Approaches to Language Testing

    Approaches to Language Testing


Written by J. B. Heaton in Writing English Language Test, London:Longman. 1990. pp. 15-19.

1. Background
Language tests can be roughly classified according to four main approaches to testing:
(i) the essay-translation approach;
(ii) the structuralist approach;
(iii) the integrative approach; and
(iv) the communicative approach.
Although these approaches are listed here in chronological. order, they should not be regarded as being strictly confined to certain periods in the development of language testing. Nor are the four approaches always mutually exclusive. A useful test will generally incorporate features of several of these approaches. Indeed, a test may have certain inherent weaknesses simply because it is limited to one approach, however attractive that approach may appear.

2. The essay translation approach   
This approach is commonly referred  to as the pre-scientific stage of language testing. No special skill or expertise in testing is required: the subjective judgement of the teacher is considered to be of paramount importance. Tests usually consist of essay writing, translation, and grammatical analysis (often in the form of comments about the language being learnt). The tests also have a heavy literary and cultural bias. Public examinations (e.g. secondary school leaving examinations) resulting from the essay-translation approach sometimes have an aural oral component at the upper intermediate and advanced levels   though this has sometimes been regarded in the past as something additional and in no way an integral part of the syllabus or examination.

3. The structuralist approach
This approach is characterised by the view that language learning is chiefly concerned with the systematic acquisition of a set of habits. It draws on the work of structural linguistics, in particular the importance of contrastive analysts and the need to measure the learner' s master iOf the separate elements of the target language: phonology, vocabulary and  grammar. Such mastery is tested using words and sentences completely divorced from any context on the grounds that a larger sample of language forms can be covered in the test in a comparatively short time. The skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing are also separated from one another as much as possible because it is considered essential to test orse thing at a time. Such features of the structuralist approach are, of course,still valid for certain types of test and for certain purposes.

4. The Integrative approach
This approach involves the testing of language in context and is thus concerned primarily with meaning and the total communicative effect of discourse. Consequently, integrative tests do not seek to separate language skills into neat divisions in order to improve test reliability: instead, they are often designed to assess the learner's ability to use two or more skills simultaneously. Thus, integrative tests are concerned with a global view of proficiency   an underlying language competence or grammar of expectancy", which it is argued every learner possesses regardless of the purpose for which the language is being learnt. Integrative testing involves functional language but not the use of functional language. Integrative tests are best characterised by the use of doze testing and of dictation. Oral interviews, translation and essay writing are also included in many integrative tests   a point frequently overlooked by those who take too narrow a view of integrative testing.

5. The communicative approach
The communicative approach to language testing is sometimes linked to the integrative approach. However, although both approaches emphasise the importance of the meaning of utterances rather than their form and structure, there are nevertheless fundamental differences between the two approaches. Communicative tests are concerned primarily (if not totally) with how language is used in communication. Consequently, most aim to incorporate tasks which approximate as closely as possible to those facing the students in real life. Success is judged in terms of the effectiveness of the communication which takes place rather than formal linguistic accuracy. Language 'use' is often emphasised to the exclusion of language `usage'. `Use' is concerned with how people actually use language for a multitude of different purposes while 'usage' concerns the formal patterns of language (described in prescriptive grammars and lexicons). In practice. however, some tests of a communicative nature include the testing of usage and also assess ability to handle the formal patterns of the target language. Indeed, few supporters of the communicative approach would argue that communicative competence can ever be achieved without a considerable mastery of the grammar of a language.