1. ENGLISH LANGUAGE TESTING
A Critical Discussion
Magdalena Bobek
Introduction
According to Leung and Lewkowicz, both language practitioners and experts in the field of
language testing and assessment, even though 'English language testing, particularly high-
stakes, large-scale proficiency testing administered by international bodies' has been primarily
based on 'the metropolitan native speaker varieties', 'the growing knowledge of English as
lingua franca (ELF) is beginning to make this self-imposed normative insulation untenable'
(Leung and Lewkowicz 2006:228). In the light of study and my experience in English
language teaching (ELT) I would like to discuss the implications of this position by first
looking at some issues regarding English proficiency testing based on native-speaker
varieties, analysing the growing spread of ELF and how it has begun to influence teaching
and testing practices, and finally, by looking at proposals by language practitioners for
further incorporating ELF into ELT and testing practices.
The native-speaker model
Looking back into history it becomes clear why English has become such a dominant
language. It was the language of Britain as the leading colonial nation, and leader of the
Industrial Revolution, as well as the language of the leading economic power, the USA, in the
19th and 20th centuries (Crystal 2003:120-121). English was 'established as the language of
power and prestige' (Pennycook 1994:93), and through organizations such as the British
Council together with the BBC, the Center for Applied Linguistics and others, it has
continued to expand its influence to this very day (ibid:149). The sense of domination is also
reflected in language education, where both American and British varieties of English try to
maintain their supremacy over other varieties through the 'purveyors of traditional ELT
practices' who 'support the achievement of near-native proficiency in the English language'
(Modiano 2001:170). It seems that ''native speakers' of English have a special claim to the
language itself, that it is essentially their property' (Holliday 2005:8). According to Graddol,
however, 'the majority use of English is now outside the English-speaking West' (1997 in

2. ibid), where it is being used 'as a lingua franca (ELF) […] for: academic purposes; political
negotiation; tourism; entertainment; business and finance; information; personal social
interaction …’(Ur 2008: no pagination). Therefore, as an international language ‘its
ownership is shifted to whoever wishes to use it’ (Holliday 2005:13). Judging from
experience, however, the native speaker model of one or the other dominant variety still
seems to be deeply embedded in most EFL teacher’s perceptions of language teaching and
testing.
In public school sectors, such as the one I work in, where the syllabus is prepared by higher
educational institutions and primarily based on one dominant variety, teachers are often
reluctant to teach or test anything apart from that which is included in the prescribed syllabus,
mainly because they are responsible for preparing their students for school-leaving and
entrance exams to higher levels of education all of which require knowledge of one dominant
variety. Students might also want to take one of numerous international proficiency exams
organized by the British Council, such as IELTS (International English Language Testing
System), Cambridge ESOL examinations, University and Professional Exams and ILEC
(Legal English Exams), which, based on the British Council website, offer learners many
opportunities for further advancement in education and/or business in countries 'where
English is the language of communication', with particular focus on the UK, the USA,
Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Another important issue is the stakeholders' role in
language learning programmes and the purposes for which they can use learners' proficiency
results (Brindley 2001:138). In many industrialised countries, for example, the educational
policy includes providing 'educational funding authorities with evidence that intended
learning outcomes have been achieved' (ibid) and measuring them 'against national standards
to justify public expenditure' (Brindley 1998 in Gray et al 2008:163). However, international
proficiency tests are not without unresolved issues.
Some issues related to proficiency testing based on native-speaker varieties
Perhaps one of the main problems lies in the authenticity of the test material, which is more
often than not culture bound and demands from students not only knowledge of the language,
but also 'schematic knowledge' of the material, which may prove 'thematically alien' and
impossible for them to tackle (Gray et al 2008:180). Material, which is 'culturally restricted'
would be more relevant for 'advanced students who know exactly why they're learning

