1. UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE LA SSMA. CONCEPCION
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
FACULTAD DE EDUCACION
DEPARTAMENTO DE LENGUAS
EVALUACION DE LA COMPETENCIA COMUNICATIVA EN INGLES
KARLA ESSMANN TORRES
ANALIA NOVA GONZALEZ
DOCENTE
ROXANNA CORREA PEREZ
FECHA
CONCEPCION, 2013

2. Theoretical Framework
This essay attempts to provide an overall view of an issue presented in the field of
language teaching and learning, which is assessing on Second Language Acquisition
(SLA). This has been considered a complex topic in the area of teaching and learning a
language (Fernandez, 1996), which could be either a Foreign Language (FL) or a Second
Language (SL). Since SLA is a complex matter, to asses it, it might be equally difficult as
well, and an optimum instrument is needed in order to obtain real and trustworthy results.
Regarding this subject, in the following essay it will be analyzed the perspectives of
the authors who present principles or qualities that must be considered when designing a
test on FL or SL. These authors are: Brown D. (2003), Coombe,Ch. et al. (2007) and
Bachman, L. F. & Palmer A. S. (1996). These authors convey and agree that concerning
assessment there are different principles or qualities that should be taking into account
when designing and developing a test in order to make it effective. Notwithstanding, they
differ in the number of principles and in some cases also their names. This essay focuses on
some of those differences regarding the available theory of the authors previously
mentioned. First, it is going to be reviewed Coombe et al. (2007) perspective, and secondly
Brown’s (2003) view regarding principles of assessment on SLA. To continue, the authors’
perspectives will be compared in order to highlight some differences on their viewpoints.
The following authors to be analyzed in this essay will be Bachman, L. F. & Palmer A. S.
(1996). After this, the authors will be compared to the perspective of Coombe et al. (2007).
Finally some conclusion will be stated at the end of the essay.

3. According to Coombe et al. (2007), there are several principles that are connected to
good test design described as “The cornerstones of testing”. These principles are:
usefulness, reliability, practicality, washback, authenticity, transparency, and security.
The author defines the principle of usefulness as the most important one, since a test
has a specific purpose, a particular group to be tested, and a specific target language.
The principle of validity aims to measure “what you teach and how teach it”. This
principle is subdivided in: a) Content validity, which means that a test has to assess content
using a format familiar to the test- takers. b) Construct validity, which refers to the
methodology of language learning and the type of assessment. c) Face validity, which
means that a test looks as if measures what it is expected to measure.
The principle of reliability stands for trustworthiness in terms of scoring. There are
three factors regarding reliability which are: a) test factors, b) administrative factors, and c)
affective factors.
The principle of practicality includes the cost of development, maintenance,
adequate time, resources, ease of marking, availability of suitable/trained graders, and
administrative logistics.
The principle of washback refers to the effect of testing on either teaching or
learning. In other words this effect is connected to feedback which can be negative or
positive.
The principle of authenticity refers to real- world situations and contexts when
facing a task. Good process of assessment uses tasks which reflect real contexts where the
students can actually use the target language.
The principle of transparency is connected to the clear information when assessing
and testing. This information includes the outcomes to be tested, the formats, item and

4. sections, time to complete the test, and graduating criteria. Transparency involves the
students in the process of assessment, and leaves aside the myths surrounding the test.
Security includes both reliability and validity in the testing process, giving students
the adequate information about tests; consequently, there is security in the results when
testing and assessing students’ performance.
Brown (2003) is another author who has described another list of principles
regarding language assessment.
The first principle on his list is called Practicality, this concept is referred to
characteristics such as how expensive a test is, the appropriateness of the time, the facilities
in terms of administration and also if it has a specific and time efficient scoring.
To continue a second principle is defined by Brown (2003), which is reliability. A
test is reliable if it is consistent and dependable; this means that if a test is applied in two
different groups of students it must have similar results in both groups. However; there are
factors affecting the students score, one of them is named, a) Student-related reliability
which has to do with Student’ physical or physiological state, for example if it is ill, sad,
tired, etc. Another factor affecting the score is, b) Rater reliability, oriented to the
subjectivity and human errors that can affect the score. A third concept appears, which is, c)
Test administration reliability that refers to the conditions of the test administration, for
example a noisy place, the amount of light, temperature variations, etc. These elements can
interfere with the real score. Finally, a fourth concept is found, which is, d) Test reliability,
that has to do with the aspects of the test itself, if the test is too long and the students are
conditioned by a clock ticking, their results won't be the ones they could obtain without this
pressure.

