Sat, Apr 10, 2010 page8

• [LETTER]

  • • 
    • 
    • 

  Testing English ability

  I was very interested to read Mo Reddad’s letter (Letters, April 7, page 8) regarding the state of TEFL [teaching English as a foreign language] in Taiwan. While I think the writer makes some valid points, I feel s/he is guilty of a certain degree of muddled thinking which I would like to address, particularly the writer’s views on testing.

  The letter begins with a comment about the lamentable TOEFL [Test of English as a Foreign Language] scores exhibited by local test takers and goes on to talk about people garnering low scores on achievement tests. By doing so Reddad appears to be suggesting that TOEFL is such a test, which it is not. As with many other internationally recognized tests like IELTS [International English Language Testing System] and the Cambridge suite, it is a proficiency test, and herein lies the rub.

  While achievement tests are closely related to language courses, proficiency tests are designed to tap into an individual’s language ability regardless of any training that may have taken place. In a sense one test looks to the past and asks how well you have mastered a certain body of linguistic knowledge and skills, (or more cynically perhaps, how much junk you can cram into your head just long enough to regurgitate it onto a test paper). The other kind of test looks forward to assess how well you can use your knowledge and skills to do something (like live and study in an English-speaking environment, for example).

  Therefore it is quite possible for someone to get a high score on his end-of-year English test at school, but tank on TOEFL because each test is assessing different skills for different purposes.

  Why do I labor this point? Because in my view testing should not be viewed as an evil necessity, but as a tool for change.

  “Teaching to the test” seems to be ubiquitous in Taiwan’s schools, but rather than lament this “backwash” effect (or “washback” depending upon which author you read), I believe it can be judiciously utilized to help push innovations in syllabus design as well as methodology. I agree that fundamental changes are needed in the way languages are taught.

  However, any policy changes in this area are likely to be thwarted unless there is a move away from the mindless discrete point testing that permeates the Taiwanese school system to more integrative tests that assess how well individuals can use their language abilities to do useful language jobs, so to speak.

  I must admit I am pessimistic about change in the short term given the evident inertia that seems to characterize the state system. Why is it that language teaching in Taiwan remains apparently mired in a method that has neither serious advocates nor any real theoretical basis? The conclusion seems inescapable: pedagogic expediency. In other words, let’s keep the status quo ’cos it’s cheap ’n’ easy. This attitude may be the largest stumbling block to change.

  Finally, two small points. First, what does the writer have against phonics? It seems an immeasurable improvement on the use of the KK system that used to be rammed down students’ throats. And finally, as an IELTS examiner for more than 20 years, I can assure the writer that people can and do cram, or at least prepare intensely for writing and speaking tests — many schools make a decent living from it.

  JOHN COOMBER

  Richmond BC, Canada
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Bukele proposes prisoner swap with Maduro

  • 2

    HK, Macau residency rules tightened

  • 3

    Wild’s top line too much for Vegas Golden Knights

  • 4

    Mexican baseball’s growth starting to rival soccer clubs

  • 5

    China turns on the charm for Taiwan businesses: study