midterm

Midterm

TESTING STATEMENT
 * **The purpose of the test** || The midterm will provide an opportunity for you to display what knowledge you have been able to acquire from the EFL413 course with respect to a) the purpose and nature of language assessment, b) the 'jargon' that defines the key concepts of testing, and c) critical evaluation of language testing and assessment practices.

In order to make the midterm a meaningful assessment of testing knowledge and practice, the tasks will include items that will require a range of thinking skills from basic recall and understanding to higher-level skill requiring evaluation, analysis and synthesis. To promote a more positive washback effect on the lectures and linking it to your practice teaching experience, the tasks will include opportunities for you to demonstrate that you have considered the application of the course content to your own teaching context. ||
 * **Domain** || As this is a content-based test, and the purpose is to display a knowledge and practice, the tasks will present various examples of testing situations and scenarios that require an open-ended, written response. ||
 * **The construct** || Based on the course content, the midterm will cover these learning objectives:
 * ability to describe the range of purposes and uses of language assessment including the key characteristics of language assessment that define their effectiveness, issues relating to formative and summative assessment and formal and informal settings.
 * demonstrate an understanding of the basic testing terminology by describing the strengths and weaknesses of language assessment and the role of language assessment in language learning and development.
 * demonstrate an understanding of the basic testing terminology by describing the advantages and disadvantages of a particular type of testing (e.g., multiple choice, cloze, matching, true/false, short answer, picture-cue questions, fill in the blank, note-taking, etc.).
 * apply the basic principles of language assessment in order to critically evaluate assessment practices in the receptive skills (i.e., listening and/or reading) ||
 * **Test takers** || Fourth year class at METU NCC ||
 * **Plan for evaluating usefulness** || The primary concern is for content and face validity, aiming to provide as authentic as possible examples and testing scenarios. As the tasks require open-ended responses, subjectivity will be a factor. I will use a rubric with defined categories and descriptors to provide an objective framework for evaluation, and publish this as part of the test. ||

TESTING BLUEPRINT

The second part will contain only one task requiring an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of one type of given testing item. The third part will have one task relating to the assessment of receptive skills (i.e., listening and/or reading) There will be a bonus question worth 5% on another topic we covered in the lectures. ||
 * **Aspect** || Details ||
 * **Parts** || Three parts with questions requiring open-ended responses. ||
 * **Relevance** || Each part will focus on a topic from the objectives identified in the testing statement above. ||
 * **Tasks** || There will be at two tasks in the first part about the purposes, uses and characteristics of language asseement
 * **Scoring** || Each response will be assessed using the following rubric. The final score will be out of 100, based on a weighting for the three parts: Part A (40%), PART B (30%) and Part C (30%). ||
 * **Timing** || 90 minutes ||

ASSESSMENT RUBRIC FOR TASKS

The assessment will be based on the following criteria for an academic response to the tasks, within the context of the topics of each of the parts of the test.

Evidence provided is specific, relevant, and accurate with precise and appropriate detail. || use of transitions. ||
 * Criteria || 1 || 2 || 3 || 4 || 5 ||
 * **Focus** || Wanders or is unclear. Position is not clear and mostly descriptive. Little recognition of the complexities of topic. || -- || Clear, although may be somewhat simplistic. Generally relevant to topic, but may be just stating facts and does not directly address the complexity of the issues || - || Strongly maintained purpose and logic. Clear, insightful, and well-argued position relevant to the topic, sufficiently limited in scope while covering the complexities of topic ||
 * **Development, Support, and Elaboration** || Major points developed, but vague generalizations that demonstrate no depth of understanding about the topic. General, unsupported thought or incomplete development of major points Trivial, irrelevant, or logically flawed evidence. || -- || Most major points developed with sufficient use of relevant concepts and terminology providing supporting evidence that shows some depth of understanding of the topic. Uses a mixture of general and specific details generally relevant, accurate, and appropriate. May contain minor errors in content, but not serious detraction to main development. || -- || Development of all major points with support and use of terminology and concepts which show in-depth understanding of the topic.
 * **Organization** || Ideas developed somewhat logically, but there are serious gaps (big jumps, missing links). Coherence and cohesion weak with simple or inappropriate transitions. || -- || Generally clear organization and structure. Ideas mostly presented logically, but there may be some gaps in logic. Adequate coherence and cohesion. Generally effective, if somewhat simplistic, transitions. || -- || Effective organization and structure. Ideas logically presented and interrelated. Strong coherence enhanced through sophistication and effective and varied
 * **Mechanics** || Frequent grammatical errors detract from the general focus and effectiveness of the response. Frequent spelling and punctuation errors detract from the flow and clarity. || -- || Some grammatical errors, but these do not seriously detract from general effectiveness of response. Some punctuation and spelling errors, but these do not seriously detract from general flow. || -- || No or few grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors. Any errors do not detract from the clarity or flow. ||
 * **Critical thinking** || Lacks evidence of higher-level thinking skills within the context of the task and to the field of language testing. Little independent thought, ideas presented linearly, summary or facts instead of analysis. || -- || Some evidence of higher-level thinking skills within the context of the task and to the field of language testing. Analysis demonstrates independent thought, but may be incomplete or imbalanced. Attempt to develop a connections between key issues. || -- || Higher-level thinking skills evident in consistent, insightful, and sophisticated ways within the context of the task and to the field of language testing. Logical analysis integrating independent thought and connections between larger issues. ||