 when the IBM model 805 was used for scoring objective tests in the United States of America to reduce the intensive labour and costly business of scoring millions of tests taken each year. As the schooling provisions rapidly expanded in the USA during 1920s, the possibility of incorporation of ‘new-type tests’ in the assessment was tested and used to meet the need of the time. The IBM also contributed to solving this problem by developing a machine to score the multiple choice items that were used in the 'new-type tests' of the day. Since then, the practical need to assess large number of people cheaply and efficiently, and the advent of technology to achieve this, remained the major theoretical concerns of testing and rapid advancements in the technology, particularly in the 1980s, led to many advancements in the field of CALT (Computer Assissted Language Testing) as well (Chapelle 2003: 20-22).

In the 1980s, as the microcomputers came within reach for many applied linguists and item response theory (IRT), a lot of research work took place to test the possibility of the use of computer technology to innovate the existing assessment and testing practice. The first outcome of this research work was witnessed in the form of the first Computer-Adapted Test (CAT), technologically advanced assessment, in 1985. This was the result of the work of two enthusiasts in the use of computer technology in the field of language assessment and testing named Larson and Madsen (1985) who developed the first CAT at Brigham Young University, in the USA. They developed large pool of test items for test delivery using computers. In the Computer Adapted Test, designed by them, the program selected and presented items in a sequence based on the test taker’s response to each item. If a student answered an item correctly, a more difficult item was presented; and conversely, if an item was answered incorrectly, an easier item was given. In short, the test “adapted" to the examinee's level of ability. The computer's role was to evaluate the student's response, select an appropriate succeeding item and display it on the screen. The computer also notified the examinee of the end of the test and of his or her level of performance (www.researchvistas.com ).

Larson and Madsen’s (1985) said that CAT served as an impetus for the construction and development of many more computer adapted tests throughout the 1990s (e.g., Kaya-Carton, Carton & Dandonoli, 1991; Burston & Monville-Burston, 1995; Brown & Iwashita, 1996; Young, Shermis, Brutten & Perkins, 1996) which helped language teachers in making more accurate assessment of the test taker's language ability. As Item Response Theory and many computer softwares for calculating the item statistics and providing adaptive control of item selection, presentation and evaluation, the use of computer technology in the field of language assessment and testing started becoming inevitable reality though the challenge of availability of infrastructure and the cross-disciplinary knowledge required in the field, limited its progress for some time at its early stage (www.researchvistas.com ).

Today the use of computer technology, in the field of language assessment and testing, has become so widespread and so inclusive that it is regarded as an inseparable part of today’s education system. The web of many useful computer adapted tests (CATs) as well as web based tests (WBTs) is constantly growing and computers are used not only for test delivery but also for evaluation of complex types of test responses. Even the large testing companies, who showed little interest in the field at its early stage, have also stepped in and are producing and administrating these CATs as well as WBTs. The administration and delivery of highly popular and useful tests such as CAE, TOEFL, IELTS, etc, highlight the role played by computer technology in the field of language assessment today. The realm of CALT is constantly expanding and encompassing even the field of scoring and rating as well. Today, computers are used not only to score objective type of test tasks but also to assess and rate much more complex task types like essays and spoken English. The Educational Testing Service’s (see http://www.ets.org ), automated systems known as Criterion (see http://www.criterion.ets.org ) and e-rater (see http://www.ets.org/erater ), for rating extended written responses, Vantage Laboratories’ (see http://www.vantage.com ), IntelliMetric , Pearson Knowledge Technologies’ (see http://www.knowledge-technologies.com ) Intelligent Essay Assessor (IEA ), and Pearson’s Versant, (see http://www.versanttest.com ), etc. indicate how rapidly the realm of CALT is growing and reshaping, innovating and revolutionizing the field of language assessment and testing by adapting itself successfully to the new challenges in technology and assessment practice (www.researchvistas.com ).

4.2. Pros of online examinations

Online assessment is an easy way to begin using technology on a regular basis without using extra time or resources. Thus, the advantages of using online examinations are:

Less resource required:

The first advantage of the use of computers in language testing is that it helps overcome many of the administrative and logistic burdens associated with tradition testing practices. There are many issues associated with the traditional testing practice such as presenting oneself at a designated time and place of test, sometimes travelling many miles to take the test, shipping of test materials to different testing sites and then shipping back the responses of testers to scoring centres, and sending of the results then to test takers and score users etc. All these things imply a significant commitment of time, money and energy (McNamara 2007:79). The use of computer technology proves highly beneficial here and can help overcome these administrative issues. Computer assisted testing makes the test available wherever and whenever the test taker can log on to the internet or can insert a disk into a CD-ROM drive. It also reduces the logistical burdens by transmitting test materials electronically. The use of the internet for test delivery in the form of web based testing or WBT has been the most significant contribution to the field of language assessment to overcome many of these logistical and administrative problems as rightly observed by Roever, an enthusiast of web-based testing, in the following word: “Probably the single biggest logistical advantage of a WBT [web-based test) is its flexibility in time and space. All that is required to take a WBT is a computer with a web browser and an internet connection (or the test on disk). Test takers can take the WBT whenever and wherever it is convenient, and test designers can share their test with colleagues all over the world and receive feedback.” (http://llt.msu.edu/vol5num2/roever/)

Consistency and uniformity

Another benefit of the use of computer technology in the field of testing can be observed in term of consistency and uniformity in the information given to the test taker about how to proceed with taking the test. In computer assisted language testing, all test takers receive precisely the same material and instructions no matter where or when they take the test. This uniformity, in the instruction and in the input presented, helps the test takers in overcoming the fear and confusion during the test (www.researchvistas.com ).

