A suggestion on designing a final achievement test for general English 2 to non-English majors at Hanoi University of Industry

1

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

LÊ THỊ HƯƠNG THẢO

A SUGGESTION ON
DESIGNING A FINAL ACHIEVEMENT TEST
FOR GENERAL ENGLISH 2 TO NON-ENGLISH MAJORS
AT HANOI UNIVERSITY OF INDUSTRY
(MỘT ĐỀ XUẤT THIẾT KẾ ĐỀ THI HẾT HỌC PHẦN
TIẾNG ANH CẤP ĐỘ 2 CHO SINH VIÊN HỆ KHÔNG CHUYÊN
TẠI TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC CÔNG NGHIỆP HÀ NỘI)

M.A THESIS

Training course: MA. in TEFL No 1
Code: 60. 14.10

HA NOI, 2010


5

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATIONS ………………………………………………..……………….

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ……………………………………..………………

ii

ABSTRACT ……………………………………………………….……………….

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ……………...………………………..………………

vi

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES .………………………………………….. vii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..………………………………………...………. viii
PART A: INTRODUCTION ……………………………………...…………..

1

1. RATIONALES ………………………………………………..……………..

1

2. AIMS OF THE STUDY ………………………………………………………

3

3. SCOPE OF THE STUDY …………………………………..……………….

4

4. METHODOLOGY ………………………………………….………………

4

5. THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS …………………………………………….

5

6. DESIGN OF THE STUDY …………………………………………………...

5

PART B: DEVELOPMENT …………………………………………...

6

CHAPTER I: LITERATURE REVIEW ………………………………………

6

I.1. BASIC CONCEPTS OF TEST AND TESTING ……………………

6

I.2. TYPES OF TEST AND TESTING …………………………………..

7

I.2.1. Diagnostic tests ………………………………………………

7

I.2.2. Placement tests ………………………………………………

7

I.2.3. Achievement tests …………………………………………...

8

I.2.4. Proficiency tests ……………………………………………..

9

I.2.5. Direct versus Indirect testing ………………………………

9

I.2.6. Discrete point versus Integrative testing …………….…….

9

I.2.7. Norm-referenced versus criterion referenced testing …….

9

I.2.8. Objectives testing versus Subjective testing ……………….

10

6

I.2.9. Communicative Language Testing ………………………...

10

I.3. CHARACTERISTICS OF A USEFUL TEST ………………………

11

I.3.1 Reliability …………………………………………………….

11

I.3.2. Construct validity …………………………………………...

12

I.3.3. Authenticity ………………………………………………….

12

I.3.4. Interactiveness ………………………………………………

13

I.3.5. Impact ………………………………………………………..

13

I.3.6. Practicality ……………………………..……………………..

14

I.4. TEST ITEMS ………………………………………………………….

14

I.4.1. Receptive test items …………………………..………………

15

I.4.2. Productive test items …….………………….………………..

15

I.5. SUMMARY ………………………..…………………………………..

16

CHAPTER II: METHODOLOGY …………………………………………………

17

II.1. RESEARCH QUESTIONS ………………..………………………...

17

II.2. DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS …………………..………

17

II.2.1. Documents analysis ………………………………………...

17

II.2.2. Questionnaires …………….………………………………..

17

II.3. SUBJECTS OF THE STUDY ……………………………….………

18

II.3.1. General view of the population ………………………...……

18

II.3.2. The representative of the population involve in the study …..

20

II.4. DATA COLLECTION PROCUDURES …………………………..

21

II.5. SUMMARY ………………………………………………...………...

21

CHAPTER III: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ………………………...
III.1. DATA ANALYSIS ………………………………….………………

22
22

III.1.1. Current final achievement test for GE2…………..……...

22

III.1.2. Proposed final achievement test for GE2 ………………..

27

III.2. MAJOR FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION …………………………

30


7

III.2.1. Findings ……………………………………………………

31

III.2.2. Discussion ………………………………………………….

32

III.3. SUMMARY ………………………………………………………….

