A Critique on Discourse of Language Tests
top of page
Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute
Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute

Education Quarterly Reviews

ISSN 2621-5799

asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
crossref
doi
open access

Published: 15 July 2021

A Critique on Discourse of Language Tests

Tuçe Öztürk Karataş

Mersin University, Turkey

asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
pdf download

Download Full-Text Pdf

doi

10.31014/aior.1993.04.03.318

Pages: 64-72

Keywords: Discourse of Tests, Functions of Tests, Power Relations

Abstract

In the 21st century, with the rise of the popularity of standardized or large-scale tests, their high-stakes have started to be apparent. High-stake tests are not new, but in most cases, their current use as social practice tends to shape individuals’ futures. Currently the new trend for their quality discussion aims to critically evaluate tests through the focus on their functions, use and power in their testing discourse, whereas traditionally what was included in this discussion was only their psychometric features. Regarding those tests as social practices, examining the functions, consequences and use of tests in their own discourses is at the heart of this new perspective. Driven by the tenet of such a critical perspective, this study aims to first provide a better understanding of ‘discourse of test’, and then describe the social dimensions comprising discourse of language tests. Finally, this study concludes with some suggestions for adapting a critical perspective to improve the discourse of tests and enhance their quality.

References

  1. Bachman, L.F. (2005). Building and supporting a case for test use. Language Assessment Quarterly, 2(1), 1-34.https://doi.org/10.1207/s15434311laq0201_1

  2. Broadfoot, P. (1996). Education, assessment and society: A sociological analysis. Buckingham: Open University Press.

  3. Cheng, L. (2008). Washback, impact and consequences. In E. Shohamy & N.H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education. Volume 7: Language testing and assessment, (2nd ed.) (pp. 349-364). New York: Springer.

  4. Cronbach, L. J. (1988). Five perspectives on the validity argument. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity(pp. 3–18). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  5. Douglas, D. (2010). Book review: McNamara, T. and Roever, C. Language testing: The social dimension(Language Learning and Monograph Series). Language Testing, 27(2), 283-285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209360585

  6. Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). UK: Pearson.

  7. Filer, A. (2000). Assessment: Social practice and social product. New York: Routledge.

  8. Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish. The birth of the prison(A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Vintage.

  9. Gee, J. P. (2008). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London and New York: Routledge.

  10. Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  11. Jordan, B., & Putz, P. (2004). Assessment as practice: Notes on measures, tests, and targets. Human organization, 346-358. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/44127311

  12. Karataş, T. Ö., & Okan, Z. (2019). The power of language tests in Turkish context: A critical study. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15(1), 210-230. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.547715

  13. Karataş, T. Ö., & Okan, Z. (2021a). A conceptual framework on the power of language tests as social practice. In B. Lanteigne, C. Coombe & J. D. Brown (Eds.), Challenges in language testing around the world: Insights for language test users(pp. 79- 97). Singapore: Springer.

  14. Karataş, T. Ö., & Okan, Z. (2021b). The powerful use of an English language teacher recruitment exam in the Turkish context: An interactive qualitative case study. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 8(3). 1649-1677. Retrieved from https://www.iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/1094

  15. Kunnan, A.J. (2005). Language assessment from a wider context. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp.779-794). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  16. LaCelle-Peterson, M. (2000). Choosing not to know: How assessment policies and practices obscure the education of language minority students. In A. Filer (Ed.), Assessment: Social practice and social product(pp. 27-42). New York: Routledge.

  17. LaCelle-Peterson, M., & Rivera, C. (1994). Is it real for all kids? A framework for equitable assessment policies for English language learners. Harvard Educational Review, 64(1), 55-76.
    https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.64.1.k3387733755817j7

  18. Löwenheim, O., & Gazit, O. (2009). Power and examination: A critique of citizenship tests. Security dialogue, 40(2), 145-167. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010609103074

  19. Lynch, B.K. (2001). Rethinking assessment from a critical perspective. Language Testing, 18(4), 351-372. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553220101800403

  20. McNamara, T. (2001). Language assessment as social practice: Challenges for research. Language testing, 18(4), 333-349. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553220101800402

  21. McNamara, T. (2008). The socio-political and power dimensions of tests. In E. Shohamy & N.H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education. Volume 7: Language testing and assessment (2nd ed.) (pp. 415-428). New York: Springer.

  22. McNamara, T., & Roever, C. (2006). Language testing: The social dimension. Oxford: Blackwell.

  23. Menken, K. (2008). English learners left behind: Standardized testing as language policy. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

  24. Menken, K. (2017). High-stakes testing as de facto language education policies. In E. Shohamy, L. G. Or, & S. May (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education (3rd ed.), Language testing and assessment(pp. 385-396). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

  25. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In: R. L. Linn (ed.), Educational measurement, (3rd ed., pp. 13– 103). New York: Macmillan.

  26. Ross, S. J. (2011). The social and political tensions of language assessment. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, Volume 2(pp. 786–797). New York: Routledge.

  27. Saville, N., & Khalifa, H. (2016). The impact of language assessment. In B. Jayanti & D. Tsagari (Eds.), Handbook of second language assessment (pp. 77–94). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

  28. Shohamy, E, (1998). Critical language testing and beyond. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 24(4), 331-345.

  29. Shohamy, E. (2001a). Democratic assessment as an alternative. Language Testing, 18(4), 373-391. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553220101800404

  30. Shohamy, E. (2001b). The power of tests: A critical perspective on the uses of language tests. London: Longman/Pearson Education.

  31. Shohamy, E. (2001c). The social responsibility of the language testers. In R.L. Cooper, E. Shohamy & J. Walters (Eds.), New perspectives and issues in educational language policy in honor of B. D. Spolsky (pp. 113-130). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  32. Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. London: Routledge.

  33. Shohamy, E. (2007). Tests as power tools: Looking back, looking forward. In J. Fox, M. Wesche, D. Bayliss, L. Cheng, C. Turner, C. Doe (Eds.), Language testing reconsidered(pp. 141-152). Ottawa, ON: University of Ottawa Press.

  34. Shohamy, E. (2009). Language tests for immigrants: Why language? Why tests? Why citizenship. In G. Hogan-Brun, C. Mar-Molinero, P. Stevenson (Eds.), Discourses on language and integration: Critical perspectives on language testing regimes in Europe (pp. 45-59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  35. Shohamy, E. (2013). The discourse of language testing as a tool for shaping national, global, and transnational identities. Language and Intercultural Communication, 13(2), 225-236. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2013.770868

  36. Shohamy, E. (2017a). Critical language testing. In E. Shohamy, L. G. Or, & S. May (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education: Language testing and assessment(3rd ed., pp. 441-454). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

  37. Shohamy, E. (2017b). ELF and critical language testing. In The Routledge handbook of English as a lingua franca (pp. 583-593). Routledge.

  38. Taylor, L. (2005). Washback and impact. ELT Journal, 59(2), 154-155. https://doi.org/10.1093/eltj/cci030

  39. van Dijk, T.A. (2008). Discourse and power. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.

  40. Young, R. F. (2009). Discursive practice in language learning and teaching (Vol. 58). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

  41. Young, R. F. (2012). Social dimensions of language testing. In G. Fulcher & F. Davidson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language testing (pp. 178-193).USA: Routledge.

bottom of page