PERCEPTIOS OF TESL LEARERS O THEIR READIESS TO

ADMIISTER EGLISH LAGUAGE TESTS I SCHOOLS

YEOW CHEE KHEOG

UIVERSITI PEDIDIKA SULTA IDRIS

2009
 DECLARATIO

I hereby declare that the work in this research paper is my own except for the quotations
and summaries which have been duly acknowledged.

Signature:

Name: Yeow Chee Kheong.

Registration No.: D 2006 102 5612.

Date: 9 November 2009.

 PERCEPTIOS OF TESL LEARERS O THEIR READIESS TO

ADMIISTER EGLISH LAGUAGE TESTS I SCHOOLS

YEOW CHEE KHEOG

RESEARCH REPORT SUBMITTED I PARTIAL FULFILLMET OF THE

REQUIREMETS FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF EDUCATIO

(TEACHIG OF EGLISH AS A SECOD LAGUAGE).

FACULTY OF LAGUAGES

UIVERSITI PEDIDIKA SULTA IDRIS

2009
 ABSTRAK

Tujuan kajian ini dijalankan adalah untuk mengenalpasti persepsi bakal-bakal

guru yang akan memikul tanggungjawab mereka sebagai pengajar-pengajar

matapelajaran Bahasa Inggeris dan juga pemeriksa-pemeriksa kertas ujian dan

peperiksaan, khasnya dalam matapelajaran Bahasa Inggeris mengenai persediaan

mereka untuk mentadbir ujian bahasa (Inggeris) di sekolah. Seramai 31 orang pelajar

TESL di Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI) dipilih untuk tujuan ini. Kaedah dan

metodologi yang telah digunakan untuk menjalankan kajian ini ialah soalan kaji selidik

dan temuramah. Keputusan dan dapatan kajian telah menunjukkan bahawa terdapat

persepsi positif dan negatif dalam pandangan mereka berkaitan dengan kajian ini.

Kajian ini penting kerana penyelidik percaya bahawa pandangan bakal guru mampu

menyumbang kepada perubahan dalam sistem pendidikan di negara ini, khususnya

dalam bidang pengujian bahasa (Inggeris) memandangkan mereka bakal melaksanakan

segala dasar pendidikan yang digubal oleh Kerajaan Malaysia. Selain itu, laporan kajian

ini turut mengutarakan sedikit cadangan mengenai penyelesaian kepada masalah

semasa yang berlaku dalam dunia pendidikan sekarang, khususnya dalam bidang

pengujian bahasa (Inggeris). Melalui kajian ini, adalah diharapkan bahawa bakal guru,

guru terlatih, pensyarah pengujian bahasa (Inggeris), pentadbir universiti dan juga pihak

Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia dapat mempertimbangkan perubahan-perubahan yang

sepatutnya dilaksanakan dalam bidang pengujian bahasa (Inggeris).

i
 ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study is to find out the perceptions of future English

teachers who would become teachers and English language testers on their readiness to

administer language tests at schools. To realize this study, 31 student teachers at Sultan

Idris University of Education (UPSI) were selected to participate in this study. The

methods of questionnaire and interviews were used to carry out this study. Findings and

results revealed that positive and negative perceptions were drawn from their responses

with regard to this study. This study is important as the researcher believes that future

teachers’ viewpoints can also contribute towards the change of status quo in the

education system of this country particularly in the field of English Language testing as

they are going to become the agents to implement any educational policy set by the

government of the day. Besides, the report of this study also provides some suggested

solutions to problems which are happening in the present language testing scenario in

Malaysia. It is hoped that this study will become a reference for student teachers,

teachers, language testing instructors, university administrators and personnel in the

Ministry of Education to consider for very much needed amendment to take place in the

field of language testing.

ii
 ACKOWLEDGMETS

Firstly, I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor and lecturer, Prof.

Dato’ Dr. Tunku Mohani Tunku Mohtar for her kindness in providing me with the
intellectual assistance and also her dedication in proofreading my work to ensure that
only the best possible work could be produced.

Secondly, I am grateful to both my guardians, Mr. Hui Yiew Hong, Madam Hoo
Yeep and their family members who had been showering me with their love and care
besides getting me the best possible education which laid the groundwork for me to
pursue my first degree at UPSI. I am deeply indebted with their kindness, love and care.
In return, only The Omnipotence is able to fully reward them for their good deeds.

Thirdly, I would like to appreciate my dad, Mr. Koh Khiang @ Yeow King
Swee, my elder brother, Yeow Chee Seng and my other relatives for giving me the
much needed moral support while I was still pursuing my first degree.

Fourthly, I would also like to thank all my friends, especially my course mates
who had been helpful, supportive and friendly enough to lend me their helping hands
while I was still working on this paper. I hope that they will be blessed abundantly with
every success in pursuing their goals and dreams.

Fifthly, I am also thankful to my past and present lecturers at UPSI who have
been providing me with knowledge and guidance. I will always remember them in my
life.

Last but not least, I would also like to extend my million thanks to those who
had helped me directly and indirectly before this work could even be produced. Without
their help, the final piece of this work would not have come up.

iii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1 Perceptions of TESL students on the usefulness of the course 23

on Language Tests in Schools.

Table 4.2 The relationship between TESL students’ knowledge on 29

language testing and their readiness to administer language
tests in schools.

Table 4.3 Perceptions of TESL students on the real-life language tests in 33

schools

iv
 COTETS

ABSTRAK i
ABSTRACT ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES iv
CONTENTS v

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Background to the Problem 2
1.3 Problem Statement 4
1.4 Purpose of the Study 5
1.5 Research Questions 6
1.6 Theoretical/Conceptual Framework 6
1.7 Significance of the Study 10
1.8 Limitation of the Study 10

CHAPTER 2 – REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 12

CHAPTER 3 – RESEARCH DESIGN

3.1 Research Design 18
3.2 Population And Sample 18
3.3 Location 18
3.4 Instrument 19
3.5 Data Collection 20
3.6 Data Analysis Procedure 21

CHAPTER 4 – ANALYSIS OF DATA

4.1 Techniques to Analyse Data 22
4.2 Findings and Results for the First Research Question 22
4.3 Findings and Results for the Second Research Question 28
4.4 Findings and Results for the Third Research Question 33

v
CHAPTER 5 – DISCUSSION
5.1 Discussion on Findings 39
5.1.1 How do TESL learners perceive the usefulness of the course 39
on Language Tests in Schools?
5.1.2 What is the relationship between the TESL learners’ 42
knowledge on language testing and their readiness to
administer language tests at schools?
5.1.3 How did TESL learners perceive the real-life language tests 45
when they were at schools?
5.2 Implications 46
5.3 Conclusion 48

BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A – QUESTIONNAIRE
APPENDIX B – QUESTIONS OF INTERVIEW
APPENDIX C – TRANSCRIPTIONS OF INTERVIEWS

vi
 CHAPTER 1

ITRODUCTIO

1.1 Introduction

The use of tests can be found in almost every education system around the

globe. Tests can be used to serve a number of purposes. For instance, in order to enrol

at a university in the United Kingdom or the United States of America one needs to sit

for either IELTS or TOEFL and achieve the required minimum band as a prerequisite

for the purpose of enrolment to that higher learning institution. Besides, sometimes

benchmarks to rank learners according to their achievements and performance can be

set by analyzing their results in tests. Such tests are known as norm-referenced tests.

The other set of tests can serve the purpose of checking the extent of how far students

understand what they have been trained in a course. These tests are known as criterion-

referenced tests. If summative tests are used to gauge learners’ proficiency, formative

tests are in contrast used to check on learners’ weaknesses. Tests are indeed important

as far as both the retention and the transfer of knowledge are concerned (Gronlund,

1988). Due to this call of importance, steps have been taken to design and introduce

courses in higher learning institutions to train potential teachers become well-versed in

the aspect of preparing and administering tests in lower learning institutions. One

example that can be seen at Sultan Idris University of Education (UPSI) is the

introduction of the course on Language Tests in Schools. This course is aimed to

provide the learners of Teaching English as a Second Language (TESL) with roles of

tests, techniques of test construction and administration besides exposing them on how

1
to use statistical analysis to interpret test results (Faculty of Languages, 2006).

Language Tests in Schools is offered as an elective course for the TESL learners at

UPSI and as a compulsory course for the undergraduate learners from Sultan Abdul

Halim Teacher Institution (IPSAH) whose major is TESL while pursing their bachelor

degree at UPSI under the UPSI-IPSAH twinning programme. These potential teachers

may probably administer a number of tests once they begin their teaching lives at

schools. This study attempted to look into the issue of whether or not a group of

potential teachers who had been equipping themselves with the knowledge of

pedagogy, psychology, philosophy, language tests and other relevant knowledge were

ready to come up with language tests, to administer them and to analyze them. Thus, it

is interesting to find out the views of these potential teachers on their readiness to come

up with language tests, to administer them and to analyze them when they were about to

begin their teaching career at schools.

1.2 Background to the Problem

Testing approach has been receiving a huge criticism from scholars. Murphy

and Torrance (1988) cite from Holt (1969) who says that he disagrees with the

viewpoints of many educators who feel that testing is a necessity to any education

system in the world. In fact, Holt (1969) says that testing will bring more disadvantages

than advantages because testing approach may at worst pose a potential danger to a

teaching and learning event that can take place in a learning institution by hindering,

distorting and corrupting its learning process. Furthermore, the amendment of testing

approach which has been made from time to time does not convince Holt (1969) to

change his sceptical view on testing. Holt (1969) even calls for the testing approach to

2
be abolished by saying that the main concern should not be on how to make amendment

on testing but to eliminate the entire approach as cited by Murphy and Torrance (1988).

Gipps, Steadman, Blackstone and Stierer (1983) write in Testing Children that

there are indeed limitations and dangers in testing approach as highlighted by Holt

(1969) in Murphy and Torrance (1988). According to Gipps, et al (1983), in order to

administer a test, it is inevitable to undergo a series of stages. These stages are grouped

into two phases. The first stage is the designation of an appropriate curricular or

psychological model of areas which are going to be tested. The other following stages

are item design, selection and standardization, administration and marking of the test

and interpretation of the test score. Gipps, et al (1983) add on by claiming that each

stage of these processing stages is vulnerable to human intervention and error. Other

than that, the objectivity and the neutrality of a test may not be the same as when it was

received from a publisher. In fact, the problem may begin when a decision is made on

what items should be tested in the test. Usually, before designing items for that test, a

consideration on countless areas needs to be taken into account. Almost all of them

appear to be equally important. An issue will only arise when the number of test items

is limited and therefore many important areas need to be omitted or neglected.

