English for Speakers of Other Languages - Essay Example

English for Speakers of Other Languages The test under evaluation is from the University of Cambridge ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) Examination group. This test allows the taker to achieve a Certificate in Advanced English and has four main parts. The taker is tested in the areas of listening, speaking, reading and writing. It also thoroughly tests the use of grammar and advanced vocabulary as well as the an advanced knowledge of semantic and the development of adequate logical and creative thought process in English. The following is a general breakdown of the test: As one can see by the above this is a rather extensive test taking up to five hours to complete. The test is intended to evaluate the taker on all levels of the language competence, both in understanding as well as reproduction. It is also important to note that this text does more than asks for a reproduction of knowledge, but also requires an understanding of English on the level of comprehensive mastery and creative evaluation. In the first part on reading there are four sections, each of which examine a different aspect of understanding and interpretation of the text involved. The first part examines the comprehension of what has been read and asks the reader to answer several multiple choice questions regarding that text. This is on the simple level of memory and comprehension of what has been read. The second part requires not only understand but logistical interpretation. The reader is presented with text that is missing three paragraphs and then presented with four paragraph choices at the end and asked to insert the proper three paragraphs in to the correct section of the test. This certainly presents an advance level of understanding required to correctly eliminate the erroneous paragraph and insert the correct three paragraphs in the proper sections. This demonstrates and understanding of syntax and semantics. Section three is again a presentation of text, each at different stylistic levels of reading examples and multiple choice questions are asked at the end. Section four flips the scenario and asks question prior to reading the text, turning the readers intelligence searching on first to find answers to specific items requested. This not only displays semantic and organization understanding but structural knowledge as well: A person's structure of knowledge in a subject area includes not only declarative knowledge about substance (or information about what) but also procedural knowledge about methods (or information about how) and strategic knowledge about alternatives for goal setting and planning (or information about which, when, and possibly why). (Merrick 1984: 156) The writing section has two parts but in both the taker is required to perform the function of assessing a block of material given and produce a written task based on the material. This first is a proposal based on that material. The respondent must generate a business proposal to his or her supervisor in order to push through the idea for the company. The second is an option of several choices including writing a reference for a friend, submitting a competition entry, writing a letter of application for a position, and writing a review / essay on a literary topic. This exercise not only shows individual creativity and comprehension, but adds a very practical nature to the examination that the test taker is sure to respond to. In fact both sections are arguments to convince that will be helpful when working with a variety of people and organizations. This goes to the point that Merrick makes regarding any type of functional knowledge test. “At issue is not merely the amount of knowledge accumulated but its organization or structure as a functional system for productive thinking, problem solving, and creative invention in the subject area as well as for further learning. (1984:155) The third section is an examination of English usage. In this part the taker is presented with text that is missing single words and given multiple choices for inclusion into the paragraph. It begins with an example to set the tone and then requires the taker to follow suit inserting the correct word in each sentence. The words presented are all very similar in definition. This makes this particular task for ESOL person certainly more difficult. Again, it requires a higher level of understanding of the nuances of English as a thought process and a language. The second part of this section then increases the difficulty by presenting texts with missing words but leaving it up to the taker to supply them. What a person can do in an area includes a variety of area-specific skills, such as extracting a square root or parsing a sentence or balancing a chemical equation, but also broader cognitive abilities that cut across subject areas, such as comprehension, memory retention and retrieval, reasoning, analysis and restructuring, evaluation or judgment, and fluency. These broader cognitive abilities contribute to the assembly and structuring of knowledge, to the continual reassembly and restructuring of cumulating knowledge, to the accessing and retrieval of knowledge, and to its use in problem representation and solution (Messick 1984: 155-156) The third part requires the taker to edit words presented to they are in the correct form for the sentences, either verb, noun or adjectival forms. Part four is quite similar to part 2 in that it presents single sentence with missing word rather then the whole text approach. Part five has the taker rewrite the sentence so that it makes sense. The fourth section on listening analyzes language competence on several different levels. The first section is a based on three spoken reports, the second is a monologue, the third are conversations between two or three people. The last part requires the taker to listen to five short recording. Questions are based on their understanding of the material as well as who was presenting it. The last part is speaking and is a very different protocol. A pair of candidates takes the test and there are two proctors, one performing the test and one observing. The first section is an