ArticlePDF Available

Assessment literacy and the good language teacher: four principles and their applications


Abstract and Figures

There is currently a great deal of interest in language teachers' competence in assessing language ability. Their competence in this regard, or lack of it, has much to do with their initial training and professional biases. Taking as example the teaching and learning of one specific kind of language, academic discourse, this paper discusses a number of assessment techniques that language teachers could apply to language teaching at school, or in other contexts of language tuition. Its basis is four basic principles of language assessment: reliability, validity, interpretability of results, and efficiency. These four principles are important to all assessments designed by language teachers. Some assessment techniques that have not yet widely been used to their full potential by teachers are described when different formats of language assessment are discussed. In particular, examples of effective and efficient formats of assessment will be given by referring to an analysis of a test of academic literacy administered to senior secondary school students in their pre-university year. Those examples have clear applications in other language learning settings. The paper concludes with a challenge to teachers: to experiment with new assessment designs, and to learn how to interpret the results of assessment in order to plan language instruction more effectively.
Content may be subject to copyright.
This is an accepted manuscript of an article published by the South African Association
for Language Teaching in the Journal for Language Teaching, Vol. 53, 2019, No. 1, pp.
103-121, available online at
Assessment literacy and the good language
teacher: four principles and their applications
Albert Weideman
University of the Free State
There is currently a great deal of interest in language teachers’ competence in assessing
language ability. Their competence in this regard, or lack of it, has much to do with their initial
training and professional biases. Taking as example the teaching and learning of one specific
kind of language, academic discourse, this paper discusses a number of assessment techniques
that language teachers could apply to language teaching at school, or in other contexts of
language tuition. Its basis is four basic principles of language assessment: reliability, validity,
interpretability of results, and efficiency. These four principles are important to all assessments
designed by language teachers. Some assessment techniques that have not yet widely been used
to their full potential by teachers are described when different formats of language assessment
are discussed. In particular, examples of effective and efficient formats of assessment will be
given by referring to an analysis of a test of academic literacy administered to senior secondary
school students in their pre-university year. Those examples have clear applications in other
language learning settings. The paper concludes with a challenge to teachers: to experiment
with new assessment designs, and to learn how to interpret the results of assessment in order
to plan language instruction more effectively.
Keywords: assessment literacy; language testing; academic literacy; design principles; language
ability; reliability; validity; diagnostic information; efficiency
1 Are good language teachers competent in assessment?
The international literature is literally abuzz with the idea of “assessment literacy” and how
that ability affects language teaching (Wylie & Lyon, 2017), sometimes in highly localized
contexts (e.g. Semiz & Odabaş, 2016; Sellan, 2017). Assessment literacy is usually defined as
language teachers’ awareness and knowledge of assessment. Another related contemporary
theme is classroom-based assessment. In short: there is more current awareness about
assessment among language teachers and those who train them than ever before. The current
interest in the level of knowledge of language teachers about how language can be assessed
most effectively is evident not only in the growing literature on it (Taylor, 2009; Fulcher, 2012),
but also in the prominence it has in discussions at professional gatherings of language testing
specialists. The annual conference of the International Language Testing Association (ILTA),
the Language Testing Research Colloquium (LTRC) held in Bogota in 2017, for example, had
“Language assessment literacy across stakeholder boundaries” as its main theme, and at LTRC
2018 in Auckland several papers and contributions dealing with assessment literacy took that
discussion further. Though language teachers’ knowledge of testing practice is not the only
dimension of assessment literacy, since it applies equally to the knowledge of assessment held
by users of test scores in a number of institutional environments (Taylor, 2009), it no doubt
constitutes an important component of the ability to use tests responsibly. It is usually argued
in the literature being referred to here that such competence will enable language teachers to
become more accountable for the ways in which they design language assessments, and that
they will gain professionally by becoming assessment literate.
Despite the international attention focussing on the assessment literacy of practising language
teachers, very little thought has gone into this in South Africa. The question for us is therefore:
Where does one begin in examining the levels of assessment literacy of teachers? And, once
examined and determined, how would language teachers achieve higher levels of assessment
literacy? At this early stage in our awareness of assessment literacy as a global issue, rather
than coming up with a final methodology of how it might be probed (for, as can be expected,
there are many different ways to go about this), this paper focuses instead on a number of
essential assessment design principles that might in our context underlie any eventual
evaluation of the levels of assessment literacy of language teachers. The paper will attempt to
demonstrate that language teachers will gain professionally if they start by checking whether
their current ways of assessing language ability conform to four prominent principles of
language test design: test reliability, test validity (cf. Weideman, 2019a), the interpretability of
results, and test efficiency, though there are many more (Weideman, 2019b). That means, first,
that they will have to invest in considering potentially effective but underutilized language
assessment techniques, which I shall return to when discussing the implications of the case
study presented below. Second, such professional gain will contribute to their perspective on
language assessment not being a mere classroom or curricular routine, but an accountable
process, in which the responsible assessment of language ability the kind of assessment that
checks and considers whether it responds or conforms to certain principles of
assessment - constitutes a key element. In short, becoming more assessment literate can no
doubt be associated with what is referred to in the title as the ‘good’ language teacher.
Language teachers’ current awareness of and ability to assess language competence both
professionally and responsibly in the first instance have to do with what was emphasized during
their training and development. One of the regrets of my professional life as a language teacher
is that I realized too late how my students might have benefited if I was skilled in language
assessment. My own training emphasized being ‘learner-centred’ as the prime consideration.
There is a good reason for this emphasis: language teachers began to acknowledge at that time
that teaching language does not automatically convert into learning another language. The task
of the teacher, it was accepted, is to make learning possible. My regret is this: if I had known
more about assessing language ability, I would have been much better equipped to create the
conditions for language learning in the highly charged context of the classroom highly
charged because we have plenty of examples of language learning happening successfully
outside the classroom, in environments with less stress, less anxiety, and less tension.
So teachers who were imbued, as I was, with the language teaching orthodoxy of the last two
decades of the 20th century, the communicative approach to language teaching, often failed to
attend adequately to language assessment. There is no space here to deal with the considerable
literature on communicative language testing, but we should note that teachers’ attempts to
implement communicative language teaching involved creating a language classroom without
stress and anxiety. The creation of those non-threatening conditions seemed to preclude any
overt evaluation of their learners’ ability. The dilemma in testing communicatively was: How
does one evaluate without creating more tension?
Language assessment is therefore tied up with one’s approach to teaching. The approach
adopted justifies not only the desired style of teaching (Weideman, 2002), but also influences
how language ability must be assessed. If the approach calls for a stress-free language learning
environment, one may be tempted to diminish the importance of evaluating performance. By
steering away from, or reluctantly assessing their learners’ ability, however, teachers deprive
themselves of a valuable source of information for their subsequent teaching. Add to this that
pre-service language teacher training by all accounts pays inadequate attention to assessment
techniques (Taylor 2009), and you have a recipe for neglect, and, in my case, regret.