Principally, if not all areas of a lesson are tested in a test, the degree of its validity will

not become high. The low validity of tests will possibly result into mishaps. A paradigm

could be drawn to describe these mishaps. A houseman may be qualified to become a

doctor by virtue of passing her medical exam which is low in validity. However, life of

many patients will be at stake if that doctor were to provide her medical service to

them.

3
 Having discussed both the problem and the issue which arise in testing, potential

teachers should reflect on their readiness to prepare test questions when they are at

schools later on. As a of matter fact, it is not easy to come up with a test and to

administer it. A careful plan needs to be devised for that purpose. In this case,

knowledge of testing is also essential to make sure that only tests which are highly

reliable and valid be given to learners at schools. With respect to this matter, teacher

training institutions need to ponder on the call to produce teachers who can bring about

improvement to the schools. The aspects of improvement may include the testing

approach which has been in use at schools for years. However, we need to bear in our

minds that no matter how good a teacher training institution may facilitate its trainee

teachers or student teachers, at best only knowledge and training can be provided by

that institution. The trainee teachers who may potentially become teachers still need to

apply on what they have been learning at their teacher training institutions once they

begin their career at schools at their own discretion.

1.3 Problem Statement

Both the experience and the knowledge are decisive keys for good teachers to

come up with tests which are high in validity and reliability. A test with high validity

will ensure that only what has been taught or lectured in a series of classroom lessons

will be tested on learners. On the other hand, the reliability of examinee scores in a test

indicates whether the obtained scores will be consistent or not if the same test is

conducted in a number of times. In order to equip potential teachers with experience

and knowledge, a course that specializes in testing like Language Tests in Schools plays

a pivotal role in disseminating the knowledge of language tests to the potential teachers.

4
Although this course is introduced for the potential teachers to gain insight for the

knowledge and practice of language testing, there is an issue which is needed to be

addressed. The administrators of teacher training institutions, the teacher trainers and

perhaps the potential teachers themselves should reflect on whether the contents of

knowledge in a language testing course and its virtual experience (such as tasks of

constructing test items and devising marking schemes) are sufficient and adequate or

not for the future use at schools. Whether the knowledge of potential teachers in

language testing is applicable or not for their future use can only be determined when

they are at schools. However, for this study, as many potential teachers were still

undergoing training at their teacher training institution (UPSI), their true ability in

applying their knowledge was very unlikely to be measured. Perhaps, one of the closest

indications to find out whether or not the potential teachers are ready to wear the hats of

test-item designers, test administrators, test markers and test-result analyzers is by

looking into their perceptions on their readiness to wear those hats.

1.4 Purpose of the Study

The issues which are being addressed in this writing are closely related to the

study. Some of the issues are on the adequacy and the practicality of knowledge and

experience which are provided by teacher training institutions with respect to the

language testing at schools. When this study was carried out, it was based on the

mentioned issues.

The intent of this study was to reveal the perceptions of a group of potential

teachers who had attended the course on Language Tests in Schools when this study

5
 was carried out. All of their views, opinions and feedback were recorded in the forms of

questionnaire and interviews for the purpose of analysis.

1.5 Research Questions

The study was aimed to answer these questions:

i. How do TESL learners perceive the usefulness of the course on Language Tests

in Schools?

ii. What is the relationship between the TESL learners’ knowledge on language

testing and their readiness to administer language tests at schools?

iii. How did TESL learners perceive the real-life language tests when they were at

schools?

1.6 Theoretical/Conceptual Framework

Two theories and one concept were used to inform this study when it was

carried out. The law of readiness was proposed by Edward L. Thorndike (1913) in his

book The Original ature of Man as written by Hergenhahn and Olson (1997). Three

premises constitute the law of readiness. Firstly, to perform a thing is satisfying if one is

ready to perform it. Secondly, to perform a thing is annoying if one is not ready to

perform so. Lastly, it will be annoying if one is forced to perform a thing, even though

one is not ready to do so. All these premises were proposed in the pre-behaviouristic

movement. According to Hergenhahn and Olson (1997), before 1930, a systematic

analysis had never been done on these premises. In fact, Klein (1996) who is agreeable

6
to this statement writes in his book Learning Principles and Applications that

psychologists after Thorndike needed to hypothesize about the nature of the motivation

mechanism because he had not come up with the hypotheses on that related subject.

To relate to this study, if the student teachers or the respondents of this study

were ready to become language testers at schools and were granted the role of language

testers, they might be happy to execute their role in the future as proposed in the first

premise in the law of readiness. Student teachers might not be happy if they were ready

to become language testers at schools but were not given the opportunity to assume that

role as stated in the second premise in the law of readiness. On the other hand, student

teachers who were not ready to become language testers but forced to play that role

would also become not happy.

Other than that, Albert Bandura’s self-efficacy beliefs were used to inform this

study. The beliefs of perceived self-efficacy and real self-efficacy are important as far

as self-efficacy beliefs are concerned in their scope of discussion as written by

Hergenhahn and Olson (1997). The perceived self-efficacy belief is what one believes

one is capable to do. On the other hand, the real self-efficacy belief is what one is

capable to do. Apart from that, Bandura (1986) as written by Hergenhahn and Olson

(1997) also points out three dysfunctional beliefs which are coincidental association,

inappropriate generalization and perceived self-inefficacy. The coincidental belief

association is usually subscribed by one after one has experienced quite a number of

almost identical experiences in different occasions. For instance, in the context of

language testing, a student teacher may conclude that all male teachers are biased in

giving marks because that student teacher used to get low marks when her exam papers

7
were marked by male teachers. The inappropriate generalization can be illustrated

whereby a student teacher thinks that all young teachers are careless when they

administer tests just because of one experience that the student teacher experienced at

her school whereby in one incident, a young teacher accidentally lost her English exam

paper somewhere. The other type of dysfunctional beliefs is perceived self-inefficacy in

which one believes one is not capable of performing something and exaggerates that

this will cause dangers or harmfulness. To explain this, Hergenhahn and Olson (1997)

say that that there are people who feel inferior about their capabilities due to some

unlucky incidents that they have faced before. They usually relate those unlucky events

which have happened to them to their self-presumed lack of capabilities. These people

usually feel threatened or uneasy as if they were posed with dangers when they are

asked to perform on things which are related to their bad past experiences. For instance,

two suicidal attempts which involved two different student on two different days

happened after they were failed their English Language tests by a same teacher. The

teacher who may have kept blaming herself over these two incidents may refuse to

mark any test papers anymore fearing the same two incidents may happen again.

In this study, the responses of student teachers in the questionnaire and

interviews give indication on how the student teachers perceived themselves on their

readiness to administer language tests at schools. The belief of perceived self-efficacy

could be used to analyse their responses to the posed questions from the questionnaire

and interviews. However, if the student teachers perceived their readiness on

administering language tests in schools negatively, the dysfunctional beliefs would be

used to explain on their responses. Between the beliefs of perceived self-inefficacy and

real-self-efficacy, the former belief would only be applicable once these student

8
teachers became established teachers at schools. Thus, the student teachers’ perceptions

when they were still going through the education system of this country would be look

into. Their past experiences with their former teachers at schools would be recorded in

this study by using the instruments of questionnaire and interviews. In short, self-

efficacy beliefs are important for future teachers as said by Soodak and Podell (1995) in

McCombs (1998) that efficacy beliefs among teachers can be best conceptualized as

following a developmental sequence while confidence in one’s future field is important

until one has an opportunity to develop one’s sense of efficacy as a professional in the

related field.

The concept on perception was also employed in this study to inform its

research. Perception is about how one perceives things concretely and abstractly. The

perception of different people may differ as Blake and Sekuler (2006) write that, at

times perception of one may not represent the true appearance of an object because the

matter of accuracy may not be necessary as far as one’s view on something is

concerned. Apart from that, Mather (2005) reveals that there are six methods to study

perception as written in his book, Foundations of Perception. These methods are known

as lesion experiments, clinical studies, single-unit recordings, brain imaging,

psychophysics and artificial intelligence. Out of these six methods, the method of

psychophysics is the closest method which is related to the study of this research

because the intended subjects of this method are evaluated based on how they

discriminate differences between two presented stimuli.

The concept of perception could also serve as a framework to this study because

responses of student teachers might be different from one another based on their

9
knowledge and experiences. On the approach of psychophysics, questions and

statements in the questionnaire were the stimuli which required them to respond yes or

no in order to discriminate the differences of their own views on those statements.

1.7 Significance of the Study

Potential teachers can utilize the findings from this study to prepare themselves

to face real challenges when they need to come up with language tests, design language

tests, mark language tests and analyze the results of language tests. Besides, those who

are in the position of administrating teacher training institutions, giving lectures and

courses on language tests, teaching language subjects (especially English), designing

language test items, marking language test items and analyzing test results are hoped to

be aware of what future teachers expect and hope to see when they are about to assume

some of those listed roles. Last but not least, follow-on studies can also be carried out

by potential researchers as far as the aspect of language testing is concerned. It is hoped

that these potential researchers will make improvement on this study and report on the

areas that are not found in this study.

1.8 Limitation of the Study

While carrying out this study, several factors had limited the aspects of quality

and quantity of its findings. Firstly, the time constraint was identified as one of the

obstacles to complete this study. The researcher needed to respond to the call of due

date in order to hand in the report of this study. Secondly, a large number of TESL

learners as subjects or student respondents for this study could be drawn from the

10
setting of this study. This would probably cause the issue of feasibility to arise. So, it

was decided that the researcher would only select a number of thirty-one TESL learners

to participate in this study. The number of subjects or student respondents was drawn

from those who had attended the course on Language Tests in Schools. Thirdly, due to

the fact that at the time of this study, the subjects still underwent teacher training at

their teacher training institution, they did not have any real experience in preparing

tests, conducting them and marking them at schools. However, they had learned the

course on language testing and also had some virtual experiences of preparing and

marking tests since they had attended the course on Language Tests in Schools. Lastly,

after searching for previous similar studies for the purpose of literature review on the

internet and at Tuanku Bainun Library in UPSI, the researcher discovered that not many

reports on studies and researches for this field of language testing, specifically in the

area of language test administration at schools could be retrieved. Apart from that, there

was a useful article by Bailey and Brown (1996) on Language testing courses: what are

they? This article could serve as the literature for this study but was not accessible

online for the public view. When this study was still an ongoing study, two closest

related literature articles were used as references to this study. One was a survey study

carried out by Brown and Bailey (2008) whose topic of study is published as Language

Testing Courses: What are they in 2007? Another study was carried out by Johnson,

Becker and Olive (1999) who named their topic of study as Teaching the Second-

Language Testing Course through Test Development by Teachers-In-Training.

