Assessing Testing Practices with Reference to Communicative Competence in Essay Writing.pdf.pdf

Journal of Research in Social Sciences-JRSS January, 2019 Vol:7 Number 1..ISSN: (E) 2306-112X (P) 2305-6533
ISSN: 2306-112X(E)
ISSN:2305-6533(P)
Education Department, Faculty of Social Sciences
National University of Modern Languages
(NUML) Islamabad, Pakistan

Journal of Research in Social Sciences - JRSS January 2019 Vol: 7 Number 1 ISSN: (E) 2306-112X (P) 2305- 6533
1
Assessing Testing Practices with Reference to Communicative Competence in
Essay Writing at Undergraduate level in Pakistan
Dr Khurram Shahzad
Assistant Professor, Department of English Studies
Dr Fauzia Janjua
Associate Professor, Department of English Studies
International Islamic University
Dr Jamil Asghar
Assistant Professor, Department of English Studies
Abstract
Assessment in Second Language (SL) teaching is of vital importance in the broader praxis of
applied linguistics. Even within the framework of assessment in SL teaching, the assessment of
testing practices for essay writing is particularly significant as it not only indicates/measures the
overall efficacy of the undergraduate programme, but also holds the promise of engaging teachers
as well as students in a critical and self-reflective dialogue. The study was conducted to investigate
how teachers have been assessing essay writing of the learners at the undergraduate level in two
of the well-known universities of Pakistan. For this purpose, a semi-structured questionnaire was
constructed keeping in mind the theoretical framework provided for assessment in the Common
European Framework of Reference (2001). The questionnaire was pilot-tested and then
administered to 134 teachers in eight cities of Pakistan. The data demonstrated that there were
many lacunas in the testing practices of the teachers, and they did not have any agreed-upon
criterion to evaluate the learners’ communicative competence in essay writing. The study offers
recommendations to ameliorate this state of affairs and make the essay-writing assessment
practices more meaningful and relevant.
Keywords: assessment, criterion, essay writing, communicative competence
Introduction
Essay writing in second language (SL) is a multidimensional concept, which is a significant
skill because learners’ assignments, intelligence and scholarships are primarily evaluated through
it in the academic institutions and at the workplace. Effective essay writing skill is a doorway to
better scholastic grades and innumerable educational endeavors. It is also central to pragmatic
goals and professional mobility. It is modes of research, expressiveness, thinking, publication, role
negotiation, identity formation and social integrations (Elbow, 2000). Moreover, it constitutes the
core of assessment in language education and a fundamental part of undergraduate courses in
Pakistan and all over the world (McWhorter, 2012; Shahzad, 2018).