33

CHAPTER IV: THE PROPOSED FINAL ACHIEVEMENT TEST FOR GE 2 TO
NON-ENGLISH MAJORS AT HAUI

34

IV.1. OBJECTIVES OF THE TEST ……………………………………..

34

IV.2. THE DETAILED CONSTRUCTION OF THE TEST …………...

34

IV.3. THE SAMPLE TEST FOR GE2 …………………………………...

35

IV.3.1. Administration of the sample test …………………………..

35

IV.3.2. Marking and Test Result analysis …………………………..

36

PART C: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS …………………

37

1. CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………….

37

2. RECOMMENDATIONS …………………………………………….

38

REFERENCE ………………………………………………………………………..
APPENDICES

39


8

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
FIGURES
Figure 1: Usefulness ………………………………………………………………….

11

Figure 2: Role of English result to students‟ learning ………………………………..

24

Figure 3: Students‟ attitude towards the existing final achievement test for GE2 …...

25

Figure 4: Students‟ complete percentage of the existing test ………………………..

25

Figure 5: Students‟ attitude towards time allowance ………………………………...

26

Figure 6: Teachers‟ opinion about time allowance …………………………………..

29

TABLES
Table 1: Teachers‟ attitude towards the Current final achievement test for GE2 …....

23

Table 2: Students‟ difficulties in doing the test ………………………………………

26

Table 3: Teachers‟ favorite types of test items ………………………………………

28

Table 4: Teachers‟ opinion about the test maker …………………………………….

28

Table 5: Students‟ favorite language skills …………………………………………..

29

Table 6: Students‟ favorite types of test items …………………………………..…...

30


9

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

GE : General English
ESP: English for Specific Purposes
MA: Master of Art
TLU: Target Language Use
HaUI : Hanoi University of Industry
ULIS: University of Languages and International Studies


10

PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. RATIONALES
English is the language of international communication; it is spoken in many parts of the
world. In Vietnam, especially since the time of the application of the open-door policy,

English has been widely used in many fields and it has become a compulsory subject at many
schools and universities.
Hanoi University of Industry (HaUI) was officially established in December 2005 on the
basis of Hanoi Industrial College, one of the leading vocational colleges in Vietnam where
thousands of skilled workers and engineers are trained every year. HaUI is a big university
which is in the process of developing to reach the aim of being one of the great universities of
Southeast Asia. In Vietnam, English is considered an international language. It is a
compulsory subject in schools of all levels as well as universities and colleges. Have
awareness of the importance of English, the university authorities have paid due attention to
the matter of improving the quality of teaching and learning English. The ultimate aims are to
enhance the training quality and increase the standard of graduate students with good job
opportunities.
Once program objectives have been establishes, testing is, or should be a natural next step
in the process of curriculum design and assert it important role in language teaching. As Nga
(1997) indicates that “tests are assumed to be powerful determiners of what happens in
classrooms and it is commonly claimed that they affect teaching and learning activities both
directly and indirectly". Over the years, four different categories of tests have traditionally
been discussed in language testing books (for instance, Alderson, Krahnke, & Stansfield
1987): proficiency, placement, diagnosis, and achievement. These four categories are probably
emphasized because they fit neatly with four of the fundamental types of decisions that must
be made in language programs. In this study, the author focuses on the achievement category
for the following reasons:


11



The achievement test helps teachers to have some idea of the amount of language that
each students attain in a given period of time with very specific reference to a

particular program.



The result of the final achievement test has decisive role in the result of the subject in
each semester; therefore, it must be designed directly linked to the program and
objectives.



The information gained in an achievement test can also be put to good use in
reexamining the need analysis, in selecting or creating materials and teaching
strategies, and in evaluating program effectiveness.



The development of systematic achievement tests is crucial to the evolution of a
systematic curriculum

From the reasons above, an achievement test assures its important role in evaluation of an
English course. However, the English testing for General English 2 to non-English major at
Hanoi University of Industry (HaUI) has the following characteristics:


It has not been given adequate attention to and carefully studied.



Test content is sometimes found to be unrelated to the objectives of the course and
very often many test items included in some tests have not been covered in class.