Enhanced authenticity and greater interaction

The availability of varied options in CALT, for presenting input material in various forms such as text, graphics, audio, and video, as well as user control of the input etc, is another notable advantage. In CALT, with all these features, attempt is made to simulate the target language use situation which enhances the authenticity of the test tasks by strengthening the possibility for greater interaction between the test taker’s communicative language ability and the test tasks. These can be useful for problem-solving simulations, challenging critical thinking and for students with different learning styles (Dorobat 2007:153).

Insight into test-taker’s route and strategies:

Another advantage of CALT is related to technology. When and how long the assessment is available is controlled by the instructor. If you use the assessment as a learning check, the timing can be set up so that the assessment is available immediately following class time. Students can test themselves on material and if necessary access additional assistance while the content is still fresh in their minds. Not only this, computers even record the information about the test taker’s routes through the test offering very useful insight into the test taker’s own strategies for evaluation. The computer can register test taker's route through a test detailing how often she/he goes back to an assignment, how often she/he corrects his answers, when she/he asks for help etc. The answers to these questions can be very useful to understand test taker’s problem-solving strategies which can be of immense help for teacher to understand the performance level of student (Chapelle 2001:29).

CALT individualizes test experience

CALT tailors and adapts the test to the individual test taker’s level of language ability by selecting the next item to which a test taker is exposed in the light of his or her response to the previous item avoiding challenging test taker far beyond his/her capability. This makes the test taking experience highly individualized. CALT provides self-pacing computer adaptive tests which are not limited in time and can be taken at the test taker’s convenient location, at convenient time, and without human intervention allowing the examinee to work at his/her own pace Dorobat 2007:154).

Immediate test results and feedback

Giving grades for online tests is easier than the conventional way of examination and is a time saving advantage for educators. Depending on the type of test given, instructors may be able to enter an answer key into the system once and instantly grade all incoming tests. Often students can complete online tests in less time than it takes to complete pen-and-paper tests. The extra time can be used for higher-order thinking projects that apply the material on the tests. When students see their test results immediately, they are more likely to be interested in the outcome than when they have to wait days for a grade. It also provides detailed and immediate feedback. Students may be presented with scores and explanations immediately if desired. Marking for some types of assessment item can be automatic (www.ModernEnglishPublishing.com).

More accurate assessment of the test -taker’s language ability

A more accurate assessment of the test taker's language ability, with the help of psychometric calculations, is probably the most important advantage of CALT which offers infinite potentials both for teachers and learners. Computers can compute which assignment (from an item bank) would fit best with the candidate's measured ability so far and present the test that suits his/her language ability (www.researchvistas.com ).

Improved test security

The vast data of test items, in the form of item pool, helps in providing completely different tests for each student which, in turn, helps solving the problem of cheating as no information, that would directly help other students, can be passed around.

Less time to finish

Many researches have also proved that computer assisted tests require less time to finish, compared to the traditional paper-and-pencil tests. This can also be described as another important advantage of CALT (Dorobat 2007:154).

A more positive attitude toward tests

Computer assisted tests are shorter and require less time to finish as well as the questions submitted are neither too easy nor too difficult. This helps in creating more positive attitude toward the test. Madsen’s study (1986), which found that among the students taking both a paper-and-pencil test and a computer adaptive test 81% expressed a more positive attitude toward CALT, can be taken to support this (www.researchvistas.com ).

Computers also offer test taker various helps on the screen such as the way she/he should proceed, by clicking ‘help’ button, spelling check, help on syntactic errors in the learner’s text etc. And last but not least, testing large number of people faster, accurately, quickly, efficiently and cheaply, overcoming the barriers of time and place is also an important advantage of CALT. Perhaps the understanding of these benefits of CALT, for the field of assessment, is making it more popular and widespread in today’s education system. The above mentioned, advantages and benefits, if studied carefully, have many possible implications for the field of assessment and testing and can be exploited to innovate it as well as to overcome many of the problems prevailing in the field (www.researchvistas.com).

In this brave new world of technology, a successful teacher is the one who adapts himself/herself with the emerging trends and technologies in his/her field and exploits them to improve and upgrade his/her own professional skills. Therefore, language teachers today need to literate themselves with solid understanding of the nature of CALT as it has become a regular and widely-used practice in today’s education system (Smith 2005:8).

CALT can be of immense help for language teachers in making correct assessment of language ability of their students. It can help them in individualizing the learning and testing processes by taking them beyond the traditional classrooms. Correct understanding of the advantages of CALT can go long way in advancing the teaching and assessing practices for the language teachers. Language teachers can exploit these benefits of CALT by designing their own tests, for the courses being taught by them, which can be taken by the learners from anyplace and anytime to assess themselves at their own pace and with ease. Today many test authoring programs like Respondus, Blackboard, Questionmark, Hot Potatoes, the Discovery School Quiz Center etc, are available. Due to the simplified nature of these programs, any computer literate language teacher can create wonders with them by constructing teaching units, with quizzes based on it, and a means for scoring and reporting scores to students. This can help them not only in sharing innovative and dynamic teaching and testing but also in understanding strengths and weaknesses of their students as computer adapted tests provide individualized reports not only in terms of scores but also in terms of strengths and weaknesses of the students. These reports can offer immense insight into learner’s level for the teacher who can then work on the strategy to help the learner overcome the weaknesses (www.researchvistas.com).