11
 CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 Review of Literature

Whether a test is going to be administered effectively or not will depend on how

the test was constructed earlier. Whether or not questions in that test paper really test

what candidates of that test have learned and the results of this test will reflect the real

potential of its candidates or not will also depend on the tester or testers who set the

questions of that test before hand. In short, the role of testers is obviously important.

Thus, this discussion shall look into how future testers are trained to become testers

Firstly, the issue on what knowledge contents should be included in the

curriculum of a language testing course is arisen. Davies (1997) raises the question on

what sort of knowledge can be expected in a course of language testing. Davies (1997)

even reveals his curiosity on how far or to what extent established teachers will

construct test items based on the knowledge and experience that they have in language

testing. In one study carried out by Brown and Bailey (2008), a series of questionnaires

was distributed online via electronic mails to their potential respondents. The

respondents for that study were 97 instructors who gave lectures in courses on language

testing. The purpose of that study was to find out the responses of those instructors and

learners on their views of what language courses were all about. Their responses on

how they rated the coverage of the related topics taught in their courses of language

testing were recorded. There were topics on Hands-on Experiences, General Topics,

12
Item Analysis, Descriptive Analysis, Descriptive Statistics, Test Consistency and Test

Validity. In that study, Test Critiquing and Test Analysis obtained the two highest mean

ratings for Hands-on Experiences, which were 3.29 and 3.07. Test Bias, Classroom

Practices and Measuring the Different Skills were reported as the three highest rated

topics for General Topics with the mean scores of 3.26, 3.23 and 3.19 respectively. In

the Item Analysis Topics, Item Writing was the highest rated topic with the mean score

of 2.75. Mean and Standard Deviation shared the same mean score of 2.75 and both of

them were the most highly rated topics for Descriptive Statistics Topics. The highest

rated topic for Test Consistency was Reliability and Test Length which obtained the

mean score of 2.74. In the Test Validity Topics, the three highest mean scores were

obtained by Construct Validity (3.60), Content Validity (3.29) and Criterion-Related

Validity (3.26) respectively.

In relation with the survey study carried out above, Johnson, Becker and Olive

(1999) also report that many textbooks and articles on language testing issues are

available for the use in language testing classes. In reference with a study done by

Bailey and Brown (1996), Johnson, Becker and Olive (1999) report that contents used

in language testing classes were very much diversified and this gave a good indication

that the field of language testing was able to generate high interest among people who

contribute on the development of this field which could lead to further improvement

and investigation for this field of study. If the collected data from the study of Brown

and Bailey (2008) shall be referred, one can interpret that the popular topics which were

taught by language testing instructors were Hands-on Experiences, General Topics and

Validity. However, the emphasis on other topics should not be neglected as the

knowledge in some of these topics is also useful for student teachers to apply in their

13
future teaching profession. On the other hand, Johnson, Becker and Olive (1999) raise

another issue in their writing by saying that there is a need to come up with suitable

methods for the use in the courses of language testing even though there is quite large

numbers of contents which can be used in those courses. In their suggestion, Johnson,

Becker and Olive (1999) write that the use of simulated tasks or actual projects in

combination with action research and its collected data could lead to item response

theory. In item response theory, tests will not only be analysed to measure differences

between students who sit for tests like what classical test theory does as written by

Schumacker (2005). Other aspects variables like guessing and item difficulty are also

taken into account. Besides, while working on simulated tasks such as constructing test

items, teamwork is important as said by Johnson, Becker and Olive (1999). More ideas

on what and how to come up with test items can be generated among student teachers

who work in pairs or groups compared to a student teacher who works individually

because two heads are better than one as the saying goes. Further suggestion is given by

Johnson, Becker and Olive (1999) who say that a responsible course on testing must

constitute steps to show how test items perform in real settings and also every

measuring instrument has to possess basic qualities of being objective, reliable, valid,

economic, useful, and quantitative and all these qualities should be pondered on by

those who are involved in the field of language testing. In short, helpful and new

approaches and methods to present language testing lessons should be discovered for

the betterment of the language testing field. This is important to prepare future teachers

who will fulfil the first premise of Thorndike’s law of readiness which states that one

will only find satisfaction in performing something when one is really prepared to do

so.

14
 Besides, the attitudes on learners of language tests courses were also taken into

consideration in the study done by Brown and Bailey (2008). In their findings,

responses about students’ attitudes prior to their enrolment for language testing courses

could be viewed in positive and negative manners. According to their language testing

instructors, some students had a thought in their minds that they hated tests. Thus, they

thought they were going to hate those courses as well. Other students felt that the

courses which were statistical in nature became a stumbling block for them. The belief

of perceived self-inefficacy is applicable in both of these groups of student teachers

who had negative perceptions on the language testing courses that they were about to

attend. On the other hand, the positive views which were generated by students were

curiosity and interest to learn about the courses that they had never attended before.

When they were asked on how they felt after attended the courses, their views on those

courses became more positive. They said that they became more knowledgeable and

less fearful in the sense that those courses were not that scary after all. The first premise

that constitutes the law of readiness can be used to explain these positive remarks where

students were eager to know what language testing was all about and also the

excitement that they felt after their enrolment to those language testing courses. Those

student teachers were ready to execute their role as language testers at schools.

However, if they were not given any opportunity to become language testers, they

might end up fulfilling the second premise in the law of readiness whereby, they were

ready to perform something but they were not given the opportunity to do so. This

would be very annoying as proposed by Thorndike (1913) in Hergenhahn and Olson

(1997). Apart from that, the concept of perception can also be used to explain about the

contrasting views of students in the survey study carried out by Brown and Bailey

(2008). In the psychophysics approach, subjects need to discriminate the differences

15
between stimuli. In that survey study, questions that required student teachers to

perceive on whether they had a good impression or not on the language testing courses

that they had attended could be considered as stimuli.

As one of the enquiries for this study, how student teachers perceive the real-life

scenario should also be given heed. According to Stiggins (2002) in Brown and Bailey

(2008), only a few teachers are prepared to face real challenges in conducting classroom

assessments due to the limited opportunity which are provided for them to learn about

preparations of conducting tests in classrooms. Ratnawati Mohd. Ashraf and

Ponnudurai (2008) also agree with this by saying that some Australian teachers who

had learned language testing in their teacher training days did not believe that the

knowledge in language testing benefitted them in their classroom teaching. This means

that some teachers who wear the hat of testers were not trained on the courses of

language testing in their undergraduate days or even if they were trained, it seems like

these courses are not effective to them. To relate on this scenario, Thorndike’s third

premise of his proposed law of readiness states that it is annoying when one is forced to

perform something even though one is not ready to do so. Thus, if the claims made by

Ratnawati Mohd. Ashraf and Ponnudurai (2008) and also by Stiggins (2002) as written

by Brown and Bailey (2008) are correct, those established teachers should not be forced

to conduct classroom assessments because this will not only cause them to be unhappy,

they will also not be likely to execute their role as language testers whole-heartedly.

This will not be good for the development of English language testing field. Besides,

the beliefs of self-efficacy can also be referred to explain on this scenario. Perhaps, the

established teachers in Australia as written by Ratnawati Mohd. Ashraf and Ponnudurai

(2008) subscribed to the belief of perceived self-inefficacy where they felt that they

16
were not good enough to apply what they had learned from the language testing

courses. This could also mean that they felt inferior and were also not confident in

themselves on their level of knowledge in language testing.

In conclusion, the contents, methods and approaches which are used in language

testing courses, the attitudes of learners in language testing courses and the real-life

application of language testing knowledge are discussed in this chapter. All these issues

and aspects are important as far as discussions on language testing are concerned. Some

of these arisen problems and issues should also be addressed for the betterment of the

field in language testing. Thus, the role of teacher training institutions is essential to

address this matter.

17
 CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH DESIG

3.1 Research Design

This study was carried out using both the qualitative and quantitative methods

whereby questionnaire was distributed and interviews were conducted on the subjects

or respondents of this study.

3.2 Population and Sample

The population of this study was a group of 31 TESL students who had taken

the course on Language Tests in Schools at UPSI. The size of the sample in this study

was selected while taking into consideration the factor of timeframe to carry out this

study.

3.3 Location

Questionnaire was distributed to a group of 31 TESL students at a lecture room

in Taman Universiti 8, at the café in Harun Aminurrashid College (KHAR) and also via

email addresses. Four interview sessions were conducted at the same café on 4 of the

subjects who were voluntarily willing to be interviewed.

18
3.4 Instrument

There were two instruments used to collect data for this study. The first

instrument was questionnaire and the second instrument was interviews. The

questionnaire which was used to collect relevant data was designed by the researcher.

The questions and statements contained in this questionnaire were closed-ended

questions and statements which required only yes-or-no responses. This questionnaire

was divided into three parts.

In the first part or Part A, respondents were required to tick on all of the five

questions and statements in the given brackets whereby they were required to identify

on their perceptions on the usefulness of the course on Language Tests in Schools.

In the second part or Part B, respondents were also needed to tick on all of the

four questions and statements in the given brackets whereby they were required to

relate their perceptions on the knowledge of language tests in schools and their

readiness to administer language tests in the future.

As usual, the last part or Part C required the respondents to tick on all of the four

questions in the brackets to find out their perceptions of the real-life language tests

while they were still at schools as school students.

The second instrument which was used in this study was interviews. Eleven

questions were asked to the interviewees on their views of the usefulness of the course

on Language Tests in Schools, their knowledge of Language Tests in Schools and their

19
readiness to administer language tests in the future, the real-life language tests while

they were still at schools as school students and also their suggestions to solve problems

in language testing.