3. English' and perhaps want to 'specialise' in it or continue studying in the UK, and not for those
at lower levels (ibid:179-180). For fear of students not doing well on tests teachers often
resort to teaching 'to the test or assessment requirements' thus causing 'a narrowing of the
curriculum' which consequently has a negative impact on the learner (Leung and Lewkowicz
2006:224). By emphasizing certain aspects of the language that would otherwise be treated
merely as awareness raising activities (Gray et al 2008:178), teachers often omit useful lexis
and/or grammatical structures that the learner would benefit from on a daily basis.
Misunderstandings in listening comprehension tests can also cause havoc among test takers.
As an occasional assessor in national proficiency tests I have experienced that L2 learners
who have been exposed to the pronunciation, authentic phrases and/or expressions of one
dominant variety during classroom practice, have extreme difficulty understanding an
authentic dialogue or text in another dominant variety during a proficiency exam. They cannot
master the speed or intonation of the listening, which in turn affects their understanding of the
given task and consequently their score. It is very important for tests to be in line with
'language pedagogy and curriculum development' (Leung and Lewkowicz 2006:228). Test
tasks should not only try to 'mirror' real world tasks as proposed by Morrow (1979 in
ibid:213), but more so, those in the world of the L2 learner, and more precisely, the needs for
their taking the test and the test's usefulness as a whole (ibid:214-216).
However, with English becoming more 'independent […] of the norms established by its
native speakers' (Seidlhofer 2004:212) and as such 'potentially open to innovations,
development and change' (Leung & Lewkowicz 2006:229), it is difficult to ascertain whether
the language norms, functions and pragmatics of the native speaker varieties alone will
continue to set the standards in English teaching and testing.
English as a lingua franca (ELF)
To understand the role of ELF we must look at some of the developments brought about by
the globalization of English. One of these are all the different varieties or 'World Englishes'
that have emerged due to the spread of English, which, even though they bear unique, local
features of their own, such as 'sounds, intonation patterns, sentence structures, words, and
expressions', were 'developed through the education system […] taught as a subject and, in

4. many cases, also used as a medium of instruction' where English was not the main language
(Platt et al1984:2-3). The position of the native speaker, who was once at 'the centre of the
global use of English and considered the 'source of […] correctness', is, according to Graddol,
slowly changing with the ''centre of gravity' shifting to the L2 speaker' (Modiano 2001:341). It
is, therefore, necessary to 'redefine' users of English ‘in terms of their level of competence in
the language rather than in terms of where they live and whether or not they are ‘native
speakers’(Ur 2008:no pagination), as is suggested in Kachru’s inner, outer and expanding
circles model (Gray et al 2008:7). It is also important to note that with all the new varieties of
English, most interaction in the international community takes place between non-native
speakers, and that if they are to 'communicate more efficiently within the context of the
interaction', they have to 'adjust their speech to accomodate to the needs of the interlocuter
(Jenkins 2006a:45-46). Because English has become 'the means of communication among
people from different first language backgrounds, across linguacultural boundaries […] it
functions as a global lingua franca' or international language, and as such is 'being shaped at
least as much by its nonnative speakers as by its native speakers', since native speakers are
also included in ELF interaction (Seidlhofer 2005:339). But to what extent can ELF be
included in ELT, 'when there is still a tendency for native speakers to be regarded as
custodians over what is acceptable usage?'(ibid).
ELF in ELT
The idea of including ELF in ELT has triggered much discussion and debate among linguists
and language practitioners. Jenkins (2006a:43) seems to think that many ELT practitioners
still consider varieties that differ from BrE or AmE as 'deficiencies' or 'errors caused by L1
transfer'. She informs us that 'there is still little if any awareness among TESOL practitioners
and SLA researchers that learners may be producing forms characteristic of their own variety
of English, which reflect the sociolinguistic reality of their English use […] far better than
either British or American norms are able to do’ (2006b:168). She claims that the native
speaker variety is given priority in exams, where candidates are penalized if the forms are not
up to native speaker standard, even though they ‘promote mutual intelligibility’ (Jenkins
2006a:47). When referring to or expanding on lexis and/or grammatical structures from other
varieties, I am often compelled to tell my students that even though we have been working
with various expressions and structures, to use the BrE forms in exams, because that is what is
expected by the examiners. It may involve very simple things like the ones mentioned by Ur,