2
Essay writing underscores linguistic and communicative features with an optimum level of
accurateness, formality and appropriateness. Thus, it is not just restricted to spellings, grammar,
and punctuation; rather, special attention is paid to the overall development of message,
organization of ideas, cohesion, coherence, style and tone (Bailey, 2011).
Moreover, assessing writing is very vigorous and indispensable in university education in
Pakistan. It helps develop learners’ capacities, hence setting up their credentials. It has also a
formative role, which helps students integrate into various segments of society to execute diverse
roles. SL assessment is given utmost substance, making it important to comprehend its minutiae
(Cummings & Wyatt-smith, 2009). Therefore, teachers who often collect data from language tests
need to make educated decisions about learners (Luoma, 2004).
Statement of the Problem
Assessment constitutes one of the most essential components in the wider framework of
applied linguistics; and within assessment, it is essay writing, which poses unique challenges to
examiners and teachers. Given its academic and practical utility, essay writing necessitates special
kinds of assessment protocols marked by validity, reliability and authenticity. However, the way
essay writing is routinely assessed in Pakistan is far from being satisfactory as there is wide range
of issues, which are at once procedural, academic, affective and linguistic. The testing practices
usually employed by the teachers are dated, inadequate and lopsided and they tend to focus more
on the motor skills than the creative engagement of the students with the interface of text and
thought. Long established culture of rote learning and its institutionalized encouragement over
decades has placed a very minimal premium on the comprehensible and meaningful learning.
Moreover, such a pedagogy drives a wedge between the discursive classroom experience and the
real life challenges/necessities. An overemphasis upon linguistic aspects such as syntax and lexis,
in fact, tends to take the focus considerably away from the socio-pragmatic competence of the
Pakistani SL learners. This has serious implications for language pedagogy currently in vogue in
Pakistan as language, by definition, is a contextual, pragmatic and social phenomenon.
Research Questions
1. How do English teachers measure the SL learners’ communicative competence in essay
writing in Pakistan?
2. How closely are their evaluative practices in measuring essay writing aligned with the
CEFR (2001)?
Delimitation of the Study
This study was delimited to the department of English at two of the universities of Pakistan,
namely: the National University of Modern Languages (NUML), Islamabad and its regional
campuses, and the University of Gujrat (UoG), Gujrat. The regional campuses of the NUML
included: Peshawar, Lahore, Karachi, Hayderabad, Multan and Faisalabad. These two universities
have been selected since they are running BS (Honors) and MA English courses in their English
departments, and are known for teaching all the four skills of English. Bachelor of Science (BS
Honors) in English is a four year program, whereas Master of Arts (MA) English is a two year
program. Higher Education Commission of Pakistan (HEC) has recognized MA English course as
undergraduate course, for it makes up sixteen years of education, which is a pre-requisite for the
MS/M. Phil English program.

3
Literature Review
In SL educational contexts, expertise in essay writing is an important indicator of language
ability so far as language testing is concerned. There are different types of language tests such as
entrance, placement and proficiency test etc. in which essay type writing tasks are manipulated to
assess essay writing ability in the Pakistani universities as well as the universities all over the world
(Hamp-Lyons, 2003; Shahzad, 2011).
Since communicative tests evaluate linguistic as well as sociolinguistic, discourse,
pragmatic and strategic competencies of the learners (Brown, 2004), they, therefore, are used to
measure SL learners’ development and progress. These tests are not end in themselves, rather
means to actualize a more effective teaching and learning process. They also offer invaluable
feedback to learners; they help develop classroom tutoring, ambiance and scholarship (Airasian,
2005). Moreover, they help collect data to assist learners, curriculum developers and teachers in
classroom work and materials development (O’Neill, Moore & Huot, 2009).
Reliability, validity, interactive-ness, authenticity, practicality and impact are other key
features of communicative language tests. So while developing essay writing tests, different
techniques are used from diverse perspectives. Different appraisal methods have been framed that
claim to have test reliability. The most important and relevant of these assessment methods are:
analytical grading scales, holistic grading scales, primary trait scales and multiple trait scales
(Fulcher & Davidson, 2007; Weigle, 2002).
These grading scales are different from one another on two elementary grounds: (1) they
offer assessors an alternate to grant candidates a single mark or multiple marks for the substance
of a timed impromptu essay, and (2) they suggest an alternative to score contenders on overall
tools or precisely built instruments for a specific test task. Table 1 adapted from Weigle (2002, p.
109) below summarizes these different kinds of grading scales.
Table 1
Generalizable to a class of
writing test tasks
Specific to a particular test
task
Multiple score Analytic scoring Multiple trait
Lone score Holistic scoring Primary trait
Another major aspect of essay writing assessment is the criteria against, which it is
assessed. A short sum-up of criteria for its assessment with descriptors is given in Table 2 below.