interview where the proctor asks questions about your interests and so on, but also given the taker prompts to ask the other candidate some questions. The second part the taker is asked to view a photograph and then talk for one minute uninterrupted about that photo in regards to a question the proctor has asked. The third part is a collaboration between the two candidates and also uses photographs and questions for the two to discuss with each other as the proctors observe. The last part relates to the previous one and is a discussion between the proctor and the two candidates regarding the material. In the speaking section the proctor can observe more personality and intelligence traits that can perhaps be observed in the other sections of the examination. This is important to ascertain the overall use of language as well as the intelligent application of that use. Intelligence is certainly view in this instance as a description of not only a person but of a particular class of behaviors (Anastasi 1986). Unlike some other personality and stylistic traits there is clearly a positive association with being intelligent and a negative association with being unintelligent. A certain bias can be present, however, in the overall personality of the taker and their actual level of fundamental language use. While there is no way of ascertaining how this section is judged it is certainly fair to say that in order to validate it there must be very objective criteria involved (Messick 1989). It is significant to point out that cognitive abilities are not quite the same as language abilities, while there is an obvious relationship apparent. Cognitive abilities are independent of subject matter but they are by no means content-free; rather, they cut across content areas. In some instances, they may be specialized by types of content such as verbal, numerical, or figural, but at higher orders they represent more general functions such as memory or fluency. (Missick 1984: 163) While this test is certainly very pervasive, the actual measurements taken of the responses are called into question and would require a separate and more thorough evaluation to truly review the test and its results as valid. Traditionally many testing practices put more of an emphasis on statistical techniques rather than on the particular ability or comprehension of the task being measures (Anastasi 1967). The test and the measurablity of the results often become more important than the empirical results being evaluated. There is also the matter of bias that exists in any level of testing. Although attempts are made to minimize bias it will always exist in some form or fashion. “The current perspective, which only recently began to prevail, is that certain "status" variables such as age, gender, and ethnicity are important because personality is in many respects a function of the environment or groups to which a person belongs.” (“Cross Cultural Clinical” 1998:72) So while many believe that the content of the message or in this case, the readings are the only important item, the context they are in can change significantly depending on the culture or other environmental variable. Of course there is a counter argument in the case of linguistics and in testing the mastery level of English usage. With respect to the test under question it not only seeks to understand English usage but a higher level of comprehension, which innately brings about a deeper understanding of the culture involved. So not only is the test subject able to understand the language but the nuances of the culture from which it is derived. It may help to turn the table and view English as a foreign language when creating different tests to help assure that there is no bias as well. In their Journal aritlcle, “The Validation of Competence Areas of English as a Foreign Language Using Three Criteria,” by F. K. Abu-Sayf, James B. Herbolich, they point out certain difficulties: …difficulties in measuring English as a foreign language arising from such variables as the interference of the native language and the more frequent use of written material than of speech. [There is also] the introduction of nuisance variables in such measurements as a result of variations in cognates and idioms among native languages. These hypotheses have not been empirically fully investigated. Clearly, the contribution of measurement in the analysis of language components is far from satisfactory. (Abu-Sayf and Herbolich 1979:173) That being said, it is important to remember that in training for competencies in any language other than one’s own, the learner must have a deeper comprehension of the “idiom and cognates” that arise in the language. Therefore, the learner also requires a more thorough understanding of the culture that the language itself is derived from. There is certainly more to language than mere definition of words and this test certainly provides a thought examination of English usage and application on many advanced levels. List of References Abu-Sayf, F. K., and James B. Herbolich. 1979. "The Validation of Competence Areas of English as a Foreign Language Using Three Criteria." Journal of Experimental Education 48:170-173. Anastasi A. 1967. ‘Psychology, psychologists, and psychological testing’. American Psychologist, 22: 297-306. Anastasi, A. 1986. ‘Intelligence as a quality of behavior’. In R. Sternberg & D. Detterman (Eds.), What is intelligence? Contemporary viewpoints on its nature and definition (19–21). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. "Cross-Cultural Clinical Psychological Assessment of Hispanic Americans." 1998. Journal of Personality Assessment 70:71-86. Messick S. 1984. ‘Abilities and knowledge in educational achievement testing: The assessment of dynamic cognitive structures’. In B. S. Plake, S. N. Elliott, J. V. Mitchell Jr. (Eds.), Buros-Nebraska symposium on measurement and testing. Social and technical issues in testing: Implications for test construction and usage (155-169). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Meesick S. 1989. ‘Validity’. In R. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement, ( 3rd ed.:13-103). Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Read More