5. including the difference between fall / autumn, the pronunciation of schedule (/sk/, /ʃ/), the
spelling of program / programme, the use of mad / angry, or do you have / have you got
(2008: no pagination) or even the pronunciation of ‘th’ which many learners, especially at
lower levels, find difficult to pronounce. Cook (1989:41) argues that ‘[t]here are times, when
making language function effectively is more important than producing perfectly pronounced,
grammatically correct sentences'. Perhaps it would be wise for testers to take variability into
account and not penalize candidates for 'employing it with communicative success' (Jenkins
2006a:45).
Taylor assures us, however, that things have begun to change at least as far as Cambridge
ESOL exams are concerned. Even though form still remains a key factor in
'comprehensibility', the 'heavy emphasis on 'correctness of form' is slowly shifting more
'towards communicative competence, where besides spelling and punctuation, features such
as 'content, organization and cohesion, range of structures and vocabulary, register and
format' and effect on the target reader' are all equally important in assessing writing tests
(Taylor 2006:52-53). Under the interactive communication criterion of the Cambridge ESOL
exams (see Appendix 1), the appropriate use of idiomatic lexis or syntax, 'the ability to
paraphrase and explain an unfamiliar word […] to ask a partner for clarification of an
unknown word or to repeat what they've just said will be regarded positively' (ibid:55).
Evaluating students' spoken English can be very demanding as some examiners tend to
evaluate native-speaker approximation and accent instead of listening for and concentrating
on intelligibility. Gray et al (2008:169) point to 'the highly subjective nature of marking
compositions and oral tests', of the need for examiners to make use of agreed criteria', and
more importantly, of the need for them to be trained to use the criteria correctly. Further
changes in test tasks are the ones mentioned by Leung and Lewkowicz (2006:215-216) in the
Communicative Use of English as a Foreign Language (CUEFL) (see Appendix 2) exam,
which include more authentic and performance-type tasks thus bringing teaching and testing
practices closer together at least as far as 'conceptualizing language ability and language use
in context' are concerned.
The extent to which a test producer incorporates English varieties into tests if at all, as
explained by Taylor (2006:56), has a lot to do with the test's usefulness, and 'if it is capable of
fulfilling its intended purpose'. 'Reliability, construct, validity, authenticity, interactiveness,

6. impact and practicality' are all equally important qualities which test developers need to
consider when designing a test (Leung and Lewkowicz 2006:214), and because 'each test is
developed within and for a specific context', they must be appropriately balanced to
'maximize overal test usefulness' (Taylor 2006:56). If stakeholders consider regional varieties
useful with relevance to the needs of the 'end-users', it is likely that these varieties will be
included in the assessment procedures (ibid:58). What this means on an international scale is
that the extent to which other varieties of English can be used in an English language
proficiency test depends on 'the purpose for which it was originally designed' (ibid:56). A
good example of this is the IELTS exam, whose precursor ELTS (the English Language
Testing Service) contained material primarily designed for students planning to study or train
only in the UK (ibid). Today, however, it is also designed for those students wishing to persue
further education in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA, and its reading and
listening material has been appropriated to correspond to the English in those regions (ibid).
Leung and Lewkowicz (2006:229), however, believe that because of the 'accelerating
movements of peoples from diverse ethnolinguistic backgrounds', it will be necessary to 'take
a fuller account of local varieties, ELF, or both' in testing. Canagarajah (2005 in ibid),
highlights this fact in his 'hypothetical case of a Sri Lankan student moving to New York to
do graduate studies'. Because of the different varieties of English that he is bound to
encounter there as a result of the global intermixing of cultures, Canagarajah argues that a
'context-sensitive approach to language testing and assessement will have to take into account
proficiency in Black or Caribbean varieties for neighbourhood interaction', or 'Indian or
Chinese varieties to understand some of the professors' (ibid). This goes to show just how
important English as an international language (EIL) really is, as is the desire to understand
and be understood, and not only to sound native-like. Gray et al (2008:189) summarize the
point nicely in saying that:
testing needs to adjust to the reality of English being used effectively for
communication by increasingly large numbers of speakers who use it in ways which
may be innovative but which do not require grammaticality judgements from ‘native
speakers’ or testers who defer to them.
The way forward
Nothing can be done to stop the spread of ELF and sooner or later examination boards will
have to 'act on developments in World Englishes' (Jenkins 2006a:48). Jenkins admits that one
of the main reasons why it is too early for them to establish EIL criteria is the '[l]ack of

7. descriptions of EIL varieties' (ibid) which are needed if they are to serve 'as useful teaching
models and testing standards' (Taylor 2006:58). Since 'description of EIL is still in its early
stages' (ibid), Seidlhofer (2005:340) suggests the need 'for the systematic study of the nature
of ELF – what it looks and sounds like and how people actually use it and make it work', and
claims that ELF corpora, such as 'the English as a lingua franca in Academic settings (ELFA)
corpus (Mauranen 2003) and the general Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English
(VOICE) (Seidlhofer 2004)' are now being compiled and analysed. Jenkins (2006a:48)
suggests that education boards could base their testing criteria on these and similar corpus-
based descriptions of EIL interactions. Although it should be noted that 'linguistic
descriptions alone cannot […] determine what needs to be taught and learnt for particular
purposes and in particular settings' (Widdowson 2003 in Seidlhofer 2005:340). They can,
however, 'lead to a better understanding of the nature of ELF', which, according to McKay
(2002 in ibid), 'is a prerequisite for taking informed decisions, especially in language policy
and language teaching'. The issue, which still remains unresolved, however, is the powerful
influence that tests have on teaching. Practitioners are reluctant to accept any major
curriculum change if it 'is not reflected in the targets set by the examination boards' (Jenkins
2006a:42).
Conclusion
We must not forget that there will always be those students, who ‘despite EIL developments’,
will prefer ‘a near-native variety of English’ (Jenkins 2006a:48) in which case proficiency
tests based on the metropolitan native speaker varieties will continue to serve them well.
However, the wide use of ELF in the world today and the undisputable descriptions of ELF
features at the phonological, lexicogrammatical and pragmatic levels that have been produced,
will undoubtedly lead to new discussions regarding the nature of language proficiency testing
(Leung and Lewkowicz 2006:229). Perhaps an open and democractic dialogue between
practitioners, test producers as well as test takers will help find common ground regarding the
role of ELF in testing.