An innovative technology for language teaching, learning and testing has been the key feature of education system of today’s e-generation. In the age where CALL (Computer Assisted Language Learning) is going to MALL (Mobile Assisted Language Learning), every attempt is made to individualize learning and assessment practices with the help of emerging technologies. Today language learners are offered immense opportunities by these emerging technologies not only to learn the language but also to assess and test their language ability at their own pace from their own place and at their suitable time. Today many useful and immensely popular computer adapted tests and web based tests such as DIALANG tests ( see http://www.dialang.org ), the Center for Applied Linguistics or CAL’s Basic English Skills Test (BEST), (see http://www.cal.org/best ) and the BEST Plus (see http://www.cal.org/bestplus ) etc, are available for the learners to assess their language ability. Many edu-tech giants have also entered the field and many, highly useful, websites like Longman’s (http://www.longmanenglishinteractive.com ), Pearson’s (http://www.market-leader.net ), http://www.ecollege.com, (http://www.myenglishlab.com ), Hot Potatoes’ (http://www.hotpot.uvic.ca ), Discovery School Quiz Center’s (http://www.school.discovery.com ) etc. are creating and providing immense resources and self assessment activities and tests, with instant results and feedback on the weak areas of the test takers (Smith 2005:8). A good language learner can capitalize on these tests to develop and master his/her language skills. The potential implication of these tests, for language learners, is that they help students become better, more autonomous learners and feel less frightened and at ease. Hence, all those who are associated with the assessment and testing practice and hoping to improve the level of students, can put this technology to work in helping learners to identify their accomplishments and learning needs.

However, one need not neglect some of the limitations that accompany any use of technology in the field of education. Though CALT has enormous advantages and potential implications for the field of language assessment and testing, there are certain issues which need equal considerations and need not be neglected (www.researchvistas.com).

4.3. Limitations of the Computer Assisted Language Testing

Many researches have shown the limitations and pitfalls of the use of computer technology in the field of language assessment. Some of the problems associated with the computer assisted language testing include: issues related to security, issues of technical expertise, the constraint of medium and its negative effects on the quality of test tasks, issues related to adaptive item selection, issues of inaccurate automatic response scoring and washback (Chapelle 2001:22-28).

Issues related to security for high- stakes tests is the first negative aspect of computer assisted language testing. The issue of identity detection of the test taker, in particular, is of major concerns. At the moment, this appears to be an insurmountable problem in high-stakes testing because score users need to be assured that the identity of the test taker is the same as the person for whom the score is reported. Therefore, high-stakes tests seem reluctant to take advantage of CALT and prefer delivering tests in testing centres, where the identity of the test takers can be verified. Some scholars like Wainer and Eignor (2000) have also raised the security concerns about the most salient feature of CALT, computer-adaptive test or CAT. They have explained how critical items, from the item pool for the test, could be easily memorized and passed on to subsequent examinees. These issues raise the concerns about the use of computer technology in high-stakes testing and need special considerations (Chapelle&Douglas 2006:125).

Issues related to technical expertise and standardization and maintenance of equipment, also raise questions about the use of CALT. Cross-disciplinary knowledge required to construct such tests, technical expertise needed, in case the system crashes, as well as costs issues related to standardization and maintenance of equipment, limit the ambitions of CALT. Even the availability of reliable source of electricity is also another important issue of concern while using CALT.

Issues related to the constraint of medium and its effects on the quality of test tasks are also matter of concerns in CALT today. Size of the screen of computer may pose constraints on the contents of the test tasks. This is very likely when it comes to reading tests, where longer passages may have to be excluded due the problem associated with the medium. This may result in using only short passages or any other content that suits the medium and hence, may affect the quality of the test tasks (McNamara 2007:84).

Issues related to adaptive item selection in CAT have also raised many concerns among scholars like Carol A. Chapelle and Dan Douglas (2006) about the effect of leaving item selection up to a computer program that chooses items on the basis of the level of difficulty of the items. According to Carol A. Chapelle and Dan Douglas, “selection of items to be included on an adaptive test by an algorithm may not result in an appropriate sample of test content and may cause test takers anxiety” (2006:41).

Another issue of concern is related to inaccurate automatic response scoring. Computer assisted response scoring may fail to assign credit to the qualities of a response that are relevant to the construct which the test is intended to measure. This is evident especially with the essay and speaking type tasks, where the quality of linguistic response may not get awarded with an appropriate score, which it really deserves.

Many critics of this technology also point out the negative impact it may have on learners, learning classes and society at large. They believe that costs associated with CALT might divert money away from other program needs. Teachers may give importance to types of tasks that appear on the test, in order to prepare their students to take the computer- based tests, and if test tasks are limited, due to the constraints of the technology as mentioned above, teaching materials might be similarly limited. This may result in what Carol A. Chapelle and Dan Douglas call ‘washback’ affecting the quality of education in general (2006:58). However, no concrete evidence has been recorded on washback until the date.

In addition, computer anxiety (the potential debilitating effects of computer anxiety on test performance) is also another issue of concern in CALT which also needs to be considered. Also current restrictions on the computer’s ability to emulate natural language processing and interaction is also another issue of concern that needs significant consideration as well while using CALT (Chapelle&Douglas 2006:128).

To sum up, all the negative aspects associated with CALT mentioned so far are worthy of concern and research but they should not lead to the suspicion towards CALT. Technology can be instrumental in expansion and innovation in language testing. Therefore significant body of research needs to be motivated on these areas so that, in turn, the potential benefits embedded in them can be exploited for the betterment of language testing practice in general. Since its advent, CALT has changed and innovated the existing testing practices, to make them in line with the needs of the 21st century e-generation of second language learners by making them more flexible, innovative, individualized, efficient and fast. Perhaps the realization of these benefits embedded in it and their implications is making it integral part of today’s education system to make testing practice more flexible, innovative, dynamic, efficient and individualized as well as to enhance the quality and standard of education. Technology creates opportunities for reflection on the development and evaluation of innovation in the profession as a whole. In the form of CALT, we are witnessing these opportunities for the reflections and need to capitalize on (www.researchvistas.com).

