‘Technology in testing: the present and the future’ by J. Charles Alderson (2000)

In the article, Alderson (2000) talks about advantages and disadvantages of computer-based testing. He says that ‘computer-based testing removes the need for fixed delivery dates and locations normally required by traditional paper-and-pencil-based testing’. Test takers can take the test at any time of their own choice. Another advantage is that ‘results can be available immediately after the test, unlike paper-and-pencil-based tests’. It is believed that ‘feedback given immediately after an activity has been completed is likely to be more meaningful and to have more impact, than feedback which is substantially delayed’. Comparisons are also made between diskette, CD ROM- based tests and the tests delivered over the Internet. For the Internet-based tests, delivery and purchase of disks is not required. Anybody with an access to the Internet can take a test. Disks and CD ROMS are fixed in format, which normally can’t be updated. Whereas tests delivered by the Internet can be updated normally. Further, results of Internet-based tests can be sent immediately to score users, which is not possible with diskette and CD ROM- based tests. Also, Internet-based tests can access large databases of items, which is not possible through diskette and CD ROM-based testing.

As every coin has two sides, computer-based testing is also not free of the disadvantages. Firstly, computer-based items are ‘limited in the item types’. MC, gap-filling and cloze items are frequently used. Other items can’t be used since they are ‘much harder to implement in a setting where responses must be machine-scorable.’ Secondly, ‘a degree of computer-literacy is required’. It would be unfair to ask those candidates to sit for computer-based testing who are computer illiterate. Further, Alderson (2000) also states that ‘there is a degree of risk in delivering high-stakes tests over the Internet’ since hackers might break into the database.

Alderson (2000) has also thrown light on the ‘computer-adaptive’ testing. In computer-adaptive tests, computers estimates the candidates’ ability and offer test-items according to a candidates’ ability. But, it requires large banks of items to be presented to candidates of varying ability. Pedagogically, computer-adaptive tests are more ‘user-friendly’ as ‘they avoid users being presented with frustrating difficult or easy items’. They can also be ‘user-friendly’ in the sense that they can ‘provide a range of support to test takers’. ‘On-line dictionaries’ that are tailor-made for the text and test being taken can be made available. Computers can also adjust scores on items for which extra support has been accessed.’

Though Alderson (2000) has listed number of possibilities of computer-adaptive testing in becoming much user-friendly by adjusting the level of difficulty of items and by providing extra support, offering massive control-over one’s testing could put the reliability of the computer-adaptive tests into question. I would appreciate allowing control-over one’s learning than allowing control-over one’s testing as too much support provided during the tests could make the ‘interpretation of scores’ very challenging.

The web as a vehicle for constructivist approaches in language teaching.

The article ‘The web as a vehicle for constructivist approaches in language teaching.’ sheds light on the contribution of technology in accelerating second language learning process. The article has reported two studies, carried out in 1999 and 2000, that have proved Web ‘as a viable environment for language learning (Felix, 2002)’. The article states that ‘websites set up an environment in which both processes and goals are stimulating and engaging (Felix, U. 2002). Well, there is no doubt that online learning activities are more interactive and involving than ‘paper-pen’ based activities. The online activities have an edge over paper based activities. Online activities have visual impact which can’t be found in paper based activities. Also, selecting correct answer with the ‘click-of-mouse’ is much more interesting than writing an answer in pen/pencil. Online learning activities ‘allow the learners to make mistakes in a safe environment’ (Felix, U. 2002). The learners feel free of the fear of loosing face in front of their classmates or being shouted at by their teachers. Through online activities students can have immediate feedback since ‘students quite like receiving instant feedback in self-access activities’ (Felix, U. 2002).

Felix (2002) also suggests that on-line learning ‘must lead to the acquisition of language and social interaction skills, in a way that reflects what is waiting for students in the real world’. Therefore, students must be engaged in online blogging/forums because it provides students an opportunity to develop their interaction skills through online communication with global community. Students feel more stress free while communicating online than communicating in classroom discussions.

Reflection on 'Can learners use concordance feedback for writing errors?

The article ‘Can Learners use concordance feedback for writing errors? introduces a research that focused on discovering whether learners could enjoy and use networked concordancing as a learning tool. The participants were lower intermediate level 20 adult Chinese EFL learners. The participants had to submit 10 assignments over a 15-week semester. When each participant submitted his/her assignment, the instructors gave feedback through concordance links for five typical errors. Then, the students had to revise the assignment for the final submission and need to submit a form explaining what corrections they have made based on the understanding developed from concordance –feedback.

Evidence collected from the error analysis forms show that when pre-cast links were provided on the texts most of the students completed the concordance searches and submitted completed error analysis forms, but without the links less than half students submitted error analysis forms. Though the research has borne out the intended results, there are several gaps left. Firstly, the four-week time-period was insufficient. If the similar research is repeated in the future, it must be expanded over longer period of time. Since the research was not experimental , there was absence of a control group. If there had been a control group, more reliable and authentic results could have been achieved.

Indeed this research proved meaningful to the participants, who were adults, but I wonder if concordancing softwares are useful/applicable to primary school students. Since I teach in a primary school, I am interested in knowing if such kinds of resources pose any linguistic challenge to my students. The default linguistic explanation offered through concordancing might be beyond my students’ linguistic repertoire, therefore it might be off-putting.