Task-based Performance-referenced Tests

As target tasks get the focal attention in the TBLT programs so as to enable students to accomplish the target tasks they will undertake in the real life, so is the case with TBLA. In essence, the target tasks will be used as a part of achievement tests that serve to gauge students’ proficiency resulting from a TBLT program (Long, 2009). Achievement tests in TBLA programs assume that some forms such as task-based performance tests are criterion-referenced. Task-based performance tests in TBLA, rather than focusing on language as a goal and an accomplishment indicator, concentrate on the successful completion of the target tasks. In other words, the indicators of success or failure in these types of assessment is that the students exhibit the type of behavior necessitated by the needs analysis, which has been previously carried out in order to identify the target tasks and the resulting pedagogic tasks in TBLT. To illustrate, take the example of the target task of ordering pizza on the phone. As long as the students are intelligible enough

to order the pizza on the phone, the task is accomplished; therefore, having students to take a grammatical judgement test of some discrete sentences such as “I’d like to order a pepperoni” would not be regarded as task-based performance test. Robinson (1996) argues that task-based tests should follow performance-referenced assessment; that is, achievement should be measured based upon how the learners perform real-world tasks. In essence, the knowledge of language should be indicated through its use.

2.3.1. Assessment of Task-based Performance-referenced Tests

Now this question might arise: To what extent should we compromise between the task completion and language ability of the student? The answer depends on the purposes of the assessment and the ultimate uses that it would be put to. In this regard, there are different approaches specifying the procedures for the analysis and/or evaluation of task performance (Norris, et al., 1998). One approach championed by some scholars (e.g., Long, 2009; Long & Norris 2000; Mislevy, Steinberg & Almond, 2002; Robinson & Ross, 1996) holds that insofar as the students’ performance does not hinder the communication and the student is capable of accomplishing the task, the student would be able to pass the performance test. Here is an example: If the target task is to make a reservation at a restaurant, so long as the test takers are able to actually do the reservation and communicate their requirement to someone, they manage to accomplish the task regardless of the number of grammatical problems they might have. Hence, the successful accomplishment of the task can be assessed and evaluated by observing the outcome. This outcome-referenced approach is very common in occupational performance testing in vocational training programs in order to issue certifications which has inspired language programs task-based exit testing.

Outcome-referenced testing approaches bear their own problems in the field of second language pedagogy. Norris, et al. (1998) contend that outcome-referenced task- based testing does not yield useful information and feedback regarding certain aspects of tasks that show to be somewhat more difficult. Additionally, they believe that this type of testing approach does not show the “efficiency” with which the learner uses the language for the completion of task (p. 54). Norris, et al. further states that outcome-referenced testing does not leave any room for different outcomes to reach success, which might be the case in the performance of real-life tasks. Generalizability of the results is another important problem of outcome-referenced testing which can be obviated through system- referenced testing (Norris, et al. 1998; Robinson, 1996).

On the other hand, there are some TBLT programs which might emphasize the accuracy of production and penalize students’ performance based upon their grammatical, sociolinguistic, and pragmatic mistakes. But this raises a big issue of the nature and importance of errors. That is, in the case that a test taker manages to complete the task but with grammatical, sociolinguistic, or pragmatic mistakes, how can we specify objectively how many and what type of mistakes are acceptable? More importantly, if a certain objective criterion is set for the number and type of mistakes in the accomplishment of the task, then this might run the risk of turning a TBLT program to focus more on language as an object, since, regardless of the completion of the task, language might become the object and goal, while this need might better be met through focused tasks and focus on form, rather than focus-on-formS, and the corrective feedback which can be incorporated into TBLT courses (Long, 2009). Long (2009) contends that if there is going to be a language accuracy consideration in TBLA, it had better be at the overall macro-level rather than the

micro-level of accuracy. That is, the test takers’ general language skills should be holistically rated, having incorporated their task completion.

Additionally, as mentioned above, task-based performance tests will also be criterion-referenced; that is, the purposed of these tests is not to compare students’ performance with each other but to assess student’s ability relative to a certain criterion. Simply put, if the target task is to successfully tell the difference between two pictures, as long as a student is able to identify the differences and meet the threshold level of the criterion, the task is accomplished and the performance of the student is not assessed in comparison with other students. Therefore, TBLA incorporates task-based, criterion- referenced performance tests as its medium of assessment.