ALTERNATIVES AND AUTHENCITY IN LANGUAGE ASSESMENT: ISSUES AND

FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Rendi Afriadi (17178026)

A. Introduction
The current paradigms in language teaching and testing have heavily criticized
the practice of language testing and assessment bu using ‘psychometric-structuralist’
approach. The main argument put forth is that the components’ of students’ language
ability are integrated and compliment each other. Therefore, they should be assessed
in a separate manner and be disengaged from their contextual use. These views have
led to communicative approaches to language testing. Communicative approaches to
language tests made an attempt to engage language tests with its real life situation,
leading to the emergence of the concept of real-life approach and authencity. -life
approach to define authenticity essentially considers the extent to which test
performance replicates some specified non-test language performance. Another
emerging issue is alternative assesment. Alternative assessment is a blanket term that
covers any number of alternatives to standardized tests. This notion suggests that the
assessment of students’ language ability are not limited to traditional testing only such
as paper-based test with various question types and tasks. In other words, there are
several alternative assessment available for the same purpose. This present essay will
exlpore the concept this alternative assessment, authencity in language test, and
problems in language testing.
B. Content
1. Concepts and Types of Alternatives in Assessment
Alternative assessment is an umbrella term that covers any number of
alternatives to standardized tests i.e. paper and pencil tests. This concep emerges as
the response against the notion that all people and skills could be measured by
traditional test. In general, the proposal is that to assemble additional measures of
students’ works such as portfolio, journals, observations and the likes in an effort to
triangulate data about students. Brown and Hudson (1998) proposes that the concept
of underlies the following characteristics: 1) require students to perform, create,
produce, or do something; 2) use real-world context or simulation; 3) are nonintrusive
in that they extended the day to day classroom activities; 4) allow students to be
assess on what they normally do in class every day; 5) use tasks that represent
meaningful instructional activities; 6) focus on processes as well as products; 7) tap
into higher-level thinking and problem-solving skills; 8) provide information about
both the strengths and weaknesses of students; 9) are multiculturaly sensitive when
properly administered; 10) ensure that people, not machines, do the scoring, using
human judgment; 11) encourage open disclosure standards and rating criteria; and 12)
call upon teachers to perform new instructional and assessment roles.
The nature of proficiency oriented language learning calls for a variety of
assessment options. Therefore, alternatives in assessment provides this variety of
assessment type that can be used. The first type is performance-based assessment.
Performance-based assessment, according to Norris At al. (1998), involves test-taker
in the performance of task that are “as authentic as possible” and that are “rated by
qualified judges”. The outcome of such content-valid tasks, productive and observable
skill, such as speaking and writing, are always implied. The criterion of authenticity
means that test-taker are engaged in real-world task, which in turn usually involve an
integration of language skill, and perhaps all four skill in the case of project work.
Because the task that students perform are consistent with course goal and curriculum,
students and teachers are likely to be more motivated to perform them, as opposed to
a set of multiple-choice question about. Furthermore, performance-based assessment
a subset of authentic assessment. In other words not all authentic assessment is
performance-based. Moreover, performance-based assessment needs to be approached
with caution. It is tempting for teachers to assume that if the student is doing
something, then the process has fulfilled its own goal and the evaluator needs only to
make a mark in the grade book that says “accomplished” next to a particular
competency. In reality, performances as assessment procedures need to be treated
with the same rigor as traditional test.
The second type is rubrics. A rubric is an assessment tool that clearly indicates
marking criteria. It can be used for marking assignments, class participation, or
overall grades. There are two types of rubrics: holistic and analytical. Holistic rubrics
group several different assessment criteria and classify them together under grade
headings. On the other hand, analytic rubrics separate different assessment criteria
and address them comprehensively. The top axis includes values that can be
expressed either numerically or by letter grade.
The third type is portfolios. One of the most popular alternatives in
assessment, especially within a framework of communicative language teaching, is
portfolio development. According to Genesee and Upshur (1996), a portfolio is a
purposeful collection of students’ work that demonstrates their efforts, progress, and
achievements in given areas. Portfolios include materials such as essays and
compositions in draft and final form; reports, projects, and presentation outlines;
poetry and creative prose; artwork, photos, newspaper or magazine clippings; udio
and/or video recordings of presentations, demonstration, etc. As collection, portfolios
are an expression of students’ live and identities. The appropriate freedom of students
to choose what to include should be respected, but at the same time the purposes of
the portfolio need to be clearly specified. Reflective practice through journals and
self-assessment checklist is an important ingredient of a successful portfolio. Teacher
and student both need to take the role of assessment seriously as they evaluate quality
and development over time.
The forth type is journals. A journal is a log (or “account”) of one’s thoughts,
feelings, reactions, assessments, ideas, or progress toward goals, usually written with
little attention to structure, form, or correctness. Learners can articulate their thoughts
without threat of those thoughts being judged later. Sometimes journals are rambling
set of verbiage that represents a stream of consciousness with no particular point,
purpose, or audience. Fortunately model of journal used in educational practice have
sought to tighten up this style of journal in order to give them some focus.
The fifth type of alternatives is conferences and interviews. Conferencing is a
standard part of process approach to teaching writing, in which the teacher, in a
conversation about a draft, facilitates the improvement of the written work. Such
interaction has the advantage of one-on-one interaction between teacher and students
and the teacher’s ability to direct feed back toward a student’s specific need. It must
be assumed that the teacher plays the role of facilitator and guide in a conference and
not that of an administrator making a formal assessment. In this intrinsically
motivating atmosphere, students need to understand that the teacher is an ally who is
encouraging self-reflection and improvement. One kind of conference is interview.
This term is intended to denote a context in which a teacher interviews a student for a
designated assessment purpose. To maintain reliability, interview question should be
constructed carefully to elicit as focused a response as possible.
The sixth type is observations. All teachers observe their students in the
classroom. Almost every question, every response, and every nonverbal behaviors is
at some level of perception noticed. All of these are stored as little bits and pieces of
information that can form a composite impression of students’ ability. Teachers’
intuition about students’ performance ins not infallible and certainly both reliability
and face validity of their feedback to students can be increased with the help of
empirical means of observing their language performance. The value of systematic
observation of students has been emphasized and its utilization greatly enhances
teacher’s intuitive impression by offering corroboration of conclusions. Occasionally,
intuitive information is disconfirmed by observation data.
The last type of alternatives is self and peer assessment. These alternatives are
inspired from a number of well established principles of second language acquisition.
The principle of autonomy stands out as one of the primary foundation of successful
learning. The ability to set one’s own goals both within and beyond the structure of
classroom curriculum, to pursue them without the presence of external prod, and to
independently monitor that pursuits are key to success. Peer assessment appeals to
similar principle of cooperative learning. Many people go through a whole regimen of
education from kindergarten up to graduate degree and never come to appreciate the
value of collaboration in learning. Peer assessment is simply one arm of tasks and
procedures within the domain of learner centered and collaborative education.
2. Concept of Authenticity in Authentic Language Assessment
Authenticity is regarded as an important feature of language assesment, but
commonly held notion is related only to the use of authentic materials. There are
various meaning of authenticity from various experts. One definition concluded that
authenticity is an integrative approach to language testing, in terms of the implicit
requirement rhat ‘facile performance’, ‘normal communication situation’, and ‘total
communicative effect of an utterance’. Nevertheless, Carroll’s states in Bachman
(1990) that description the seeds of the two main approaches to defining and
operationalizing authenticity that have evolved in recent years. On the one hand, the
phrases ‘integrated, facile performance’ and ‘normal communication situation’
suggest the reference to ‘real-life performance’ as a criterion for authenticity. The
phrase ‘total communicative effect’, on the other hand, implies the notion of
functionality, or llocutionary purpose as a basis for authenticity. Equipped with
broader, more comprehensive theories of language and language use, and a
framework for describing language test performance based on these, it may well be
that we are now in a position to define more precisely about the authentic language
performance, and to examine empirically the implications from the definitions.
 3. Concept of Authenticity in Authentic Language Tests

