---

INTRODUCTION

At Lingualearn, we see the main issue concerning foreign or second language certification in the European Union today as one of diversity. Across the 25 member states there are hundreds of different tests and systems of certification, all with varying characteristics, such as levels, purposes, formats and costs. This diversity is a result of many socio-political, historical and economic factors: different stages of economic development, degrees of sophistication, cultural and linguistic viewpoints, levels of training, educational resources, etc., of the member countries of the EU. Expansion of the EU leads to more language variety and more speakers within the EU's political boundaries. This process may continue in the future and lead to the inclusion of further member states, which will, in turn, increase diversity.

This diversity manifests itself in different ways, but here is a summary of eleven key aspects of this diversity relating to testing and certification:

1. THE COMMUNICATIVE APPROACH AND COMMUNICATIVE TESTING

Since the 1970s, there has been a movement to introduce the communicative approach into language teaching. Publications such as The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching (Brumfit & Johnson, 1979), Communicative Language Teaching: an Introduction (Littlewood, 1981), The Communicative Syllabus (Yalden,1987) and Communicative Syllabus Design (Munby, 1981) have had a profound influence on the way modern languages have been taught. There has been a general trend to teach students how to communicate in addition to teaching them about the language itself; i.e. to teach using both communicative and pre-communicative activities. John Trim mentions 36 international workshops held from1984 to 1987, in which 226 animators worked with some 1500 participants on the ‘communicative approach’ to language teaching and their incorporation into programmes of initial and in-service teacher training. (Conference: The Work of the Council of Europe in the Field of Modern Languages, 1957–2001 (Trim, 2001)).

Associated with this movement has been the introduction of communicative language tests (e.g. Communicative Language Testing: Revolution or Evolution? (Morrow, 1979) and Communicative Language Testing (Weir, 1990)). Some modern tests and systems of certification use a broad range of communicative and pre-communicative activities, whereas older ‘linguistic’ tests use a narrower range of pre-communicative tasks. Testing communicative competence is seen as more problematic by some experts in the field (e.g. Nick Miyata-Boddy and Clive S. Langham, 2000).

“The goal of communicative language testing is attainable. However, it is a form of testing which, like any other, has problems associated with it.”

2. CONSISTENCY OF LEVELS FROM DIFFERENT PROVIDERS OF CERTIFICATION

In the UK, standards are constantly changing (it is now possible for candidates to get a top grade in some exams even if they can answer only 40 per cent of the exam paper), and recently a language teacher reported that his classes had lost a full grade from their exam results because he had changed from one exam board to another. The situation is extremely confused when, for instance, there are currently reported to be 114 UK awarding bodies in the field of vocational education and training for 14–19 year olds, who have a choice of more than 4000 qualifications (Education Guardian, 19.10.04, p.2: Slowly — but surely?).

3. DIFFERING VIEWS ON THE ADOPTION OF COMMON EUROPEAN STANDARDS AND FRAMEWORKS ACROSS THE EU

There have been concerted efforts by the Council of Europe to develop the Common European Framework (CEF) modern language specifications, by the EU to foster the use of the Common European Framework, and by an independent initiative by ALTE to apply levels (associated ALTE levels) in creating benchmarks for tests. Some academics, however, feel that these measures may threaten their own national interests and traditional ways of testing. This is particularly true of Central and Eastern European countries, where, though the education tradition has been quite distinct from that in Western Europe, generally very high standards of Modern Foreign Language pedagogy and expertise have long existed.

“Hungarian testing experts and applied linguists have already expressed their aversion to the uncritical adoption (or even adaptation) of language examinations developed by international language testing bodies. They seem to think that these examinations threaten the existence of well-established Hungarian bilingual examinations, which take Hungarian needs and interests more into account.”
(Tompos Anikó, 1997)

Other academics, however, feel that attempts to innovate should be heartily welcomed, as part of a more general principle of open-mindedness:

“Despite their unsettling influence, heresies should be welcomed for the challenge they pose to established theory and practice.”
(Davies, 2003)

4. INFORMATION ON SYSTEMS OF CERTIFICATION

There is a general issue concerning the quality and quantity of information available on tests and systems of certification. Only a minority of examination boards and providers of certification provide comprehensive and easily assessable information on their products. It is also difficult to find objective and expert advice on the quality and comparability of the various options.