It has been complained that there is still a gap between what is taught and what is
tested. An instant for this would be the case when tests designed for pre-intermediate
level are given to students of elementary. In fact, such tests are not valid and reliable.
They are so difficult that only few students can accomplish.



Using tests exclusively for grading, there is no feedback about the tests



Next, it is the problem of reusing again and again tests from years to years, from class
to class, hence these tests may lack validity and reliability. Students may know the
right answers from those who have taken the same test before.



Finally, the last testing problem at HaUI is that some of the tests may lack reliability
because they are not pre-tested anywhere else for the sack of confidentiality. Ironically,
for the sack of “confidentiality” test designers are often informed to write test at short


12

notice, just some time before it is administered. In such circumstances who can say for
sure that the required standards, criteria will be met by the test writers.
On the ground of the problems already mentioned, it is thought that another achievement

test for the GE2 at HaUI should be designed to assure the accuracy and justice for all students
so that they can produce good backwash in the teachers‟ teaching and give students
satisfaction and encouragement in study. Therefore, the author choose the thesis “A
suggestion on designing a final achievement test for General English 2 to non-English
majors at Hanoi University of Industry” with a hope to contribute a small part in improving
the quality of testing and assessment of General English 2 at Hanoi University of Industry.
2. AIMS OF THE STUDY
The study aims to report a research, which examines the current testing situations and
language tests at HaUI. It puts high emphasis on analyzing the HaUI teachers‟ comments and
perceptions of the present English test for pre-intermediate students and their suggestion
towards its improving. The study also focuses on proposing an Achievement English Test
Construction for the pre-intermediate level at HaUI and a Sample Test, as an illustration, will
be designed basing on the proposed construction. In addition, some practical suggestions for
the improvement of testing situations at HaUI will be recommended. The specific aims of this
study are:


To investigate the HaUI teachers‟ assessment of the main shortcoming of the existing
achievement tests for pre-intermediate students, concerning its contents, time
allowance and its format.



To investigate the HaUI teachers‟ suggestions towards improving testing situations and
language tests at HaUI



To propose an Achievement English Test construction for pre-intermediate students at
HaUI and a sample test as an example will be designed, basing on the proposed test

construction.



To offer some practical suggestions for the improvement of testing at HaUI.

3. SCOPE OF THE STUDY


13

The study focuses on analyzing the existing testing situations at Hanoi University of
Industry, especially the present achievement tests for the first semester students. The design of
the Final Achievement Test for pre-intermediate students at HaUI is another great emphasis
of the study.
4. METHODOLOGY
To achieve the above aims, a study has been carried out with data collected from different
sources:
-

A survey questionnaire carried out on 25 teachers of the English Department, HaUI to
investigate their comments of the existing achievement tests for the pre-intermediate
students and their opinions about the designing of a Sample Test.

-

A survey questionnaire carried out on 125 students in eight different departments at
HaUI to investigate their viewpoints on the existing achievement tests for the preintermediate students and their opinions about the designing of a Sample Test

-

The Sample Test will be administered in eight different classes in eight different
departments with 70 pre-intermediate students of HaUI. The results of the Sample Test
will be analyzed statistically in details.

Besides, the survey and the sample test, more information or data needed for the study has
been gathered by other methods such as formal and informal discussions with students and
teachers as well as classroom test observation and critical reading. Moreover, the study
employs a combination of qualitative and quantitative methodology that includes crosstabulation data and statistical analysis of the survey questionnaire‟s results.
5. THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS
In order to achieve the above aims of the study, the following questions will be addressed:
1) What are the attitudes of teachers and students towards the current final
achievement test to GE2 at HaUI?
2) Is there a significant difference between the results of the current final
achievement test and that of the proposed final achievement tests?


