|
【Abstract】The separation into international tests for the management of international movement of young people into advanced study programs, and national/local tests for study purposes within students’ own countries, drives the people concerned to think about the way forward of language tests, particularly English language proficiency tests. What’s at issue here is not ‘globalization or localization?’, but that ‘when and how to globalize and when and how to localize?’. ‘Globalization’ and ‘localization’ are not exclusive to each other, but rather complementary to some extent.
【Key Words】test, globalization, localization
1.What do the experts say?
For many years, the TOEFL test and the IELTS are two most used English language proficiency tests taken by young persons hoping to undertake academic study in the US and UK respectively. At the same time, most large educational systems have their own English language proficiency measures which they use for internal purposes, such as CET in China, GEPT in Taiwan, and STEP in Japan. This separation into international tests for the management of international movement of young people into advanced study programs, and national/local tests for study purposes within students’ own countries, drives the people concerned to think about the way forward of language tests, particularly English language proficiency tests.
In the past five years, as Hamp-Lyons (2004) puts it, we are beginning to see the rapid increase in the use of a very small set of international English language proficiency tests across many countries, with TOEFL and IELTS being the most prominent. Meanwhile, this small set of international English language proficiency tests is used within countries, regions, or even within institutions. For example, the Australian government has approved IELTS as an admissions measure for pre-college Chinese students wanting to study for their final high school years in Australia. The Hong Kong government has adopted the IELTS as a region-wide measure instead of continuing plans for the introduction of its own measures. Individual universities in the Arabian Gulf have adopted TOEFL or IELTS as either—or both—entry or exit measures for students’ English abilities. This wide use of a very small set of international English language proficiency tests pushes us to consider the appropriacy of ‘one size fits all’ tests for specifiable contexts where test-taker numbers are significant. Professor Hamp-Lyons in her presentation discusses whether this development may, or may not, be ‘a good thing’, in terms of the respective advantages and disadvantages of international and regional/local tests/assessments.
As Hamp-Lyons (2004) considers whether or not language tests should be globalized, Yang (2004) strongly advocates the localization of English tests conducted in Taiwan, which is their reform aim. By localization, Yang (2004) means that test items should be related to local events or customs and might be comprehensible only in local contexts. When exploring the issue of localization in the context of Taiwan, Yang (2004) in his presentation first discusses the significance of localization from four perspectives: the native speaker norm vs. intercultural norm, accountability, test fairness, and washback effects, and then reports on the concerted efforts by local test writers toward implementing the concept.
Traditionally, foreign language teaching is based on a native speaker norm. Under this norm, learners are supposed to learn what the native speakers know. It follows that the learners’ proficiency is to be measured against the native speakers’ knowledge. As such, test items are written from the native speakers’ perspective; not only do the persons and places involved use foreign names, but the meaning of the message is supposed to be interpreted in the socio-cultural context of the native speaker. With ‘World English’ being promoted, the native speaker model has been considered outdated. As Rajagopalan (2004) points out, the majority of English learners in the world are not learning English in order to be able to communicate with native speakers; instead, they would most likely communicate with other non-native speakers, such as at the check-in desks or international conferences. Alptekin (2002) also questions the validity of the pedagogic model based on the native speaker-based notion of communicative competence, and argues for helping EFL students develop intercultural communicative competence. Taking those into consideration, Yang (2004) argues for localization of English language tests, which intends to break the native-speaker norm by changing the perspective from that of the native speaker’s to that of the learners’ in a specific context. For instance, when teaching young students vocabulary of food, it’s better to tell them the words of traditional Chinese food rather than merely those of western food such as hamburger, waffle, or French fries.
As to the practical concerns about the implementation of localization, Yang (2004) first outlines five types of localization strategies, and then reports the practice of localization in three types of high-stakes tests in Taiwan. Those five types of localization strategies are derived from the test writers’ intuition or individual perception of the term ‘localization’ without any theoretical guidelines, including using Chinese proper names in the items, changing culturally unfamiliar terms to familiar ones, including local events or customs in the items, choosing appropriate listening or reading passages which focus on specialties of local culture or are better comprehended in the local context, the fifth associated with tests of oral and writing skills with cues given which are meaningful in the local context.
