Article Critique

Language Assessment in Education: Tests, Curricula, and Teaching

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (2009) 29, 90-100.

The connection between language assessment, curriculum, and teaching practices is

integral. The traditional way of planning curriculum is to set goals that students should

achieve, the activities that they should go through, and then evaluating the extent to which

students have achieved the required objectives. This matrix is context-specific and varies

from one environment to another according to the state's educational policy, schooling

process, teachers' beliefs and preparation, and the social support.

In my own opinion, the essential point in this issue is that the curriculum should reflect the

standards on which it is designed. Moreover, the learning activities and assessment practices

should be designed accordingly. However, things do not usually go in this way, mostly. For

example, developing communicative competency is one of the major goals of learning

language that our 2nd

secondary grade English language teachers have to achieve in current

schools. This goal is stated in the official document of the local Ministry of Education.

However, this goal is not well articulated either in the curriculum or in the assessment

activities. The four skills of language: reading, writing, speaking and, listening have not been

included in a balanced way in the curriculum. In addition, there are no formal tests for the

assessment of speaking skill; as testing greatly focuses on vocabulary, grammar, reading, and

listening skills. This disharmony among the curriculum, learning activities, and assessment is

a great violation of the standards of language learning.

From the point of view of an educator, ‘the base’ used for defining the standards of

curriculum and learning is significant. Here, there is a wide gap between the curriculum, the

target group, and learning. The purpose for studying a specific curriculum should be

determined beforehand. For example, in one of the institutes that I visited in the United

States, I saw that they had customized the syllabus of the same course for vocational students,

general students, adult students, etc. Such classification is significant to give the right course

to the right group. Moreover, curriculum should be designed based on experimental

researches and not just on professional knowledge.

I see that assessment should be a learning tool, not an agent for forcing students to learn.

According to my personal experience, this trait is novel in our assessment systems and

schemes. Students learn and teachers work just for the sake of getting students through the

final exams. Indeed, this is reflected in the classrooms practices which have become very

traditional, repetitive, and boring. Students may pass the final exams, but the real objective of

creating students who are able to think, solve problems, innovate, and analyze, is not

achieved.

In my point of view, the assessment system should itself match with the aims of the

curriculum. This is something that does not take place now. For instance, the aim that

students enjoy learning and wish to continue learning is at odds with assessment systems that

generate anxiety and resistance in many students.

Many schools and educational institutes are working to get the best out of the present

system. These institutions are serious to use the flexibilities available to them for doing

something creative despite the current constraints of a test-heavy system, dominated by

narrow attainment targets. However, for innovation to drive the standards forward across all

institutions there needs to be changes in the underlying structure of the system. Schools need

to move from a situation where assessment seems to dominate curriculum and pedagogy,

toward a situation where there is a positive creative connection between all three.

Eventually, the curriculum should be aims-led rather than subject-led. The equilibrium

between academic elements and other characteristics of students as human beings need to be

addressed. Characteristics such as interpersonal skills, communication, and creativity need to

be more central in the curriculum. The concentration must be on the ‘aims first’; rather, the

subjects.