Technology in Language Testing

Technology-based learning tasks are fine, but not developing assessment tasks through technology. It is seen as a problematic area, while being assessed as having a lot of promises. There is a lot of variety in presenting text and media to examinees. But the question is whether we can adapt to individual levels during test taking.

Technology-enabled language assessment can give responses, evaluation, and feedback individually in no time. But some question the validity of technology in tests. How different would it be from traditional tests? Since every aspect of such tests require technical proficiency of the learner, technology is not invisible in such tests. Some ask whether it is a test of technology awareness/proficiency or that of language.

But technology is here with us, and is spreading even to the remotest areas of the Earth. So saying that it is a deviant phenomenon is not the best response to technology in language testing. Learners need to be prepared for such tests. Familiarity needs to be built. TOEFL has multiple choice questions, highlighting, etc. Therefore, TOEFL examinees must be prepared for it by going through practice sessions where they learn how to use computers in answering questions.

Computer Mediated Communication (CMC)

CMC allows for synchronous and asynchronous communication.

Synchronous communication means that communication is taking place in real time. Live chatting is an example. It can be in voice, audio or text mode or a combination of two or all of them.

Asynchronous communication means that users can read/speak/watch and write/hear/record messages stored on a server, at a later point.

Depending on the time of access, synchronous media can be used as asynchronous media, and vice versa. For example, somebody sends a chat message, which is accessed the next day becomes asynchronous, but using synchronous medium. Similarly, two people can respond to emails instantly like in live chat, to make it a synchronous medium.

Mode: one to one, one to many, many to one and many to many mode.

Participants could be familiar or unfamiliar people.

Topics could be anything from anywhere. Information, news, media, video, etc. could become your topic.

Written mode of communication lets learners take time in composing their responses, giving ample time to reflect on language before and after production.

Listserv type of applications can distribute messages to all simultaneously making communication easier.

Web publishing is another means used by teachers to make use of the writing skills of learners.

Effect of Corpus Linguistics on Language Teaching

Conrad speaks of three effects

1. Monolithic descriptions of English will give way to register-specific descriptions.

   Register determines the frequency of use of words in the language.

2. The teaching of grammar will become more integrated with the teaching of vocabulary.

   Corpus linguistics provides more information than what could be memorized for practice. Lexical   combinations that are actually used, and their frequency of usage are given by corpus linguistics.

3. Focus on grammar teaching will change from structural accuracy to appropriate conditions of use.

   Knowing what structure to use when is more useful than knowing all the structures.

These views from computer-assisted corpus linguistics have changed how grammar is taught. The use of corpora of oral language is likely to provide more insights and teaching resources in the future.

How Context Influences Communication

Applied linguists need to reconsider the concept of communicative competence afforded by the means of communication offered by modern technology today. This context includes large volumes of information, multi-modal texts, evolving technologies, etc. So the construct of communicative competence needs to accommodate the fact that communication media exerts an influence in the meaning making process. We need to broaden our constructs of reading and writing to include the affordances of computer, mobile devices, web and internet. Language and literacy skills need to be redefined to adapt to the new media. In short, we need to reconsider communicative competence in the light of technology.

Communicative Language Ability is a theory that takes into consideration the context in which language is used. Here, situational factors are considered important for the specific abilities needed to perform in particular contexts. One should know the register of the context in order to communicate ‘about’ that context. This framework for communicative language ability exists, but need further work in its particulars. For this, one must study contexts of communication, the registers, and the strategic competencies. Since learners will have to have control over these in order to communicate effectively, a teacher/theoretician should understand them well. They are tools for communication today. English speech communities today are becoming more and more specialized niches that use particular registers of their own. Thus further studies need to take lead in this direction.

My views on Relative Importance of Input, Interaction and Output in Teaching Methods

            As a teacher of English language, I have always insisted that my students spoke English among themselves and with their teachers, listened to English news and watched English movies, read some English (news or books) and wrote letters, notes etc. in English. As my experience in teaching grew, my insistence on these became stronger because I believed that the amount of exposure to good English was a strong scaffolding that helped learners to pick up and practice the language.

            In my opinion, input is very important since it is the channel through which language comes to a second language learner. If that language could be error-free, yet culturally and locally placed it would help learners to approach the language with confidence and esteem. That is where I found it useful to use Indian news channels, documentaries, etc. for the purpose. Using native speaker versions of English might intimidate and demotivate learners from attempting to master the language. When I have given native English samples to my learners, I have made sure that they are subtitled or simple to understand. Looking back at it today, I feel that I am a firm believer of a liberal version of Input Hypothesis (Krashen), in ensuring comprehensible input to learners. One of the reasons why I insisted that learners spoke among themselves and watched movies with subtitles is that the input is comprehensible and there is feedback. Some of my students came back to me after one or two  years of trying this and spoke in confident English, which increased my confidence. But there were others who did not attempt because of diffidence, attitude towards English, fear of errors, etc.

