In the ELI, tests are often the main concern of students; however, they should not be blamed for not succeeding in their exams, nor should they be withdrawn from further education solely based on weak test performance as this, of course, has a huge impact on their future as previously mentioned in chapter 2. Therefore, the test constitutes a powerful tool in this educational environment at my university. In
a wider sense, tests are also considered one of the main factors affecting and manipulating language behaviours in the Saudi Arabian society. This is supported by Shohamy (2001) and Broadfoot (1996) who believe that tests can be regarded as social and political instruments that have a strong impact on students, teachers, parents and society as a whole.
Critical language testing (CLT) is part of the developing area of Critical Applied Linguistics and mainly aims to tame this powerful beast –i.e. tests– by monitoring this power, examining the strategies used to develop these test, the consequences they may have as well as their negative impact. Another important aim is giving some of this power to the test takers themselves (Shohamy, 2001). Pennycook (1994) and Kramsch (1993) established the following principles by highlighting that CLT claims that the act of language testing is, in fact, a product of cultural, social, political, educational and ideological agendas that shaped the lives of individual participants, teachers and learners thereby arguing that language testing is not neutral. It also aims to enable test takers to develop a critical review of the test in addition to acting upon it by questioning and critiquing a value, which is inherited in the tests. CLT also considers test takers as political individuals in a political context while tests are considered as tools that are related to success in a culture where educational and political issues are in a struggle with each other. It questions the agendas behind tests and investigates whose agendas they are and at the same time encourages people administering the test to question the vision of society these tests are creating. In addition to that, CLT encourages questioning the objectives and actual uses of tests; it also questions whether tests assess and measure knowledge or are misused to define and dictate knowledge. CLT also aims to consider all stakeholders in the test and examines if all test development and production is solely in the hands of the testers; alternatively, it is a production of collaboration between all the stakeholders, which include teachers, parents, test writers, and policymakers. CLT argues that testers do not have complete
knowledge of testing; they need to get support in order to increase their accuracy and validate their understanding of knowledge. CLT regards interpretive traditions as a more reliable source than psychometric traditions in testing meaning that test scores can be interpreted in different ways and multiple correct answers can exist.
Another strong point of CLT is that it investigates the meaning of test scores and argues that they are not absolute and can be questioned and discussed. At the same time challenging tests as the only instrument for assessing knowledge. It advocates for multiple assessment procedures working together in order to get a better understanding of each individual's knowledge of language (McNamara, 2001).
All of the above issues broadly challenge common beliefs about testing and assessment in the field of English language teaching as a great number of
widespread beliefs about tests and assessment are unfounded and unsupported. The view that tests assess learners’ objectivity and fairness has been questioned by critical perspectives on English language testing. Most common beliefs are being challenged by a growing body of research within the domain of CLT (see for example, Messick 1996; Davies 1997; Lynch 2001; Shohamy 2001, 2006; and McNamara & Roever, 2006).
These studies have examined the political and social implications of tests, arguing that tests are being used for hidden agendas and corporate purposes and not for the purpose of measuring knowledge. They argue that tests are a political tool to affect educational systems while sometimes acting as gatekeepers to exclude a specific group of unwanted people. Moreover, tests sometimes have detrimental effects on learning by limiting the learning experience to specific curriculum issues that are more likely to be handled in the tests. Shohamy (2006) clarifies that “in recent years, tests have been viewed not only as pedagogical tools, but especially as social and political instruments that have a strong impact on education and can determine social order” (p. 93). Thus, when tests are used, two stories can be told: the official and the real story. Usually, the official story tells that tests are used for measuring knowledge or for educational purposes while the real story tells that tests are sometimes conducted to achieve other objectives such as teachers sometimes using them as disciplinary tools (Shohamy, 2001). She also argues that certain questions need to be asked when any test is introduced:
1. Why is the test being given in the first place?
3. What are the politics of the test?
4. Who is going to gain or who is going to lose? 5. What is the political motive behind the test?
6. What are the relationships among the different bodies that administered the test?
7. How will the results be used?
8. How would the test affect teaching?
9. What does the test mean for the test takers, parents and schools?
10. What are the long and short-range consequences of the test for the lives of the individuals?
11. What does the test do to the knowledge being assessed?
12. Critical testing within the field of critical pedagogy aims at empowering the test takers.
It could be argued that if English language teachers and other assessment
stakeholders keep the above questions in mind, this would definitely help in raising their awareness of the assessment process. This, in turn, will encourage teachers to question and critique assessment practices in which professionals are engaged. Although tests are powerful tools embedded in social contexts with various
agendas, critical language testing allows us to think of alternative interpretations and values placed the field of testing.
In relevance to the key subject of this study, assessment, critical language testing advocates the involvement and active participation of all of the stakeholders involved in the assessment process. In the context of this study stakeholders are ELI, students, teachers and STEM departments in the University. CLT advocates that all Stakeholders should all have an active role in the design and development of assessment practices in English language teaching institutes (Lynch, 2001). In addition, assessment practices should not belong to a specific stakeholder and it is very important that the rights of test takers are addressed and protected
(Shohamy, 2001). Therefore, in this study my understanding of the teachers’; role in assessment is partly informed by the principles of CLT. I argue for the
empowerment of teachers through better assessment literacy and involvement of teachers in the assessment decisions in the ELI.