|
|
developing valid and reliable tests that promote positive washback. According to Popham, validity is obtained if it can be demonstrated that the testing instrument is appropriate for the skills that one wants to measure, and reliability occurs when the testing instrument yields consistent results over repeated administration.
Valid and reliable tests are likely to produce positive washback. When a test is linked to what students are learning in the classroom they will experience testing as an extension of classroom work. And this experience won't become so stressful and will cause students to attempt to memorize a large number of language items which leads to short-term learning. In addition, when students know what to expect and the grading criteria are clear, testing will be more informative and result in positive washback. A student taking a traditional paper-and-pencil test graded on a 0 to 10 scale receives a certain score but he isn't be able to tell what mistakes were made and why he has got 7.7? He doesn't know specifically what a good performance means. On the other hand, if a student writes a composition and notes that he will deserve a good grade on his essay because it has a good title, an introduction and conclusion, and it is not boring then it is clear the student knows the required elements of good writing and how to achieve a good score. The second student assessment demonstrates the inseparable nature of teaching, learning and assessment.
So, having analyzed everything we may come to the following conclusions. The assessment procedures are clearer for everyone since the desired level of student performance and scoring criteria are clearly established. The mismatch between testing and teaching is less because they both are geared to performance objectives. The assessment instruments strongly correspond with the subject matter being taught in the classroom and how it is being taught, increasing the content validity. Rating and grading of the tests have increased the reliability of the assessment process.
References:
1. Bailey, K.M.1998. Learning about language assessment: Dilemmas, decisions, and directions.
2. McNamara, T. 2000. Language testing. Oxford: oxford University Press.
4. Raupp, M., and A. Reichle. 2003. Evaluation: A tool for project improvement. Santa Cruz do Sul, Brazil: Editora Edunisc.
УДК 4С.(тат.):378 Д-83
НЕКОТОРЫЕ ОРГАНИЗАЦИОННО-МЕТОДИЧЕСКИЕ ВОПРОСЫ ПРЕПОДАВАНИЯ НЕРОДНОГО ЯЗЫКА В ТЕХНИЧЕСКОМ ВУЗЕ
Л.Ш. Дунаева (доцент кафедры иностранные языки)
|