            In almost all classes, I sincerely attempted to provide time for learners to interact in class. I did this because to communicate outside class, learners need some training or familiarity. I have observed that peer pressure is a strong factor that dissuades learners from using target language outside classroom. So in order to reduce it, I used classes to initiate interaction in English language so that outside class, there is no inhibition and ill feelings. Most learners come out of their shells trying to communicate in English. Supportive feedback from teacher and peers help them in pursuing their initial enthusiasm in using the language. Though many do not communicate in English outside class, a few students seriously used English to communicate and that made a change in their attitude towards language, and helped them to improve. In my opinion, what today’s learner need before accuracy is willingness to interact in the target language- a precondition for fluency. The world is so filled with opportunities to use English, that if one wishes to make use of them, learning will happen.

            Learner output needs to be pushed for obvious reasons of lack of familiarity with the language. In traditional school set up, language is learned as an academic subject with no real use of language except reproduction of answers which involves memorisation. Output makes sense as a means of learning only when learner has a minimum amount of autonomy. That is why I don’t believe in memorisation of language learning items. Language needs to be learned in interaction. Output is integral to this process of learning.

            As a teacher who spent time with large classes for most part of my career, I found it almost impossible to reach out to individual learners in this regard. Pushed spoken language output works the best when learners are dealt with individually. Writing and speaking tasks can be given to whole class, but feedback has to be personal in nature. With small class size, one can give more time to individual learners. Sometimes teacher needs to use ‘foreigner-talk’ even at undergraduate level to negotiate meaning and push output. I have felt that once the learner feels confident about her/his own communication, she/he is ready to take off on her/his own. That’s why I see output as important.

            In cases where the learner is not at all confident, and cannot interact and produce language output, I had to go use language centred methods to ensure minimum participation in class. I don’t see this as failure, but a healthy strategy to bring learners to surface level. In classes where learners were well versed in language, I have encouraged them to decide on their own pace of learning. Interactive writing projects, presentations, role plays, etc. were encouraged. What I observed in proficient groups is that they are able to control learning, produce output that is challenging enough to serve as input for other learners. Presentations in class generate healthy debate and interaction. Focus on communication takes apprehensions about language away. This helps in boosting confidence in language use.

In my experience, all three- input, interaction and output are important to language learning. It is for the teacher and learner to decide which one is more necessary at a given point in time. In the long run, insistence on all three of them will make learners confident and fluent users of language at whatever levels they are. Knowledge of a language at both grammar and pragmatic levels are important for a language user. Promoting that competence and proficiency is teacher’s job. From a teacher’s perspective, it is important to know what works in particular situations, and what doesn’t. It should serve as principles that guide the teacher in her/his approach to learning-teaching paradigm.

Comparison of Methods in ELT

Methods were attempts to make language learning relevant to the demands of their times. Responding to the specific contexts in society and theory led to the development of various methods in language teaching. A few of the major methods that stand out in the ‘method-boom’ are language centred method, learner centred method, learning centred method and post-method. Each of these have their particular theoretical underpinnings that give them their flavour, strengths and shortcomings because each of them have a particular focus.

Input is the language data the language learner is exposed to. Behaviourist view says that input can be manipulated by stimulus-response paradigm through reinforcement, and is independent of learner-internal factors. Input research faded when behaviourism lost its central position in language learning/teaching theory. Innatist approach believes in the innate capacity of the learner to acquire language. Chomsky’s response to behaviourist approach gave rise to this model where principles are common to all languages and parameters are the language-dependent variables. Minimum input is sufficient for language development in this case. In interactionist approach, input along with the internal mechanisms of the learner are given importance. Interaction with human beings in contexts is an important element of this approach. Learning happens through input, language production and feedback- in short meaningful interaction. Communication according to Gass is the driving force behind language acquisition. Input is absolutely necessary for language learning and it is emphasised in every theory and method that we know of.

In general, one must understand that a learner must reach his/her internal grammar in L2 using available input. These Inter Language stages develop and finally settle for a steady interlanguage level according to the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis. Krashen’s Monitor Model states that comprehensible input at one level higher than the learner’s level is necessary for language development. Teacher ensures that there is sufficient amount of comprehensible input. If input is understood, the underlying grammar will be automatically understood. Here, the talk is about acquisition, not learning.

Interaction is exchange of or negotiation for meaning during communication. This is an important element of meaningful communication. It is an attention-drawing device according to Gass. Learner will be able to concentrate on particular aspects of communication and repair damages online. This language-in-action method enables the learner to test hypotheses formed during the process and gain feedback, thereby strengthening his/her language system. Interaction thus provides comprehensible input to the members of conversation.