14

6. DESIGN OF THE STUDY
This part has introduced rationales, aims, scope, methodologies and research questions
Chapter one deals with theoretical back ground concerning the features of testing in
general, types of tests and testing and characteristic of a useful test.
Chapter two tells about the plan and describes the activities necessary for the
completion of the study.
Chapter three indicates the analysis of the data, major findings and discussion.
Chapter four proposed a sample test and analysis of the result of the sample test.
The conclusion presents the review of the study, recommendations for further study

15

PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER I: LITERATURE REVIEW

I.1. BASIC CONCEPTS OF TEST AND TESTING
Testing is a universal feature of social life. Throughout history people have been put to
the test to prove their capabilities or to establish their credentials. Tests are defined differently
depending on researchers‟ point of view
Peny Ur (1996:33) provides the following definition of a test:
Test is an activity whose main purpose is to convey (usually to the tester) how well the testees
know or can do something

Caroll (1968:40) defines a test as follows:
A psychological or educational test is a procedure designed to elicit certain behavior from
which one can make differences about certain characteristics of an individual.

From the definitions of the expertise on testing, a test is a measurement instrument designed to
elicit a specific sample of an individual‟s behavior. Brown, F.G. (1971:8) shares the same
point of view to define a test as “a systemic procedure for measuring an individual‟s
behavior.” They all imply that a test must be developed systematically, using specific
guidelines and must provide a procedure for responding criteria for scoring and a description
of student performance level. McNamara (2000) indicates that “the expertise of those involved
in testing is seen as remote and obscure, and the tests they produce are typically associated in
us with feelings of anxiety and powerlessness.” Interestingly, he also adds that “for many,
language tests may conjure up an image of an examination room, a test paper with questions,
desperate scribbling against the clock” or “a chair outside the interview room and a nervous
victim waiting with rehearsed phrases to be called into an inquisitional conversation with the
examiners”. In his viewpoint, “there is more to language testing than this”

16

To sum up, the meaning given to the term “testing” is defined differently by several
test researchers. According to them, testing could be understood as the use of means requiring
students to respond to questions or tests that are designed to focus on a particular area of
learning. Also the term “testing” could be perceived rather broadly as a process of assessment,
consisting of different stages such as preparation, data collection and evaluation.
I.2. TYPES OF TEST AND TESTING
Language tests have different purposes and the information obtained from tests is used
for different types of decisions. Hughes (1989) offers nine types: proficiency, achievement,
diagnostic, placement, direct versus indirect testing, discrete point versus integrative testing,
norm-referenced versus criterion-referenced testing, objective testing versus subjective testing,
communicative language testing. Each type of tests has its own characteristics. Let us now
consider a brief description of each type.
I.2.1. Diagnostic tests
According to Brown, J.D (1995b:112) diagnostic tests “are focused on the strengths
and weaknesses of each individual, the instructional objectives for purposes of correcting
deficiencies “before it is too late”. Hughes (1989:13) also shares this point of view with
Brown by noting that “diagnostic tests are used to identify students‟ strengths and weaknesses.
They are intended primarily to ascertain what further teaching is necessary.” From these
definitions, it is clear that diagnostic test aims at identify the test-taker‟s strong and weak
points in the language, as well as to attempt to explain why certain problems occur, and what
treatment can be assigned to foster achievement by promoting strengths and eliminating
weaknesses.
I.2.2. Placement tests
Brown, J.D (1995:110) indicates that “placement tests are designed to facilitate the
grouping of students according to their general level of ability.” He proposes that “the purpose
of a placement test is to show which students in a program have more of, or less of, a

17

particular ability, knowledge, or skill.” Khoa (1999:13) shares with the concept that placement
test is a test, which is designed to place students at an appropriate level in a programme or
course. So as a rule, the results of placement tests are needed quickly so that teaching may
begin (Harrison, 1983:4)
I.2.3. Achievement tests
According to McNamara (2000:6), “achievement tests are associated with the process
of instruction … Achievement tests accumulate evidence during, or at the end of, a course of
study in order to see whether and where progress has been made in terms of the goals of
learning. Achievement tests should support the teaching to which they relate... An
achievement test may be self-enclosed in the sense that it may not bear any direct relationship
to language use in the world outside the classroom (it may focus on knowledge of particular
points of grammar or vocabulary, for example).” McNamara‟s viewpoint is shared by Brown
(1994b:259) who proposes that “…an achievement test is related directly to classroom lessons,
units or even a total curriculum”. Hughes (1989:10), also feels that achievement tests are
directly related to language courses, their purpose being established how successful individual
students, groups of students, or the courses themselves have been in achieving adjectives.
To sum up, achievement tests are central to any language curriculum. We are in the
business of fostering achievement in the form of language learning. In fact, this study
promotes the idea that the purpose of curriculum is to maximize the possibilities for students
to achieve a high degree of language learning. The tests used to monitor such achievement
must be very specific to the goals and objectives of a given program and must be flexible in
the sense that they can readily be made to change the response to what is learned from them
about the other elements of the curriculum. In other words, well-considered achievement
decisions are based on tests from which a great deal can be learned about the program. These
tests should, in turn, be flexible and responsive in the sense that their results can be used to
affect changes and to continually assess those changes against the program realities.