3.5 Data Collection

31 sets of questionnaire were distributed to 31 TESL students who had attended

the course on language Tests in Schools at different time and places. Those distributions

of questionnaire took place at a lecture room in UPSI, Taman Universiti 26, at the café

in KHAR and via email addresses.

On the first occasion, 4 sets of questionnaire were distributed to 4 students who

were interviewed by the researcher at the café in KHAR. Those sets of questionnaire

were collected after they finished answering them.

On the other occasion, 25 sets of questionnaire were distributed to them while

25 students were having a class at Taman Universiti 26. They answered the

questionnaire while the process of lecture was still taking place. Before they left the

lecture room, all answered questionnaire was collected.

Due to the reason that two subjects were unable to attend any of these two

occasions, phone calls were made to contact them and they agreed to become the

subjects for this study. Two mails with attached questionnaire were sent to them. They

contacted the researcher after they finished answering the questionnaire. Both responses

of the questionnaire were received in the researcher’s mailbox.

20
 On the other hand, all the four interview sessions took place at the café at

KHAR on the same day they answered the distributed questionnaire. These

interviewees were voluntarily willing to be interviewed by the researcher.

3.6 Data Analysis Procedure

The collected data from the answered questionnaire were analysed using the

application of Microsoft Office Words. Numbers of respondents who gave yes-no

answers from the questions and statements in the questionnaire were calculated. Data

were arranged into tables. Besides, all the responses of the interviewees were

transcribed for the purpose of data analysis.

21
 CHAPTER 4

AALYSIS OF DATA

4.1 Techniques to Analyse Data

Two types of obtained data in this study were the student teachers’ close-ended

responses on 15 questions and statements in the administered questionnaire and the 4

transcriptions of interviews. Numbers of respondents who agreed and disagreed on all

statements and questions from the distributed questionnaire were recorded in round

numbers and percentage numbers and these numbers were keyed into 3 tables. Besides,

the 4 transcriptions of interviews were also analysed. Some quotations from the 4

interview sessions are displayed in this chapter to help answering research questions. In

short, all the answers for the 3 research questions in this study are found in this chapter.

4.2 Findings and Results for the First Research Question

How do TESL learners perceive the usefulness of the course on Language Tests

in Schools?

To answer this research question, 5 yes-no responses from Part A of the

questionnaire were arranged into a table based on the allotted numbers of respondents

who agreed and disagreed on statements and questions from the questionnaire in round

numbers and percentage numbers. The responses from the first seven interview

questions were analysed and some of the quotations from the interviews are displayed

to help answering the first research question.

22
Table 4.1 Perceptions of TESL students on the usefulness of the course on

Language Tests in Schools.

RESPOSE

YES O

ITEM O. PERCETAGE O. PERCETAGE

OF OF OF OF

PERSOS PERSOS PERSOS PERSOS

1. Language Tests in Schools will help me 31 100% 0 0%

to administer English Language

examinations and tests in my later-on

career as a teacher.

2. The contents of Language Tests in 29 94% 2 6%

Schools are relevant.

3. I learn Language Tests in Schools for 4 13% 27 87%

the sake of knowledge only.

4. I will apply what my instructor has 29 94% 2 6%

taught me in my later-on classroom

teaching and learning.

Based on the Table 4.1, firstly, all of the respondents or 100% of 31 TESL

students agreed that the course on Language Tests in Schools which was taught at UPSI

would help them to administer examinations that they would have to administer in their

future teaching career as teachers. None of the respondents agreed that the course on

Language Tests in Schools did not help them to administer examinations in their

teaching career as teachers.

Secondly, the table shows that 94% of the respondents who make up the number

of 29 TESL students shared the same response by agreeing that the contents of the

23
course on Language Tests in Schools at UPSI were relevant when they were about to

venture into the teaching profession that they had yet to experience at schools. In

contrast, the table indicates that only 6% or 2 TESL students of the overall participated

respondents disagreed that the contents of this course were relevant to that specific

respondents when they were about to begin their teaching career later on. The

difference that can be seen between TESL students who agreed and disagreed on the

statement that the contents in the course on Language Test in School were relevant are

27 in number of respondents and 88 in percentage.

Thirdly, as allotted in the Table 4.1, a large majority of TESL student

respondents who make up the respondent number of 27 and the percentage of 87 went

against the view that Language Tests in Schools was learned by them for the purpose of

gaining knowledge only. On the other hand, the rest of the participated student

respondents who make up 4 members or 13% of the total respondents had the thought

in their minds that this course was only learned for the knowledge purpose only. From

the table, the differences of figures between respondents who disagreed and agreed with

the view that Language Tests in Schools was learned by them for the purpose of gaining

knowledge only are 23 and 74 in terms of student respondent number and percentage.

Fourthly, as shown in the Table 4.1, 29 student respondents who make up 94%

of the overall respondents intended to apply what their instructor had taught them in the

course on Language Tests in Schools in their future classroom teaching and learning.

Only 2 students or 6% of the overall respondents had a contrasting view on whether or

not those particular respondents would apply the knowledge which was taught to them

by their instructor in their classroom teaching and learning which would probably

24
happen in the future. From the obtained data also, one can interpret that there are gaps

of 27 students and 88% between two responses given by the students on whether or not

they would apply what their instructor had taught them in their later-on classroom

teaching and learning.

When the interview sessions took place, the researcher asked the 4 voluntary

interviewees who were given the pseudonymous names of Jennifer, Ivan, Candy and

Jolene on what aspects that they liked the best in the class of Language Tests in Schools

that they had attended. 3 of them disclosed that they liked to come up with marking

schemes. The reasons given by them were different from one another. Ivan would like

to become a good marker. Candy enjoyed working together with her course mates in the

group work to come up with a marking scheme and Jolene said that she could give

marks to her future students in a fair and just manner. Besides, Jolene also liked

constructing test items due to her subscribed principle of fairness in marking test papers

and constructing test items. On the other hand, Jennifer revealed that she liked coming

up with test items and looking up for authentic materials. According to her, these two

activities provided her with valuable experiences to help her finding authentic materials

in her future teaching career.

The second question was asked to them on what they hoped to see in the course

of Language Tests in Schools. Jennifer hoped that her peers would have given more

attention if they were to attend the course on Language Tests in Schools again. Both

Ivan and Candy felt that the instructor of the course should have used other alternative

teaching aids such as audio visual aids and other IT applications like PowerPoint slides

while teaching this course at the class. Apart from that, Candy would also like to see

25
more authentic and real exam samples to be presented at the class. Jolene on the other

hand, hoped that the instructor would give more assignments but fewer tests in that

class. She added on by saying that more practices on how to construct test items should

be emphasized instead.

The researcher also asked these 4 interviewees on the areas that they thought

should be removed from that course. Jennifer and Ivan personally felt that the routine

that they had undergone in that course was relevant and useful. Thus, both of them did

not see any need to remove any of the areas which they thought were useful in that

class. On the other hand, both Candy and Jolene suggested that weekly tests which were

conducted in that course should be abolished. When asked on why they felt the

particular area should be removed from the course that they had attended, Candy and

Jolene felt that weekly tests would create a stressful and high-anxiety atmosphere at the

class. Candy said that students who obtained low marks in weekly tests might get

distracted and could not concentrate on lectures given in that class when they knew that

their marks for previous tests were low. Jolene stressed that the time allotted for weekly

tests should be used to do other activities such as practices on how to come up with

language tests. Jennifer and Ivan opted not to answer the question because they felt that

none of the areas in that course should be abolished.

Besides, interviewees were also asked on whether or not the role of an instructor

important to make Language Tests in Schools becoming effective. All of the

interviewees agreed that the role of an instructor was important in the course on

Language Tests in Schools. They felt that the instructor could help them in great deal to

26
facilitate and guide student teachers to become well-versed in the aspect of language

testing. One example which can be seen here is the response from Jennifer,

“She needs to guide us from A to Z, because when we entered this course, I

mean when we take up this course, we don’t know anything. So the instructor

plays a very important role since she needs to guide us of everything.”

Other than that, when the interviewees were asked of their opinions on what an

instructor of language tests in schools should do besides disseminating knowledge to

her students, Jennifer said that a good instructor of this course should spend her time to

check the work done by student teachers before the latter would hand in their final work

to the former. She also suggested that the instructor could show samples of marking

schemes and test items to make student teachers familiar with them. Ivan also gave his

opinion by saying that the role of an instructor was more than just to give lectures. He

suggested that the instructor should link what she knew in her everyday life with the

students’ everyday lives as quoted below,

“Well, in my opinion, besides teaching…as we all know that teachers are not

only copying text books on the blackboard. It’s almost like that. So same goes to

the lecturers. They should connect the learning with their daily lives or our daily

lives.”

According to Candy, a good instructor should guide her students on step-by-step

basis to look for materials to construct test items. Jolene said that a good instructor

27
should be able to help her students to find answers to their doubts and provide room for

interaction between the instructor and the teacher students.

The question on what the interviewees would suggest bringing about

improvement in the Language Test in Schools course at UPSI also generated some

responses among them. Jennifer said that there was no area to be improved since

everything in that class went well. According to Ivan and Candy, the use of IT

applications such as audio visual aids and LCD projectors was important so that lessons

in that class would become more interesting as well as authentic materials could be

displayed more effectively. Besides, the frequent use of authentic materials would also

bring about improvement to the course on Language Tests in Schools as suggested by

Jolene.

4.3 Findings and Results for the Second Research Question

What is the relationship between the TESL learners’ knowledge on language

testing and their readiness to administer language tests at schools?

In answering this research question, 4 yes-no responses from Part B of the

questionnaire were arranged into one table based on the allotted numbers of respondents

who agreed and disagreed on statements and questions from the questionnaire in round

numbers and percentage numbers. The responses from the 8th interview question was

also analysed and some of the quotations generated from the interview question are

displayed to help answering the second research question.

28
Table 4.2 The relationship between TESL students’ knowledge on language testing

and their readiness to administer language tests in schools.

RESPOSE

YES O

ITEM O. PERCETAGE O. PERCETAGE

OF OF OF OF

PERSOS PERSOS PERSOS PERSOS

1. With the knowledge of language testing 23 74% 8 26%

that I have now, I can administer

English Language tests in school once I

begin my career.

