Keywords

standardized language testing, high-stakes testing, washback effects, assessment literacy

Abstract

Standardized language tests are used for many purposes in pK-12 and higher education, including program admission and placement, certification of language attainment and proficiency, and graduation requirements. Despite the many standardized language tests that exist, many administrators and instructors possess limited understanding of how they are designed, what functions they fulfill, and how to interpret and use the results. The influx of AI in the language testing space has only exacerbated this problem. Key program stakeholders often rely on these tests to make pressure-filled and high-stakes decisions but may be doing so without understanding their limitations. However, the issue is not limited to the tests and their immediate results; often the test design and philosophies that undergird the test construct-i.e., what the test purports to measure-influence what is taught in language classes. This principle is frequently referred to as washback, or the influence tests and their administration can have on curriculum design and classroom pedagogy (Hughes, 2003). The design of the tests whose scores an institution accepts communicates to potential students-whether intentionally or not-what language skills the program values among its students. Students will prepare arduously for standardized tests-especially admissions tests, take practice exams, and strive for passing scores without necessarily learning language skills in a way that will help them survive and thrive both within the academic setting and in everyday life. This principle applies not only to language tests used for admission but those used at any stage in our programs, e.g., placement, proficiency, graduation, or teacher certification. The challenge language programs face is choosing standardized assessments appropriate for their local context and intended use. The greater the stakes, the more examinees are incentivized to attain a specific score, potentially at the expense of acquiring useful language skills. The selection of tests that include language from the context(s) outside the instructional setting-i.e., the target language use (TLU) domain-is in the best interest of the examinee and the institution for long-term success (Bachman & Palmer, 2010). Thus, the tests we adopt as administrators and how those tests conceptualize second language ability ought to reflect our institution's mission and values.

Original Publication Citation

Cox, T. Brown, A. & Malone, M. (Accepted for Publication, September 9, 2024). Understanding the Role of Standardized Exams in Second Language Programs. In A. V. Brown, C. Crane, B. Dupuy, E. Ene) (Eds.) Routledge Handbook of Language Program Administration. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/The-Routledge-Handbook-of-Language-Program-Development-and-Administration/Brown-Crane-Dupuy-Ene/p/book/9781032420240