Authenticity continues to be a major consideration in language testing, and tests

described variously as ‘direct’, ‘performance’, ‘functional’, ‘communicative’, and
‘authentic’ have been developed and discussed in recent years. The centrality of this
issue to language testing has been summed in Bachman (1990) as: ‘In sum, the criterion
of authenticity raises important pragmatic and ethical questions in language testing.
Lack of authenticity in the material used in a test raises issues about the generalizability
of results’. In the practice of language testing authenticity, two major views come up:
real-life approach and interactional approach.
Real-life approach defines authenticity essentially as the extent to which test
performance replicates some specified non-test language performance. Test
performance is interpreted as an indication of the extent to which the test taker will be
able to use language in real life (RL) situation. This approach does not distinguish
between language ability and the context in which this ability is observed, since non-
test language performance constitutes both criterion for authenticity and the definition
of proficiency. There are three interrelated tenets that characterize the RL approach:
(1) a view of language ability, or proficiency, as pragmatic ascription; (2) the
reference to ‘real-life performance’ as a criterion, and (3) the belief that ‘face
validity’, content relevance, and predictive utility are sufficient bases to justify test
use.

The other approach to defining test authenticity which is called

‘interactional/ability’ (IA) approach, is in keeping with both the mainstream approach
to measuring language as a mental ability and the current view of communicative
language use. The ‘interactional’ aspect of the approach is rooted in the same views of
language and language use that have informed communicative language teaching, an
aspect that Kramsch (1986) in Bachman (1990) has referred to as ‘interactional
competence’. The IA approach focuses on what it sees as the distinguishing
characteristic of communicative language use-the interaction between the language
user, the context, and the discourse. It thus attempts to design tests that will involve
the test taker in the appropriate expression and interpretation of illocutionary acts.
Test performance is interpreted as an indication of extent to which the test taker
possesses various communicative language abilities, and there is a clear distinction in
this approach between the abilities to be measured, on the one hand, and the
performance we observe and the context in which observation takes place, on the
other.