This paper will consider one approach to teaching language for a specific purpose, and examine
how that approach affects, and is aligned with, assessment. I shall take as an illustration the
teaching and testing of academic literacy. Academic literacy is the ability that we desire
students to possess when they intend to enrol at tertiary institutions, in order to handle the
language demands of university or higher education. It must be remembered that not all
language teachers teach languages at public schools; there is a world of private language
tuition, with a wide variety of purposes and aims, outside of the school system. Of course,
where teachers do teach language at primary or secondary school level, they teach it as a
subject. That might tempt one to think that language teaching at school can be conceived of as
‘achievement’ testing, and contrast that with ‘proficiency’ testing, provided, of course, that one
is able to uphold that conventional distinction. As soon as we examine the language syllabi
(Department of Basic Education, 2011), however, we note that language ability (‘proficiency’)
is the primary aim of the instruction (Du Plessis, Steyn & Weideman, 2016). What is more,
though academic literacy is not a school subject, the curricula being referred to here require
secondary school learners to become proficient in language used for education and learning
(for a more complete treatment of the implications of this, see below, section 3, and Myburgh-
Smit, 2015). So in its aims, language teaching at school looks beyond school, to the ability to
handle language that will be used, for example, for study, in the workplace, and for being a
responsible citizen. The teaching, the learning and the assessment of academic literacy
therefore potentially hold a number of valuable insights for language teaching in general.
Academic literacy is a communicative ability, because in educational institutions a student
interacts with others through language in order to understand, develop, and produce
analytically-characterized discourse, usually related to academic argument. Though academic
discourse is but one type of language (Patterson & Weideman, 2013), and is acknowledged,
also in the Grade 12 syllabus, to encompass an advanced level of language ability (Du Plessis,
Steyn & Weideman, 2016), there will be obvious lessons for language teachers to learn from
this example, and applications to be made to other (intermediate and beginner) levels of
language teaching, inside and outside of the school system.
Below I shall therefore deal, first, with a new way of looking at language and assessing it.
Though, as has already been noted, there are many more, four basic principles of language
assessment will be highlighted: reliability, validity, the interpretability of results, and
efficiency. These four principles should be important specifically to the assessments designed
by the good language teacher, if we view such teachers as ones who can justify the ways in
which they design their assessments of language ability by responding to the principles of
language test design. Phrased differently: the good language teacher will treat assessment
design as a process that needs to be accounted for. When the formats that language assessment
might take are discussed below, some assessment techniques that have not yet widely been
used to their full potential by teachers will be described. Those examples have applications in
other language learning settings. The paper will conclude with a challenge to teachers: to
experiment with new assessment designs, using information that these yield in order to plan
instruction more productively.
2 Why good language teachers would want to become good
assessors of language ability
Language teachers, as well as administrators who use test scores, are concerned with
professional and responsible assessment practices, as defined in the previous section, not only
for the sake of becoming accountable for the decisions that are taken on the basis of the scores
they award to their students, but also for a number of further reasons.
The first of these is that good language teachers should wish to be competent in assessing
language ability in order to have a measure of whether the language instruction that they
provide has been successful. Without the measurement of outcomes, there can be no basis for
claims that they have been achieved. Such a process speaks to the design principle of
effectiveness. Second, if they had some reliable indication of the level of mastery of the
language by their students, they would have a potentially trustworthy measure of those levels.
Third, such a reliable measure would enable them to be better attuned to the further language
development needs of their students. A reliable measure would allow them to identify the gaps
in their students’ language ability. Their measurement, and the interpretation of its results,
would therefore yield diagnostic information: the scores may provide information essential for
further instruction. If they carefully designed their assessment instruments to measure exactly
the ability they were wanting to enable their students to develop what is called ‘validity’ in
testing jargon (Weideman, 2019a) the results of the assessment will be more easily
interpretable. Finally, if they could measure language ability in an efficient manner, it might
eliminate some of the drudgery associated with ‘marking’.
The example referred to below will provide evidence of how these four basic principles of
language testing (reliability, validity, interpretability and efficiency) can be employed to make
assessment of language more consistent, more effective, more useful, and less of a chore.
3 Method, instructional context of the assessment, description of
population, and sampling
The instructional setting for language instruction in the case study described below is one in
which the language teacher was involved by invitation, to make up for a shortcoming in the
language development of senior secondary school learners. The learners in this case are South
African high school students, of about 16-17 years of age, who are in their final year of school,
about to write their final school exit examinations. The results of these examinations determine
to a large extent whether these senior pupils will be allowed entry into tertiary study at a
university. The trouble that they face is that the universities they apply to now have an
additional requirement: in many cases applicants have to demonstrate their ability to use
language for academic purposes at university level by writing tests of academic literacy in the
year before entering university. The universities may use the results for placement of students
on academic literacy development courses, but increasingly, since more and more school
leavers are competing for a limited number of places at university, they are also using them for
access, to determine whether students will be allowed to enter certain courses, especially ones
that are in high demand (Myburgh-Smit, 2015; Sebolai, 2016).
Why (with English now the dominant language of higher education) does these students’
instruction in English-as-subject at secondary school not adequately prepare them for using
language at university level? The reasons are complex (Du Plessis, Steyn & Weideman, 2016),
but the short answer is: university authorities no longer trust the deteriorating results of the
school exit examinations. What is more, language instruction at school has demonstrably been
drifting away from the stipulations of the national syllabus (Weideman, Du Plessis & Steyn,
2017), so that it in fact does not emphasise, as required, mastering language for the purposes
of higher education. Language instruction neglects language for academic purposes, though the
syllabus requires substantial attention to its development. One reason for this neglect is that the
examination papers of previous years set the tone (a phenomenon called ‘washback’), not the
syllabus. Teachers merely want to see their pupils gaining good marks in the exit examinations,
and the exit examinations make little provision for the assessment of the high level of language
ability required by the curriculum, which includes the assessment of academic literacy.
It is in this context, then, that supplementary language teaching is called for. Additional
language instruction is offered to minimize the risk for prospective entrants into higher
education failing to obtain a mark on an academic literacy test that will allow them entry either
into university, or into certain highly sought-after courses. The universities who require it have
a point: they have seen a trend, following the massification of higher education globally since
the mid-1990s, that for them establishes a link between success at university and academic
language ability (Van Rensburg & Weideman, 2002; Van Rooy & Coetzee-Van Rooy, 2015).
By their reckoning, lower levels of academic literacy carry a risk for university students not
achieving the pass rates required for receiving government subsidies, still by far the main
source of income for universities. They do not wish to place their income at risk, especially
when the risk is not of their making, but lies elsewhere in the education system.
The population of this study is made up of 105 senior secondary school pupils that were
conveniently sampled in a series of language development workshops at several schools in
2017. The pupils whose assessment results are being used were fully informed of the aim of
the test, and an undertaking was given that their results, when analysed, would be
comprehensively anonymized. In addition, both the location and the number of the schools
involved have been withheld.
4 Satisfying the principle of validity by first defining the ability to
use language for education and study
Though, as we have noted in the previous section, the school syllabus (Department of
Education, 2011: 4, 9) provides amply for instruction to gain access to higher education”, and
has specific stipulations, for example, for the mastery of advanced vocabulary, making
inferences, doing critical analysis, identifying main and peripheral issues, categorizing,
sequencing, recognizing connections between texts, and many similar functions of language
that are associated with the mastery of language for academic purposes, there is almost no
evidence in the final assessment of students that this ability is either taught or assessed
(Weideman, Du Plessis & Steyn, 2017). Yet these are important components of language of
which to have mastery, if we look at the substantial literature on academic literacy (see NExLA,
2019), as this ability is referred to. A widely-used definition of academic literacy (Patterson &
Weideman, 2013) emphasizes the analytically stamped nature of academic discourse, that has
already been referred to above. Its various elements can be summarized in a table (Table 1),
that in the first column identifies the component of academic literacy that should be taught and
assessed, and in the second column gives examples of the possible task types (for teaching) or
the subtests that will allow components of academic literacy to be assessed (Weideman, 2017).