The concept of ‘localization’ has been applied in the major tests in Taiwan. Currently, there are three types of high-stakes tests: the Basic Competence Test (BCT) for junior high school students, SAT and DRT for senior high school students, and GEPT for all levels of learners. BCT has the largest percentage of localization, particularly in the reading comprehension part. In contrast, SAT and DRT are much less concerned with localization, with no steady trend of localization. GEPT is the first large-scale proficiency test ever developed by local professionals in Taiwan. What distinguishes it from international tests is its claims and practice of localization, with the oral and writing parts of the test well localized.
2.Discussions and Conclusions
Whether to globalize or localize language tests? Due to the complexness and specifiableness of learning and testing contexts, there is no single and definite answer to this question. Hamp-Lyons (2004) discusses the globalization of language tests with some concerns, for there is a question mark ‘?’ at the end of the title of her presentation. Both international and local tests have their own advantages and disadvantages, and one cannot replace the other. Notwithstanding his strong arguments for localizing language tests Yang (2004) acknowledges that developing a test on the intercultural norm does not mean eradication of the native speaker norm or complete localization of the test, rather that the native speaker and the local content should be coexist in a test. In his words, a balanced test, which is oriented toward both the target and the national culture, should be developed. But what is a balanced content needs to be studies. How much localization is considered balanced? Yang (2004) could not give us an absolutely affirmatory answer.
When discussing the issue of ‘globalization or localization?’, we should always bear in mind the various test purposes of individual tests as well as the proficiency level of the potential test-takers the test aims at. For example, if one test is carried out to assess the English language proficiency of students from other countries, the localized test items, which are heavily cultural-bound, may bias against some students, even though they are equal in language ability. If the test items are localized on the basis of the learners’ own local cultures, which is mainly in EFL contexts, such as the case discussed by Yang (2004), this kind of localization may be helpful in enhancing comprehension and even in strengthening learners’ motivation.
In addition, localization is relative. The degree of localization varies with the proficiency level of the learners to be measured. Generally, the lower the proficiency level, the higher degree of localization is required. Take for example the case of BCT in Japan, which is taken by junior high school students in Japan. Those students are at the beginning level and understandably have insufficient knowledge of the target culture. In such a situation, localization is recommended because it allows more room for students to demonstrate language ability without being culturally biased or shocked. If the potential test-takers are advanced and competent language users, localization may be unnecessary, or even should be prohibited, for one purpose of ELT is to help learners ‘feel at home in both international and national cultures’ (Kramsch & Sullivan, 1996:211).
To summarize, a small set of international English language proficiency tests such as TOEFL and IELTS is developing with great momentum. Test localization, on the other hand, is gaining rising awareness and attracting a good many discussions in the field of language testing. What’s at issue here is not ‘globalization or localization?’, but that ‘when and how to globalize and when and how to localize?’. ‘Globalization’ and ‘localization’ are not exclusive to each other, but rather complementary to some extent.#p#分页标题#e#
References
[1]Alptekin, C. 2002. Towards intercultural communicative competence in ELT. ELT Journal, 56 (1): 57-64.
[2]Hamp-Lyons, L. 2004. The globalization of language tests: a good thing? Paper presented at the 7th Academic Forum on English Language Testing in Asia, Shanghai, P. R. China.
[3]Kramsch, C. & P. Sullivan. 1996. Appropriate pedagogy. ELT Journal, 50 (3):199-212.
[4]Rajagopalan, K. 2004. The concept of ‘World English’ and its implications for ELT. ELT Journal, 58 (2): 111-117.
[5]Yang, T. 2004. Toward localization: reforming English tests in Taiwan. Paper presented at the 7th Academic Forum on English Language Testing in Asia, Shanghai, P. R. China.
|
 |
|||
| 网站地图 |