4
Table 2
Scoring Criteria Descriptor(s)
Content Is the writing test task produced by the assesse skillfully answer
the question/prompt? Is the subject matter of the written
discourse relevant to the prompt and test task?
Rhetorical Organization
(discourse features)
Is the answer well-formed? Is it cohesive and coherent? Is it
organized according to the conventions of essay writing? Is the
core notion well-developed?
Communicability Have student stated their thoughts well? Can they be understood
without difficulty?
Syntactic accuracy Does writing form suitable structures? Does there exist any
grammatical mistakes? Do they obstruct message? Are meanings
unclear?
Vocabulary Does writing employ appropriate vocabulary items? Are there
any slips of word selection? Do they hamper communication?
Does there exist an extensive vocabulary? Is the word selection
suitable? Are meanings imprecise?
Mechanics Does writing adhere to the rubrics of capitalization, spelling and
punctuation conventions? Are there several errors? Do they
interfere in communication? Are meanings vague?
For the purposes of essay writing assessment, grades are dispersed on the scoring key,
permitting various features that evaluators need to measure. Furthermore, the constructs elucidated
on the scale should be proportional with the objectives of the course (Alderson, 2000). The
constructs of essay writing that is to be assessed on the CEFR (2001) are as follows: accuracy,
content, coherence, range, rhetorical organization and mechanics.
Methodology and Theoretical Framework
The researchers used quantitative approach as their research paradigm and evaluative
research method for the study. CEFR (2001) was taken as a model for the research inquiry as it
describes communicative language teaching and testing comprehensively. This model is based on
Bachman & Palmer (1996), Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei & Thurrell (1995), Canale & Swain (1980),
Hymes (1972), which were specifically developed for language teaching and testing. It “describes
in a comprehensive way what language learners have to learn to do in order to use a language for
communication and what knowledge and skills they have to develop so as to be able to act
efficiently” (CEFR, 2001, p. 1).
The model offers an action-oriented approach trailing collaborative essay writing strategies
like reflective discussion, brainstorming, peer practice and writing for meaning (Green, 2011).
Besides, this framework provides a complete model for assessing essay writing and suggests
rubrics that integrate all the necessary requisites for its evaluation. The researchers used this
framework to evaluate the testing practices concerning essay writing in Pakistan.

5
Population and Setting
The representation of the population and setting is given below in Table 3.
Table 3 Location
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Islamabad 61 45.5 45.5
Lahore 11 8.2 8.2
Faisalabad 8 6 6
Multan 8 6 6
Peshawar 13 9.7 9.7
Karachi 10 7.5 7.5
Hyderabad 5 3.7 3.7
Gujrat 18 13.4 13.4
Total 134 100 100
Sampling
Since there was not a huge number of population at both the universities, the researchers
administered the questionnaire to all of them.
Data Collection Tool
A semi-structured questionnaire, which was constructed using the CEFR (2001), was
administered. Its validity was pilot-tested, and reliability was confirmed, using Cronbach Alpha
on SPSS (version, 21). The questionnaire comprised both open-ended and closed-ended questions
and carried twenty questions in all.
Data Analysis
This section of the article puts forth the analysis of the data conducted analytically and
submits the findings of the study. It was primarily a quantitative research study; the data, collected
through a questionnaire, are analyzed below.
Analysis of the Teachers’ Questionnaires
The questionnaire had twenty questions related to assessing essay writing. It also had some
questions about demographic information. Most questions had three options for the responders,
but some of them had four. They were coded in this way: yes as ‘1’, no as ‘2’, and no idea as ‘3’.
Whenever there was a fourth option, it was coded as ‘4’. The data were input in the SPSS and were
analyzed through descriptive statistics.