Understand / interpret / have
knowledge of
Task type / Subtest
vocabulary and metaphor
Academic vocabulary (one word)
Academic vocabulary (two word)
Text comprehension (in larger context)
Text editing
Grammar & text relations (modified cloze)
complex grammar, and text
Grammar & text relations (cloze)
Scrambled text / organisation of text
Text editing
Making academic arguments
communicative function
Understanding text type and communicative function
Text comprehension
Text type / Register awareness
Grammar & text relations
Scrambled text / organisation of text
text type, including visually
presented information
Text type / Register awareness
Text comprehension
Interpreting graphic & visual information
Organising information visually
information, sequence and
numerical distinctions,
identifying relevant information
and evidence
Text comprehension
Interpreting graphic & visual information
Making academic arguments
inference, extrapolation,
synthesis of information, and
constructing an argument
Making academic arguments
Text comprehension
Scrambled text / organisation of text
Writing task
Table 1: The construct of academic literacy and its operationalizing
There are more subtests that can be associated with the components listed here, so those listed
in the second column constitute only a provisional set. It is important to note that while the
components of academic literacy in the first column can be assessed by means of a range of
subtests, the subtests, in turn, potentially can assess more than one component. It is important,
furthermore, to note that the components of academic literacy listed in the first column define
that specific language ability functionally. That is a new perspective on language: it asks what
one needs to be able to do with and through language. It is different from the traditional way
of defining it as being made up of sounds, vocabulary, and grammar, or as the skills of listening,
speaking, reading and writing (Weideman, 2017).
Having now defined what is being measured (the ‘construct’ of academic language ability),
and broken it down into components, we have taken the first step towards fulfilling the
requirement of test validity: we have a theoretically defensible idea of what we are measuring
(Read, 2010: 288); defensible, too, because it is a current rather than an outdated one. The
problematic truth about language teaching at senior secondary school level in South Africa, as
we have shown above, is that it does not adequately measure the ability to use language for
education and study. The observation here is that a definition of that ability, already articulated
to a substantial extent in the curriculum prescriptions for language teaching at school, would
be a good starting point. Once we have deliberately defined the ability we wish to assess, we
have also taken the next step towards making the results of the assessment interpretable and
meaningful; if the test measures effectively, we may be able to see whether our students lack
mastery of one or more functional components of academic interaction through language, for
example of seeing relations between different parts of a text, or of making inferences, and so
The application of this knowledge should already be apparent: if we can find a test that assesses
the ability to use appropriate vocabulary, or the competence to extrapolate, or to making
meaningful connections, or to measure sensitivity to genre, or perhaps to do all of these, we
would have a measure of language ability that is strongly related to what we have to be
assessing in many other language classrooms as well. Before returning to these possible
applications, let me first present, as an example of such a test, the measuring instrument that
was used in the case being described and analysed.
5 The measuring instrument: a multi-component, and potentially
comprehensive assessment
The learners in this example whose academic literacy needs further development are in their
final or pre-final year of high school. They need to be able to demonstrate to the universities
they will be entering after finishing school that they are able to cope with the language demands
of tertiary education. The first step towards the development of this ability to use language for
a specific purpose is the assessment of their existing levels of academic literacy. In the
relatively short period they have to prepare for an assessment by the universities the
identification of their weaknesses and strengths would be ideal for designing the language
instruction they need in order to develop their language ability.
To measure this ability, a theme-based test of academic literacy was used (taken from
Weideman, 2018), that assesses as comprehensively as possible the components of academic
literacy referred to in the previous section, and is made up of several of the subtests (sections)
that measure them, which have been selected from those mentioned in the second column of
Table 1:
Section 1: Scrambled text
This subtest scrambles the sentences of a paragraph, and requires the learner to unscramble
them by asking which sentence should be placed first, second, third, and so on. (5 marks)
Section 2: Vocabulary knowledge
Based on words taken from Coxhead’s (2000) Academic Word List, this subtest assesses the
learner’s familiarity with words used frequently in academic language. (10 marks)
Section 3: Verbal reasoning
This subtest gives the test taker the opportunity to demonstrate an ability to make inferences,
extrapolate, and know what counts as evidence. (5 marks)
Section 4: Interpreting graphic and visual information
The ability to handle data presented graphically or visually is tested, for example recognizing
trends, or making proportional comparisons. It also tests the ability to handle different genres.
(10 marks)
Section 5: Register and text type
Five sentences/phrases from five different genres (a newspaper report; an advertisement; a set
of instructions; a novel; a scholarly text) must be matched with five further sentences from the
same sources. (5 marks)
Section 6: Text comprehension
Unlike a conventional comprehension test, the questions are carefully designed to assess
whether one is able to distinguish between the essential and the peripheral; to see connections
among words, clauses, and paragraphs; to recognize sequence and order; to know how different
communicative functions are used; to use metaphor and idiom in context, etc. (45 marks)
Section 7: Grammar & text relations
This subtest is a modification of cloze procedure, where every fifth, seventh, or ninth word may
be deleted. Test takers are required not only to fill in the right word, but also to indicate where
the gap is. The subtest tests grammatical awareness, vocabulary knowledge, use of prepositions,
relations between different elements of text, and even communicative function. (20 marks)
Here is an example of a part of this last kind of subtest:
In the following, you have to indicate the possible place where a word may have been deleted,
and which word belongs there.
Goodyear claimed that he 81&82
but did
until June 15, 1844.
81. Where has the word been deleted?
A. At position (i).
B. At position (ii).
C. At position (iii).
D. At position (iv).
82. Which word has been left out here?
A. first
B. rubber
C. year
D. in
84. Which word has been left out here?
A. then
B. apparently
C. invention
D. fully
The full test, of 100 marks, reflects in the weighting of its subtests the judgement of the test
designer regarding the relative importance of the different components of academic literacy
that were listed in Table 1.
The test theme (“Rubber: an ordinary, everyday thing”) is evident in all subtests. Having a
theme-based test contributes to the sense that the test takers have of interacting in an academic
fashion with a single, coherent issue, stimulating by its topicality their engagement with it. That
in itself enhances another facet of the test, which is often called its “face validity”.
6 Efficient assessment may spring from new test formats
Many teachers would, perhaps even regularly, employ the kinds of tests mentioned above, or
variations of them. Yet some are certainly less familiar. For example, the last subtest, Grammar
& text relations, that assesses high-level grammatical skill in addition to vocabulary,
communicative function and cohesion, is a potentially productive kind of subtest that has been
neglected by teachers. In the next section, that deals with the analysis of the results of the
application of the instrument described in section 5, above, I shall present some statistics on
just how well such a test performs, and why it should not be avoided.