2. I understand what my instructor teaches 29 94% 2 6%

me most of the times and this will

prepare me to administer language tests

in schools better.

3. I know how to come up with language 27 87% 4 13%

tests and I am prepared to administer

language tests in schools if I have to do

so.

4. I will become a good teacher if I am 30 97% 1 3%

equipped with the knowledge of

language testing.

5. I believe that one can only administer 28 90% 3 10%

language tests in schools if one has the

knowledge of language tests.

In the Table 4.2, firstly, 74% of the student respondents or 23 of them believed

that they would be able to administer language tests once they began their teaching

29
career with the knowledge that they had for that time being. Whereas, 8 out of 31

student respondents or 26% out of the overall student respondents who took part to

answer the distributed questionnaire were sceptical about their ability to administer

language tests with the knowledge that they had at that time if they were to begin their

career in the teaching profession. From the table, the differences between the numbers

of responses and percentages from those two contrasting views are 15 and 48.

Secondly, as illustrated in the Table 4.2, 94% of the student respondents who

make up the number of 29 respondents out 31 respondents understood what was being

taught to them by their instructor and believed that this factor would prepare them well

if they were to administer language tests at schools. The remaining 2 student

respondents or 6% of the total student respondents who answered the distributed

questionnaire were either not understanding what was being taught by their instructor or

not believing that to understand a series of lessons conducted by their instructor would

prepare them to administer language tests well if they were asked to do so. There could

be possibilities in which either or both of them did not understand their instructor’s

lessons and were sceptical about the positive correlation between the factor of

understanding the instructor’s lessons and their readiness to administer language tests if

they had to do so. From the collected data, one can interpret that the discrepancies

between two numbers and percentages of student respondents who gave responses

differently are 27 and 88.

Thirdly, as shown in the Table 4.2, out of 31 respondents who make up 100% of

the student respondents, 27 or 87% of them were sure that they knew how to come up

with language test items and were prepared to administer them if they had to do so. On

30
the other hand, 4 student respondents who make up 4% of the total respondents were

either undecided on whether or not they knew how to come up with language test items

or unprepared to administer language tests at schools if they were required to do so.

There were possibilities that anyone or some of them or even all of them felt that they

were not able to come up with language test items and not prepared to administer

language tests if they were asked to do so. The differences for round numbers and

percentage figures between respondents who said yes and no for the statement on

whether or not they knew how to come up with language tests and were prepared to

administer language tests at schools if they had to do so are 23 and 74 respectively.

Fourthly, 97% or 30 of the student respondents felt that they would become

good teachers in the future if they were equipped with the knowledge of language

testing. However, only one student respondent who represents the 3% of the overall

student respondents was not agreeable to the view that one would become a good

teacher as a result of the knowledge of language testing that one was equipped with.

Based on the table also, the discrepancies between the numbers and percentages of the

two opposing views are 29 and 94%.

Fifthly, in the Table 4.2, 28 student respondents or 90% of the total respondents

shared the same belief that one could only administer language tests at schools if one

had the knowledge of language tests. However, the remaining 3 student respondents or

10% of the overall student respondents were sceptical that one could only administer

language tests at schools if only one had the knowledge of language tests. From those

obtained data, gaps between different numbers and percentages of students who

responded for this statement are 25 and 80.

31
 The only related interview question asked to answer the second research

question was whether or not 4 of the interviewees thought that the course on Language

Tests at Schools would help them to conduct language tests at schools later on in their

teaching profession. In general, all of the interviewees agreed that the course on

language Tests in Schools would help them when they would venture into the teaching

profession. When they learned how to construct test items and formulate marking

schemes, they could apply them at their schools later on based on the importance of

these two areas as said by Jennifer,

“Of course, because…ah…to conduct the test, we need to create the test items,

so we’re taught of how to creating, how to create test items in this course.

Besides that, once we want to conduct a test, we need to have marking schemes.

And we’re also taught of how to come up with a marking scheme too.”

On the other hand, Candy stressed that marking subjective test items required

teachers to be skilled and fair in their professional conduct as she commented on this

issue,

“Yes, because…ah…constructing items and also marking some subjective items

like essays, short-answer responses, it requires very skilful and also…how to

say…very…ah…it needs the teachers to be fair and square as well, OK…do not

be biased…things like that.”

32
4.4 Findings and Results for the Third Research Question

How did TESL learners perceive the real-life language tests when they were at

schools?

To answer this research question, 6 yes-no responses from Part C of the

questionnaire were arranged into a table based on the allotted numbers of respondents

who agreed and disagreed on statements and questions from the questionnaire in round

numbers and percentage numbers. Besides, responses from the 9th and the 10th interview

questions were also analysed and some of the quotations from the interviews are

displayed to help answering the third research question.

Table 4.3 Perceptions of TESL students on the real-life language tests in schools

RESPOSE

YES O

ITEM O. PERCETAGE O. PERCETAGE

OF OF OF OF

PERSOS PERSOS PERSOS PERSOS

1. My former teachers in schools used to 19 61% 12 39%

give me tests which I find are not

relevant to what I learn for Language

Tests in Schools.

2. My former teachers in schools used to 16 52% 15 48%

test me on things that I find cannot

really apply in my life.

3. I think that many teachers in schools do 21 68% 10 32%

not have the knowledge of language

tests in schools.

33
4. Some teachers in schools do not test 24 77% 7 23%
language at all when they administer a

test.

5. Some teachers in schools test students 25 81% 6 19%

on what they have not taught.

6. If teachers in school still test students 28 90% 3 10%

like what they do now, their students

will always have problems in using

English language.

Based on the table in Table 4.3, firstly, 19 student respondents who represent

61% of the total respondents who answered the distributed questionnaire felt that their

former teachers used to give them tests which were not relevant to what they learned in

Language Tests in Schools. In spite of that, another 12 respondents or 39% of the total

respondents did not feel that their former teachers used to administer them with tests

which were not relevant to what they learned in the course on Language Tests in

Schools. The differences which can be drawn in terms of number of respondents and

percentage of respondents who answered this question are 7 and 21 respectively.

Secondly, it could be seen from the Table 4.3 that 16 of the student respondents

who make up 52% of the overall respondents felt that their former teachers used to test

them on things which they could not really apply in their lives. In contrast, 15 student

respondents or 48% of all respondents who took part to answer the questionnaire stated

that their former teachers used to test them things which were applicable in their lives.

There are slight differences in terms of numbers and percentages of respondents who

gave different answers on their views on whether or not their former teachers at schools

34
used to test them on things which they could not apply in their lives which can be read

as 1 and 4 respectively.

Thirdly, from the Table 4.3, the majority group of respondents who make up 21

or 68% of the student respondents agreed that some teachers who taught at schools did

not have the knowledge of language tests at classrooms. However, the minority group

of respondents with 10 student respondents or 32% of the overall respondents opposed

to that statement. They felt that some teachers at schools had the knowledge of

language tests at schools. The gaps between the figures of respondent numbers and

percentages who gave different responses of their views on the statement that some

teachers did not have the knowledge of language tests at schools are 11 and 36.

Fourthly, in the Table 4.3, 77% student respondents who represent 24

respondents agreed that some teachers did not test the language aspect at all when they

conducted a language test. The rest of the student respondents who make up only 7

respondents or 23% of the total respondents disagreed with that statement. The

differences between the student numbers and percentages of responses between the two

opposite responses are 17 and 54 respectively.

Fifthly, the Table 4.3 shows that 81% of the student respondents or 25 of them

agreed that some teachers did not have the knowledge on language test at schools. On

the other hand, the remaining 19% student respondents or 6 of them were not agreeable

to that view. This means that the differences between responses in terms of student

numbers and percentages are 19 and 62 respectively.

35
 Sixthly, based on the table in Table 4.3, 90% of the student respondents or the

represented 28 respondents thought that students in classrooms would always have

problems when using English if teachers still tested students like what they did in the

time of this study. In contrast, student respondents who were not agreeable to that

statement are only 3 who represent only 10% of the total respondents. The differences

that can be drawn from these data are 25 student respondents and 80% in terms of

respondent number and percentage.

When TESL student teachers were asked what the main problem in Malaysia

was regarding to the language tests, many answers were obtained. Jennifer felt that

there were insufficient authentic materials in test items. Besides, those items were also

low in validity. Ivan insisted from the beginning that marking schemes in tests were

problematic in term of their leniency. He believed when a fair test was administered,

students from all range of proficiency levels should deserve good marks,

“Well, as you can see, I have been mentioning about marking scheme from the

first point. It is because to me, nowadays in our Malaysia, the marking scheme

is too general. I’m sorry to say that this is quite mean because to me it is

important for the marking scheme to be equal for all students. Poor, beginner,

intermediate…they should deserve a good mark. If the marking scheme is too

high, so how about…what will happen to the lower students? So, that’s all for

my point of view.”

Candy thought that language tests in Malaysia were exam oriented in nature.

Many school students who sat for public exams would normally feel stressed. Besides,

36
she said that school students were often tested on areas which had not been taught to

them,

“OK…ah…as we all know that actually from the newspaper reports or even

you browse the internet, you’ll know that some students are really stressed due

to the final exams or they are normally known as PMR, SPM, STPM and all

those things. Then, I think…ah…the language test in Malaysia is kind of exam-

oriented. So, sometimes students are tested only on things or areas that they

have not been taught. Like teacher teaches them ABC, but then later on teacher

will test them on DEF until Z, something like that.”

Jolene on the other hand, commented that some teachers were not aware of how

to construct valid and reliable test items. She also said that most of the tests

administered in Malaysia were subjective and not fair in nature,

“Most of the teacher is not aware…most of the teachers are not aware of how to

construct the very reliable and valid tests. Most of the tests like very subjective

and maybe is not fair for…er…the students in Malaysia.”

When asked on why those problems should be solved, Jennifer believed that a

test should be interactive and reliable when students sat for that test,

“OK, why it should be solved, students need to interact with the test not just sit

for the test and get their marks. They should interact with the test and they need

to be…There should be reliability when they answer the test.”

37
 As for Ivan, students regardless of any level of proficiency should get good

marks in a test to ensure that the test was fair and also the level of their motivation

would be boosted,

“To me, if this problem can be solved, it is possible in the future, our future

students will gain good marks. Although they’re weak, at least they will try their

best because for our good marking scheme, we can detect…ah…we can give

more marks, we can be fair and equal to our students so none of them will be

failed. And our increasing of…ah…increasing of passionate students will

increase.”