6
Sixty nine male and sixty five female teachers participated in the study. Their ‘age’,
‘designation’ and ‘teaching experience’ is given below in Table 4.
Table: 4 Summary of the respondents’ age, designation and teaching experience
Age Designation Teaching Exp.
Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %
under 30
y
36 26.9
Lecturer 113 84.3 Less
than 5
y
34 25.4
31-40 y 76 56.7
Assist.
Prof
14 10.4 5-10 y 57 42.5
41-50 y 15 11.2 Prof 7 5.2 11-15y 31 13.1
over 50 y 7 5.2 16-20y 6 4.5
Over
20 y
6 4.5
Total 134 100 134 100 134 100
Table 4 shows the age, designation and teaching experience of the responders. It ranged
from under 30 years to over 50 years. They were of different age groups; nonetheless, 31-40 year
age group dominates that shows most of them were fairly experienced. Table 4 also indicates the
designation that reveals that the largest number of responders were lecturers followed respectively
by assistant professors and professors. They also had diverse teaching experience, and most of
them had between 10 to 15 years.
In the questionnaire, the first question was about situation or setting in which the test task
comes about. Situation, in fact, communicates purposes of the essay test and requires from
examinees to bring background knowledge to the fore to comprehend it and then develop a strategy
to deal with it (Bachman & Palmer, 1996). Its analysis is demonstrated below.
Table: 5 Summary of Q1.
Do you explain the examinees the situation/setting in
which the test task occurs?
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Yes 61 45.5 45.5
No 37 27.6 27.6
no idea 36 26.9 26.9
Total 134 100 100
Table 5 displays that overall 73 responders either did not elucidate the setting/situation or
they had no idea about it in which the test task happens. This implies that this feature of testing
which is a vibrant one and is essential to attempt the essay writing test task has been overlooked
in the assessment of essay writing.

7
The next item was about the number of words within the test task. As there always exists a
time restraint during examination, assessors should put a word limit to the test tasks (CEFR, 2001).
This process gives validity to the process of testing. The analysis of this item is elaborated below.
Do you ask the test taker the number of words in the
task s/he is supposed to write?
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Yes 80 59.7 59.7
No 47 35.1 35.1
no idea 7 5.2 5.2
Total 134 100 100
Table 6 demonstrates that 80 responders ask their examinees the number of words in the
test task which they are to attempt. Contrarily, 47 responders do not ask the number of words and
7 responders do not have any idea about it. On the whole, almost half the responders either do not
ask their examinees about word limit in essay writing test task or they have no idea about it, which
is one of the important components of the test of time-impromptu essay writing.
The next item was about the range of vocabulary. Range stands for variety or mixture of
low as well as high frequency words. In fact, importance of vocabulary cannot be denied in essay
writing test task, for it not only assists in understanding others, but also assists authors in
expressing their opinions fittingly in written communication (CEFR, 2001).
The analysis of the item is presented below.
Do you ask the student about the range of
vocabulary s/he is supposed to write?
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Yes 45 33.6 33.6
No 74 55.2 55.2
no idea 15 11.2 11.2
Total 134 100 100
Table 7 expresses that 45 responders ask their examinees to employ a wide range of
vocabulary in their essay writing tasks; whereas, 74 responders do not ask them about it, and 15
have no idea about it. On the whole, 66.4% of the responders either did not give any significance
to different types of vocabulary, including its form, meaning and use, in the test task, which is one
of the constructs of essay writing assessment or they have no idea about it.
The next item was about the number of test tasks in the final essay writing question paper.
It is thought suitable to provide diverse essay writing test tasks to measure various competencies
of examinees such as vocabulary items, linguistic structures and discourse aspects, and thereby
demanding a communicative competence in order to find out how much competent learners have
grown over a period of time. The analysis of the item is given below.

8
How many test tasks do you give in a final test to measure
the essay writing performance of the student?
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
1 4 03 03
2 30 22.4 22.4
3 26 19.4 19.4
4 and more 74 55.2 55.2
Total 134 100 100
Table 8 points out that responders were given four option in this item. The responders have
given different responses. Overall half the responders opted for two or three test tasks which is
very less so far as the international testing practice is concerned for three hours paper. If more test
tasks are given, there are chances that more of essay writing features such as organization,
theme/rhyme constructions, discourse markers, varied syntactic structures, etc., students will be
able to display them in their essays.
The next item was about the choice that examiners give to testees within the test tasks.
Indeed, choice is presented in the number of test tasks or within the test tasks, but it must be of
identical stress in terms of meta-cognitive, cognitive and procedural requirements (Fulcher &
Davidson, 2007). The analysis of this item is presented below.
Do you give choice to students within the test tasks
(essays) they are supposed to attempt?
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
yes 80 59.7 59.7
no 48 35.8 35.8
no idea 6 4.5 4.5
Total 134 100 100
Table 9 exhibits that 80 responders give choice within the test tasks, while 48 responders
stated that they do not give choice within the test tasks; however, six have no idea about it. In one
of the studies, Shahzad (2017) has measured the cognitive load of the test tasks, which shows that
many paper setters have no idea as how to maintain cognitive load of the questions given to
learners in essay writing. For example, look at:
Define descriptive writing. Compare and contrast it with argumentative
writing. OR What is argumentative writing? Think about a topic for an
argumentative essay and form a thesis statement for it.
The example above shows that one test task deals with memory of the learners, whereas
the second task offers open choice, saying think about any topic. Thus there is a great discrepancy
in both the test tasks. The first one appears quite easy as compared to the second one, giving less
load to learners.