In the next chapter, which is a practice part, I will present my site www.enedu.webdah.com. It is a site that I use during my English classes to assess students and not only and all the advantages of computer based testing will be demonstrated.

5. Practice Part – www.enedu.webdah.com presentation

Online assessment is a procedure by which specific abilities or characteristics can be evaluated via the Internet. It is an alternative technique that has some very clear benefits in comparison to traditional assessment. Firstly, no supervisors are needed for online assessment. This means that ‘gut feeling’ plays no role, neither while taking the test nor during the assessment so, online assessment is very objective. Secondly, there are also some very practical advantages. An applicant can complete the online assessment at any time from anywhere. Not only has it the advantage that the test can be performed in the student’s own familiar, stress-free environment, but, the automated evaluation of results also saves both time and money. ( http://www.cut-e.com/online-assessment/free-assessments) . Like many language teachers, I used to feel a certain aversion to information technology. “What do I need computers for?” I asked myself. After all, I have been teaching English very effectively for ten years without a computer. Yet, by the same token I can teach English perfectly well without a coursebook, a CD player or even a blackboard/whiteboard. However, these tools (computers and the internet) do make life easier and can add a valuable extra dimension to my teaching. They also open up whole new perspectives within my teaching and testing practice.

Teaching mostly students from Mathematic- Informatics or English bilingual/intensive classes who choose to pass a CAE or IELTS exam in the 11th or 12th grade and noticing that they have some experience with visiting websites and also with using English for different purposes (travelling, international partnerships, debate contests, Olympiads, etc.), I have decided to study more about computer – assisted teaching/assessment. Another reason I have done that is that students have always been complaining about having to write too much using a pen and paper and sometimes not paying enough attention when it came to tests. Most of them read e-books or online newspapers and magazines and prefer these to the paper ones. Besides this, we had various debates and discussions about school, teaching, education, gadgets, information technology, internet, paper- based books or e-books and my conclusion was that most of the students prefer everything that is related to gadgets and internet.

Moreover, rapid developments in computer technology have had a major impact on test delivery. Many important international tests have already moved to computer based testing (CBT). Stimulus texts and prompts are presented not in examination booklets, but on the screen, with candidates being required to key in their responses. Computer based testing has not involved any changes in the content, but it simply represents a change in the test method.

Following these, one day, thinking about how I could refresh my classes and also make my job easier in the future, the idea of having my own site that I could use during my English classes came to my mind. The next step was to ask one of my informatics skilled students to help me create a site which I can use as an alternative form of assessment and not only, a site that my students can use to test their English abilities. That is how www.enedu.webdah.com appeared.

Figure 5.1

www.enedu.webdah.com is a website which is built on the wordpress platform. The site has a public zone and a private one. The public part is the one you can access without having an account and for the private one you need to create an account.

The first step is to have an email address. Then you have to click the register button from the main menu which leads to the register page where you have to fill in the username and your email address.

Figure 5.2

As you click the register button, a password with which you log in will be e-mailed to you. When you are officially registered you have a username and an account and you can proceed to the login step.

Figure 5.3

You enter again the main page and you click the log in button.

As seen in the figure above, you have to fill in your username and the password that was e-mailed to you after you had registered.

5.1. Description of the site as a user

After you are logged in, the image from the below figure appears; this is the profile page where you can edit your profile’s characteristics. You can also load a picture with you or manage your account (that includes password change).

Figure 5.1.1.

To get on the main page you have to press the “Enedu” button as shown in the figure above.

Figure 5.1.2.

On the main page there are four types of tests assessing the four skills: Use of English, Reading, Writing, Listening. Each of them contains tests of B1, B2 and C1. According to what the teacher says, students do the required test.

Figure 5.1.3

In order to solve the quizzes you must sign in, otherwise it will not be possible.

Figures 5.1.4 and 5.1.5 are samples of a Use of English test. It consists of four parts: multiple choice cloze (vocabulary), open cloze (grammar and vocabulary), word formation (vocabulary), key word transformations (grammar and vocabulary). The first thing students do is read the task and the text, then they click the “Start Quiz” button and choose the right answer; after that they click “Next” and

so on.

Figure 5.1.4

Figure 5.1.5

Figures 5.1.6 and 5.1.7.are captures from a reading test. This type of test has 3 or 4 parts (depending on the level) which contain multiple choice questions (reading for

Figure 5.1.6

Figure 5.1.7

detailed understanding of a text, gist, opinion, attitude, main idea, meaning, etc), gapped text (reading to understand how a text is structured), multiple matching (reading for specific information in a text, detail, opinion, attitude).

After dealing with all the questions from a Use of English, Reading or Listening test, users must press the Quiz summary button where students can see if they have answered all the questions. As it can be seen in Figure 5.1.8 the answered questions are coloured in green and those which are not answered, in white. If not all the questions are answered, the results cannot be registered on the platform, thus users must go back to the unanswered questions and solve them.

Figure 5.1.8

Then, users press the Finish quiz button and as a result they get the feedback to the solved exercise. The feedback consists of two parts. In the first stage, the percentage of solving the exercise is shown. Following this, students have to press the View questions button, having the possibility to see their wrong answers, but also the correct responses to the questions (Figures 5.1.9 and 5.1.10).

Figure 5.1.9

Figure 5.1.10

The next type of test is the writing one and you can access it by pressing the “writing” button from the main menu. Then you choose the appropriate level and the test. It usually consists of an essay, article, letter, review, story. As seen in the below picture, students have to fill in their name, email address and in the message

Figure 5.1.11

section they write the content of their work. Therefore, they click “submit” and the writing will automatically be sent on my email address camelia.ienciu@gmail.com .