The format in which the test is administered is also one that teachers may often neglect. All of
the subtests in the test outlined above are in multiple-choice format, with four or five choices
provided. Classroom teachers sometimes have predictable, yet largely unwarranted, biases
against closed-ended instead of open-ended formats of assessment, and these prejudices are to
some extent explicable, since answer-constrained formats, as their name implies, indeed limit
the variety of possible responses. If no other formats for assessment are utilized, it would
perhaps be a mistake to rely solely on this limited-answer format. But if one already has
sufficiently emphasized other formats, such as assignment writing, putting together a portfolio
of best work, awarding marks for classroom participation and for homework, and if one
regularly utilizes a range of open-ended student responses in several modes, there is no reason
to steer clear entirely of a multiple-choice format. This format has the advantage of allowing
one to re-use items that have worked well, thus saving future assessment design time. It has
demonstrable efficiency gains. Incidentally, it is also demonstrably more reliable than even
strictly moderated forms of hand-marked open-response assessments. Moreover, its marking is
much easier, and, if the answers are completed on an optical reader form, its results can be
scanned and captured on a spreadsheet to facilitate further analysis. It not only saves on the
drudgery of marking, but, if the test ranges over a multiplicity of components and subtests, and
is long enough (usually more than 40 items in length), its overall result will closely correlate
highly with reliably scored, open-ended assessments that require much more effort and time to
administer and score. Finally, the format is easily adaptable to computer-based testing, that is
becoming ever more available also in schools, and it is a pre-requisite for computer-adaptive
testing (Read, 2010: 293), where, by using a limited number of pre-tested items, the test taker’s
ability level can efficiently be obtained. The application here of the principle of efficiency is
Adopting such new or underutilized formats therefore brings the language teacher to consider
to yet another test design principle, that of efficient measurement. That kind of consideration
is aimed at removing drudgery from language testing, and freeing up instructional energy that
can usefully be employed towards realising the real goal of language teaching: the development
of the learner’s ability.
The principles of reliability and interpretability: What a
rudimentary analysis of results yields
In this section, we show how the results of this wide-ranging test of academic literacy, the
instrument described in section 5, were analysed (see Berg, Schaugency, Van der Meer &
Smith, 2018). For such analysis there are freely downloadable programs for classroom teachers,
that I would encourage teachers to explore. I have chosen to employ the freeware called TiaPlus
(for Test and item analysis +) from (see Cito 2013), but there are numbers
of others, e.g. jMetrik ( (for a more comprehensive list, see Clauser
& Hambleton 2018).
The TiaPlus analysis yields performance data both at test level, for the test as a whole, and at
subtest and item level, as in Table 2.
Scrambled text
Verbal reasoning
Interpreting graphic & visual info
Register and text type
Text comprehension
Grammar & text relations
Number of testees
Number of items
Average score
Average score (%)
Average Rit
Coefficient Alpha
Table 2: Subtest intercorrelations, test-subtest correlations, and basic properties of Rubber test
The program has calculated familiar statistics, for example average scores and percentages for
the test overall, as well as for the subtests. What we can learn from the average of 63% overall
illustrates the working of the third important principle: interpretability. Was the test too easy
since it has an average of above 50%? To know that, we need to interpret the scores with
reference to other administrations of the same test. For example, when this test was
administered several years earlier, first year students at a reputable South African university
scored 68%. That means that the population whose results are being analysed here is actually
not yet on par with what that university would have expected, despite what looks like a high
average. We can only interpret a score properly by bringing into our calculation all the
information we have at our disposal. Lesson? An average mark of 50% is meaningless as a
kind of magical ‘pass’. Any mark needs interpretation.
We can also see from this analysis that the average Rit (a measure of how well an item
discriminates between top-performers and those in the lowest overall quartile of marks; see
Cito, 2013: 29) of the test, at 0.28, is well above 0.15, which is the lowest acceptable value.
But when we look at the average Rit of the subtests, we notice that, apart from the longer (45
mark) subtest that predictably performed well, the much shorter subtest 7 (Grammar & text
relations) fared remarkably better, outperforming the other subtests. What further counts in its
favour is that, though it makes up only one fifth of the test (20 marks), its correlation with the
overall test is excellent, at 0.71.
Our suspicion, then, that the Grammar & text relations subtest is one that performs well, can
be tested further by examining the reliability of the test as a whole, and those of the various
subtests. This is measured by looking at the Coefficient Alpha, sometimes called Cronbach
Alpha (Cito, 2013: 29). Generally, for class tests, one would be looking for a reliability of
above 0.6. For school examinations, we may perhaps find 0.7 acceptable. For higher stakes
tests, for example those that grant access to further opportunity or work, one would certainly
think that 0.8 is a minimum, and above 0.9 desirable. The fact that this particular test has an
overall Alpha of 0.88 means that it is already highly reliable. But equally heartening is that
subtest 7, with only 20 items, is once again the top performer, managing to score 0.87 on a very
strict index. Compare that to the negative -0.04 of Subtest 3 (Verbal reasoning).
A more sophisticated analysis would have checked to see whether the subtest-intercorrelations
were within the conventional parameters of 0.15 (a low correlation) and 0.5 (a moderate
correlation), since we do not want the subcomponents of a test to correlate too highly: that
would indicate that they are measuring the same component, and thus not measuring as
effectively as they could. Several subtests here would therefore have drawn attention by scoring
too low. As regards the subtest-test correlations, we would of course seek higher correlations.
Predictably, Text comprehension, being the longest subtest, scores highest (0.90), but once
again the Grammar & text relations subtest catches the eye: it has a correlation with the test
overall of 0.71, the second highest of all the subtests. Its effectiveness is almost beyond doubt.
Some of the statistical measures above, like the reliability index Cronbach Alpha, directly
gauge the reliability or consistency of the test, and so indicate wholly whether at test level, the
language assessment instrument that was used conforms to the important principle of
reliability. Others, that were not referred to in detail here, are measures that traditionally
indicated whether the test satisfies the condition of effectiveness, or validity. But the further
important principle of test design illustrated here is that these numbers, when interpreted, give
us additional indications of how the test conforms to the principle of interpretability. That is
not the only way in which a test like this gives meaningful results. There are more, and to that
we turn in the next section.
7 Assessment that informs the design of instruction
What further lessons are there from these analyses? We can see that Subtest 3 (Verbal
reasoning) is in need of repair. In fact, the overall results would have been more reliable if it
had been omitted altogether. We can further observe that the longer the test is, the more reliable
it is likely to be. And finally, we can see from the average marks that the students fared worst
in the Scrambled text subtest (at 30% average). That means that their ability to see connections
between different parts of a text is perhaps not on par.
That lack of ability may also be evident when one examines the statistics of some items that
also measure this ability, in context, in Section 6 (Text comprehension) of the test. In the item
statistics that TiaPlus generates, we see further evidence in the low percentage correct answers
to questions that test this same subskill.
These numbers provide empirical grounds for the language teacher (in this case, where the
instruction is aimed at the development of academic literacy) to emphasize those tasks that
enable learners to practice sequencing of information, cohesive ties, and seeing relations
between different parts of a text, either by designing appropriate tasks, or using ones from
textbooks (cf. Weideman, 2018; 2007). In short: diagnostic information supports instructional
design, and helps the teacher to identify what should be emphasized in subsequent language
teaching. We find such information when we apply the assessment principle or interpretability.
8 Some further applications
As an application of the principle of validity at its basis the idea that we should be measuring
what we set out to measure, and do it in a theoretically justifiable way (Weideman 2019a) - we
have now considered how a new idea of language allows us to assess more responsibly. That
new perspective on language as used in higher education settings conceptualized as a means
of communication in academic work affords us the opportunity to view it functionally instead
of conventionally. Perhaps teachers in secondary schools may have noticed that the ideas
mentioned in this paper are not so novel: they are embodied in the very syllabi that they use in
their everyday language teaching. Indeed, given the syllabus demands in the South African
case (Department of Basic Education, 2011), one could claim that if language teachers gave
more attention to developing academic language ability at school, they would align their
language teaching much more effectively with those policy requirements.