Candy felt that students’ true potential and achievements would be unleashed if

the problems on exam-oriented nature and content validity (areas which were taught

and tested in a test) were solved. Jolene also shared the same sentiment when she said,

“Er…as we know, our Malaysian school system is very exam-oriented, that’s

why we need more reliable tests to look for like to pupils and to look for the

potential ones.”

38
 CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSIO

5.1 Discussion on Findings

5.1.1 How do TESL learners perceive the usefulness of the course on Language

Tests in Schools?

Based on the obtained responses in Part A of the administered questionnaire and

also in the first seven interview questions, 100% of TESL student teachers agreed that

the course on Language Tests in Schools that they had attended would help them to

administer future tests at schools. 94% of them agreed that the contents of the course

were relevant. 87% of these future teachers disagreed that they took the course for the

sake of knowledge only. Other student respondents who said that they would apply

what they had learned from their language testing class in their future career as teachers

are 94% of the overall subjects of this study. It can be inferred here that most of the

student teachers had a positive attitude towards the importance of the course on

Language Tests in schools. Theoretically, this is good as they indirectly realized the

first premise of Thorndike’s law of readiness whereby one will feel the satisfaction

when one performs something upon one’s readiness to do so. Only a minority group of

the respondents did not realize the importance of the language testing course and they

appeared to be not even ready to enrol for that course. Thus, a situation like this fulfils

Thorndike’s third premise in which one who is forced to perform something will not

find satisfaction if one is not ready to do so. In this case, perhaps those minority

39
students were forced to take that course because that paper was a must-take paper for

them. Besides, Ratnawati Mohd. Ashraf and Ponnudurai (2008) write that all teachers

should be equipped with the theoretical knowledge on how to develop and use

assessment tools. In order to fulfil this, the role of language testing courses is important

to disseminate the knowledge on language testing just like what UPSI has been doing

until now through its introduction of the course on Language Tests at Schools to the

TESL students. Apart from that, for content-wise, majority of the student teachers

agreed that this course was relevant for that reason. Brown and Baileys (2008) did a

survey and found out that many topics constituted some of the courses on language

testing. They also found out that the most popular topics for language testing courses

were Hands-on Experiences, General Topics and Validity. The researcher could find

one thing in common between the survey done by Brown and Baileys (2008) and this

study. For Hands-on Experiences, both item writing and markings schemes constituted

this topic as written by Brown and Baileys (2008). When interviewees were asked on

why the course that they had attended was useful to them, they stressed on the

importance of how to come up with test items and marking schemes. The evidence of

this can be seen here when Candy said,

“Yes, because…ah…constructing items and also marking some subjective items

like essays, short-answer responses, it requires very skilful and also…how to

say…very…ah…it needs the teachers to be fair and square as well, OK…do not

be biased…things like that.”

Besides, one more important issue with regards to this study is whether or not

student teachers will only learn the courses on Language Testing for the fulfilment of

40
gaining knowledge only. In this study, it was found out that 87% of its student

respondents disagreed that they attended the course on Language Tests in Schools for

the purpose of gaining knowledge only. This finding is in contrast to the finding on a

group of already-established Australian teachers who believed that the knowledge that

they had learned in their teacher training institutions was unhelpful and ineffective for

them to discharge their classroom teaching and also to assess their students as said by

Ratnawati Mohd. Ashraf and Ponnudurai (2008). There is a possibility whereby, 13%

of the respondents in this study and also the group of already-established Australian

teachers were on their way to fulfil the belief of Bandura’s perceived self-inefficacy and

also the third premise of Thorndike’s law of readiness. They did not believe in their

own capability in teaching besides of not ready to become language testers at schools

even though the respondents of this study were on their way to become teachers at

schools at and the Australian subjects had already become established teachers. Overall,

majority of the student respondents had a positive attitude in perceiving the usefulness

of the language testing course at UPSI. This is comparable to the survey done by Brown

and Bailey (2008) who asked language testing instructors about the attitudes of their

students who enrolled into their classes. According to them, after attending their

classes, their students gave positive responses such as satisfied and interested to explore

further about the areas that they were going to learn in those classes. These responses

are in contrast with their feelings before they attended the classes where they thought

they would feel unsettled and hate those classes because they disliked subjects on

statistics. One more similar finding of this study and the finding by Johnson, Becker

and Olive (1999) is both groups of subjects enjoyed teamwork in coming up with

language tests. The interviewee of this study, Candy said,

41
 “I worked with my group members to construct the scheme and then, we

have…we had done a lot of discussions before we came to the…before we came

to the final on the marking scheme.”

Regarding to the feedback by respondents in this study, one can summarize that

despite all the positive feedback, one should note that the responses from the minority

group should not be neglected as their responses also had shares in generating the

overall findings of this study. The concept which can be used to explain about their

different viewpoints is perception. Blake and Sekuler (2006) write that, the perception

of every person is different and may not represent the true view of a thing. This is

because the knowledge and experiences of people are different from one another. In the

approach of psychophysics, questions and statements in the questionnaire were the

stimuli which required them to respond yes or no in order to discriminate between

agreements and disagreements of statements based on their own views. To simplify,

perhaps the different and unknown past experiences of the student teachers in the two

groups of respondents had caused them to respond differently from each other.

5.1.2 What is the relationship between the TESL learners’ knowledge on

language testing and their readiness to administer language tests at

schools?

Based on the obtained responses in Part B of the administered questionnaire and

also in the 8th interview question, 74% of the respondents who were TESL learners

believed that they would be able to administer language tests at schools once they began

their teaching career at schools with the knowledge that they had for the time being.

42
94% of the overall respondents believed that they understood what was being taught by

their instructor at their language testing class. 87% of the TESL student teachers who

participated in this study were confident that they knew how to come up with language

tests and they were prepared to discharge this role if they were required to do so. 97%

of them believed that they would become good teachers if they had the knowledge on

language testing. 90% of the participated respondents also believed the positive

correlation between the readiness to administer language tests and the possession of

knowledge in language testing. When four of the interviewees from this group of

respondents were asked on whether or not the course on Language Tests at Schools

would help them to administer tests at schools later on, all of them agreed that this

course was useful and helpful to them for that purpose. In theories, the law of readiness

and self-efficacy beliefs are applicable to explain on these findings. According to the

first premise in the law of readiness, a person will find satisfaction in performing

something if she is ready to do so. Likewise, 87% of the student teachers in this study

who claimed that they knew how to come up with tests at schools were prepared to

discharge this duty if they were needed to do so. They would also find satisfaction if

they were given chances to do so. Thus, they should be given chances to construct and

administer tests at schools or otherwise, the fulfilment of the second premise in the law

of readiness would become a reality to them because they were annoyed and frustrated

for not being given any opportunity to do so even though they were prepared. Besides

that, Bandura’s perceived self-efficacy belief can explain about the statistical findings

on 74% of the respondents who believed the knowledge of language testing that they

had for that time being would help them to administer tests at schools once they began

their teaching career at schools. Furthermore, 97% of them believed that the knowledge

of language testing was the key for them to become good teachers and 90% of the

43
overall respondents were convinced that this knowledge was important for the readiness

of student teachers to become language testers at schools. All these are good evidence

to explain on Thorndike’s first premise. Other than that, the similar response of 4

interviewees who agreed that the course on Language Tests at Schools would help them

in their future is also in accord with the principle of self-efficacy belief. These student

teachers perceived that they were capable to perform well in schools if they were to

become language testers at school. In order to verify whether or not student teachers’

self-perceived capabilities reflect their true performance at schools, their real self-

efficacy belief may justify their perceived self-efficacy. Given the circumstance of this

study where its student-teacher respondents were still pursuing their first degree, it

would only be possible to examine on their real self efficacy once they became teachers

at schools. As usual, two different sets of viewpoints are found in this study in

alignment with the concept of perception. In this study, two groups of students

perceived the relationship between knowledge and readiness to administer tests in

schools differently. The statements and questions in the questionnaire and also the

interview question that asked student teachers on whether or not the course on

Language Tests at Schools would help them to administer tests at schools later on were

the stimuli that needed them to discriminate on their opinions regarding of the related

matter in accord with the principle of psychophysics as written by Mather (2005). In

comparison with a past study, Brown and Bailey (2008) wrote that instructors in their

survey study said that their students showed positive attitudes in their classes when they

were more confident, able to come up with their own exams, more knowledgeable and

quite positive in general.

44
4.1.3 How did TESL learners perceive the real-life language tests when they were

at schools?

In analysing the responses of student teachers from the Part C of the

administered questionnaire and the 9th interview question, 61% of the respondents said

that their former teachers used to give them English Language tests which were not

relevant to what they had learned from the course on Language Tests in Schools. 52%

of their former teachers tested them on what they could not apply in their real-lives.

Besides, 68% of the overall respondents thought that many teachers in schools did not

have the knowledge on language testing. While 77% of the respondents’ claimed that

some teachers did not test language aspect at all in their administered English Language

tests. Other than that, out of the overall respondents, 81% of them claimed that some

English Language testers tested their students on areas that they had never taught their

students. 90% of the respondents believed that if English Language teachers or testers

still tested their students like what they did, their students would always have problems

in using English language. Besides, from the interview, when 4 interviewees were

asked on what the main problem of language testing in Malaysia was, their answers

ranged from various aspects of the material authenticity, the marking scheme leniency,

the nature of a test itself and the validity and reliability of a test. From what can be seen

here, larger numbers of respondents were not impressed with the real scenario of

language tests in this country. The theory of real self-efficacy can be used to explain all

these phenomenal problems. Perhaps, teachers who were claimed to be inefficient by

their students believed that their performance at schools was a reflection of their true

capabilities in discharging their duty as language teachers and testers. Besides, the third

premise of the law of readiness whereby, one who is not ready to perform but is forced

45
to do so also explains on why former language teachers of most of the participated

respondents were incompetent to play their role as language testers well. They might

feel reluctant to perform their duties and roles of language teachers and testers after

many years of teaching in schools. Thus instead of enjoying their work at schools, they

felt that they were forced to become language testers. After all, the role of teachers is

not only to teach. They are required to assess their students as well. In comparison with

other related literature, Ratnawati Mohd. Ashraf and Ponnudurai (2008) report that a

group of Australian teachers felt that what they had learned during their time in teacher

training institutions, especially on language testing was unhelpful and ineffective to

them for the purpose of discharging their duties and roles as language teachers and

language testers. Besides, Moore (1993) also claims that many teachers in schools are

not trained on how to deliver and administer tests properly to their students.