Figure 5.1.12

Figure 5.1.12 is a sample of a listening test. Listening tests have four parts and consist of multiple choice questions, sentence completion and multiple matching.

5.2. Description of the site as administrator

The administrator is the person who does all the work on the site, administrates it. After I am logged as administrator, the “dashboard” page opens. This is a page from where I administrate the site. On the left there is the vertical menu which contains different functions of the site, the most important ones being: pages, appearance, WP-Pro-Quiz.

Enedu uses the WordPress patform and some of its plugins and tools.

This is the dashboard(control panel):

Figure 5.2.1

One of the most important plugins this site is using is WP-Pro-Quiz. By using it you can create questionnaires which you can use in tests.

Figure 5.2.2.

This is how the list of tests looks in the back panel

You can customise the questionnaires in any way you want when you create them. Here you can see some of the options:

Figure 5.2.3

After the users complete a questionnaire the administrator of the site can access the leaderboard and see the result. The leaderboard contains the username, e-mail, date, number of correct answers, and points for each user. Here is an example:

Figure 5.2.4

5.3. How to create a quiz/test

To begin with, I should point that the quizzes are created in a similar way for all types of tests, the differences lie in the type of questions and the required answers (see pages 96-101 ).

To create a test, I press the button WP-Pro-Quiz from the dashboard, and then a new window with the already existing tests opens. The following step is to press the button Add quiz.

Figure 5.3.1.

Furthermore, a new window opens; it contains required or optional filling in fields and also setting options. The required fields are: Quiz title (i.e. Test 3 – Use of English – C1 – Part 1), Quiz mode and Quiz description (what the test contains).

Figure 5.3.2.

The Quiz mode refers to the way questions are displayed. There are several examples which can be seen in Figure 5.3.3:

Figure 5.3.3.

Normal – which displays all questions sequentially

normal+back-button – which allows to use the back button in a question (to go back to a previous question)

Check-continue – which shows right or wrong after each question

Question below each other (how many questions to be shown on a page)

The optional fields are: Hide quiz title, Hide restart quiz, Display questions randomly, Display answers randomly, Short questions by category, Time limit, Statistics, Execute the quiz only once, Questions overview, Autostart. Apart from these there are question options which can be seen in Figure 5.3.4.

Figure 5.3.4.

and Result options as can be seen in figure 5.3.5.

Figure 5.3.5.

The settings chosen for a quiz can be saved as template which later can be loaded for other tests.

In the next stage, I add the questions to the created test. In order to do that I press the Questions button which is found under the name of the quiz.

Figure 5.3.6.

In the window which opens there is the Add questions button; when I press it, I can add a question.

Figure 5.3.7.

A number of references can be ticked to the question. The compulsory requirements are: the number of points for each question, the text of the question and the answer type. There are various answer types and I will list them below:

Single choice: choose only one answer from multiple possibilities

Figure 5.3.8

Multiple choice: there can be at least two correct answers

Figure 5.3.9

Free choice: correct answers (one per line)

Shorting choice: the answers are displayed randomly and they have to be sorted in the right order

Cloze: fill in one missing word (capital and small letters will be ignored)

Figure 5.3.10

A test consists of several exercises which contain various quizzes. To create a new test, I press the menu Pages-Add new from the dashboard. A new window in which I have to write the title and the content of the test opens. After each exercise, the shortcode of the quiz is added (i.e. Start quiz is a shortcode).

Figure 5.3.11

5.4. The research part

The hypothesis of the research was to design an innovative testing procedure using ICT in order to develop students’ abilities in English. The objectives are not only to familiarize students with online testing and help them be more successful in passing online English exams like CAE, PET and IELTS, but also to improve their results in acquiring English.

In developing this research, I have used the method of experimental design, testing, and systematic observation.

The research hereby was done on two classes of students aged 16 to 18 (Bilingual and Mathematic-Informatics profiles) and, at a smaller scale, on students aged 13 (intensive English class) in Colegiul National “Liviu Rebreanu” Bistrita.

During the second part of the school year 2015-2016 (in the first part, the site was created and the tests were loaded on it), students from these classes took a wide range of tests on the site www.enedu.webdah.com. Students in the 7th grade were applied tests of B1 level, while students in the 10th and 11th grades tests of B2/C1 levels. Compared with the older students, the younger ones had more problems using the site. Several issues that some of the students faced included the fact that they did not have an email address, were not very skilled in using computers/the internet, were not accustomed to reading/ following instructions online or the quizzes were too difficult. Yet, they have undoubtedly overcome them, and in the end they have succeeded in passing the test successfully.

The research focused mainly on high school students who did not encounter any of the problems listed above. They were administered a large number of tests, some of them at school in one of the Informatics labs and during the English classes, some at home.

Pictures 5.4.1, 5.4.2, and 5.4.3 present students taking an online English test in the Informatics lab.

Picture 5.4.1

Picture 5.4.2

Picture 5.4.3

Several tests and the scores obtained by students are presented and analyzed below.

Here is an example of a B1 test. The paper version of the text can be seen in Appendix 1.

Figure 5.4.4

In the following pages I will present, describe and discuss the results obtained by students in some of the tests they have taken online. I shall add that all the information in the tables is generated by the site.