Similarly, the kinds of assessment are not entirely unfamiliar, though some may have suffered
neglect. An example of a neglected format is the multiple-choice, closed-ended one employed
in the example we looked at. There may have been similar neglect in respect of task type: the
modified cloze procedure in Subtest 7, that was described in section 5 above, provides an
example. This is a highly productive test, in the sense of satisfying the principles of test design
that have been the focus of the argument here: reliability, effectiveness, interpretability and
efficiency. The empirical analyses of its answers have shown that even in a test this short, its
results correlate well with the overall mark. I would encourage experimentation with it, since
it may serve well as a quick and efficient though not comprehensive assessment of language
As to the bias among teachers against assessing in multiple-choice format, I would urge them
to have an open mind, to examine and test out its advantages. Given enough imagination and
creativity, there is no reason why it cannot be used, say, to assess knowledge of metaphor and
idiom, or inferencing. Compare the following example from the sample test:
67. We can infer from the phrase “gums… herbivorous insects” in paragraph six that
A. the insects eating plants producing rubber have gums but no teeth.
B. insects usually take longer to adapt to their circumstances than plants.
C. a good number of plants that have rubber use it to protect themselves.
D. to appreciate the congealment of rubber depends on one’s point of view.
The key to application of these ideas is imaginative design, and the application of the four
principles of assessment design that have been discussed here.
9 Conclusion
This paper has examined some of the implications for South African language testers of the
growing international attention to the assessment literacy of language teachers and, though I
have focussed less on them, of the administrators who use the results of language assessment,
for example to decide whether applicants are granted access to university. Rather than
prescribing or fixing ways of examining levels of assessment literacy among these
professionals, the paper has suggested that we first consider four prominent principles of
language test design: reliability, effectiveness (validity), interpretability and efficiency. Those
principles should form the basis, nonetheless, for the methodological means, such as
questionnaires, interviews, focus group discussions, ethnographic investigations and the like,
through which levels of assessment literacy can eventually be measured.
This paper has been therefore been able to deal with only a small slice of the issue. Its argument
and illustrations have been offered to encourage language teachers to assess language ability
more professionally and more responsibly, so that the scores that they give the language
learners in their charge become more useful, and also more publicly defensible. Teachers are
neither immune to the global requirements of increased accountability, nor should they be the
unhappy victims of neglect or ignorance of new professional challenges.
To become a good assessor of language ability depends on staying informed of what is
happening. There are many good introductions, and even excellent shorter briefings (such as
Read, 2010). For analysis, there is sufficient software available, of which one example has been
used here to demonstrate the useful interpretations that language teachers may derive from the
scores of a well-designed test. In a time when electronic means are no longer foreign to
professional language teaching, I would encourage language teachers to learn to use at least
one of these statistical programs, and not to shy away from experimenting with new formats of
language test design. In short: there is every reason to attempt experimentation and imaginative
design, and, as I said at the beginning, much to gain.
Berg, D.A.G., Schaugency, E., Van der Meer, J. & Smith, J.K. 2018. Using Classical Test
Theory in higher education. In Secolsky, C. & Denison, D.B. (Eds.) Handbook on
measurement, assessment, and evaluation in higher education. pp. 178-190.
Cito. 2013. TiaPlus users manual. Arnhem: M & R Department, Cito. Available: Accessed: 10 November 2017.
Clauser, J.C. & Hambleton, R.K. 2018. Item analysis for classroom assessments in higher
education. In Secolsky, C. & Denison, D.B. (Eds.) Handbook on measurement,
assessment, and evaluation in higher education. pp. 355-369.
Coxhead, A. 2000. A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly 34 (2): 213-238.
Department of Basic Education. 2011. Curriculum and assessment policy statement: Grades
10-12 English Home Language. Pretoria: Department of Basic Education.
Du Plessis, C. Steyn, S. & Weideman, A. 2016. Die assessering van huistale in die Suid-
Afrikaanse Nasionale Seniorsertifikaateksamen: die strewe na regverdigheid en
groter geloofwaardigheid. LitNet Akademies 13(1): 425-443. Available:
geloofwaardigheid/. Accessed: 8 Jan. 2019.
Fulcher, G. 2012. Assessment literacy for the language classroom. Language Assessment
Quarterly 9(2), 113-132. DOI: 10.1080/15434303.2011.642041.
Myburgh-Smit, J. 2015. The assessment of academic literacy at pre-university level: a
comparison of the utility of academic literacy tests and Grade 10 Home Language
results. MA dissertation. University of the Free State.
NExLA (Network of Expertise in Language Assessment). 2019. Bibliography of language
assessment. Available
Accessed 8 Jan. 2019.
Patterson, R. & Weideman, A. 2013. The typicality of academic discourse and its relevance for
constructs of academic literacy. Journal for Language Teaching 47(1): 107-123. DOI:
Read, J. 2010. Researching language testing and assessment. In Phakiti, A. & Paltridge, B.
(Eds.) Continuum compendium to research methods in applied linguistics. London:
Continuum. pp. 286-300.
Sebolai, K. 2016. The incremental validity of three tests of academic literacy in the context of
a South African university of technology. PhD thesis, University of the Free State.
Secolsky, C. & Denison, D.B. (Eds.) 2018. Handbook on measurement, assessment, and
evaluation in higher education. New York: Routledge.
Sellan, R. 2017. Developing assessment literacy in Singapore: How teachers broaden English
language learning by expanding assessment constructs. Papers in Language Testing
and Assessment 6(1): 64-87.
Semiz, Ö, and Odabaş, K. 2016. Turkish EFL teachers' familiarity of and perceived needs for
language testing and assessment literacy. Proceedings of LILA ’16: III. International
Linguistics and Language Studies Conference, organized by DAKAM (Eastern
Mediterranean Academic Research Center). pp. 66-72. Istanbul: Dakam Publishing.
Taylor, L. 2009. Developing assessment literacy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 29, 21-
Van Rensburg, C. & Weideman, A. 2002. Language proficiency: current strategies, future
remedies. Journal for Language Teaching 36(1 & 2): 152-1.
Van Rooy, B., & Coetzee-Van Rooy, S. 2015. The language issue and academic performance
at a South African University. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language
Studies: 33(1): 31-46, DOI: 10.2989/16073614.2015.1012691
Weideman, A. 2002. Designing language teaching: on becoming a reflective professional.
Pretoria: BE at UP. Available:
ching_by_albert_weideman.pdf. Accessed: 8 Jan. 2019.
Weideman, A. 2007. Academic literacy: Prepare to learn. Pretoria: Van Schaik.
Weideman, A. 2017. A skills-neutral approach to academic literacy assessment. Contribution
to symposium on Assessing the academic literacy of university students through
post-admission assessments, Language Testing Research Colloquium (LTRC) 2017,
Bogota, Colombia.
Weideman, A. 2018. Academic literacy: five new tests. Bloemfontein: Geronimo Distribution.
Weideman, A. 2019a. Degrees of adequacy: the disclosure of levels of validity in language
assessments. Koers 84(1).
