The Quality Identification of English Proficiency Tests in Turkey

Seda Sivaci*
Department of Translation and Interpreting, Kahramanmaras Istiklal University, Turkey.
Periodicity:October - December'2020
DOI : https://doi.org/10.26634/jelt.10.4.17039

Abstract

The purpose of the present study is to evaluate proficiency tests of the universities in Turkey in line with the ALTE Quality Assurance Checklists in terms of four dimensions: a. Test construction, b. Administration & Logistics c. Grading, Marking Results and d. Test Analysis & Post-examination Review. The study took place in four different universities; thus, four participants took part in the study. Three of the institutions have testing offices, while one of them does not have a testing office. The data collected through ALTE Quality Assurance Checklists was analyzed descriptively. From the outcome of the present investigation, it is possible to conclude that the proficiency tests of the four participating universities are found to have deficiencies regarding test construction, administration and logistics, marking, grading and results as well as test analysis and post examination review. Moreover, the findings are of direct practical relevance for institutions who prepare proficiency tests in that they show the necessity of ALTE Quality Assurance Checklist (2001) for identifying quality in the institutions.

Keywords

ALTE, Proficiency Tests, Standardization of Tests, Quality Examination of Language Tests, Language Testing.

How to Cite this Article?

Sivaci, S. (2020). The Quality Identification of English Proficiency Tests in Turkey. i-manager's Journal on English Language Teaching, 10(4), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.26634/jelt.10.4.17039

References

[1]. ALTE Quality Assurance Checklists. (2001). Resources - Free Guides and Reference Materials. Retrieved from https://www.alte.org/Materials
[2]. Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. NY: Pearson-Longman. Retrieved from https://octovany.files. wordpress.com/2013/12/ok-teaching-by-principles-hdouglas- brown.pdf
[3]. Dada, E. M., & Ohia, I. (2014). Teacher–made language test planning, construction, administration and scoring in secondary schools in Ekiti State. Journal of Education and Practice, 5(18), 71-76.
[4]. Dendrinos, B., & Gotsoulia, V. (2014). Setting standards for multilingual curricula to teach and test foreign languages. Challenges for Language Education and Policy: Making Space for People, New York: Routledge, 23-29.
[5]. Fan, Y. & Jin, Y. (2013). A survey of English language testing practice in China: The case of six examination boards. Language Testing in Asia, 3(7), 1-16. https://doi. org/10.1186/2229-0443-3-7
[6]. Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO 9780511732980
[7]. Lumley, T. (2002). Assessment criteria in a large-scale writing test: What do they really mean to the raters? Language Testing 19(3), 246–276. https://doi.org/10.1191 %2F0265532202lt230oa
[8]. McNamara, T. (2000). Language Testing. Oxford: OUP. Retrieved from https://books.google.co.in/books/abo ut/Language_Testing.html?id=RuxUkltYl_UC&redir_esc=y
[9]. Menken, K. (2006). Teaching to the test: How No Child Left Behind impacts language policy, curriculum, and instruction for English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 30(2), 521-546. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523588 2.2006.10162888
[10]. Milanovic, M. (2002). Language examining and test development. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/1680459fa8
[11]. Shaw, S. (2002). The effect of training and standardization on rater judgement and inter-rater reliability. Research Notes, 9, 13–17.
[12]. Shohamy, E. G. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. Psychology Press. Retrieved from https://books.google.co.in/books/about/ Language_Policy.html?id=sdEXntP_ORcC&redir_esc=y
[13]. Suen, H. K., & McClellan, S. (2003). Test item construction principles and techniques. In Encyclopedia of vocational and technological education, Taipei: ROC Ministry of Education, Vol. 1, 777-798.
[14]. Wang, P. (2009). The Inter-rater Reliability in Scoring Composition. English Language Teaching, 2(3), 39-43.
[15]. Weigle, S. C. (1998). Using FACETS to model rater training effects. Language Testing, 15(2), 263–287. https:// doi.org/10.1177%2F026553229801500205
[16]. Young , J. W., So, Y. & Ockey, G. J. (2013). Guidelines for best test development practices to ensure validity and fairness for international English language proficiency assessments. Educational Testing Service. Retrieved from https://www.ets.org/s/about/pdf/best_practices_ensure_va lidity_fairness_english_language_assessments.pdf
If you have access to this article please login to view the article or kindly login to purchase the article

Purchase Instant Access

Single Article

North Americas,UK,
Middle East,Europe
India Rest of world
USD EUR INR USD-ROW
Pdf 35 35 200 20
Online 35 35 200 15
Pdf & Online 35 35 400 25

Options for accessing this content:
  • If you would like institutional access to this content, please recommend the title to your librarian.
    Library Recommendation Form
  • If you already have i-manager's user account: Login above and proceed to purchase the article.
  • New Users: Please register, then proceed to purchase the article.