Language Assessment Literacy in Theory and Practice
After examining several definitions of assessment literacy, or basic knowledge of testing, the testing awareness needs of several different groups are discussed. Firstly, what do teachers need to know about testing, and how is this knowledge best delivered to them? Then we observe the needs of stakeholders who are not directly involved in education, namely, policy makers, followed by those of university administrators. Finally the situation in university teaching is presented , and recommendations for improving assessment literacy are suggested. The term literacy has broadened considerably in its scope over the last 100 years. Initially of course it means the ability to read and write, a skill which for many centuries was the exclusive preserve of social elites. In a fairly static society and before the wide availability of texts with the invention of printing, illiteracy was hardly a handicap for the mass of the population. However, with the increasing complexity of society and the resulting need for gaining knowledge by reading and writing, individuals were motivated to make the effort to become literate, and finally in advanced countries the state enforced literacy by providing free compulsory education. Naturally this worked two ways: people were able to advance socially through their knowledge, but the
Defining the language assessment literacy gap: Evidence from a parliamentary inquiry
This study identifies a unique context for exploring lay understandings of language testing and, by extension, for characterizing the nature of language assessment literacy among non-practitioners, stemming from data in an inquiry into the registration processes and support for overseas trained doctors by the Australian House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing. The data come from Hansard transcripts of public hearings of the inquiry. Sections of the data related to language and language testing (as part of the current registration process for doctors seeking employment in Australia) were identified and coded using a thematic analysis. Findings reveal misconceptions about who is responsible for tests and for decisions based on scores in this context, as well as misconceptions about language testing procedures. Issues also emerge concerning the location of expertise in language and language testing. Discussion of these findings contributes to current debate within the language testing community (e.g., Taylor, 2009) about where responsibility lies for increasing language assessment literacy among non-practitioner stakeholders and how this might best be achieved.
TEST USE AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
Since Messick (1989) included test use in his validity matrix, there has been extensive debate about professional responsibility for test use. To theorize test use, some researchers have relied upon Foucault's social criticism, thereby stressing the negative role of tests in the surveillance of the marginalized. From a wider perspective, Shohamy (2001a) sees negative test impact as stemming from centralizing agencies, which still leaves open the possibility of positive test use. In this article I argue that how tests are used is a reflection of the wider political philosophy of a society. Political philosophy can generally be characterized as placing more emphasis on either the state or the citizen, leading to collectivist or individualist solutions to problems, be they real or perceived. In collectivist societies, tests, like history, are used to achieve conformity, control, and identity. In individualistic societies, they are used to promote individual progress. The role of tests within each broad approach will be described and illustrated. Finally, I briefly describe effect-driven test architecture as a method for testers to proscribe unintended uses of their tests.