9
The next item was about the choice in the number of test tasks examinees were required to
attempt. Its analysis is presented below.
Do you give choice to the students in the number of
test tasks (essays) they are supposed to attempt?
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
yes 96 71.6 71.6
no 31 23.1 23.1
no idea 7 5.2 5.2
Total 134 100 100
Table 10 indicates that 96 responders offer choice in the number of test tasks examinees
are required to attempt, whereas 31 responders do not give choice in the number of test tasks
examinees are supposed to attempt, and 7 responders have no idea about it.
The findings of questions five and six establish that no homogeneity exists in the practices
of the examiners, asking students to attempt essay writing papers. For example, some give choice
within the test task and some in the number of test task. Moreover, the findings confirmed that
both types of choices sometimes were provided to examinees that is against the principles and
norms set by the language experts.
The next item was about time given to examinees for measuring their essay writing
performance. The analysis of the item is presented below.
How much time do you give to the students to test
their written performance in essays?
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
1 hour 10 7.5 7.5
2 hours 39 29.1 29.1
3 hours 85 63.4 63.4
Total 134 100 100
Table 11 specifies that 10 responders give one hour of time to examinees in the final exam;
contrarily, 39 responders give two hours, and 85 responders three hours for measuring essay
writing performance. It establishes that the final essay writing question paper is three hours at both
the universities, but there is no homogeneity in the practices related to choice given in the test tasks
in the summative assessment.
The next item was the explanation of the criteria to examinees before marking their answer
sheets. Marking scheme is of highest importance in our democratic world today, endorsing
scholarship, accuracy, fairness and student independence, and also recognizing examiners’
anticipations. It also certifies exactitude and impartiality (Fulcher & Davidson, 2007). The analysis
of this item is presented below.

10
Do you explain the criteria you use to mark the students’
answer sheets before testing them in essay writing?
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
yes 94 70.1 70.1
no 31 23.1 23.1
no idea 9 6.7 6.7
Total 134 100 100
Table 12 displays that 94 responders explain the criteria to students before marking their
final essay writing papers, whereas many don’t and some have no idea about it. In fact, whatever
criteria they explain to students, it relates to only linguistic competence and do not correspond
with the criteria indicated in the CEFR (2001), and this is also one of the gaps in the assessment
procedures of the universities.
The next question was about the number of evaluators expected to judge the same answer
script. To warrant fairness and objectivity in assessment, at least two assessors should evaluate the
same answer script. Hence, this item was supplemented in the questionnaire, and its analysis is
presented below.
Table 13 Summary of Q9.
How many evaluators test the essay writing of
the students?
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
01 118 88.1 88.1
02 12 9 9
03 4 3 3
Total 134 100 100
Table 13 shows that most responders stated that there is only one evaluator for the
assessment of the students’ answer scripts. Conversely, a few responders stated two evaluators do
it and some had no idea about it. The next question related to this item was about departmental
committee or authority who could arbitrate in case of any incongruity in the scoring of the two
evaluators. Its analysis is given below.

