PRINCIPLES OF LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT

St. Fadilah Jafar, Fariskayuni, Andi Nurazizah Mappelawa, Nur Fadillah

Department of English Education, Alauddin State Islamic University

Language Testing & Assessment

H. Muhammad Nur Akbar Rasyid, M.Pd., M.Ed., Ph.D

March 24, 2024

INTRODUCTION

Language assessment, also known as language testing, is a field of study under the umbrella of

apllied linguistics that focuses on the evaluation of an individual’s proficiency in using a language

effectively. It encompasses the assessment of first, second, or other languages in various contexts, such as

schools, colleges, universities, workplaces, immigration, citizenship, and asylum processes. Language

assessment may include the evaluation of skills such as listening, speaking, reading, writing, and other

constructs of language ability. It aims to measure the knowledge of how the language works theoretically

(understanding) and the ability to use or apply the language in practical situations (proficiency).

Language assessment is a crucial aspect of language learning and teaching, as it helps to

determine the proficiency levels of learners, identify their strengths and weaknesses, and guide

them towards achieving their language learning goals. The field of language assessment has

evolved significantly over the years, with various principles, and approaches being developed to

ensure accurate and reliable assessment. This paper aims to explore the principles of language

assessment. By the end of this paper, readers will have a comprehensive understanding of the

principles of language assessment and its significance in language learning and teaching.
DISCUSSION

The principles of language assessment refer to the guidelines and standards that

are followed in the design, development, implementation, and evaluation of language tests and

assessments. These principles ensure that the assessment process is fair, valid, reliable, and

unbiased, and that the results accurately reflect the language proficiency of the test-takers. Some

of the key principles of language assessment include:

A. Practicality

An effective test is practical. This means that it is not excessively expensive, stays within

appropriate time constraints, is relatively easy to administer, and has a scoring\evaluation

procedure that is specific and time-efficient. A test that prohibitively expensive is impractical. A

test language proficiency that takes students five hours to complete impractical, it consumes

more time (and money) than necessary to accomplish its objective. A test that requires individual

one-on-one proctoring is impractical for group of several hundred test-takers and only a handful

of examiners.

B. Reability

A reliable test is consistent and dependable. If we give the same test to the same student

or matched students on two different occasions, the test should yield similar result. The issue of

reability of a test may best be addressed by considering a number of factors that may contribute

to the unreability of a test. Consider the following possibilities (adapted from Mousavi, 2002, p.

804): fluctuations in the student, in scoring, in test administration, and in the test itself.

There are several types of reability; student-related reability, rater reability, test administration

reability, and test reability.

Student-Related Reliability

The most common learner related issue in reliability is caused by temporary illness,

fatigue, a “bad day,” anxiety, and other physical or psychological factors, which may make an

“observed” score deviate from one’s “true” score. Also included in this category are such factors

as a test taker’s “test-wiseness” or strategies for efficient test taking (Mousavi, 2002, p. 804).

Rater Reliability

Human error, subjectivity, and bias may enter into the scoring process. Inter-rater

reliability occurs when two or more scores yield inconsistent score of the same test, possibly for

lack attention to scoring criteria, inexperience, inattention, or even preconceived biases.

Test Administration Reliability

Unreliability may also result from the conditions in which the test in administered. Other

sources of unreliability are found in photocopying variations, the amount of light in different

parts of the room, variations in temperature, and even the condition of desks and chairs.

Test Reliability

Sometimes the nature of the test itself can cause measurement errors. If a test is too long,

test-takers may become fatigued by the time they reach the later items and hastily respond

incorrectly. Time tests may discriminate against students who do not perform well on a test with

a time limit. We all know people who “know” the course material perfectly but who are

adversely affected by the presence of a clock ticking away. Poorly written test items (that are

ambiguous or that have more than on correct answer) may be a further source of test unreliability.
C. Validity

By far the most complex criterion of an effective test and arguably the most important

principle is validaty, “the extent to which inferences made from assessment result are appropriate,

meaningful, and useful in terms of the purpose of the assessment” (Ground, 1998, p. 226). A

valid test of reading ability actually measures reading ability- not 20\20 vision, nor previous

knowledge in a subject, nor some other variable of questionable relevance. To measure writing

ability, one might ask students to write as many words as they can in 15 minutes, then simply

count the words for the final score. Such a test would be easy to administer (practical), and the

scoring quite dependable (reliable). But it would not constitute a valid test of writing ability

without some consideration of comprehensibility, rhetorical discourse elements, and the

organization of ideas, among other factors.