            Output is language produced by a learner. Comprehensible output is an important element of language learning according to Swain which along with comprehensible input creates conditions for language learning. Output is not just reproduction of what is learned, but an active process where the learner forms and uses his/her grammar and gains automaticity in it. This shift from meaning-based processing to a syntactic mode is an important function played by output.

 Methods- A Comparison

	Language-centred methods	Learner-centred methods	Learning-centred methods
Primary focus	Linguistic forms	Forms and functions	Process of learning, Meaning, not on form
Method	Repetition, drills	Meaning focussed activities	Meaning focussed communicative activities
Materials	Preselected, pre-sequenced structures in conversations, product based syllabus	Preselected, pre-sequenced structures, communicative functions, product based syllabus	No preselected, pre-sequenced materials, process based syllabus
Language	Discrete elements	Tool for communication
Learning	Additive process through habit formation; Linear and additive; intentional	Communicative process through insight formation; Linear and additive; intentional	Incidental, not intentional; Cyclical and Parallel
Teaching	Selecting, grading, presenting form based materials	Create opportunities to communicate through activities in context	Keep the learner engaged in meaning or information, comprehensible input
Assumption	Preoccupation with forms will lead to mastery of language	Preoccupation with forms and functions will lead to mastery of language	Conscious mind gets meaning, subconscious mind abstracts rules
Teachers’ role	Central	Central	Central
Error correction	Conscious error correction- low tolerance	Corrected as part of communication	Incidental correction, not systematic
	Analogy over analysis	Functional communication	Comprehension over production

Post method sprang from the failure of methods in fulfilling their promises. Methods had exhausted theoretical frameworks and had tried almost all available tactics in language teaching and learning. Each method claimed ultimate stature, but failed to be effective solutions to perennial problems. They were considered ideology neutral, and universally applicable which is not true. With all their shortcomings they were rejected because they did not provide practical solutions for immediate problems in classrooms. Teachers were mere tools who implemented the theory formulated by experts. Their concrete problems in classrooms remained despite methods. So teachers preferred their own eclectic methods over prescribed methods. That is where post method pedagogy tries to implement a pedagogy that tries to take particularity, practicality and possibility into account. Particular situations need particular methods that are tested for their practicality as proposed by Kumaravadivelu. Learners need to develop autonomy and take charge of their own learning using productive strategies. This method acknowledges and uses teachers’ experience and knowledge in classroom decision making. Teacher is expected to build theory of practice based on experience.

Input, Interaction and Output in Methods

            Input is of absolute importance in any language learning method. Input is how a learner comes in contact with target language. In language centred (form focussed) methods, input is given in the form of dialogues. The method was developed to teach languages to military personnel who went abroad during second world war. Spoken language was the most important element in that context. Therefore, language was served in dialogues with the good intention of giving contextual information. Such input was drilled in practice sessions with explicit focus on form. Elements of language form were selected, graded and presented one by one to the learner through structural patterns. Learners were expected to practice them using mechanical, meaningful and communicative drills and link these discrete elements on their own in real life contexts. Input is carefully controlled by the teacher. Such input was considered necessary and sufficient for language development.

            In learner centred methods, the focus is on forms and functions. They follow a functional syllabus. Language is for communication which in turn is based on the sociocultural norms of interpretation in context. Therefore, there is no limit as to what materials can be used and can be modified to suit the learner. But usually input is standardised functions exemplified in stereotypical contexts. Such input expects to enable the learner to take classroom learning to real life situations.

            In learning centred methods, comprehensible input is talked about. Language input has to be understood by the learner because the focus of the method is on meaning. Comprehending the input provided by the teacher is of utmost importance. Comprehensible input is defined as that at ‘i+1’ level where ‘i' is the current level of the learner. This level is a teacher-decision, made in classroom. Sequencing and selection of input are also teacher decisions. Various activities (information gap, reasoning gap and opinion gap) are used to provide manageable linguistic input. Input is provided by the teacher. Also, teacher has to be flexible so as to simplify or make complex the input depending on learners’ response.

            Post methods criticise the way input is controlled by methods and support the use of teacher autonomy in skilfully deciding what works and what doesn’t. Classroom situation is available only to the teacher, not to the theoretician. Therefore, teacher has the privilege and responsibility of shaping context sensitive input for learners.

            Interaction in language centred methods doesn’t have much scope since it is strictly form focussed and uses drills and repetition to instil grammar in the learner. In the three stages of presentation, practice and production, the little interaction that can occur is between the teacher and the learner. Interaction is a textual activity. Production/output in these methods is also limited. Repetition of given forms, practice of memorised chunks of dialogues, etc. form production in these methods with an intention to minimise errors.