5.2 Implications

From this study, it is implied that the course on Language Tests in Schools was

useful to the student respondents who had learned that course. This is evident when all

of them agreed that this course was useful when asked in the first questionnaire of the

distributed questionnaire. This course is indeed important to prepare student teachers

who will wear the hats of test-item designers, test administrators, test markers and test-

result analyzers. In spite of that, both the positive and negative perceptions could be

interpreted in the study as more responses were generated from them with reference to

the course on Language Tests in Schools. Thus, viewpoints of the minority group who

had their shares in giving responses should not be neglected.

46
 Besides, most student teachers in this study had positive attitudes while relating

the knowledge in language testing to its practice in their lives as teachers in the future.

In addition they also felt that they were prepared to construct test items, administer

them, mark examinee answers and analyze the results of tests. However, there were a

few student teachers who bore the minority points of view. They were not sure about

the knowledge that they had in language testing and also whether or not they would

apply this knowledge in their teaching life later on. One should note that the responses

of this group of respondents should be given heed as these respondents had their shares

in answering the questions in this study and also they would become teachers and

testers just like other respondents

Other than that, it is reported here that most of the student teachers had a bad

impression of the language tests which were conducted in the real life. Perhaps, their

past experiences had painted many ugly pictures to the conduct of language tests in

Malaysia. They realized that their former teachers had failed to conduct tests in a right

way probably because these student teachers were enlightened by the lessons that they

had been going through in the course on language tests in schools. In spite of this, there

were some opposing views who felt that those ugly pictures had never existed before in

this country based on their past experiences at schools.

Two different points of view were generated on many aspects in this study. It

may be obvious that in every aspect there seemed to be a majority group who formed

the overall say. However, whether whose views are right and whose views are wrong

should not become an issue as Blake and Sekuler (2006) say that accurate views of the

world are not necessary while perceiving things which are abstract and concrete. Blake

47
and Sekuler (2006) add on by saying that sometimes, perception may wrongly perceive

the true appearance of an object. Indirectly, the method of psychophysics is useful to

interpret the different viewpoints in the responses given by the subjects of this study as

explained by Mather (2005). In this case, the questions which were asked in the

questionnaire and the interviews were the stimuli and the collected responses were the

perceptions for this study.

Besides, the theories of self-efficacy beliefs and law of readiness by Albert

Bandura and Edward L. Thorndike are also useful to explain on one’s attitude and

readiness to accomplish one’s goal in the future. In this case, student teachers of this

study were likely to become English teachers at schools. By becoming English teachers,

they would assume the designation of English language testers as well. In this study,

most of the student teachers were ready and confident that they could play the role of

language testers well. There is always hope for the field of language testing to develop

well in Malaysia if all student teachers and establish teachers bear this mentality in their

mindsets.

5.3 Conclusion

This study reports about the perceptions, attitudes and readiness of student

teachers who would be likely to become language teachers as well as language testers in

terms of their perceptions and also their readiness to wear the hat of language testers

besides wearing another hat of teachers. Although this study was limited by its

sampling and instruments, it can be used as an indication and guidelines to bring about

positive changes in the field of language testing particularly in classrooms. Student

48
teachers’ voices should also be given attention as they are going to shape the leaders of

tomorrow in their future classrooms. All the related parties, from the Ministry of

Education to the school, from the university administrators to the professors and also

from the instructors of language tests in schools to the student teachers should reflect on

their own roles and help to improve the education system of Malaysia which is still seen

as exam-oriented type.

To conclude also, reflection should be done on the opinions of Jennifer, Ivan,

Candy and Jolene who were interviewed on why problems in language testing in

Malaysia should be solved. Jennifer believed that interaction between examinees and

tests were important and tests should not be all about what and how to evaluate

students’ achievements only. The aspect of reliability must also be emphasized. Other

than that, when interviewed, Ivan said that a test should be used to motivate students.

Thus marking schemes should sometimes be lenient so that students who were not

proficient would be eager to learn in a classroom as rephrased from Ivan. On the other

hand, both Candy and Jolene shared the same sentiment that English Language tests

should be revised to ensure that students could unleash their true potential.

49
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Blake, R. & Sekuler, R. (2006). Perception. New York: McGraw Hill.

Brown, J. D., & Bailey, K. M. (2008). Language testing courses: what are they in 2007?

Language Testing, 25 (3), 349-383. Retrieved 14 October, 2009, from

http://ltjsagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/25/3/349

Davies, A. (1997). The Education (and Training) of Language Testers. Paper presented

at the Language Testing Research Colloquium, Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved 14

October, 2009, from

http://www.ltrc.unimelb.edu.au/mplt/papers/06_1_8_Davies.pdf

Faculty of Languages. (2006). Buku panduan akademik 2006/2007. Tanjong Malim:

Sultan Idris University of Education.

Gipps, C., Steadman, S., Blackstone, T., & Stierer, B. (1983). Testing Children.

London: Heinemann Educational Books.

Gronlund, N. E. (1988). How to construct achievement tests. Englewood Cliffs, New

Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Hergenhahn, B. R., & Olson, M. H. (1997). An introduction to theories of learning.

New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Johnson, R., Becker. P., & Olive, F. (1999). Teaching the second-language testing

course through test development by teachers-in-training. Teacher Education

Quarterly, 26 (3), 71-82. Retrieved 27 October, 2009, from

http://www.teqjournal.org/backvols/1999/26_3/johnsonetal.pdf
Klein, S. B. (1996). Learning principles and applications. Singapore: McGraw-Hill,

Inc.

Mather, G. (2005). Foundations of perception. New York: Psychology Press.

McCombs, B. L. (1998). Integrating metacognition, affect, and motivation in improving

teacher education. In M. Lambert, & B. L. McCombs (Eds.), How students learn:

reforming schools through learner-centered education (379-408). Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

Moore, W. P. (1993). Preparations of students for testing: teacher differentiation of

appropriate and inappropriate practices. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of

the National Council on Measurement in Education (Atlanta, GA, April 13-15,

1993). Retrieved 19 October, 2009, from

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/

80/13/bc/9a.pdf

Murphy, J. & Torrance, H. (1988). The changing face of educational assessment.

Bristol: Open University Press.

Ratnawati Mohd. Ashraf & Ponnudurai, J. P. (2008). Challenges in language

assessment: are we ready? Paper presented at the International Conference on

Developments in the Pedagogy of International Languages: A Gateway for

Practioners sponsored by Institute Perguruan Bahasa-Bahasa Antarabangsa (IPBA)

Kuala Lumpur, June 4 at Hotel De Palma, Kuala Lumpur. Retrieved 27 October,

2009, from http://apps.emoe.gov.my/ipba/rdipba/cd1/article172.pdf

Schumacker, R. E. (2005). Item response theory. Retrieved 18 October, 2009, from

http://www.appliedmeasurementassociates.com/White Papers/ITEM RESPONSE

THEORY.pdf
 APPEDIX A

QUESTIOAIRE

Respondents are required to tick (
) on the given brackets for the
following details.

Part A: Perceptions of TESL students on the usefulness of

Language Tests in Schools.

1. Language Tests in Schools will help me to administer English

Language examinations and tests in my later-on career as a
teacher.

Yes ( ) No ( )

2. The contents of Language Tests in Schools are relevant.

Yes ( ) No ( )

3. I learn Language Tests in Schools for the sake of knowledge

only.

Yes ( ) No ( )
4. I will apply what my instructor has taught me in my later-on
classroom teaching and learning.

Yes ( ) No ( )

Part B: The relationship between TESL students’

knowledge of language tests and their preparedness
to administer language tests in schools.

1. With the knowledge of language testing that I have now, I can

administer English Language tests in school once I begin my
career.

Yes ( ) No ( )

2. I understand what my instructor teaches me most of the times

and this will prepare me to administer language tests in schools
better.

Yes ( ) No ( )

3. I know how to come up with language tests and I am prepared

to administer language tests in schools if I have to do so.

Yes ( ) No ( )
4. I will become a good teacher if I am equipped with the
knowledge of language testing.

Yes ( ) No ( )

5. I believe that one can only administer language tests in schools

if one has the knowledge of language tests.

Yes ( ) No ( )

Part C: Perceptions of TESL students on the real-life

Language Tests in schools.

1. My former teachers in schools used to:

a) give me tests which I find are not relevant to what I learn

for Language Tests in Schools.

Yes ( ) No ( )

b) test me on things that I find cannot really apply in my life.

Yes ( ) No ( )

2. I think that many teachers in schools do not have the

knowledge of language tests in schools.

Yes ( ) No ( )
3. Some teachers in schools:

a) do not test language at all when they administer a test.

Yes ( ) No ( )

b) test students on what they have not taught.

Yes ( ) No ( )

4. If teachers in school still test students like what they do now,

their students will always have problems in using English
language.

Yes ( ) No ( )

Thank you for taking your time to answer this questionnaire.

 APPEDIX B

QUESTIOS OF ITERVIEW

1. What is the aspect that you like the best in this course?

2. What would you like to see in this course?

3. What is the aspect that you feel should be removed from this course?

4. Why do you feel that aspect should be removed?

5. Is the role of an instructor important for the purpose of the effectiveness for this

course?

6. What do you think a good instructor should do besides disseminating knowledge of

language tests to her learners?

7. What would you suggest to bring about improvement to this course?

8. Do you think that this course will help you to conduct tests at schools later on?

9. In your opinion, what is the main problem of language tests in Malaysia?

10. Why do you think that problem should be solved?

11. What would you suggest to solve that problem?

 APPEDIX C

TRASCRIPTIOS OF ITERVIEWS

Jennifer

1. What is the aspect that you like the best in this course?

Ah…well, the aspect is looking for authentic materials and coming up with test

items. It gives me better experience on looking for the authentic materials.

2. What would you like to see in this course?

I think…ah…students should be more serious during the class because I can see

that some of them just take this subject. I mean this course as just an easy one

without realizing that it teaches us a lot of new things.