Weideman, A. 2019b. Validation and the further disclosures of language test design. Koers
Weideman, A., Du Plessis, C. & Steyn, S. 2017. Diversity, variation and fairness:
Equivalence in national level language assessments. Literator 38(1): 9p. DOI:
Wylie, C. & Lyon, C. 2017. Supporting teacher assessment literacy: a proposed sequence of
learning. Teachers College Record. Available: ID
Number: 22193. Accessed: 14 November 2017.
... While research on teachers' assessment competence or assessment literacy has captured the attention of researchers globally (Campbell 2013;Di Donato-Barnes, Fives & Krause 2014), in South Africa research in this area is still in an embryonic stage (Kanjee & Mthembu 2015;Weideman 2019) despite existing evidence of a dearth of assessment expertise among the country's teachers (Kanjee 2020;Reyneke, Meyer & Nel 2010;Vandeyar & Killen 2003). However, Hill, Ell and Eyers (2017) posited that while it is the primary role of assessment and testing to ensure that both teaching and learning occur effectively, it is equally incumbent that teachers are competently equipped with the knowledge and skills to facilitate the learners' learning through assessment and testing. ...
... (p. 2) Thus, language assessment competence refers to assessment capacities that language teachers can utilise in developing their own language assessment items and tests of sound quality for the primary purpose of supporting their work inside the classrooms (e.g. for conducting classroom-based language assessment and testing), and secondarily to prepare language teachers to respond to assessment and testing demands from within and outside of their schools (such as, responding to assessments and tests mandated from the district, provincial or national education office). As a result, an ongoing development of language assessment literacy is a legitimate necessity for the language teachers' professional learning in order to close any gap or deficiency in their language assessment and testing competence (Popham 2009;Weideman 2019). Coombe et al. go further to argue for deisolation of language assessment literacy or competence from disciplinary pedagogical knowledge. ...
... The trainers of aspirant language teacher assessors should ideally be experienced and competent language assessment or testing literate teachers (Weideman 2019). These should be teachers who have undergone such training themselves either during their initial teacher training or as part of their in-service teacher learning initiatives. ...
Full-text available
Background: This article revisits the quality assurance (QA) processes instituted during the development of the Teacher Assessment Resources for Monitoring and Improving Instruction (TARMII) e-assessment tool. This tool was developed in response to evidence of a dearth in assessment expertise among South African teachers. The tool comprises a test builder and a repository of high-quality curriculum-aligned language item pool and administration-ready tests available for teacher usage to enhance learning. All assessment artefacts in the repository were subjected to QA processes prior to being field-tested and uploaded into the repository. Aim: The aim of this study was to extract from the assessment artefacts’ QA processes the lessons learned for possible development of language teachers’ assessment competence. Setting: The reported work is based on the TARMII tool development project, which was jointly carried out by the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) and the national education department in South Africa. Methods: Through employing an analytical reflective narrative approach, the article systematically retraces the steps followed in enacting the QA processes on the tool’s assessment artefacts. These steps include the recruitment of suitably qualified and experienced assessment quality assurers, the training they had received and the actual review of the various assessment artefacts. The QA processes were enacted with the aim of producing high-quality assessment artefacts. Results: The language tests and item pool QA processes enacted are explained, followed by an explication of the lessons learned for language teachers’ assessment writing and test development for the South African schooling context. Conclusion: A summary of the article is provided in conclusion.
... On the other hand, the notion of consequential validity that has attracted a lot of attention and dispute because of its obvious practical implications is also defined as a matter of the interpretation of the results and the effects it has on the test takers' lives (McNamara, 2006). Furthermore, interpretability of the scores, which is an important terminology related to the results of the tests, is described by Weideman (2019) as the degree of the easiness of the test which can be checked through interpreting the results obtained from a test when comparing with other administrations of the same test. As an instance, an average score of 50% is meaningless as a sort of magical "pass" due to the fact that any score needs interpretation. ...
... There is an important argument emphasized by Weideman (2019). He emphasized that diagnostic information backs instructional design while at the same time helps the teacher to recognize what should be highlighted in the succeeding language teaching sessions. ...
Full-text available
Abstract English teachers’ assessment literacy has always been considered as an important factor in their performance. However, no instrument has ever been developed to assess this construct among Iranian EFL teachers. To fill this gap, in the first phase of the present study, a theoretical framework for the main four components of teacher assessment literacy, named validity, reliability, interpretability of the results, and efficiency, was developed through extensive review of the related literature and conducting interviews with PhD candidates of TEFL. In the second phase, a questionnaire was developed and piloted with 106 participants who took part in the study through the rules of convenience sampling. More specifically, the 30 items of the newly developed “ELTs’ Assessment Literacy” questionnaire were subjected to factor analysis which revealed the presence of all the four components consisting of different number of items. These phases led to the development of a questionnaire with four components and 25 items on the basis of a 5-point Likert scale that measured (1) “Validity” including 14 items, (2) “Reliability” including seven items, (3) “Interpretability of the Results” including only one item, and (4) “Efficiency” including three items. The findings of this study may shed lights on this subject and help researchers and teaching practitioners assess EFL teachers’ assessment literacy and make principled decisions as far as assessment is concerned.
... Guru memiliki tanggung jawab yang besar akan kualitas penilaian yang diselenggarakannya. Tanggung jawab tersebut berkaitan dengan penyediaan instrumen penilaian yang memenuhi prinsip validitas, reliabilitas, interpretabilitas hasil, dan efisiensi (Weideman, 2019). Guru bahasa yang baik di antaranya ditunjukkan oleh kemampuannya dalam melaksanakan penilaian yang sesuai dengan prinsipprinsip tersebut. ...
Full-text available
Integritas akademik diperlukan untuk memperoleh hasil pènilaian yang bermartabat, pendidik diharapkan mampumenyediakan soàl yang tangguh yang tidàk mudah diatasi dengàn caramelàcàk jawabanya dàn menggunakanya sebagai jawaban untuk penilaian dan penugasan. Oleh karena itu, pendidik berkewajibàn menyelènggarakan penilaian yang dapat terjamin akuntabilitasnya. Akuntabilitas penilaian dalam konteks ini sangat bergantung pada proses penyediaan instrumen oleh pendididik dan penyelesaiannya oleh peserta didik. Sejalan dengan sifat dan tujuan pembelajarannya, penilaian dan penugasan bahasa Indonesia perlu menghadirkan instrumen yang membuat siswa sibuk berpikir, bukan sibuk mencari jawaban dalam berbagai sumber. Patut diduga, bahwa jika terdapat fenomena rendahnya integritas akademik peserta didik dalam penyelesaian tugas penilaian kompetensi bahasa Indonesia, sebagian dari permasalahan tersebut muncul dari "kelonggaran "yang diciptakan oleh pendidik. Paling tidak, terdapat dua hal penting yang perlu diperhatikan oleh pengajar bahasa Indonesia, yakni menyediakan soal yang membuat siswa lebih mengandalkan proses berpikirnya daripada bergantung pada sumber-sumber yang ada . Selanjutnya, upaya tersebut diikuti penerapan pemantauan terhadap kinerja siswa dengan menjalin komunikasi dan memanfaatkan fasilitas yang ada. Lebih dari itu, kesadaran dan komitmen pengajàr tetap menjadi faktor dominan dalam menciptakan penilaian bahasa Indonesia yang akuntabel.
... So, while not conforming to the original conservative parameters, it would be premature to discard these two subtests. Rather, as has been suggested for these kinds of tests (Weideman, 2019d), one may consider adjusting the requirement downward to 0.5, in which case they would not have been flagged. As regards the second measure, the subtest intercorrelations, only one out of the 15, between the vocabulary test and the scrambled text task, is too low. ...
