Aimed to design an end-Of-year English objective test for 1st year non-major English students of the Academy of Finance

INTRODUCTION I. RATIONALE OF THE STUDY Nowadays, mastering a foreign language, especially English, plays an important role in our social life. It is obvious that mastering English helps the country not only have more contacts with more nations in the world but also enrich its people’s knowledge. There are more and more people in Vietnam who want to learn English with different purposes. Therefore, English has been introduced as a compulsory subject in almost every school and college in Vietnam. Like any other subjects, it needs some kinds of evaluation to measure students’ performance and ability, in which accuracy, objectivity and logicality are required. Nevertheless, almost all teachers lack experience, and are often not formally trained in test designing. Academy of Finance is a university in which there are a number of non-major English students. In other words, the students lack background knowledge of English. They only have chances to learn 150 periods of English for Business Basics (EBB) during their first two terms to prepare for their 120 periods of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) in the fourth and the fifth term. In fact, many students admit that English is quite demanding for them, they could not learn it well, even General English. In spite of the fact that they were very hard working, many students failed or got bad results after each final examination. One of the most important causes for the above situation is the matter of testing. Quite often, the present tests show a gap between the things students learn in the course and the tasks they have to do in the tests, i.e. the tests contain items that are unfamiliar or too difficult to students. For many years, most English examinations for school or university students are in written form. They include questions or different kinds of exercises, and the students’ task is to write their own answers. This form of testing has a good point that the result of the test will reflect the students’ real ability. However, copying others’ answers during the test is unavoidable. Moreover, it is really hard to cover all the knowledge that students have learnt in a written-form test. Hughes (1989:1) has said, “It cannot be denied that a great deal of language testing is of very poor quality. Too often language tests have a harmful effect on teaching and learning; and too often they fail to measure accurately whatever it is they are intended to measure.” From the above reasons, it is, to my mind, an urgent need to prioritize in proposing a different kind of test for the non-major English students. Therefore, in my research, designing an end-of-year English objective test for 1st year non-major English students of the Academy of Finance really satisfies the need. II. AIMS OF THE STUDY It has been easy to assume that testing is an important tool in educational research and for program evaluation. That is why the minor thesis is aimed to design an end-of-year English objective test for 1st year non-major English students of the Academy of Finance. The test was considered as a final examination. Then the results of the test will be analyzed, evaluated, and interpreted. The specific aims of the research are: To present the background of language testing and objective testing. And then, to point out some qualities of a good test. More importantly, to suggest appropriate test items in testing English of Business Basics. Also, to assess the learners’ achievement in acquiring English for Business Basics after 150 periods. Last but not least, to see whether or not the test satisfies the qualities of a good test. From then on the test will measure the effectiveness of the teacher’s teaching. If the test is not a good one and her teaching is not appropriate, some suggestions will be made for a better test form. It is expected that this investigation into objective testing might be helpful to teachers of English in developing more relevant strategies for testing Business English both now and in the future. III. METHODS OF THE STUDY In order to perform this study, I firstly choose the method of analyzing, summarizing, and synthesizing materials and books to form the theoretical background. More importantly, I design an end-of-year English objective test for 1st year non-major English students, administer it, and then evaluate it, so the method adopted is quantitative. Besides, I also make use of information from informal discussions with my colleagues and students. In the process of writing this paper, I also base myself on the knowledge I have learnt from my teachers, my supervisor and from some references. Last but not least, my own experience gained at the Academy of Finance, and my experience in learning Language Testing during my study at the College of Foreign Languages, VNU, also provide me favorable conditions to the completion of the study. IV. SCOPE OF THE STUDY This paper is intended, as the title suggests: “Designing an end-of-year English objective test for 1st year non-major English students of the Academy of Finance”, to touch upon some following issues: The background of language testing as well as objective testing. The design and evaluation of an achievement objective test for 1st year non-major English students of the Academy of Finance. The practical recommendations for the appropriate final test to meet the objectives of the course and the need of teachers and students. V. ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY The study is divided into three parts: The first part is the introduction dealing with the rationale, aims, methods, scope, organization, and significance of the study. The second part is the main part of the paper with three chapters: Chapter I is the review of literature. This chapter gives a general overview of language testing, achievement test, qualities of a good test, and objective testing. Chapter II refers to research methodologies including the methods adopted in doing the research, the selection of participants, the materials, the methods of data collection and data analysis. Chapter III is the discussion, which is the main part of the study. This chapter reviews how an end-of-year English objective test for 1st year non-major English students of the Academy of Finance was designed, administered, and evaluated. The last part is the conclusion that summarizes the content of the paper and gives some suggestions for further study. VI. SIGNIFICANCE It is hoped that this study, to some extent, will be a useful reference material for teachers