The table below presents the results obtained by the students in the 7th grade in a Use of English B1 test. As the test consists of three parts, I will present only the results from the first part. The table has got seven columns, each of them displaying valuable information about each test taker. In the first column are the students’ initials. The second one contains the date and the time when the test was taken by each user; it must be specified that the test was done from home. Column no 3 is coloured in green, showing the number of correct answers (out of 10) as well as the percentage. The number of incorrect answers are coloured in red and can be seen in the next column. Then, there is the number of solved questions. Eventually, the last two columns are the most important since they illustrate the points obtained by each student in the first part of the test and also the results in percentages. Let’s analyze students’ results:

Test1 Use of English B1 –Part1(Appendix 1)

Students’ results in test 1 Use of English B1 – Part 1

Figure 5.4.5

As seen in Figure 5.4.5, 6 students have a score of 100%, 2 – 80%, 13 – 70%, 7 – 60% and 1 – 50%.

The next table illustrates the results each student has got in each of the three parts of the test, but also the final average. The table consists of five columns. The initial one represents the users who have taken the test (the same as in the first table). The next three ones are coloured in green and refer to the scores students got in each of the three parts of the test while in the last one lists the final score in percentages obtained by each test taker.

Students’ final results in test 1 Use of English B1

Figure 5.4.6

As it can be seen, one of the students has reached the maximum score.

50% – 59% 4 students

60% – 69% 12 students

70% – 79% 5 students

80% – 89% 4 students

90% – 99% 2 students

Figure 5.4.7 is a capture of the way each user has solved a quiz.

Figure 5.4.7

The next analysis is done on the results obtained by the 60 students in the 10th and 11th grades. They were administrated a wide range of tests (as it can be seen on the platform): 2 Use of English tests B2, 5 Use of English tests C1, 3 Reading tests B2, 2 Reading tests C1, and one Listening test C1.

The following two tables represent the scores users got in the first and the third Use of English tests C1. They are formed of eight columns each. In the first column there are the initials of the students’ names. The next six ones represent the results obtained by each test taker in the six parts of the test. If we add the scores in percentages from each column and then we divide them by six we get the average which represents the percentage of solving the exercises.

Test1 Use of English C1 (see Appendix 2)

Students’ results in test 1 Use of English C1

Figure 5.4.8

Test 3 Use of English C1 (see Appendix 3)

Students’ results in test 3 Use of English C1

Figure 5.4.9

For test 1 the general percentage of solving the exercises is 76, 8% and 85,4% for test 3 respectively.

If you look attentively at the next graph, one can easily noticed a raise in scores in almost 90% of cases in test 3 compared to test 1. This leads to the conclusion that most of the students got accustomed to the new way of testing, given the fact that the two tests had the same structure and a high level of difficulty. They got used to reading the instructions carefully and following the steps the site requires, these being their major issues when using the site for the first time.

Figure 5.4.10

To conclude, I need to mention that this type of analysis applies to tests of Reading, Use of English, and Listening.

Writing, one of the most important skills was also tested online, but this time via email, with the help of www.enedu.webdah.com. Email is one of the simplest tools available to any language teacher interested in e-learning. Most teenagers use it as part of their daily life and have email software installed on their computers. Email can be used with just about any type of computer, tablet, Smartphone or iphone and there are seldom any problems with the technology. Probably the simplest way to incorporate email in our teaching is to set students homework via email. The homework can be then corrected in classroom, or students could return their work via email, with the teacher sending them feedback also by email. Personally, I have chosen the second alternative.

Several types of tasks are posted in the Writing section of the site. The figure below represents a capture of such a task. Students have to write about an embarrassing experience they had. They wrote it in the Writing essay section, filled in their name and email address and eventually pressed the submit button. Provided all the steps were followed correctly, the site sent me my students’ compositions via email.

Figure 5.4.11

The next three captures illustrate examples of compositions I have got from my students. In the first stage I saved them on my computer, then I corrected them and in the end I sent them another email with the feedback.

Figure 5.4.12

This composition is of B1 level and was designed for students in the 7th grade, for the “Reading and Writing” optional class.

According to my students’ sayings, they prefer writing on the computer instead of using a pen and paper. They have also listed some reasons. To begin with, they say that the first thing they do when they get home is to turn on their computers, unless they have internet on their Smartphones. Therefore, they spend most of their time doing various things on their computers/mobile phones and consequently they type faster than write. Another reason is that the word programme corrects potential spelling mistakes and not only, thus being easier for them to check themselves. A further advantage of writing on the computer is that they use online dictionaries. This does not happen when they write on paper because they say they are “too lazy and easy-going” to open a dictionary and look up for unknown words. In short, their work on the computer is better than on paper.

Figure 5.4.13

Figure 5.4.14

Some frequent probles students have are related to verb and using tenses correctly, which makes no diference to writing the composition on paper.

The speaking part is not registered on the platform, but it was done via email, as well. Students had to make videos of themselves speaking on different subjects. Then, those videos were emailed to me. I must say that this was not something they particularly enjoyed doing because of some reasons. They said they had felt embarrassed hearing and seeing themselves speaking and they had made several rehearsals before deciding on a final version. So, it was time consuming. Another disadvantage of this method is that there is no student-teacher/student-student interaction. In other words, it is difficult for students to get feedback. What the teacher can do is to write down the mistakes she/he notices in each student’s monologue and discuss them with each student in class. But, again, it is time consuming. Yet, this method was useful for the students who participated in the English Olympiad (the listening and speaking testing) because it helped them overcome their nervousness and made them notice their drawbacks. Other students participated in an English contest organized by Mirunette International which had three stages. In the first one, students did an English online test of grammar and vocabulary, the second one supposed that each participant had to imagine he/she was the ambassador of our country in the U.K. and had to make a video in which they spoke about that subject and then loaded it on the site of the contest. Finally, the last stage was an interview in Bucharest with the selected participants after the second stage. To sum up, the online activities we did helped my students obtain good results in these contests.