Full-text available
Test validation may more aptly be conceived of as the process of designing language tests responsibly. While a good test gains in reputation as it is administered over time, the early stages of its validation are perhaps the most critical. There is now general agreement that the validation process should be reported in the form of an argument that brings together multiple sets of evidence to justify the design and implementation of the measurement instrument, the language test. The format of such integration is, however, still contestable ground. Referring to an example of language test design and development, this paper seeks to demonstrate how a framework for responsible test design may be employed to achieve such an integrated argument, as well as how two of the methodological tools most frequently employed to muster empirical evidence for validating test design, namely Classical Test Theory (CTT) and Rasch analyses, complement each other in designing tests responsibly. While most language tests designed in South Africa have used CTT, the employment of Rasch analyses has been more limited. A secondary aim of the paper is therefore to provide applied linguists who work in the subfield of language testing with an example of how the latter kind of analysis can complement the former. In all, however, these disparate approaches must be integrated into the theoretical justification for the development of language tests, in order to satisfy a number of conditions for their responsible design. Keywords: validity; validation; theory of applied linguistics; design principles; language assessment
South African universities face major challenges in meeting the needs of their students in the area of academic language and literacy. The dominant medium of instruction in the universities is English and, to a much lesser extent, Afrikaans, but only a minority of the national population are native speakers of these languages. Nine other languages can be media of instruction in schools, which makes the transition to tertiary education difficult enough in itself for students from these schools. The focus of this book is on procedures for assessing the academic language and literacy levels and needs of students, not in order to exclude students from higher education but rather to identify those who would benefit from further development of their ability in order to undertake their degree studies successfully. The volume also aims to bring the innovative solutions designed by South African educators to a wider international audience.
Full-text available
This is a workbook of practice tests of academic and quantitative literacy (AQL) for prospective university students. The workbook comes with answers at the end. This book replaces "Academic literacy: Test your competence" (2014). The front matter and introduction, providing a definition of academic literacy and how tests of academic literacy are constructed, are available here (not the complete book).
Full-text available
High-stakes tests, such as exit-level examinations for school leavers, demand fairness in every respect. The examination of first languages, referred to as home languages (HL) in South Africa, at the end of grade 12 is a particular case in point. Not only have several reports indicated that the language papers treat learners across the various languages unequally, but there is also no immediately apparent remedy for their shortcomings. Reports by the Council for Quality Assurance in General and Further Education and Training (Umalusi) and the Department of Basic Education show patent discrepancies between national averages per language and province, with variations in excess of 10%, as well as average pass rates of as high as 99% in the case of at least eight of the home languages over a four-year period (2009–2012). Concerns have also been raised as to whether the prescribed format and content of the examination papers are adequately aligned with the objectives of the curriculum. In this context, it is understandable that the statutory body tasked with the oversight of the quality of these examinations, Umalusi, would be concerned that the 11 home languages for which examinations are written have papers whose quality and effects are comparable and fair. In order to address this problem, Umalusi has commissioned a number of research projects. This paper reports on one such project being undertaken by a four-university partnership in language testing research to design a deliberate solution for the lack of equivalence between the HL papers. The Inter-Institutional Centre for Language Development and Assessment (ICELDA) is a pool of expertise bound together in a partnership between the Universities of Pretoria, Free State and Stellenbosch and North-West University that develops and designs language tests and courses (ICELDA, 2013). As a first step towards introducing greater comparability of standard between the language papers, conceptual clarity is sought on the construct on which the exit-level examination papers should be premised in accordance with the objectives and specifications of the new Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS). This is considered to be a key aspect in the process to validate any language test or examination. Concerns about the way HL ability is examined have existed for some time. Even before the introduction of the outcomes-based National Senior Certificate, which replaced the previous grade 12 exit qualification in 2008, assessment practices were identified as an area of contention in the 2007 report on “Making educational judgements: Reflections on judging standards of intended and examined curricula” (Umalusi 2011). From reports on the quality of the grade 12 examinations issued since then, it is clear that the emphasis up to now has been on the determination of standards and the compilation of comprehensive and revised curriculum statements. However, insufficient attention has been devoted to the design of the three HL examination papers and the abilities that they assess. As a result, the various examinations cannot be compared across languages or different years of administration. In view of the fact that the predominant purpose of the grade 12 school-leaving examination is to measure the achievement of curriculum objectives and subject content covered during the school year, it is imperative that the HL papers be aligned appropriately with the curriculum and that they are founded on the same philosophical principles. There is no doubt that the conceptual framework that underlies CAPS goes back to linguistic ideas originating in the early 1970s on a differentiated communicative competence that supports actual language use by varied repertoires of functionally defined language acts. In their subsequent development, these constitute socially informed ideas about language that have broadened our perspective of what constitutes language ability and language use – that mastery of language is much more than having a grammatical command of it. It should, therefore, not be surprising that CAPS refers to the teaching approaches underlying it as communicative and text-based, in line with current international thinking about language use and language mastery. Although all the HL examination papers are based on the same curriculum, it is clear from an initial analysis of examination tasks that there is a lack of conceptual clarity on what the focus of the papers should be. In other words, the HL papers do not reflect the same understanding of language and do not measure the same constructs. The word construct in language testing is a technical term that refers to the overall ability or trait being measured, or a theoretically defensible definition of what is to be assessed. Since language is a complex phenomenon incorporating heterogeneous types of language, rather than a singularly identifiable object, various abilities and different kinds of knowledge are involved simultaneously in the execution of any language act. There are also normative principles that guide language use in different contexts. One therefore needs to distinguish between the language situation itself and the conditions for using language in that situation. Such a distinction is important when articulating any construct. An important descriptor in CAPS is the required assessment of “high knowledge and high skills”, signalling the assessment of an advanced language ability. It is therefore clear that the distinction between the First Additional Language (FAL) and HL examination papers relates to the measurement of more advanced language than basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS). Moreover, in addition to developing a cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP), HL students also need to display a professional language proficiency for employment purposes and access to trade and industry. This level would require greater proficiency than conversational language ability, but not necessarily the same kind of academic language ability referred to in CALP. The three levels identified above – social, academic and professional – apply to a number of different fields of discourse. Examinees writing the HL papers should therefore be able to handle different types of discourse and display an advanced command of features of language across them. Language operates in particular contexts and lingual spheres, relating to what Halliday refers to as fields of discourse. These spheres may be considered material, since they are governed by “typical norms and principles that give a different content to the factual language used” within a situation. Consequently, distinct lexical and syntactic differences can be discerned in the language used in diverse contexts. The use of different dialects within communities and varying tones of voice to convey meaning further illustrate this. The norms that regulate the lingual spheres are typical because they apply to social forms or relationships that require a typical kind of language use within a particular temporal and structural context. Human beings as the users of language fulfil a subjective lingual role in which they then select from a repertoire of already developed registers in order to express themselves through language in ways deemed appropriate to a given situation. There are “normative principles of a logical, aesthetic, legal, technico-formative, economic, social, ethical or confessional nature” that guide and stamp language use in different contexts. One therefore needs to distinguish between the language situation itself and the conditions for using language in that situation. Such a distinction is evidently important when articulating any construct related to high language ability. Humans seem to have an inherent ability (a communicative competence) to recognise