18

I.2.4. Proficiency tests
According to Brown (1995), proficiency tests are originated from the hope to
determine how much of a given language their students have learned and retained, which
focus on overall language ability without reference to any particular program (and its
objectives, teaching, and materials). Likewise, a proficiency test looks to the future situation
of language use without necessarily any reference to the previous process of teaching
(McManama 2000:7).
In short, proficiency tests may be necessary in determining exit and entrance standards
for a curriculum, in adjusting the level of goals and objectives to the true abilities of the
students, or in making comparisons across program. Despite the fact that proficiency tests are
general in nature, they are nevertheless very important in most language program.
I.2.5. Direct versus Indirect testing
Hughes,A (2003:17) claimed that direct testing requires the learners to perform
precisely the skill which the testers wish to measure. Take an example, the teachers want to
test the students‟ writing skill, get them to write.
On the contrary, the purpose of indirect testing is to measure the abilities which
“underline” the skills in which the testers are interested (Hughes, 1991:15).
I.2.6. Discrete point versus Integrative testing
Related to the testing of one element at a time, item by item, discrete point testing is
another kind of tests. The concept of discrete point testing might involve testing different
aspects of knowledge in isolation; for example, a series of items each testing particular
grammatical structure. By contrast, integrative testing, as its name suggests, requires the
students to combine many language elements in the completion of a task. It might be writing a
composition, taking a dictation or completing a cloze test.
I.2.7. Norm-referenced versus criterion referenced testing
Richards, Platt & Weber (1985:68) define that a criterion referenced test (CRT) is:

19

A test measures a student‟s performance according to a particular standard or criterion which
has been agreed upon. The students must reach this level of performance to pass the test, and a
student‟s score is therefore interpreted with reference to the criterion score, rather than to the
scores of other students.

This is markedly different from the definition for a norm-referenced test (NRT) given in the
same source:
A test which is designed to measure the performance of a particular student or group of
students compares with the performance of another student or group of students whose scores
are given as the norm. A student‟s score is therefore interpreted with reference to the scores of
other students or groups of students, rather than to an agreed criterion score.

I.2.8. Objectives testing versus Subjective testing
The factor that make objective testing different from subjective testing is scoring
procedure. In an objective test, the test takers‟ response is evaluated entirely based on prepared
criteria so that there is no judgment on the part of scorers. A true-false test with the correct
responses identified is a suitable test for this kind. Versus, a subjective test is said to be
requiring scoring by judgments on the part of the scorer, for example, the scoring of free
written composition. Nowadays, many testers are seeking after objectivity in scoring not only
for the sake of objectivity itself, but also for the great reliability it brings.
I.2.9. Communicative Language Testing
In recent year, in parallel with the development of communicative language teaching
(CLT), communicative language testing has been the focus of great number of research on
language testing. Discussions have been centered on the desirability of measuring the ability to
take part in act of communication. Hymes saw that knowing a language was more than
knowing its rules of grammar. Although the relevance of Hymes‟s theory to language testing
was recognized more or less immediately on its appearance, it took a decade for its actual

impact on practice to be felt, in the development of communicative language tests.
Based upon the theory of language and language use, Brown (1995:16) proposes two
features of communicative language tests:


20

i.

They were performance tests, requiring assessment to be carried out when the learners
or candidate was engaged in an extended act of communication, either receptive or
productive, or both.

ii.