            In learner centred methods, there are meaning focussed activities to practice linguistic structures and functions. Language learning is seen as a process that grows out of meaningful interaction. This is facilitated using pair, group work, role plays, debated, etc. Interaction also focuses on the social propriety of language use. Thus interaction has a greater role in this method than language centred methods. Output has a limited sense here, but since communication is given importance in activities, one must say that language output is considered useful as can be observed in the attitude to error correction.

            In learning centred methods, interaction is seen as a meaning-focused activity directed by the teacher. Interaction is the source of language in classroom. Hence syllabus is not very important. Prabhu’s CTP does not allow much interaction is promoted among learners while Natural Approach support interaction in pair/group wok. But as an ideational activity, interaction is not given importance at all. Teacher-talk is more important than learner interaction and production. Teacher interacts with learners to guide them to achievement of language goal. There is no two-way communication. The basic assumption is that input leads to acquisition (Krashen). Therefore, output is also not considered important for second language development. One of the criticisms of these methods is that there isn’t much interaction and output.

            In post method paradigm, where the teacher is given much freedom to experiment and interpret, interaction is of utmost importance. One of the macro strategies suggested by Kumaravadivelu is ‘facilitate negotiated interaction’. By negotiating meaning in interaction, learners develop their language. Many micro strategies are suggested. Output is embedded in such interaction. Production helps learners to focus on form, pay attention to relationship between form and meaning, and overall dynamics of communication. Every opportunity is exploited to create interaction and output in learning situations.

Interaction Analysis

Interaction approach looks at input, production of language or output and feedback of interaction as a means of explaining learning. According to Gass and Selinker (2008, 317) interaction research’s starting point is the assumption that language learning is stimulated by communicative pressure and it examines the relationship between communication and acquisition and the mechanisms that mediate between them. In short interaction studies look at communication and acquisition using interactions between speakers of a language.

Components of interaction include negotiation, recasts and feedback. Negotiation of meaning is dealt with in this essay.

When the flow of conversation is disturbed, participants question particular utterances and request help with the conversation. This is a kind of negotiation of meaning in order to get equal participation in the conversation, to be part of the conversation from which the speaker slipped due to lack of understanding (or proficiency factors). Negotiation of meaning happens when parties in a conversation interrupt its flow to understand what the conversation is about. This happens frequently with non-native speakers according to Gass and Selinker (318). In my experience, this happens also with native speakers when internal or external factors affect the speaker or the listener. For example, in a mentally preoccupied situation, the listener may not interpret the speaker in the right manner. This necessitates clarification from the speaker for the smooth conduct of the conversation. Sometimes, especially with Non Native Speakers (hereafter, NNS), this happens too often that most of the conversation time is occupied by interruption.

Such lack of understanding is a block to exchange of ideas and opinions. So from the passage, we understand that not only NSs, but also NNSs change their conversation structure to negotiate meaning. Long notices NNS conversations to have forms that are not seen in NS conversations. Examples are confirmation checks like ‘am I right?’, comprehension checks like ‘did you understand?’ and clarification requests like ‘eh?, huh?, what, etc.’.

Different kinds of questions are asked by NSs and NSSs of English. If a NS and a NNS are in conversation, then it is usually the NNS who expresses non-understanding. The NS then clarifies using different techniques to reduce complexity of the utterance so that the NNS can understand. These tactics convey much information to the NNS. Some of these tactics are, repeating the question after giving a pointer to the answer, giving choices for the listener to choose from, giving alternatives, rephrasing, etc.

But there are subtler differences observed in conversation. In case of NNS, there is a willingness to change topics abruptly when understanding is not reached. This can also happen as a result of unfruitful and long attempts to negotiate meaning. I have similar experiences with a Thai student of mine. We have often abandoned topic because neither of us could make sense of each other.

Here, modifications are for understanding of the NNS. Thus NNS is assisted in understanding what is spoken and to produce speech, so that there is less pressure on her. Another perspective on this is that this exercise could be for showing solidarity. There could be no aspect of ‘helping in understanding’ at all.

But here we need to make a distinction between comprehension and acquisition. Both are not equal. Comprehension is a single event, while acquisition is a permanent state in terms of learning.

The comparison of Conversational Analysis of two theorists Mori and Kasper with an Interactionist analysis of a conversation shows clear differences in approach. Input analysis is surface focused and is not looking for motivation of NS speech. That is, interactionist perspective is not concerned about the detailed aspects of a conversation that they don’t count as learning. For them, activities are not central to their approach. Therefore, increased accomplishment within an activity is not counted as or relevant as learning.

Reference

Gass, Susan M. andn Selinker, Larry. Second Language Acquisition. Routledge. London. 2008.