and use different varieties of language. Vocabulary plays a role in distinguishing between material lingual spheres, but is insufficient on its own because in different contexts language is qualified by various aspects of our experience. Each sphere has a typical language of its own. Moreover, the social structure in which the language is employed is responsible for further distinctions, for example different roles we assume when using language as writers or readers, or as speakers or hearers. In terms of the content of the language curriculum outlined in CAPS, the dominant material lingual spheres of relevance to the teaching and assessment of the respective languages would seem to be the following: ? social (including inter-personal communication and the handling of information) ? economic/professional (including the world of work and commerce) ? academic (including academic and scientific language and advanced language ability) ? aesthetic (including the appreciation of literature and art) ? ethical (including an appreciation of the values embedded in language use) ? political (including the critical discernment of power relations in discourse). On the basis of the lingual spheres identified in the curriculum and the stated learning outcomes a proposed formulation of the general underlying construct for the HL examination papers would be the following: The assessment of a differentiated language ability in a number of discourse types involving typically different texts, and a generic ability incorporating task-based functional and formal aspects of language. The conceptual framework and primary construct such as that proposed here enables us to devote our attention to the articulation of the construct in a selection of language papers by examining the task specifications reflected in the papers and marking memoranda, so as to be able to express an opinion on whether these are sufficiently representative of the curriculum and whether the same abilities are being measured across the language groups. Any underrepresentation of tasks that assess high language ability will undermine the validity of the examination. Inasmuch as the curriculum and assessment standards may help to organise what should happen in the classroom, they provide no guarantee of contributing towards the quality of education and assessment practices, or of ensuring equivalence across different language examinations. One of the main contributing factors to the varying standards and quality of the HL examination papers identified so far is the fact that important norms and principles in language testing have not been applied to the design of the papers, an issue that will be covered in detail in subsequent studies. The extent to which examiners are adequately trained in the principles of construct validity and reliability in language assessment thus needs investigating. Without denigrating the importance of standards and curricula, the emphasis needs to be shifted from setting standards to ensuring accountability, which can be defined simply as a way of explaining that all measures undertaken may be considered appropriate and necessary. This aspect of accountability in language teaching and assessment is directly related to defining the underlying construct and articulating it in the form of detailed specifications based on defensible theories of language and communicative competence. Keywords: CAPS; construct validity; grade 12; home language; language assessment; National Senior Certificate
Full-text available
The post-1994 South African constitution proudly affirms the language diversity of the country, as do subsequent laws, while ministerial policies, both at further and higher education level, similarly promote the use of all 11 official languages in education. However, such recognition of diversity presents several challenges to accommodate potential variation. In language education at secondary school, which is nationally assessed, the variety being promoted immediately raises issues of fairness and equivalence. The final high-stakes examination of learners’ ability in home language at the exit level of their pre-tertiary education is currently contentious in South Africa. It is known, for example, that in certain indigenous languages, the exit level assessments barely discriminate among learners with different abilities, while in other languages they do. For that reason, the Council for Quality Assurance in General and Further Education, Umalusi, has commissioned several reports to attempt to understand the nature of the problem. This article will deal with a discussion of a fourth attempt by Umalusi to solve the problem. That attempt, undertaken by a consortium of four universities, has already delivered six interim reports to this statutory body, and the article will consider some of their content and methodology. In their reconceptualisation of the problem, the applied linguists involved first sought to identify the theoretical roots of the current curriculum in order to articulate more sharply the construct being assessed. That provides the basis for a theoretical justification of the several solutions being proposed, as well as for the preliminary designs of modifications to current, and the introduction of new assessments. The impact of equivalence of measurement as a design requirement will be specifically discussed, with reference to the empirical analyses of results of a number of pilots of equivalent tests in different languages.
Full-text available
Constructs of academic literacy are used both for test and course design.While the discussion is relevant to both, the focus of this article will be on test design. Constructs of academic literacy necessarily depend on definitions that assume that academic discourse is typically different from other kinds of discourse. The more deliberate their dependence, the easier it is to examine such constructs critically, and to improve existing constructs. If we improve our understanding of what makes academic discourse unique, we can therefore potentially improve our test designs. Two perspectives on the typicality of academic discourse are surveyed: Weideman’s (2009) notion of material lingual spheres, and Halliday’s (1978) idea of fields of discourse. These perspectives help us to conceptualise the uniqueness of a discourse type by identifying both theconditions for creating texts and the way that social roles influence the content of what gets expressed in a certain sphere of discourse. Halliday’s notion of nominalisation takes another step in this direction, but may, like other supposedly unique characteristics, fall short of identifying the unique analytical mode that qualifies academic endeavour. The paper argues that when we acknowledge the primacy of the logical or analytical mode in academic discourse, we have a potentially productive perspective: first, on how the various genres and rhetorical modes in academic discourse serve that analytical end; second, on how to define the ability to handle that discourse competently; and third, to suggest how such definitions or constructs of academic literacy may be operationalised or modified.
Full-text available
Language proficiency among young South Africans is low. This is true not only of mother tongue speakers of English and Afrikaans, but also, and especially, of non-mother tongue speakers of English, among whom language proficiency levels raise serious concern. Some examples are given to illustrate the importance of this problem, and the extent of the problem is outlined. In this paper, we focus on one critical factor related to these low proficiency levels. What is important, in addition, is that the conditions, strategies and current remedies are all less than likely to make a difference. In fact, one can safely predict that the situation is likely to worsen. The importance of remedying the present situation is therefore crucial, and we discuss a number of alternatives to do so successfully. (Journal for Language Teching: 2002 36(1-2): 152-164)
This commentary focuses on a proposal for sequencing teacher professional learning opportunities to develop a well-rounded understanding of assessment practices and processes.
Academic performance at universities in South Africa is a cause of concern. It is widely acknowledged that there are a variety of factors that contribute to poor academic performance, but language is regarded as one of the most important issues in this discussion. In this article, the relationship between language and academic performance at a South African university for the first-year group in 2010 (n = 900) is investigated, taking their performance in their second (2011) and third (2012) year into account. The authors review: (a) the relationships between measures of language ability (matric scores, and scores on university placement tests like the NBT and TALL/TAG); and (b) the relationship between these language measures, performance in courses offered by universities to support students and general academic success indicators to investigate the language issue and academic performance at university. The main findings of the study are: (a) matric average results above 65% are useful to predict academic success at university; matric average results below 65% cannot be used with confidence to predict success at university; (b) language measures (e.g. matric language marks, and scores on academic literacy tests used by some universities) are not good predictors of academic success at university; (c) there are strong positive relationships between the academic literacy components in the NBT and TALL/TAG; and (d) scores achieved in academic literacy modules are good predictors of academic success. The implications of these findings are discussed in the context of strategic decisions that academic managers should consider when they reflect on the language issue and its impact on academic performance at South African universities.
This article describes the development and evaluation of a new academic word list (Coxhead, 1998), which was compiled from a corpus of 3.5 million running words of written academic text by examining the range and frequency of words outside the first 2,000 most frequently occurring words of English, as described by West (1953). The AWL contains 570 word families that account for approximately 10.0% of the total words (tokens) in academic texts but only 1.4% of the total words in a fiction collection of the same size. This difference in coverage provides evidence that the list contains predominantly academic words. By highlighting the words that university students meet in a wide range of academic texts, the AWL shows learners with academic goals which words are most worth studying. The list also provides a useful basis for further research into the nature of academic vocabulary.