11
In case of any discrepancy in the marking of the two evaluators,
does your department have any committee or authority to have a
final word?
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Yes 13 9.7 9.7
No 60 44.8 44.8
no idea 61 45.5 45.5
Total 134 100 100
Table 14 displays that most of the responders stated that there exists no any committee or
authority to decide in case of any discrepancy if two evaluators do not agree on the scores to be
awarded to a learner, and most of them had no idea about it. Hence, the data establish that, in
reality, there is only one evaluator who marks the answer scripts of the learners and this is against
the norms set by the testing experts (CEFR, 2001).
The next item dealt with rating scales with descriptors for judging the learners’ answer
sheets. Since rating scales determine the validity of assessment, they explicate the criteria against
which the excellence of judgement is made. They also offer a shared understanding for the scoring
and interpretation of the written essay (Bachman, 1990). The result of this item is detailed below.
Do you use any rating scales or bands with descriptors
while marking the students’ answer sheets?
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
yes 41 30.6 30.6
no 62 46.3 46.3
no idea 31 23.1 23.1
Total 134 100 100
Table 15 demonstrates that 41 responders stated to have used rating scales with descriptors
for measuring learners’ performance in essay writing. Nonetheless, most responders stated they do
not use or they have no idea about it. Further, the data show that they do not use them in their
evaluative practices. The evaluators actually depend on their own assumed criteria. This way, they
make the whole process of assessing essay writing whimsical, unfair and subjective.
To probe further, the next item related to the previous one was about the kind of rating
scales assessors were using for assessment. The significance of rating scales cannot be overlooked
because they warrant all-encompassing sort of evaluation. They, without a doubt, offer a realistic
and illustrative comprehension of the way essay writing assessment is theorized and practiced.
These scales are – analytic, holistic and primary trait scales. The analysis of this item is discussed
below.

12
What kind of scales or bands do you use to test the
written performance of the students?
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
holistic scales 25 18.7 18.7
analytical scales 22 16.4 16.4
primary trait scale 6 4.5 4.5
none of them 81 60.4 60.4
Total 134 100 100
Table 16 indicates that different responders have given different answers because they do
not have any prescribed or agreed-upon principles for the measurement of communicative
competence in essay writing. Moreover, the data illustrate 81 respondents stated that they do not
use any of the scales for essay writing assessment, for both the universities have not provided any
of them to teachers, nor have they been trained for their use. Consequently, the data exhibit that
their method of essay writing assessment is invalid, unfair and subjective.
The next item relates to formative assessment and asks how teachers keep record of the
learners’ classroom essay writing performance. Keeping the record of learners’ essay writing can
take various forms such as diaries, folders and portfolios and lies at the heart of SL teaching and
learning process. It is an effective tool to track single student’s input in the classroom (Airasian,
2005). The analysis of this item is presented below.
How do you keep the record of the classroom essay
writing performance of the students?
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
portfolio 12 9 9
diaries 17 12.7 12.7
observations 63 47 47
none of them 42 31.3 31.3
Total 134 100 100
Table 17 reveals that different respondents have given different answers against the entries.
However, most of them say they use observations as a tool to keep record of the learners’
performance and 42 respondents stated that they use none of these techniques for record keeping
of an individual learner’s performance. The data reveals that teacher observed students, but there
was no formal way to keep record of their essay writing performance. They, in fact, made “mental
notes”. This also shows that there exists a gap in their essay writing testing practices.
The next item was how many times a teacher scores or marks a student’s classroom work.
In formative assessment, scoring students’ classroom work also signifies providing them
corrective feedback, which is usually given in the form of codes, symbols or grades. Sometimes,
comments are also given in the margin so that students may mend their work, and hence improve
their essays (Truscott, 2007). The analysis of this item is given below.