of English at universities to get more ideas and techniques in their test designing to make the test valid and reliable. DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER I: LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter will provide an overview of the theoretical background of the research. it is composed of four small sections. Section I.1 brings a significant insight into the concept of language testing. The introduction of achievement tests will be discussed in section I.2 which is followed by section I.3 with the investigation into major characteristics of a good test. The final area to be mentioned is a brief review of objective testing which is presented in section I.4. I.1. LANGUAGE TESTING In fact, many researchers and practitioners in EFL and ESL testing have paid much attention to the issue of language testing. Thus, different authors in different periods have different definitions of testing. Moreover, although most researchers argue about what to test, why to test and how to test, not many of the definitions can cover all aspects of testing. That shows the reason why the concept of language testing is a rather complex one. According to Allen and Corden (1974:313), “a test is a measuring device which we use when we want to compare an individual with other individuals who belong to the same group”. Following this opinion, a test is limited only to a tool which helps sort out one student from others, regardless the real abilities being tested, the interaction between the test and the testees, etc. Meanwhile, Heaton (1998:5) holds a profound definition that tests are designed firstly as “devices to reinforce learning & to motivate the students” or “as a means of assessing the students’ performance”. Besides, a test can be seen as an instrument for measuring a sample of behavior (Gronlund, 1985:5). Similarly, Bachman (1995:18) when distinguishing measurement and evaluation from test agreed that we design a test “to elicit a specific sample of an individual’s behavior”. With this conception, tests focus on measuring a given aspect of language ability on the basis of a sample of language use. However, these definitions seem to be wider in the sense that language tests provide the means for a more careful focus on the specific language abilities of interest. Generally, the definition of testing is always given in connection with different kinds of test. Following is a classification of test given by Hughes (1989:9): Proficiency tests Achievement tests > Class progress tests > Final achievement tests Diagnostic tests Placement tests Aptitude or Prognostic tests Direct tests versus indirect tests Discrete – point tests versus integrative tests Norm – referenced tests versus criterion – referenced tests Objective tests versus subjective tests Communicative tests As for some authors, language tests play many important roles in life. McNamara (2000:4) views that language tests, first, act as “gateways at important transitional moments in education, in employment, and in moving from one country to another”. Secondly, language tests can be worked with in “professional life as a teacher or administrator, teaching to a test, administering tests, or relying on information from tests to make decisions on the placement of students on particular courses”. Last but not least, any researcher who needs to have measures of the language proficiency of the subjects cannot do it without choosing an existing language test or designing his/her own one. In conclusion, although there are different concepts of language testing, and there have been many various terms presenting connotations of language testing that are still on discussion, it is widely accepted that a test is a means of measuring students’ language abilities motivate and also serve as devices to students in the learning process. Moreover, it can enable testers to check and improve what they or their students lack. The following section will be presenting some background of achievement tests, a most common test type used in school. I.2. ACHIEVEMENT TESTS I.2.1. Definition Achievement tests (also called attainment or summative tests) are defined differently among different researchers. According to McNamara (2000:6), “achievement tests accumulate evidence during, or at the end of, a course of study in order to see whether and where progress has been made in terms of the goals of learning”. That means an achievement test relates to the past in that they measure what language the students have learned as a result of teaching. In the same view, Hughes (1989:10) defines achievement tests as the ones that are “directly related to language courses, their purpose being to establish how successful individual students, groups of students, or the courses themselves have been in achievement objectives”. Meanwhile, as for Heaton (1997:14), achievement tests measure students’ mastery of what should have been taught but not necessarily what has actually been taught. In other words, these are based on what the students are presumed to have learnt. Unlike progress test, achievement test should attempt to cover as much of the syllabus as possible. If we confine our test to only part of the syllabus, the content of the test will not reflect all the things students have learnt. Discussing the concept of achievement tests, Harrison (1991:64) makes clear distinction between an achievement test and a diagnostic test. He views that “designing and setting an achievement test is a bigger and more formal operation than the equivalent work for a diagnostic test, because the student’s result is treated as a qualification which has a particular value in relation to the results of other students. An achievement test involves more detailed preparation and covers a wider range of material, of which only a sample can be assessed”. To summarize, it is obvious that achievement tests play an important role in evaluating the student’s language proficiency during the course, thus it is necessary for teachers-test designers to take this kind of tests into consideration. I.2.2. Kinds of achievement tests Achievement test can be subdivided into progress achievement tests and final achievement tests. I.2.2.1. Progress achievement tests “Progress achievement tests, as their name suggests, are intended to measure the progress that students are making”. (Hughes, 1989:12). This type of test, therefore, is always administered during the course to help teachers identify the weakness of the learners, and diagnose the areas which are not properly achieved during the teaching-learning process. This enables the teacher to signpost the achievement of the