5. AMOUNT AND TYPE OF TRAINING FOR EXAMINERS

Examiners, assessors and other related language professionals receive different types and lengths of training to become expert in assessment procedures. Higher standards and more rigour in assessment mean that more will be required of examiners and assessors, yet most foreign language staff in education have at best a rudimentary training in statistics and in the design of tests and examinations, and so are unable to judge informedly and critically when evaluating different examination characteristics. It is not clear that governments are willing to meet the increased costs of raising training standards in this regard.

The recently completed European Survey of Language Testing and Assessment Needs found that experts perceive themselves as being in need of training across the board. Areas of particular need were identified:

· Item writing, reviewing items or tests, making decisions about composition of tests
· Statistical analysis, setting pass marks, creating and maintaining item banks, doing validation research
· Relating existing tests to the CEF, using CEF as a basis for new test systems.

(Hasselgreen, Carlsen and Helness, 2004)

6. DEGREE OF RIGOUR USED IN TEST CONSTRUCTION

Some tests are constructed very quickly and others take years of careful research and development. Possible stages of construction include: drafting initial test specifications, item writing, test assembly, test analysis trials, trialling the draft test, the training of examiners and test administrators, monitoring examiner reliability, reporting scores, setting pass marks, post-test reports, test validation, test reliability, reporting test scores and evaluation of washback. For an authoritative account of this process see Language Test Construction and Evaluation by J. Charles Alderson, Caroline Clapham and Dianne Wall (1995).

7. COMPARABILITY OF TESTS USING DIFFERENT FORMATS

Comparing tests constructed using different formats (e.g. comparing an online reading test with a paper-based writing test) is a bit like ‘comparing chalk with cheese’, especially if these two tests are designed to cover different ranges of proficiency levels or different age groups, or are for different purposes.

8. COMPETING CRITERIA OF COMPREHENSIVENESS, PRECISION AND OPERATIONAL FEASIBILITY

There have always been tensions between the various key features of tests: reliability, validity, feasibility and cost; see Tensions Between Validity and Outcomes: Teacher Assessment of Written Work of Recently Arrived Immigrant ESL Students by Arkoudis, S and O'Loughlin, K (2004) for a recent example.

Tests that are very reliable, precise and valid tend to be longer, more expensive and require better training and a more organised administrative approach. It is often necessary in any given situation to strike a sensible balance between these competing factors before deciding what constitutes appropriate methodology and operational feasibility for a given set of circumstances.

9. THE WASHBACK EFFECT OF TESTS

If we are to improve the practice of language teaching we need to use tests with a positive washback effect. Some systems of certification that are based on communicative tests claim that their tests are most beneficial to learners, but we have very little hard evidence from research showing which particular combination of test formats, tasks and test types work best in given situations.

Some research has been carried out, which indicates that the degree and speed of washback depends on the nature of the country concerned:

“…washback effect works quickly and efficiently in bringing about changes in teaching materials, which is due largely to the highly adaptable and commercial nature of Hong Kong society”
(Cheng, L, 1999)

10. PAPER TESTS AND COMPUTER-BASED TESTS

Current trends towards the use of technology in language teaching and testing lead us to question the value of computer-assisted testing or computer-based tests. Recent examples of such tests are the TOEFL CBT by Educational Testing Service and CommuniCAT by the University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate. Some studies have focused on the comparability of various aspects of these tests, e.g. a comparison of the CBLT version and the PBLT version of the TEPS subtests at the Seoul National University (Choi I-C, Sung Kim K. & Boo J., 2003). The development of such tests is relatively new, but we can be sure that this trend is likely to gather pace as time goes on.

Another issue with the introduction of computer-based tests is that of checking the identity of the testee when the tests are carried out using the internet.

11. RECOGNITION OF QUALIFICATIONS ACROSS BORDERS

There is a general problem of mutual recognition of educational qualifications across national boundaries, and language qualifications are part of this.
Though an individual can learn any foreign language and use it successfully without acquiring a formal qualification, employers who demand foreign language skills from their employees do need independent evidence before appointing an employee to take on responsibilities involving foreign languages. This will be especially so where the employers do not know the relevant languages.