They paid attention to the social roles candidates were likely to assure in real world
settings, and offered a means of specifying the demands of such roles in detail

The second of these features distinguishes communicative language tests from the
integrative/pragmatic testing tradition.
I.3. CHARACTERISTICS OF A USEFUL TEST
There has been many arguments among qualities of a good test as there are more or
less independent characteristic and emphasize the need to maximize them all. Hughes (1989)
expressed that although there is a tension among the different test qualities, this need not lead
to the total abandoned of any. Bachman and Palmer (1996:18) have the same point of view
who share that “rather than emphasizing the tension among the different qualities, test
developers need to recognize their complementary”. They also add that “test developers need
to find an appropriate balance among these qualities, and that this will vary from one testing
situation to another”. Therefore, they come to the notion of a good test which must be useful
with qualities expressed in figure:

Usefulness = Reliability + Construct Validity + Authenticity +
Interactiveness + Impact + Practicality
Figure 1: Usefulness

All the qualities of a useful test are critically reviewed below.

I.3.1 Reliability
Reliability is one of the most essential characteristics of a good test. Bachman and
Palmer (1996:19) defines reliability as consistency of measurement which can be considered


21

“to be a function of the consistency of scores from one set of tests and test tasks to another”.
Moore (1992:110) has a similar point of view when giving the definition that “reliability refers
to the consistency with which a measurement device measures some target behavior or train.
To put it another way, it means the dependability or trustworthiness of the measurement
device.” For instance, a multiple-choice test would probably yield different scores from one
administration to another, and would thus be extremely unreliable.
In short, test researchers in general agree that reliability has to do with the consistency
of measures across different times, test forms, raters and other characteristics of the
measurement content.
Heaton (1988) and Henning (1987) have listed five factors which would affect test
reliability: The length, difficulty, discriminability, speededness and homogeneity; test
instruction; psychological, motivational and healthy fluctuations in the testees; fluctuation in
the test administration; fluctuation in the test scoring.
I.3.2. Construct validity
Hughes (1989:26) points out that a test is considered to have construct validity if it can
be demonstrated that it measures just the ability which it is supposed to measure. In

Bachman‟s and Palmer„s opinion “construct validity pertains to the meaningfulness and
appropriateness of the interpretations that we make on the basis of test scores” (1996).
Construct is defined as the specific definition of an ability that provides the basis for a given
test or test task and for interpreting scores derived from this task. From this point of view, we
can interpret a given test score as an indicator of the ability we want to measure thanks to the
construct validity of the test.
I.3.3. Authenticity
Authenticity is closely related to construct validity in developing a useful test.
McNamara (2000:9) defines authenticity as “the degree to which test materials and test
conditions succeed in replicating those in the target use situation”. Bachman and Palmer


22

(1996) argue that “authenticity as the degree of correspondence of the characteristics of a
given language test task to the feature of a target language use (TLU) task.” Authenticity
relates the test task to the domain of generalization to which we want our score interpretation
to generalize and it provides a means for investigating the extent to which score interpretations
generalize beyond performance on the test to language use in the TLU domain, or to other
similar non-test language use domains.
I.3.4. Interactiveness
Bachman and Palmer define interactiveness “as the extent and type of involvement of
the test takers‟ individual characteristic in accomplishing a test task”. Thus, the interactiveness
of a given language test task can be characterized in terms of the ways in which the test takers‟
areas of language knowledge, meta-cognitive strategies, topical knowledge and affective
schemata are engaged by the test task.
Unlike authenticity which pertains to the correspondence between test task and TLU
task, interactiveness resides the interaction between the individual (test taker or language user)
and the task (test or TLU).
I.3.5. Impact

Bachman (1990:79) points out that “test are not developed and used in a value – free
psychometric test – tube; they are virtually always intended to serve the needs of an
educational system or of society at large”. So whenever we use tests, we do so in the context
of specific values and goals, and our choice will have specific consequences for, or impact on,
both the individuals and the system involved. In this study, only the impact in individuals is
mentioned. There are two target groups which are affected directly by the testing procedure,
those are test takers (learners) and test users (teachers).
According to Bachman and Palmer (1996), test takers can be affected by three aspects
of the testing procedure: firstly is the experience of taking and, in some case, of preparing for