13
How many times do you test students’ classroom
performance in essay writing in a semester?
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
1 time 21 15.7 15.7
2 times 47 35.1 35.1
3 times 32 23.9 23.9
4 times and more 34 25.4 25.4
Total 134 100 100
Table 18 displays that most teachers score their students’ work once or twice in a semester,
and only some of them mark their students’ work four or more times in a semester. The data, in
fact, show that more than half the teachers judge their students’ work just once or twice in a
semester, which is carried out after the mid-term exam where their mistakes are shown to them
and usually they do not check their learners’ work.
The next item was about the use of criteria to assess the learners’ classroom essay writing
performance because criteria detail what skills or abilities examiners should look for. The analysis
of this item is presented below.
Do you use any criteria to test the classroom writing
performance of the students?
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Yes 63 47.1 47.1
No 13 9.7 9.7
no idea 58 43.2 43.2
Total 134 100 100
Table 19 displays that more than half the teachers either do not use any rating scales or
they do not have any idea about them. This is also corroborated that while answering about
summative assessment most teachers stated they have no idea about scales with descriptors to be
employed to measure the essay writing performance of the learners. It makes the whole process of
assessment invalid and unreliable.
The last closed-ended item was about rating scales they were using to test the students’
classroom essay writing performance. Without doubt, rating scales expound the criteria against,
which judgement is given about the quality of discourse learners have produced (Bachman &
Palmer, 1996). The analysis of this item is given below.

14
What criteria do you use to test the classroom essay
writing performance of the students?
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
holistic scales 26 19.4 19.4
analytical scales 37 27.6 27.6
primary trait 5 3.7 3.7
no idea 66 49.3 49.3
Total 134 100 100
Table 20 shows that different responders have given different responses against the item.
However, most of them have said that they have no idea about scales to be used to measure the
essay writing performance. The data, in fact, reveal that most of the teachers have no homogenous
practices concerning the assessment of communicative competence in essay writing. Neither do
they have valid, consistent and objective criteria, nor do they have any scales to measure the
classroom as well as summative performance of the learners.
The four open-ended questions related to formative and summative assessment were:
1. What do you specifically test in the essay writing performance of the students?
2. What specific rating scale do you use to test the written performance of the students?
Please name it.
3. Through observations, how do you keep the record of the classroom performance of
the students?
4. If you use any other criteria to evaluate the classroom performance of the students,
please explain.
They have been analyzed through thematic analysis. The verbal data were read and re-read
many times and the patterns and themes, which emerged there-by have been analyzed. The data
reveal that most of the teachers particularly focused on the language of the students. They marked
the essay by checking it for grammatical mistakes such as syntax, lexis, spelling and punctuation
marks. They did not pay attention to the communicative competence of the learners in essay
writing, though some responders did write “content, ideas and organization” of the essay as well.
Concerning linguistic competence, responses included: “I specifically test topic, content,
grammar of the essay written by students”, “language should be formal and up-to-the mark”,
“clarity, ideas”, “vocabulary of the students”, “I test whether they know which type of essay they
are to write or not”, “sentence formation, neatness, organization of ideas”, “I have no comments”,
“formulation and organization of ideas and grammar”, “performances are measured in terms of
attendance, discipline, classroom participation and presentation skills”, etc. If one looks at
discipline, presentation skills, etc., one finds that such criteria have never been discussed in any of
the rating scales for the measurement of essay writing in any of the documents.
Regarding record-keeping of the classroom performance, many teachers did not answer
this open-ended question, but those who answered, their responses included: “mental notes”, “I
keep the record of the students’ performance in mid-term exams”, “through their discussion in the

15
class on a specific topic”, “we keep students’ test record”, etc. All this shows that their evaluative
practices related to the assessment of essay writing are faulty, invalid, subjective, inconsistent and
unfair.
Findings
 Teachers mostly do not describe the situation/setting in which the test task occurs.
 Teachers mostly do not mark the assignments of the learners.
 Teachers do not use scales with rubrics to grade and score the assignments as well as
final paper answer sheets of the learners.
 Teachers do not have valid, objective and well-established criteria to measure the
communicative performance of the learners in essay writing.
While designing essay writing tests, teachers should learn clearly to link every single
question to a learning objective, and should describe the prompt/topic in detail.
Conclusion and Suggestions
Teachers should prepare students in essay writing for real challenges to perform in real life
situations. Keeping in mind the context of Pakistani classrooms, the researchers, while employing
the CEFR as a theoretical framework, have evaluated the testing practices concerning essay writing
and found considerable gaps and deficiencies. To overcome these problems, the researchers have
offered the following recommendations:
 Teaches should determine the objectives of the proposed essay writing test;
 They should recognize and outline the previously planned learning outcomes;
 They should formulate the test specifications (to articulate clearly what one intends to
assess);
 Test items should be pertinent and appropriate.
 There has to be some marking key as to measure the communicative competence of the
learners.
 There should be some laid down criterion for teachers to interpret the scores awarded
to the students.
It is hoped that these recommendations, if followed, will standardize the existing testing
practices and make them align with the larger curricular objectives.

