Testing in language education should aim to serve teaching and learning. It should demonstrate trustworthiness through fair, objective, honest and transparent procedures. A good test uses authentic tasks that align with language constructs and assess students' actual performance based on a clear understanding of the language domain. However, there are many valid ways to define language ability and design assessment, depending on the specific purposes and context of the test. The implications are that multiple perspectives should be considered when making decisions based on test results that impact students, teachers, curricula and institutions.

1. Testing for the sake of
language teaching and
learning!

2. Sake
Noun:
“(for the sake of something or for
something's sake) for the purpose of; in
the interest of; in order to achieve or
preserve”
http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/sake?q=sake

3. What do you think
testing for teaching
and learning means?

4. Accountability

6. A language
competence
A classroom
task
A content from
syllabus/book
A test result(s)

7. Validity
Construct
linguistic pragmatic
socio-linguistic Systemic
Curriculum
Philosophy
Content
Syllabus Book
Trustworthiness!
Procedures
strategic

9. Cases

10. DEMOCRACY
Assessment
Moments
Types
Procedures
JUSTICE
Objective
Honest
Transparent
Trustworthy
Consistent

11. Trustworthiness!

12. TEST

13. Decisions
- Students
- Teachers
- Curriculum
- Institution
- Society
- Conception of
language

16. Authenticity
Test Task
Performance
TLU Domain
A realistic test task/item responds to a clearly
defined communicative language construct.

17. “un constructo definido en términos funcionales en
situaciones comunicativas concretas –con
intenciones claramente especificadas–,
materializadas en tareas evaluativas que permitan
el despliegue del desempeño lingüístico de los
estudiantes.” (Arias, Maturana and Restrepo, 2012,
p. 104)

24. BUT!

25. (Zeronis and Elliot, 2013, p. 23):
“there are broad similarities between Use of English
texts and Reading texts as they both require reading
comprehension and there are similarities in terms of the
manner in which candidates read and process (see
Khalifa and Weir 2009). For example, candidates are
advised first to read through the Use of English texts
quickly and to try to follow a line of argument – as with
Reading tasks. In addition, previous research has
traditionally shown that tests of language knowledge
(vocabulary and grammar) correlate highly with tests of
reading comprehension (see Alderson 2000, Read
2000)”

26. READ

27. What multiplism (Shohamy, 1998) implies…
Multiple
(ways of)
defining language knowledge
procedures for assessment
designing items and tasks
purposes for assessment
administering
criteria to define quality
assessing assessment
interpreting results

28. References
Arias, C. I., Maturana, L, y Restrepo, M. I. (2012). Evaluación de los aprendizajes en
lenguas extranjeras: hacia prácticas justas y democráticas. Lenguaje, 40(1), 99-126.
Bachman, L. and Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and
developing useful language tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brindley, G. (2003). Issues in language assessment. In Kaplan, R. (Ed.). The Oxford
handbook of applied linguistics.
Oxford University Press, pp. 459-469.
Council or Europe (2001). The common European framework of reference for
languages. Learning, teaching, and assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Shohamy, E. (1998). Evaluation of learning outcomes in second language acquisition:
A multiplism perspective. In H. Byrnes (Ed.). Learning foreign and second languages
(pp. 238-261). NY: The Modern Language Association of America.
Purpura, J. (2004). Assessing grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

29. Thank ___!