23

the test; secondly is the feedback they receive about their performance on the test; and finally
is the decisions that may be made about them on the basis of their test scores.
The second group of individuals who is directly affected by tests is test users, and in an
instructional program the test users that are most directly affected by test use are teachers.
Broughton (1978); Heaton (1980); Read (1983) have generally outlined some influence of
testing on teachers as testing:


Enable teachers to identify their students‟ difficulties and weaknesses



Enables teacher to find out solutions to increase teaching



Enables teachers to look again at the effectiveness of the syllabus



Provides teachers with the information on how effective his teaching has been.

I.3.6. Practicality
Practicality could be defined as “the relationship between the recourse that will be
required in the design, development, and use of the test and the resources that will be available
for these activities” (Bachman and Palmer, 1996:39). They link practicality to “the ways in
which the test will be implemented in a given situation or whether the test will be used at all”.
Harrison (1991:13) refers test practicality to financial limitations, time constrains, ease of
administration, scoring and interpretation. A test is impractical in case it is prohibitively
expensive and it takes much time to construct.
In short, a practical test should not be involved in much time and money for designing,
implementing and scoring.

I.4. TEST ITEMS
Test items classification varies slightly from test researchers. For example, Moore
(1988) indicates that there are basically two types of items used by teachers in the construction
of classroom tests: objective and subjective items. Brown (1995) also divides into two main
types of items which are receptive: true-false, multiple choice, matching and productive: fill-


24

in, short-response, essay, extended discourse task. Hereby, we will look into each type of test
items.
I.4.1. Receptive test items
I.4.1.1. Multiple choice
In a test that has items formatted as multiple choice questions, a candidate would be

given a number of set answers for each question, and the candidate must choose which answer
or group of answers is correct.
I.4.1.2. True-False Items
According to Wiersma and Jurs (1990), true-false items are essentially statements to
which the students respond either true or false (or yes or no, right or wrong). For responding to
the items, the students are usually requested to circle T or F.
I.4.1.3. Matching Items
The matching item, as its name implies, requires the student to use some association
criterion in order to match the words or phrased that represent ideas, concepts, principles, or
things.
I.4.2. Productive test items
I.4.2.1. Completion Items
Completion items require that students associate an incomplete statement with a word
or phrase recalled from memory. Heaton (1988) argue that completion items are divided into
two groups: type one consisting of blanks for completion in the items following the text, and
type two consisting of blanks in the text itself.
I.4.2.2. Short-Answer Items
According to Wiersma and Jurs (1990, p.66), short answer items generally take one of
three forms: question, association or completion.


25



Question form is exactly what the name implies - a question is posed in the item. This
is the most popular from of short-answer items.



Association form: in this form, the student is given a set of words or phrases and is
required to supply an association – a related idea or term – for each of the words or
phrases in the set.



Completion form: in this form, a statement with one or more missing words is
presented to the student, who then is to supply the missing words.

I.4.2.3. Essay Items
Moore (1992) states that essay items continue to be used extensively by teachers
because it takes less time to write essay items than objective items and it is suggested to
measure higher level of cognitive and the creativeness. Wiersma and Jurs (1990, p.70) share
this point of view to report that “essay items are more effective than objective items in
measuring certain educational outcomes. Essay items are considered to be the best approach to
measure writing performance.
I.5. SUMMARY
Chapter I has briefly discussed testing terminology in the literature and concerned with
the issues relating to different test types in the testing theoretical background. Nine categories
of test have been introduced, including of diagnostic; placement; achievement; proficiency;
direct versus indirect testing; discrete-point/integrative; norm-referenced versus criterionreferenced testing; objective-subjective testing; and communicative language testing. The
notions of characteristic of a useful test have been presented. Finally, the types of test items
have been introduced.