5. The following principle described is called Validity. When the coherence between
assessment result and assessment purpose, match with the assessment intention, a test is
valid. Inside validity are found branches such as, a) Content related evidence, this aspect of
validity is identify in a test when could be clearly defined the achievement which is being
measured. A second kind of validity is found which is, b) Criterion related evidence, and
this is reached when the criterion of a test has been accomplished. Then a third concept of
validity appears called, c) Construct related evidence, which is the theoretical construct
when assessing any skill. To follow, another branch of validity comes into view, d)
Consequential validity; this concept is related to the impact of assessing on accuracy in
measuring intended criteria, the impact on the preparation of the test- takers, the effect on
the learners, and the social consequences of a test. Finally, the last branch supporting
validity is e) Face validity which means that the assessment looks fair, and really measures
what it is supposed to measure from the point of view of the test- takers.
Regarding authenticity the author states that there are some factors that determine
this principle such as the natural way of the language in a task, contextualized items rather
than isolated, meaningful and interesting topics for the students, and finally real world
situations tasks.
The principle of washback is connected to the effect that tests have on instruction
regarding how students prepare for a test; moreover, the appropriate feedback regarding
progress and achievements, and finally its effects on the students.
Regarding the authors previously mentioned (Coombe et al, 2007 and Brown, 2003)
it can be stated that even though both authors describe a list of principles regarding
language assessment; they differ in the number of principles on each list. Since Coombe et
al(2007) explain a list of eight principles, whereas Brown (2003) explains a list of just five

6. principles. There is also a difference regarding one principle which is described by the
different authors, which is validity, while Coombe et al(2007) describe just three branches
of it, Brown, 2003 describes five branches in relation to this concept. Concerning this
difference it might be seen that Brown(2003) considers the concept of validity as the most
remarkable one, whereas Coombe et al (2007) considers as the most important principle
usefulness, since each test has an intention, a purpose and a specific groups of test takers.
The authors also describe this principle at the beginning of “the cornerstone of testing”
whereas Brown (2003) starts by saying that each principle is equally important.
According to Bachman and Palmer (1996) when developing a language tests the
most important consideration is the usefulness (purpose). They present a model of test
usefulness which contains six qualities.
The first one is reliability which is the consistency of measurement and the
consistency of scores from one set of tests and test tasks to another.
The second one is construct validity which consists of the interpretation made on
the bases of test score. Teachers have to demonstrate the validity of the interpretation of a
given test score, since evidence is needed in order to demonstrate that it reflects the area(s)
of language ability that is going to be measured
The third one is authenticity which consists of the degree of correspondence
between the language used in specific domains and the characteristics of a given language
test or task.
The fourth one is interactiveness which consists of the extent of the type of
involvement on the test taker’s individual characteristics in accomplishing a test or task; the
most important characteristic in this case is the test taker’s language ability (language
knowledge, metacognitive strategies).

7. The fifth one is impact, this concept attempts to look forward at what will be the
results for the future. The impact of atest in society and in the educational system operates
in two levels: micro level (individuals) and macro level (educational system and society).
Finally, the last quality is practicality which is the relationship between the
resources, development, and the use of a test.
Regarding Coombe et al (2007) and Bachman and Palmer(1996) it can be stated that
the first difference between them is the number of criteria when describing the list of either
principles or qualities regarding assessment on SLA. While Coombe et al(2007) describes
eight principles, Bachman and Palmer(1996) describe six qualities. Concerning the
terminology of their principles/qualities it can be stated that Coombe et al(2007) do not
consider the principles/qualities of impact and interactiveness, whereas Bachman and
Palmer(1996) do. Another difference between the descriptions of principles/qualities is that
Coombe et al(2007) describe washback as one single principle, whereas Bachman and
Palmer(1996) describe washback as a branch of the quality of impact. Regarding
principles/qualities another difference can be noticed, concerning validity; while Coombe et
al(2007) considers validity as a single principle with three branches (content, construct, and
face validity) Bachman and Palmer(1996) considers as one principle/quality construct
validity, leaving aside the other two branches of this concept. Finally, another difference
between them is the focus of their criteria; while Coombe et al (2007) might focus mainly
on the test itself Bachman and Palmer (1996) focus on the impact of the test in society.
As it was said at the beginning of this theoretical framework, the purpose of it is to
have a view of assessing on second language acquisition (SLA). Three perspectives were
seen, those were: Brown D. (2003), Coombe, Ch. et al. (2007) and Bachman, L. F. &
Palmer A. S. (1996), in order to understand the qualities and principles which are

8. considered at the moment of assessing second language acquisition, it can be said that is a
complex issue because there are several factors that determine the effectiveness and
trustworthiness of a test.
Having compared the three authors it can be concluded that there exist elements at
the moment of assessing on second language acquisition which are called either principles
or qualities according to the authors previously mentioned. It can be concluded also, that
there are some principles/qualities that are mentioned in the three chapters, for example
reliability, authenticity and practicality. Validity is also mentioned in all of the authors;
notwithstanding, Brown (2003) might be more specific and detailed describing this
principle.
This framework is based mostly on Coombe,Ch. et al., 2007, because this
perspective was more convincing and understandable for us, because the principles were
described in detail. To sum up, assessing on second language acquisition is a remarkable
matter for future English teachers, and the reading and analysis of the authors previously
mentioned will help us to know how to design an optimum test at the moment of assessing
learners of FL or SL.

9. References
Bachman, L. F. & Palmer A. S. (1996)Language Testing in Practice. Oxford
Universitypress.
Brown, D. (2003) Language Assessment, Principles and Classroom Practices.Longman.
Coombe, Ch., Folse, K. &Hubley, N. (2007) A practical guide to assessing English
language learners. University of Michigan Press.
Fernández, P. (1996) Modelos sobre la adquisición del lenguaje.Didactica 8. 105-
106. Servicio de publicaciones UCM: Madrid.