course objectives. In addition, this kind of test may lead to the teacher’s decision to change something, not just the test itself, but also their teaching method. Finally, the progress achievement test is a teaching device and can be considered as a good chance for the students to prepare for the final achievement test. I.2.2.2. Final achievement tests “Final achievement tests are those administered at the end of a course”. (Hughes, 1989:10). They are not written and administered by the teacher himself, but maybe by ministry of education boards of examiners, or by members of teaching institutions. The final achievement test is often based on an adopted syllabus and its approach, either “syllabus- content approach” or “course- objective approach”. In the view of the former approach, the content of a final achievement test should be based directly on a detailed course syllabus and other materials used. It has an obvious appeal, since the test only contains what it is thought that the students have actually encountered, and thus can be considered a fair test. However, it also has bad points when the syllabus is badly designed, or the materials are badly chosen. Besides, if the test is based on the latter, its contents are based directly on the objectives of the course. Hence, the testers must be clear about objectives and make the test possible to show how far the students have achieved these objectives. To show his belief that course-objective-based tests are much to be preferred, Hughes asserts that “it will provide more accurate information about individual and group achievement, and it is likely to promote a more beneficial back wash effect on teaching.” (1989:11) In short, achievement tests are crucial obviously in school teaching and learning. Therefore, whenever one wishes to design a language test, he needs to consider not only those kinds of achievement tests but also the qualities of a good test. I.3. QUALITIES OF A GOOD LANGUAGE TEST In fact, there is no prefect test because a test that proves ideal of one purpose may be quite useless for another. Apart from that, it cannot be denied that a large number of language tests are of very poor quality. Thus, it is much more fruitful to analyze the characteristics of a good language test and apply the knowledge we have gained from this analysis to the process of designing a test. Raising the question: “What makes a good language test?”, different researchers have pointed out different qualities. This part, then, will mention the four most important ones: reliability, validity, practically, and discrimination. I.3.1 Reliability “Reliability is a necessary characteristic of any good test” (Heaton, 1998:162). According to Hughes (1989:36), reliability refers to the consistent results of a test which is administered to the same testers on different occasions. Bachman & Palmer (1996:19) also states, “Reliability is often defined as consistency of measurement”. Hence, reliability can be considered to be a function of the consistency of scores from one set of tests and test tasks to another. That is to say, “tests should not be elastic in their measurements”, (Harrison, 1991:10). It is important that the test scores should be the same, or as nearly as possible the same, whether the testee takes one version of a test or another, and whether one person marks the test or another. Sharing the same opinion, Alderson et al (2001:128-147) argues that the more similar the scores would have been, the more reliable the test is said to be. In other words, the stability of the test result ensures its reliability. Harrison (1991:11) also views in his book three aspects to reliability. They are: the circumstances in which the test is taken, the way in which it is marked, and the uniformity of the assessment it makes. Obviously, reliability is apparently an essential quality of test values though not easy to be attained. According to Hughes (1989:36) there are two components of test reliability: the performance of candidates from occasion to occasion, and the reliability of the scoring. Therefore, he suggests several ways of achieving consistent performances from candidates and scorer reliability: Take enough samples of behavior. Do not allow candidates too much freedom. Write unambiguous items. Provide clear and explicit instructions. Ensure that tests are well laid out and perfectly legible. Make sure candidates are familiar with format and testing techniques. Provide uniform and non-distracting conditions of administration. Use items that permit scoring which is as objective as possible. Make comparisons between candidates as direct as possible. Provide a detailed scoring key. Train scorers. Agree on acceptable responses and appropriate scores at outset of scoring. Identify candidates by number, not name. Employ multiple, independent scoring. (Hughes, 1989:36) To sum up, it should be noted that reliability is clearly inadequate by itself if a test fails to measure what it is supposed to measure. Furthermore, in order to be reliable, a test must be consistent in its measurements. I.3.2. Validity Validity is the second quality that affects test usefulness. Although the concept of test validity differs among researchers, most of them agree that a test is said to be valid if it measures accurately what it is supposed to measure. (Alderson et al, 2001:170; Bachman, 1995:236-238; Harrison, 1991:11 and Heaton, 1998:159). Henning (1987:89) defines validity as follows: “Validity in general refers to the appropriateness of a given test or any of its component parts as a measure of what it is purported to measure. A test is said to be valid to the extent that it measures what it is supposed to measure. It follows that the term valid when used to describe a test should usually be accompanied by the preposition for. Any test then may be valid for some purposes, but not for others. ” Every test, whether it is a short, informal classroom test or a public examination, should be as valid as the constructor can make it. The test must aim to provide a true measure of the particular skill which it is intended to measure: to the extent that it measures ability to communicate in a foreign language and grammar of this language at the same time, it will not be considered valid. It is certain that validity concerns the extent to which meaningful inferences can be drawn from test scores. Sharing Henning ‘s opinion, Gronlund (1985:57) also mentions, “validity refers to the appropriateness of the interpretation of the results of a test. ” Therefore, in order to examine the validity of a test, it requires a validation process by which a test user presents evid