COMMUNICATIVE TESTING IN THE EFL CLASSROOM
Keywords:Communicative Testing, Communicative Approach, Testing, Assessment, EFL Assessment, Classroom Applications, Fluency, Accuracy, Pair Tests, Speaking Tests, Group Testing
While the communicative approach has come to predominate in EFL classrooms around the world, its logical corollary—communicative testing—has not followed suit as it seems it should have. Instead, teachers who use the communicative approach in their regular classes often revert to older styles of testing when it comes time for midterms and finals. This paper will define what a communicative test is and why it is a better option than older forms of testing—especially in communicative classrooms, where it is a natural partner. It will then discuss how to assess communicative tests. It will also discuss how communicative testing can be a part of a variety of learning environments Finally, it will give concrete examples of communicative tests that can be used in EFL classrooms from English for Specific Purposes to Content-based Instruction—and even in classrooms that are constrained by administrative mandates so as not to be primarily communicative—demonstrating that communicative testing can be profitably administered in almost any learning environment.
Bachman, L. F. 1990. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1990.
British Council. (2017) “Communicative Approach.” Retrieved from https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/communicative-approach
Brown, J.D. (2005). Testing in Language Programs. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532205lt306xx
Canale, M., & M. Swain. (1980). A theoretical framework for communicative competence. Applied Linguistics, 1: 1-47. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/I.1.1
Candlin, C.N. (1986). Explaining communicative competence limits of testability? In C.W. Stansfield ed., Toward Communicative Competence Testing. Proceedings of the second TOEFL invitational Conference. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Celce-Murcia, M. (2002). What it makes sense to teach grammar through context and through discourse. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos Eds., New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (119-134). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z. & Thurrell, S. (1993). A Pedagogical Framework for Communicative Competence: Content Specifications and Guidelines for Communicative Language Teaching. Deseret Language and Linguistic Society Symposium, 19:1, 13-29.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. New York, NY: Oxford.
Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of Instructed Language Learning. Asian EFL Journal, 7:3, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.12.006
Harmer, J (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching (3rd ed.). Essex: Pearson Education.
Hinofotis E.B. (1981). Perspectives on language testing: past, present, and future. Nagoya Gakuin Daigaku Gaikokugo Kyoiko Kiyo, 4, 51-59.
Hull, T. (2018). Content-Based Instruction: A Communicative Approach for the Efl Classroom. PUPIL: International Journal of Teaching, Education and Learning, 2(3), 63-77. https://doi.org/10.20319/pijtel.2018.23.6377
Hymes, D. (1967). Models of the Interaction of Language and Social Setting. Journal of Social Issues, 33, 8-28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1967.tb00572.x
Hyun, I.S. (2017). Interlocutor Effects in Two Types of Oral EFL Testing - Interviews and Testing in Pairs. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics 17(3), 631-653. https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.17.3.201709.631
Ibrahim, H. (2019). The Nominal Roles of Gerunds and Infinitives. PUPIL: International Journal of Teaching, Education and Learning, 3(1), 181-188. https://doi.org/10.20319/pijtel.2019.31.181188
Lee, J. (2000). Tasks and Communicating in Language Classrooms. Boston: McGraw-Hill Liberal Arts and Social Science, 4(11), 100-109.
Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (2013). How Languages are Learned 4e (Oxford Handbooks for Language Teachers) (4th ed.). Oxford, UK. Oxford University Press.
Makarchuk, D. (2010). Interlocutor Effects in Two Types of Oral EFL Testing - Interviews and Testing in Pairs. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics 26(2), 389-422.
Nation. P. (2013). Learning vocabulary in another language (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139858656
Pienemann, M. & and Lenzing, A. (2015). Processability Theory. In B. VanPatten, B and Williams, J. eds., Theories in Second Language Acquisition. An Introduction (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 10, 52-79. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/10.1.52
Pienemann, M. (2012). Processability Theory and teachability. In Carol A. Chapelle ed., The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0958
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829802900209
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.). Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (471–483). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tan, Z. (2016). An Empirical Study on the Effects of Grammar-Translation Method and Task-Based
Thundercliff, M. (August 5, 2015). IELTS Speaking: Part 1 – Fluency and Coherence. EFL Magazine.
Toriida, M. C. M. (2018). Working with Vocabulary Cards in the Classroom. PUPIL: International Journal of Teaching, Education and Learning, 2(3), 120-132. https://doi.org/10.20319/pijtel.2018.23.120132
Van Patten, B. (2015). Input processing in adult SLA. In B. VanPatten, B and Williams, J. eds., Theories in Second Language Acquisition. An Introduction (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
How to Cite
Copyright of Published Articles
Author(s) retain the article copyright and publishing rights without any restrictions.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.