16
References
Airasian, W. P. (2005). Classroom Assessment: concepts and applications (5th
ed.). Boston:
McGraw Hill Companies.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Bachman, L. F & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing
useful language tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bailey, S. (2011). Academic writing: A handbook for international students (3rd
ed.). London &
New York: Routledge.
Brown, H. D. (2004). Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practice. White Plains,
N.Y.: Pearson Education, Inc.
Celce-Murcia, M., Dornyei, Z. & Thurell. S. (1995). Communicative competence: a pedagogically
motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics Regents of the
University of California. Accessed on 422014 at 6: 30 pm
Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second
language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
CEFR. (2001). Common European framework of reference. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Cumming, J & Wyatt-Smith, C. (2009). Educational assessment in the 21st century: Connecting
theory and practice. Springer. Dordrecht Heidelberg.
Elbow, P. (2000). Everyone can write: Essays toward a hopeful theory of writing and teaching
writing. London & New York: Oxford University Press.
Fulcher, G. & Davidson, F. (2007). Language testing and assessment: An advanced resource book.
USA & Canada: Routledge.

17
Green, A. (2011). From common European framework to classroom application: the English
profile solution. Proceedings of the 16th
Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied
Linguistics. Accessed from, paaljapan.org/conference2011/ProcNewest2011/
pdf/keynote/TG.pdf at 7: 40pm. On 1/6/2014
Hamp-Lyons, L. (2003). Writing teachers as assessors of writing. In Kroll, B (ed.). Exploring the
dynamics of second language writing (pp. 162-190). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.),
Sociolinguistics: Selected readings. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.
Kachru, Y., & Nelson, L. C. (2011). World Englishes in Asian contexts. Hong Kong University
Press. Aberdeen, Hong Kong.
Khan, I. H. (2012). English teachers’ perceptions about creativity and teaching creative writing in
Pakistan. American International Journal of Contemporary Research. V, (3), retrieved
from www. Aijcrnet.com/journals/vol_2_No_March_2012/6.pdf
Luoma, S. (2004). Assessing speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McWhorter, T. K. (2012). Successful college writing (5th
ed). New York: Bedford/St. Martin’ S.
O’Neill, P, Moore, C. & Huot, B. (2009). A guide to college writing assessment. Logan: Utah State
University Press.
Savignon, J. S. (1997). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice: Texts and
contexts in second language learning. UK: Open University Press, McGraw-Hill
Education.
Shahzad, K. (2011). An evaluative study of spoken language test performed at NUML: A case
study. An unpublished thesis. International Islamic University, Islamabad.
Shahzad, K. (2017). Designing a question paper: A critique of essay type questions constructed to
assess written discourse of English language students. Pakistan Journal of Languages and
Translation Studies. 1. 24 – 39.

18
Shahzad, K. (2018). Analyzing English language teaching and testing practices in developing
discourse competence in essay writing. An unpublished thesis. International Islamic
University, Islamabad.
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learner’s ability to write accurately. Journal
of Second Language Writing. 16. 255-272.
Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Assessing Testing Practices with Reference to Communicative Competence in Essay Writing.pdf.pdf

More Related Content

Similar to Assessing Testing Practices with Reference to Communicative Competence in Essay Writing.pdf.pdf (20)

More from Kayla Jones (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Assessing Testing Practices with Reference to Communicative Competence in Essay Writing.pdf.pdf