In the end, after dealing with all the tests which are already posted on www.webdah.com, I asked students in the 10th grade (the bilingual class) to write, each of them, a review of the site. They represent the feedback I have got from my students who, in a very short time, have become professional in using it. In other words, they have informed me about the positive aspects and the usefulness of the site, and, besides these, they have also written about its drawbacks and have given me some suggestions of how to improve it.

Some examples of students’ reviews are presented below.

„As students in modern times, almost all teenagers who have access to an education also work online. Whether we spend all day at school with our eyes glued to a screen or occasionally do homework using the internet, none of us can say that there aren’t disadvantages to this new way of learning, as well as teaching. Knowing this, I have recently accessed a site called ‘Enedu’, an educational platform for students looking to pass exams such as the Cambridge or IELTS tests.

In order to begin using the site, you have to register with an account so that you can keep track of your progress and save your answers. The levels range from Pre-Intermediate to Intermediate to Advanced (B1, B2, and C1). After registering, you can begin working on the exercises. Just like the exams, these are divided into four main parts: Use of English, Reading, Listening and Writing, each part including different tasks. After finishing the exercise, you can view your percentage, check the questions you got wrong and submit your score into the system. This is to be appreciated, because waiting for results and never knowing why our grade is so high or so low is never an enjoyable experience for any of us.

I think the site is going to help many students as an effective additional way to study for any given exam. It has everything you need, and I strongly recommend it not only because it is structured extremely well and simple to use, but because it might also be a fun alternative to books, if you ever get bored of flipping through pages.” – O.S.

„ “ www.eneduwebdah.com “ is an educational site which provides tests and exercises for everyone who wants to sit English exams. It is very easy to use and even if you have just started studying this foreign language, you will have no problems while working on it as it is extremely good and suitable for anyone.

The exercises are very well structured and they are organised into numerous sections, such as: Reading, Use of English, Writing and Listening. This arrangement allows you to train only a part of an exam if you do not feel ready enough to do an entire test. What is more, the site gives you the chance to choose your overall level as an English user from B1 to C1 which is something absolutely beneficial because it is accessible to everyone. Not only are the tests completely useful, but there is something riveting in each of them since they make the users more and more interested in learning new things.

The site has plenty of advantages by dint of the fact that it represents a better method of working. A very well-thought feature of it is that the time is limited while doing the exercises and this is something good as the users have the great opportunity to get accustomed to the time in an exam. In addition to this, after solving them, the site shows you the score you obtained so this is a good idea to see the level of your English skills. Another good point is the fact that you can see the mistakes you made and learn from them to work better in the future.

I highly recommend this educational site to everyone who wants to improve their English level. It is beautifully made and it will ensure your skills’ development which will be useful in order to become ready enough for any exam.” – C.A.

„The educative website www.enedu.webdah.com is a website exclusively dedicated to helping young students experience and get used to a very plausible form in which exams may be attended in the years that are to come. It is available for each and every student or person who wants to get used to a certain type of exercises generally used in English exams.

Its simplistic and interactive interface makes this site rather easy to use by anyone that has a mere base of information in computers. Not only is it a piece of cake to get used to how it works but it is even more trouble-free to get to the actual exercises.

The exercises, by the way, are really high quality and they are Cambridge Exam type of exercises for all the levels that one might need. The site is designed in such a way that it makes the hard exercises seem easier. Also, what is even more interesting and smarter is how they managed to provide each exercise with an individual timer that once it goes off you can’t stop until you have finished.

All in all, this is the first time I have seen such a website and in my opinion this type of thinking should be sustained and encouraged. I believe that with the time more and more sites like these are going to be made available for people in need of such information.” – A.M.

I really enjoyed reading my students’ reviews and I was pleased to find that they appreciated the site and were capable of highlighting its positive aspects in such a professional way. They liked the simplicity of the design, the variety of test types and levels, and the fact that the site not only that generates their scores immediately after the test was completed, but also shows the correct answer to the questions wrongly answered. Some of their suggestions referred to the way they had to log in and to the fact that there were some mistakes in the creation of the quizzes, things that I have already remedied.

5.5. The SWOT analysis of www.enedu.webdah.com

One of the most straightforward frameworks and approaches used for analysing strategic positions, for a particular process is the SWOT analysis. SWOT stands for strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. It is perceived that SWOT analysis and overall strategic planning may enhance certain internal and external activities and ensure a fit between the external situation of a particular process (threats and opportunities) and its own internal qualities or characteristics (strengths and weaknesses). The degree to which the internal part of the project/research matches the external part is expressed by the concept of „strategic fit”( www.businessnewsdaily.com/4245-swot-analysis.html).

Strengths: characteristics of the project that give it an advantage over others

Weaknesses: characteristics that place the project at a disadvantage relative to others

Opportunities: elements that the project could exploit to its advantage

Threats: elements in the environment that could cause trouble for the project (www.businessnewsdaily.com/4245-swot-analysis.html)

In the context of the www.enedu.webdah.com project, I have used a SWOT analysis to identify the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of testing language skills as means to compare and extract the most prominent and valuable strategies that will inform the design and implementation of the www.enedu.webdah.com platform.

Swot analysis:

Strengths:

Appropriate for levels B1, B2 and C1

instant diagnostic and prescriptive individual student reporting

Valid and reliable diagnostic assessment

Test scores are generally calculated by computerized systems, and results can be compared to other students of the same age or ability level, regardless of school or educational setting.

Students feel more relaxed in front of a computer screen

Raise level of students’ interest by using an electronic format

The online formats make it easy to administer anywhere at any time

Unsophisticated design, easy to access

It has the ability to record information about the test taker’s routes through a test.