3. What is the aspect that you feel should be removed from this course?

Well, I think there’s nothing to be removed because all the aspects are needed to

develop more in this course. I mean all these aspects will teach us to be

more…ah…developed in our teaching when we are in schools later.

4. Why do you feel that the aspect should be removed?

Not answered.
5. Is the role of an instructor important for the purpose of the effectiveness

for this course?

Of course, because…ah…he or she needs to provide guidance. She needs to

guide us from A to Z, because when we entered this course, I mean when we

take up this course, we don’t know anything. So the instructor plays a very

important role since she needs to guide us of everything.

6. What do you think a good instructor should do besides disseminating

knowledge of language tests to her learners?

I think the instructor should guide the students. And then, maybe he or she can

spend time checking their pieces of work before the students hand in and also

the instructor can show some samples of for example of marking schemes or

even test items so the students will be familiar of correct marking schemes and

correct test items.

7. What would you suggest to bring about improvement to this course?

I think I suggest, I mean I think there’s nothing to be improved in this course

because all of the aspects are just good enough for the students.

8. Do you think that this course will help you to conduct tests at schools later-

on?

Of course, because…ah…to conduct the test, we need to create the test items, so

we’re taught of how to creating, how to create test items in this course. Besides

that, once we want to conduct a test, we need to have marking schemes. And

we’re also taught of how to come up with a marking scheme too.

9. In your opinion, what is the main problem of language tests in Malaysia?

I think…ah…It lacks of authentic materials and most of the materials are not

enough for the students, I mean they have low validity.

10. Why do you think that the problem should be solved?

OK, why it should be solved, students need to interact with the test not just sit

for the test and get their marks. They should interact with the test and they need

to be…There should be reliability when they answer the test.

11. What would you suggest to solve this problem?

Ok…ah…maybe before they…ah…CDC centre comes up with a test paper,

they need to conduct need analysis where they look for what actually the

students need, so they can know the students’ background knowledge or maybe

their level of proficiency. So based on the need analysis, they can come up with

better test items.

Ivan

1. What is the aspect that you like the best in this course?

Well, in my opinion, during I have my lesson, to me the best aspect and the best

lesson that I learn right now is marking scheme because it helps me on how to

create a good marking scheme and how I am going to mark the test papers.
2. What would you like to see in this course?

To me, I really hope like in the future this course will be more interesting by the

way of teaching…ah…like using slideshow, using technology or using AVA

will be more interesting if they use these kinds of materials.

3. What is the aspect that you feel should be removed from this course?

To me, I agree with the first interviewee because to me there’s nothing to be

what…ah…to be removed it is all good and perfect and all the lessons are

relevant enough to be learned and to be taught.

4. Why do you feel that the aspect should be removed?

Not answered.

5. Is the role of an instructor important for the purpose of the effectiveness

for this course?

Yes, of course. It is important for the instructor to be a good role model and to

teach…to have a new good way of teaching such as face impression or the way

they deliver the speech. All these aspects should be clear enough so the learning,

the flow of learning would be effectively…would be effective.

6. What do you think a good instructor should do besides disseminating

knowledge of language tests to her learners?

Well, in my opinion, besides teaching…as we all know that teachers are not

only copying text books on the blackboard. It’s almost like that. So same goes to
 the lecturers. They should be funny. They should connect the learning with their

daily lives or our daily lives.

7. What would you suggest to bring about improvement to this course?

Hehehe…like I said before, it is important for the lecturer to use some kinds of

AVA or to use computers or technology such as slideshows or perhaps using

LCD and computers so that it won’t be boring for the students and it will attract

the students interest, so they will focus their learning in the classroom.

8. Do you think that this course will help you to conduct tests at schools later-

on?

Yes, indeed. Because as I explained before it is important for me to learn the

part where, which is marking scheme, where the part that I need to create a good

marking scheme so that I can mark the test papers equally, fairly and so that all

my students will have a good marks.

9. In your opinion, what is the main problem of language tests in Malaysia?

Well, as you can see, I have been mentioning about marking scheme from the

first point. It is because to me, nowadays in our Malaysia, the marking scheme

is too general. I’m sorry to say that this is quite mean because to me it is

important for the marking scheme to be equal for all students. Poor, beginner,

intermediate…they should deserve a good mark. If the marking scheme is too

high, so how about…what will happen to the lower students? So, that’s all for

my point of view.
10. Why do you think that the problem should be solved?

To me, if this problem can be solved, it is possible in the future, our future

students will gain good marks. Although they’re weak, at least they will try their

best because for our good marking scheme, we can detect…ah…we can give

more marks, we can be fair and equal to our students so none of them will be

failed. And our increasing of…ah…increasing of passionate students will

increase.

11. What would you suggest to solve this problem?

In my opinion…em…it is possible for our ministry of education to reshuffle or

rumble again the marking scheme. Because to me, like I said before, the

marking scheme is too general. It’s almost like not fair for the intermediate

student, not fair for the advanced students, not fair for the beginner students

because it will make the…it will make the…marks or the…what we call which

is not…balanced…ah…OK, sorry. It will cause the marks not to be balanced.

So it is important for us to reshuffle and rumble again so that we can give a

good mark, thus markers can give marks equally and fairly.

Candy

1. What is the aspect that you like the best in this course?

I think…ah…I like constructing the marking scheme the best because…ah…I

worked with my group members to construct the scheme and then, we

have…we had done a lot of discussions before we came to the…before we came

to the final on the marking scheme. OK, that’s all.

2. What would you like to see in this course?

You mean what I hope to see…OK…ah…I think it is a norm for the lecturers or

the instructors to integrate more use of ICT and, besides that, I also like to see

more authentic and real examples of tests like the real PMR or SPM or even

STPM exam papers, I mean past years.

3. What is the aspect that you feel should be removed from this course?

OK, as I have gone through this course, I think that the part that should be

removed from this course is the test which is given to us every week. So, even

though the items in the test are pertaining to what we have learned but we still

feel very stressful. So sometimes we can’t concentrate, OK.

4. Why do you feel that the aspect should be removed?

As I said, ah…sometimes we might get stressful, so during the next lesson, we

might not concentrate well. You know, we might get distracted because we get

low marks, something like that.

5. Is the role of an instructor important for the purpose of the effectiveness

for this course?

Yes, because the instructor guides us, teaches us how to mark the tests or exams

or even before I take this course, I didn’t really know or what are the criteria

that a teacher uses to construct the items for an exam or test papers.
6. What do you think a good instructor should do besides disseminating

knowledge of language tests to her learners?

For this, I think that the instructor should demonstrate his or her skills in

constructing items to us, like he would like guide us step-by-step, OK…first, try

to find for some materials and things like that you know to really help us

understand thoroughly in the steps to construct tests items. OK.

7. What would you suggest to bring about improvement to this course?

Ah…I think I have mentioned earlier...ah…is to see the integration of ICT in

teaching this course because some interesting or even some…how to

say…authentic materials can be shown to us, you know by using computers,

LCD projectors and all those things.

8. Do you think that this course will help you to conduct tests at schools later-

on?

Yes, because…ah…constructing items and also marking some subjective items

like essays, short-answer responses, it requires very skillful and also…how to

say…very…ah…it needs the teachers to be fair and square as well, OK…do not

be biased…things like that.

9. In your opinion, what is the main problem of language tests in Malaysia?

OK…ah…as we all know that actually from the newspaper reports or even you

browse the internet, you’ll know that some students are really stressed due to the

final exams or they are normally known as PMR, SPM, STPM and all those

things. Then, I think…ah…the language test in Malaysia is kind of exam-

 oriented. So, sometimes students are tested only on things or areas that they

have not been taught. Like teacher teaches them ABC, but then later on teacher

will test them on DEF until Z, something like that.

10. Why do you think that the problem should be solved?

OK…ah..I think that we must try to solve the problem as soon as possible so

that we can really see the real potential and also the achievements of some

students.

11. What would you suggest to solve this problem?

Ah…maybe the government or the PIBG can organize some talks or seminars so

that they can be knowledgeable in language tests and know how to construct

items. Just want to…just to refresh their skills, OK. And then, as for the pre-

service teachers, they should be encouraged not only to teach during their

practicum. They can also try to construct a test for their students because the

practicum duration is quite long, right? So, I think they can have enough time to

construct and also to launch the test to the students.

Jolene

1. What is the aspect that you like the best in this course?

Er…I can know like how to construct test items and also how to give marks to

the students fairly and squarely…ah…that’s all.

2. What would you like to see in this course?

Ah…I think there should be more project works instead of just exam oriented.

And then, we need more practices to construct test items.

3. What is the aspect that you feel should be removed from this course?

Ah…to me, the quiz that we are having every week, that one I think should be

abolished, because it makes us more stressful. And then, we are no longer

interested in the course anymore because of that quiz.

4. Why do you feel that the aspect should be removed?

Er…once, I think if this aspect is removed, we can create a very low-anxiety

classroom. And then, thus we can like do more practices on this language test.

5. Is the role of an instructor important for the purpose of the effectiveness

for this course?

Er…yes, because…ah…he or she should be able to facilitate us. And then he or

she should be the very experienced one. So he or she will be able to guide us in

constructing the test items.

6. What do you think a good instructor should do besides disseminating

knowledge of language tests to her learners?

Er…a good instructor should try to clear any doubts that students have.

Ah…and then, there should be many more interaction instead of teacher talk.

Like teacher blablabla in front, not students interacting with the lecturer.
7. What would you suggest to bring about improvement to this course?

The improvement is, we should use many authentic materials so that the test is

relevant to the student themselves…students themselves.

8. Do you think that this course will help you to conduct tests at schools later-

on?

Yes, I think so.

9. In your opinion, what is the main problem of language tests in Malaysia?

Most of the teacher is not aware…most of the teachers are not aware of how to

construct the very reliable and valid tests. Most of the tests like very subjective

and maybe is not fair for…er…the students in Malaysia.

10. Why do you think that the problem should be solved?

Er…as we know, our Malaysian school system is very exam-oriented, that’s

why we need more reliable tests to look for like to pupils and to look for the

potential ones.

11. What would you suggest to solve this problem?

Er…more intensive courses to be given to the teachers in schools, like maybe

monthly or yearly…ah…that’s all.