8. APPENDIX:
1
The 'interactive communication' criterion in the context of the Cambridge ESOL exams for
speaking tests is as follows:
The candidate's ability to use language to achieve meaningful communication. This
includes initiating and responding without undue hesitation, the ability to use
interactive strategies to maintain or repair communication, and sensitivity to the
norms of turn-taking (Taylor 2006:55).
2
'This Hargreaves (1987) reports, was the first large-scale examination that focused on
language use rather than language usage. It was the precursor to the University of Cambridge
Local Examinations Syndicate's (UCLES) Certificates in Communicative Skills in English.'
(Leung and Lewkowicz 2006:215)

9. BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Brindley, G. (1998). 'Outcomes-based assessment and reporting in second language
Programmes: A review of the issues'. Language Testing, 15/1:45-85.
Brindley, G. (2001). ''Assessment'' in Carter R and D Nunan (eds) (2001) The Cambridge
Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge: CUP.
British Council - Slovenia. Available at: http://www.britishcouncil.org/slovenia-exams.htm
[Accessed on: 30th December, 2008]
Canagarajah, A. S. (2005). Changing communicative priorities, shifting pedagogical
priorities, revised assessment objectives. Symposium paper presented at the 14th World
Congress of Applied Linguistics, Madison, WI.
Cook, G. (1989). Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crystal, D. (2003). Englsih as a Global Language. (2nd ed.). Cambridge: CUP.
Graddol, D. (1997). The Future of English?. London: The British Council.
Gray, J., A. Pulverness, P. Andrews. (2008). ELT and its Contents. London: University of
East London.
Holliday, A. (2005). The Struggle to Teach English as an International Language. Oxford:
OUP.
Jenkins, J. (2006a). The spread of EIL: a testing time for testers. ELT Journal, 60/1: 42-50.
Jenkins, J. (2006b). Current perspectives on teaching world Englishes and English as a
lingua franca. Tesol Quarterly, 40/1: 157-181.
Leung, C. and J. Lewkowicz. (2006). Expanding Horizons and Unresolved Conundrums:
Language Testing and Assessment. Tesol Quarterly, 40/1: 211- 234.
McKay, S. (2002). Teaching English as an International Language. Oxford: OUP.
Modiano, M. (2001). Ideology and the ELT practitioner. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 11/2: 159-172.
Morrow, K. (1979). Communicative language testing: Revolution or evolution? In
C. J. Brumfit & K. Johnson (Eds.). The communicative approach to language teaching:
(pp. 143–157). Oxford: OUP.
Pennycook, A. (1994). The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language.
London: Longman.
Platt, J., H. Weber, M. L. Ho. (1984). The New Englishes. London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul.

10. Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research perspective on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 24: 209-239.
Seidlhofer, B. (2005). English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal, 59/4: 339-341.
Taylor, L. (2006). The changing landscape of English: implications for language assessment.
ELT Journal, 60/1: 51-60.
Ur, P. (2008). ENGLISH AS A LINGUA FRANCA AND SOME IMPLICATIONS FOR
ENGLISH TEACHERS.
Available at: http://www.etni.org.il/etai/handouts/etailectP_Ur08.ppt
[Accessed on 2nd January, 2009].
Widdowson, H. G. (2003). Defining Issues in English Language Teaching. Oxford: OUP.
About the author:
Magdalena Bobek was raised in Canada and now lives and works in Slovenia. She is a language
teacher by profession and teaches English and French at the lower secondary school level. She also
enjoys tutoring and translating in her free time. She has a Master of Arts Degree in English Language
Teaching from the University of East London and a Bachelor of Arts Degree in French and German.
Her main interest lies in international project collaboration as motivation in language learning. She
has been involved in international educational projects since 1999 as advisor and project coordinator.
In 2012 she was awarded The special achievements award by the Republic of Slovenia for her work in
international education.