Reflections of an EFL Instructor on Language Testing

Am I well-informed about language testing? Not as much as I wish. I have limited access to the leading ESL/EFL journals worldwide. Yet, with 66% of my life spent teaching (I am 50 now), I have learned a thing or two about language acquisition, instruction, and assessment. Over the years, I’ve become quite good at navigating classroom realities and making informed decisions based on my experience and available research.

Recently, I was assigned a Level A General English class for a 14-week term at a local college. I had to select the most appropriate content items for the syllabus from a large program pool. I chose those that are most frequently used in real communication. In my experience, turning content items into clear instructional goals allows me to control both how I teach and how I assess those goals during and at the end of the course. This practice aligns with the principles of outcome-based education, which advocates for setting clear, measurable objectives as a foundation for instructional planning (Richards, 2001, p.112).

I plan my courses in reverse. I first determine what goals I will assess in the final test and then align course objectives and learning experiences accordingly. For this class, I turned 25 content items into SMART performance goals—specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound objectives (Doran, 1981)—and included them in the syllabus (or Plan Didáctico in my workplace). Research has shown that SMART goals help instructors create clear performance targets and improve alignment between teaching, learning, and assessment.

From week one, students understood what they would be expected to demonstrate by the end. While holidays, extracurricular activities, and administrative interruptions occasionally disrupted our schedule, we managed to conscientiously work through 16 of the intended learning goals. This kind of mismatch between the planned curriculum and the achieved curriculum is well documented in language education (Tan-Sisman, Gulcin 2021). As Tan-Sisman notes, various contextual constraints often cause gaps between intended outcomes and what can realistically be taught and assessed within institutional timeframes.

By the end of the course, I assessed students on all four language skills. For the final speaking exam, students received a list of the performance goals in advance, since this was a communicative class where they needed to demonstrate spontaneous, natural language production. Communicative testing emphasizes real-world language use and requires students to produce meaningful spoken output rather than rehearsed or memorized structures (Brown & Abeywickrama, 2018).

Skills for Level 2

The assessment process was simple. I called students to my desk one by one, asked them to respond to up to three random goals, and prompted further when necessary. My focus was not solely on grammar and vocabulary, as is common in textbook-based tests, but also on literary elements, functional language, phonological awareness, and work-related genres. Assessing across these areas reflects a growing emphasis in EFL on integrating language nuances—the subtleties and deeper layers of meaning in authentic language use—into language instruction and assessment (Sulieman, 2021).

Among all sections, I was most satisfied with the assessment of literary elements. I strongly believe that EFL courses should expose learners to the language’s literary and cultural nuances. Most students could identify titles, authors, characters, settings, plots, points of view—and even the climax of a story. Research supports the view that incorporating literature enhances students’ interpretive skills, cultural awareness, and appreciation of linguistic subtleties. For me, this indicated that we successfully elevated their basic literacy to a higher, more meaningful level.

Conclusion

While I still consider myself a learner in the field of testing, this experience reaffirmed that well-planned, goal-oriented instruction leads to measurable, authentic student achievement. It also confirmed my belief in integrating literature into language learning, even at the most basic levels, to nurture learners’ capacity to navigate not just functional language, but also the subtle and rich dimensions of the target culture and discourse.

📚 References

Brown, H. D., & Abeywickrama, P. (2018). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices (3rd ed.). Pearson Education.

Doran, G. T. (1981). There's a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management's goals and objectives. Management Review, 70 (11), 35–36.

Richards, J. C. (2017). Curriculum development in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Sa’eed, S. S. S. (2021). Impact of Teaching English Literature on the Improvement of EFL Learner’s Performance in English Language. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 11, 647-654.

Tan-Sisman, Gulcin. (2021). Acquisition of the curriculum development knowledge in pre-service teacher education. Pegem Eğitim ve Öğretim Dergisi. 11. 355-400. 10.14527/pegegog.2021.010.
 

Wilbert's Reflection (Spanish Version)

Reflections of an EFL Instructor on Language Testing (Spanish) by Jonathan Acuña

Reflections of an EFL Instructor on Language Testing by Jonathan Acuña

Wednesday, June 25, 2025