4. Persistent Problems in Language Test

Currently, the analytic tools available to language testers have been no less
marked than the changes. There have also been the birth of criterion-referenced
testing and the evolution of a technology for both developing tests and interpreting
their results. However, some problems are still persistent to language testing designers
and practitioners.
The main challenge is to utilize insights from linguistics, language learning,
and language teaching to develop tests as instruments of research that can lead to a
better understanding of the factors that affect performance on language tests.
Developers and users of language tests have to incorporate this increased
understanding into practical test design, construction, and use. For both theory and
practice, the challenge is thus to develop tests that reflect current views of language
and language use, in that they are capable of measuring a wide range of abilities
generally associated with ‘communicative competence’, or ‘communicative language
ability’, and include tasks that themselves embody the essential features of
communicative language use.
In addition, advances in applied linguists have challenged traditional views of
language testing, advances in psychometrics and statistics ask difficult questions
about test bias and the effects of test method, and probe more deeply into the nature of
the abilities we want to measure. The challenge presented by advances in
measurement and statistical analysis is to utilize these tools appropriately for guiding
empirical research in pursuit of the fundamental goals of language testing. In the
development and use of language tests, this requires demonstrating that test
performance is related to and appropriate for the particular interpretations and uses for
which tests are intended. For language testing research, this entails validating a theory
of language test performance.
Furthermore, the problem also arises in applying more sophisticated designs
and analytic procedures to language testing research and development expand our
understanding of how individuals perform on tests. One thing to be considered is that
language test must be addressed in pursuing are the goals of language testing itself.
These issues have to do with defining what characterizes ‘communicative’, or
‘authentic’ tests, whether such tests are attainable, or necessary, and how authenticity
is related to validity.
5. Future Directions for Language Test
In the future, language testing research and development must be addressed to
both the needs for language tests that may arise in education and society, and to the
needs of applied linguistics, especially language acquisition and language teaching
methodology. The field of language testing research may be unique in that it
constitutes both an approach to applied linguistic research and a means for developing
practical measurement instruments for other types of research and for use in making
decisions about individuals and educational programs.
There will also be the necessity to explore deeply about the notion of criterion
reference in language testing practice. Many foreign language programs have
advocated the use of some form of competency-based evaluation. At the same time,
the approaches to foreign and second language teaching have increased the need for
measures in evaluating the relative effectiveness of these approaches. As has been
pointed out by Bachman (1990), norm-referenced tests are inadequate for either of
these needs, so criterion-referenced tests are required. The need for criterion-
referenced (CR) measures of language abilities for certain specific uses has been
recognized. Bachman (1990) proposes the usefulness of CR measures as a basis for
designing language courses, and more recently the needs for CR tests for minimum
competency testing and language program evaluatio. Despite these recognized needs,
however, applications of CR measurement to language testing have been relatively
sparse, and have generally been limited to the measurement of achievement. One of
the main reasons CR measurement has not been more widely applied to the
measurement of language proficiency because of the problems related to domain
specification, and the difficulty encountered in defining criterion levels of ability,
problems that some language testers view as virtually intractable.
Finally, there seems to be discontent both among language teachers and among
developers of language tests with the enterprise of language testing. This
dissatisfaction has been voiced and is clearly evident in much of the discussion of
communicative or authentic tests. In a recent review article, Canale (1988) in
Bachman (1990) discusses a number of problems that continue being considered in
the field in the future, related to how a language ability is defined and how to gather
information that is relevant to its assessment.
 However, there have been solid achievements in these areas as well. The
debate about the fundamental considerations of language testing has motivated and
informed an interest in better understanding the nature of language abilities and their
measurement and a desire to develop better language tests. It is sometimes also
aplicable to the larger issues of language teaching, applied linguistics, and educational
policy etc.
C. Conclusion
Communicative approaches to language tests with n attempt to engage
language tests with its real life situation lead to the emergence of the concept
authencity and alternative assesment. Alternative assessment is a blanket term that
covers any number of alternatives to standardized tests. This notion suggests that the
assessment of students’ language ability are not limited to traditional testing only such
as paper-based test with various question types and tasks. The most complex and
persistent problems in language testing are those presented by the consideration of the
relationship between the language use required by tasks on language tests and that
which is part of our everyday communicative use of language. In the future language
testing practice need to put more focus on the development of better language test
design incorporating the notion of authenticity and alternative assessment. In addition,
there will also be the necessity for the development of criterion-referenced measures
of communicative language ability.
REFERENCES

Bachman, Lyle F. 1990. Fundamental Consideration in Language Testing. Oxford : Oxford

University Press

Brown, H. Douglas and Priyanvada Abeywickrama. 2010. Language Assessment : Principles

and Classroom Practices. NY : Pearson Education