View reports for each student or overall class

Weaknesses:

The test questions generally have only one correct answer and do not test higher-order thinking skills.

In some cases, students do not have the text and the questions on the same page and they have to scroll up and down

When the quizzes are created by the teacher/administrator, some mistakes may be inserted unwillingly (a misspelled word, two spaces instead of one), so, even though students give the right answer the computer does not take it into consideration

Opportunities:

Valuable practice with language skills will help prepare students to succeed in passing standardized tests and make students more well-rounded English users

The test is intended for the whole class. From the results, the teacher can see the distribution of different comprehension abilities in the class. The high scorers and the low scorers are particularly interesting. The teacher can give special work to these groups, leaving the large group in the middle to continue with the regular work.

Time and money spent on paper are saved.

Export results for closer examination and long-term records

Threats:

If there are any problems with the electricity or the internet, the quizzes cannot be solved

higher chance of fraud in online testing due to the lack of teacher-student interaction.

In this chapter I have proven the advantages of online assessment as an alternative way of testing language skills through www.enedu.webdah.com. At the beginning of the chapter I motivated the idea of creating the site. In the following two subchapters I described the site from the user’s and administrator’s points of view. Then, I analysed students’ results in three of the tests they had taken. The analysis led to the conclusion that after some practice students’ results were better and better. In the end, I made the SWOT analysis of the site which proves that the site has got more strengths and opportunities than weaknesses and threats.

All in all, the idea of creating www.enedu.webdah.com has been a successful and beneficial one. Even though I was not sure about its applicability at the beginning, I quickly changed my mind after I started to use it with my students in the Informatics lab. It certainly gives a new dimension to my teaching and testing and opens new perspectives to students who want to pass an English exam or simply wish to improve or test their English skills.

Conclusions

Assessing student learning at regular intervals is crucial in any educational environment. Through regular testing and reviews, teachers can monitor the progress of each student and then offer further guidance where required. Regular testing not only helps instructors identify learning weakness within individual students, but can also enable them to enhance the content and delivery of their subject matter.

Classroom assessments do more than just measure learning. What we assess, how we assess, and how we communicate the results send a clear message to students about what is worth learning, how it should be learned, and how well we expect them to perform.

The hereby paper Alternative Methods and Techniques of Testing Language Skills aimed to demonstrate the wide range of options (from the classical ones to projects/portfolios and to using computers and the internet) teachers have when assessing their students.

The paper is divided into five chapters, the first four ones illustrating various ways of testing language skills and the fifth one being the research part where I have demonstrated the benefits of online assessment.

In the first chapter Formal Assessment-What and Why We Assess I suggested several differences between testing, assessment, and evaluation. Moreover, I presented the purposes of testing as well as the valid objects for evaluation. Then I proceeded to different approaches to testing and, at that point I discriminated between the most common types of tests. In order to know if a test is effective, it needs to have some qualities (reliability, validity, practicality, authenticity and positive washback) which were each discussed in different subchapters.

Chapter two, Assessing Language skills, presents the ways in which receptive skills and productive skills can be tested. Receptive skills (listening and reading) are known as passive skills because they require little or no writing, while productive skills (writing and speaking) are the active skills, as learners need to produce language. However, assessing them separately is not the best approach since the integration of the four skills provides greater authenticity and washback to testing.

The next chapter, Alternative Assessment, demonstrates the fact that it is sometimes unfair to test only the product, the process being of equal importance. The concept of alternative assessment refers to what students can do with language, emphasizing that the point of language learning is communication for meaningful purposes. Therefore, various types of alternative assessment together with their implications were described in different subchapters. In order to have a broader idea on the differences between alternative and traditional testing, I have also introduced a subchapter which presents a contrastive view on these two types of assessment.

The last chapter from the theoretical part, New directions – Computer- Based Language Testing, poses the question of incorporating information technology in our teaching and testing, fact that can bring many concrete benefits and offers new potentials for language tests users, including teachers and learners. Information technology and the complex opportunities and challenges it offers for language assessment have been studied for more than thirty years. In the past, when information technology was firstly introduced into language assessment, researchers have been interested whether or not the use of computers might affect students’ language performance. With the time, the question has lost its importance as teenagers are becoming more and more comfortable with computer technology. In fact, today there are students „who express anxiety about the prospect of writing a final exam without a computer” (Chapelle&Douglas 2006:17). That is the subject of the first subchapter which presents information about the origins and development of computer-based testing. The next subchapters illustrate the pros of online examinations, but also their drawbacks.

The practice part, which is also the research I have done, is based on the presentation of the www.enedu.webdah.com site which was constructed in collaboration with one of my students. In this chapter I have described the site and its functions from the user’s and administrator’s perspectives. The research itself consists in the presentation and analyse of the students’ results obtained after doing several online tests. The purpose of the research was not only to demonstrate the advantages of online examinations as a modern way of alternative assessment, but also to help students get better results in English examinations.

To conclude, the benefits of online testing in general, and of www.enedu.webdah.com, in particular are a great motivator for me as teacher, but also for my students, for a number of reasons: instant calculation and analysis of results, flexible delivery methods (students can take tests wherever they may be), time can be saved when results are automatically and instantly calculated and communicated to both teacher and student. I can, then, review results in real-time for meaningful analysis, and feedback is automatically displayed for correct/incorrect answers. Alternatively, creating online tests is labour-intensive and time consuming.

All in all, the project I have started this year will certainly continue in the future with the creation of a larger testing data base, and with the possibility of other English teachers from Colegiul National “Liviu Rebreanu” Bistrita, and not only, to use and explore the site together with their students.