Bibliography:

Alderson, JC, Clapham, C and Wall, D (1995) Language Test Construction and Evaluation Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Alderson, JC. and Clapham, C (1992). Applied linguistics and language testing: a case study of the ELTS test. Applied Linguistics, 13, 2, 149-167.
Allison, D (1999) Language Testing and Evaluation Singapore: Singapore University Press
Anikó, T (1997) LSP Proficiency Examinations: "Euro-conformity" and "Hungarianness" Széchenyi István College, Gyor [http://heja.szif.hu/LIN/LIN-001101-A/lin001101/node2.html]
Arkoudis, S and O'Loughlin, K (2004) ‘Tensions between validity and outcomes: teacher assessment of written work of recently arrived immigrant ESL students’. Language Testing, 1 July 2004, 21(3)284–304
Bachman, Lyle F (1990) Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing Oxford: Oxford University Press
Bachman, Lyle F and Palmer, AS (1996) Language Testing in Practice Oxford: Oxford University Press
Bachman, Lyle F (1999) Language Testing at the Turn of the Century: Making Sure that What We Count Counts University of California, Los Angeles [http://aaal.lang.uiuc.edu/letter/20.2/testing.html]
Bailey, KM (1998) Learning about Language Assessment Boston: Heinle & Heinle
Brown, JD and Hudson, T (2002) Criterion-referenced Language Testing Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Brown, JD, Race, P and Smith, B (1996). 500 Tips on Assessment. London: Kogan Page.
Brumfit, CJ and Johnson, K, eds (1979) The Communicative Approach to
Language Teaching Oxford: Oxford University Press
Cheng, L (1999) ‘Changing assessment: Washback on teacher perceptions and actions’ Teaching and Teacher Education, April 1999,15(3)253–271
Elsevier Science.
Choi I-C, Sung Kim, K & Boo J (2003) ‘Comparability of a paper-based language test and a computer-based language test’ Language Testing, 1 July 2003, 20(3)295–320
Davies, A (2003) ‘Three heresies of language testing research’ Language Testing, 1 October 2003, 20(4)355–368
Douglas, D (2000) Assessing Languages for Specific Purposes Cambridge Language Assessment Series (eds Alderson, JC and Bachman, LF) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Education Guardian (2004) Slowly — but surely?, 19th October 2004, p.2 [http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,,1330033,00.html]
Hasselgreen, Carlsen and Helness (2004) European Survey of Language Testing and Assessment Needs University of Bergen [http://www.ealta.eu.org/documents/resources/survey-report-pt1.pdf]
Holliday, A (1997). Appropriate Methodology and Learning Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hughes, A (2003) Testing for Language Teachers Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Lado, R (1961) Language Testing: the Construction and Use of Foreign Language Tests A Teacher’s Book London: Longman
Littlewood, W (1981) Communicative Language Teaching: an Introduction Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
McNamara, TF (1996) Measuring Second Language Performance Harlow: Longman
Miyata–Boddy, N and Langham, CS (2000) Communicative Language Testing—An Attainable Goal? The British Council, Tokyo [http://www.kasei.ac.jp/library/kiyou/2000/5.LANGHAM.pdf]
Morrow, K (1979) ‘Communicative language testing: revolution or evolution?’ in Brumfit, CJ and Johnson K (eds) The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching Oxford: Oxford University Press pp 143–157
Munby, J (1981) Communicative Syllabus Design: A Sociolinguistic Model for Defining the Content of Purpose-specific Language Programmes Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Oskarsson, M (1980) Approaches to self-assessment in foreign language learning. Oxford, Pergamon Press, for the Council of Europe
Trim, J (2001) Conference: The Work of the Council of Europe in the field of Modern Languages, 1957–2001 [http://www.ecml.at/documents/edl/TrimE.pdf]
Underhill, N. (1987). Testing spoken Language. A handbook of oral testing
techniques. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weir, CJ (1990) Communicative Language Testing Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall International
Weir, CJ (1993) Understanding and developing language tests Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall
Wood, R. (1993). Assessment and Testing. A survey of research commissioned by the University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yalden, J (1983) The Communicative Syllabus: Evolution, Design and Implementation Oxford: Pergamon Press

Dr M. I. Freeman (21 January 2005)