There are several types of validity; content-relate evidence, criterion-related evidence, construct-

related evidence, consequential validity, and face validity.

Content-Relate Evidence

If a test actually samples the subject matter about which conclusion are to be drawn, and

if it requires the test-takers to perform the behavior that is being measured, it can claim content-

related evidence of validity, often popularly referred to as content validity (e.g., Mousavi, 2002;

Hughes, 2003). You can usually identify content-related evidence observationally if you can

clearly define the achievement that you are measuring.

Criterion-Related Evidence
 A second of evidence of the validity of a test may be found in what is called criterion-

related evidence, also referred to as criterion-related validity, or the extent to which the

“criterion” of the test has actually been reached.

Construct- Related Evidence

A third kind of evidence that can support validity, but one that does not play as large a

role classroom teachers, is construct- related validity, commonly referred to as construct validity.

A construct is any theory, hypothesis, or model that attempts to explain observed phenomena in

our universe of perceptions. Construct may not be directly or empirically measured-their

verification often requires inferential data.

Face Validity

An important face of consequential validity is the extent to which “students view the

assessment as fair, relevant, and useful for improving learning” (Grondlund, 1998, p. 210), or

what is popularly know as face validity. “Face validity refers to the degree to which a test looks

right, and appears to measure the knowledge or abilities it claims to measure, based on the

subjective judgment of the examines who take it, the administrative personnel who decode on its

use, and other psychometrically unsophisticated observers” (Mousavi 2002, p. 244).

D. Authentically

A fourth major principle of language testing is authenticity, a concept that is a little

slippery to define, especially within the art and science of evaluating and designing tests.

Bachman and Palmer (1996, p. 23) define authenticity as “degree of correspondence of the

characteristics of a given language test task to the features of a target language task, “ and then
suggest an agenda for identifying those target language tasks and for transforming them into

valid test items.

E. Washback

A face of consequential validity, discussed above, is “the effect of testing on teaching and

learning” (Hughes, 2003, p. 1), otherwise known among language-testing specialists as

washback. In large scale assessment, wasback generally refers to the effects the test have on

instruction in terms of how students prepare for the test. “Cram” courses and “teaching to the

test” are examples of such washback. Another form of washback that occurs more in classroom

assessment is the information that “washes back” to students in the form of useful diagnoses of

strengths and weaknesses. Washback also includes the effects of an assessment on teaching and

learning prior to the assessment itself, that is, on preparation of the assessment.

Applying Principles to the Evaluation of Classroom Text

The five principles of practicality, reliability, validity, authenticity, and washback go a

long way toward providing useful guidelines for both evaluating an existing assessment

procedure and designing one on your own. Quizzes, tests, final exams, and standardized

proficiency tests can all be scrutinized through these five lenses.

Are the test procedures practical?

Is the test reliable?

Does the procedure demonstrate content validity?

Is the procedure face valid and “biased for best”?

Are the test tasks authentic as possible?

Does the test other beneficial washback to the learner?

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the principles of language assessment serve as essential guidelines for the

design, impementation, and evaluation of language tests and assessment. These principles ensure

fairness, validity, reliability and practicality in the assessment process, ultimately providing

accurate reflections of test-takers’ language proficiency. The key principles include include

practicality, which emphasizes cost-effectiveness, time efficicency, and ease of administration;

reliability, which focuses on consistency and dependability of test results across different

administrations; validity, which entails ensuring that assessment results are approriate and and

meaningful for their intended purpose; authenticity, which involves aligning test tasks with real-

world language use; and washback, which examines the impact of assessment on teaching and

learning. By applying these principles, educators can evaluate existing assessment procedures

and design effective assessments and accurately measure language proficiency and provide

valuable feedback to learners.

REFERENCES

https:\\www.scribd.com/document/385109651/Principles-of-Language-Assessment

https://www.twinkl.com\teaching-wiki\language-assessment

https://www.academia.edu\8700021\Principles_of_Language_Assessment

https:\\en.wikipedia.org\wiki\Language_assessment

https:\\ebuah.uah.es/dspace\bitstream\handle\10017\6916\Intorduction%20Language.pdfisAllowed=yse

quence=1

https:\\prezi.com\fayfurcxecft\what-is-language-assessment\