26

CHAPTER II: METHODOLOGY

This chapter focuses on the research methods with four sections. The first section

shows the two research questions, followed by the description of the subjects and data
collection instruments. The third section to come is the data collection procedures. And the
last section deals with the summary of the methodology applied in the study.
II.1. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. What are the attitudes of teachers and students towards the current final
achievement test to GE2 at HaUI?
2. Is there a significant difference between the result of the current final
achievement test and that of the proposed final achievement test?
II.2. DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS
II.2.1. Documents analysis
The two types of materials to be analyzed were the current final achievement test and
the proposed final achievement test for General English 2 to non-English majors at Hanoi
University of Industry.
The current final achievement test was analyzed for General English 2 to non-English
majors at Hanoi University of Industry to collect the opinions of teachers and students about
the test.
The analysis of the proposed test is carried out to determine the differences between
the current test and the proposed test in order to decide whether to design a new final
achievement test or not.
II.2.2. Questionnaires
In this study, to find out the answers to two research questions, two questionnaires are
used as documents that ask the students and the teachers who teach English at HaUI. In
helping students understand clearly the questions and give correct answers, the questionnaires
were translated into Vietnamese.


27

(i). Questionnaire I
The first questionnaire was designed for teachers chosen at the Department of Foreign

Language at HaUI. It consists of three parts (see Appendix 1) in order to find out the teachers‟
attitude and expectation towards the final achievement test for GE2. In part I, they fill in their
personal information. The second part includes seven questions to collect information
concerning their attitude towards the current final achievement test. The last part includes five
questions to collect information concerning their suggestions to design a new final
achievement test for GE2.
(ii). Questionnaire II
The second questionnaire including three parts (see Appendix 2) was designed for first
year second semester students at HaUI. The first part includes personal information. In part II,
there are five questions to collect information concerning their attitude towards the current
final achievement test. The third part includes three questions to collect information
concerning their expectations toward the new final achievement test for GE2.
II.3. SUBJECTS OF THE STUDY
II.3.1. General view of the population
(i). The learners – the test takers
In general, most of the first year students are at the age of 18 - 22. They are mostly
male students, coming from different provinces all over the country. The biggest problem is
that they did not pay attention to English at High school; they focused on learning
Mathematics, Physics and Chemists for the university entrance exam. Their knowledge of
English seems to be very poor; some of them (10%) even have never studied English. Instead
of learning English, they studied French, Russian or Chinese at secondary and high school.
Therefore, time goes by, they feel bored and tired as they cannot catch up with the others, who
have studied English at secondary and high schools. The other problem is that most of the
students do not consider English as their major, so they do not pay much attention to studying


28

English. This gives the teachers at the University a number of work to interest or even force
them to learn English.

Besides, English is not their favorite subjects. Most of students are not really interested
in learning English due to the fact that they find it difficult to learn and use English skills,
especially listening, speaking and writing. One of the reasons is that they are familiar with the
traditional teaching methods at secondary and high school with the focus on Grammar.
(ii). The teaching staff
For the great demand of learning English, the English teaching staff at HaUI consists
of 60 teachers. All of them are well-trained at Hanoi University or College of Foreign
Languages-Vietnam National University, Hanoi. However, half of them are young teachers
who have just graduated from the university with the lack of teaching experience. Luckily, a
third of the teaching staff are MA and the rest are learning at the post – graduate department at
Hanoi University or University of Language and International Studies (ULIS). Moreover, the
Foreign Language Department at HaUI organized two annual competitions where all teachers
can share experience and teaching skills with others. Last but not least, all of the teachers at
the Foreign Language Department at HaUI are very enthusiastic and eager to teach English.
(iii). The Syllabus:
At HaUI, English is taught as a compulsory subject and has been considered as a prerequisite for graduation because it is considered to be useful both for students‟ study at
university and for their future jobs. The English training program is divided into two courses:
General English (GE) and English for Specific Purposes (ESP). Of the total 6 semesters with
450 periods of formal class instruction, the first 5 terms are designed as a GE course to help
students master English at pre-intermediate level. The last semester is devoted to introducing
ESP contents with 60 periods of class instruction.
The aim of this GE course is that at the end of the course, students will be able to
acquire basic grammar and vocabulary items as well as the four language skills to be able to
communicate in English. To achieve the aim, the New Headway series (New Headway