Abstract:
Language tests are administered worldwide, and their pros and cons can
be identified from both the test takers and designers. A good language
test should be practical, comprehensive, relevant, and balanced, with a
degree of difficulty that is neither too hard nor too easy. It should assess
both linguistic and communicative competence, with clear instructions and
real-world relevance. The ultimate goal of language teaching is achieving
communicative competence, particularly speaking skills. This analysis
evaluates the 2018 GCE Ordinary Level English language paper in Sri
Lanka, focusing on its validity, reliability, practicality, and alignment with the
syllabus objectives. A comparative analysis was conducted between the test
content and the prescribed syllabus objectives to identify gaps, highlighting
areas where the test fails to adequately reflect the curriculum’s goals and
objectives. This method enabled a detailed evaluation of the alignment
between what is taught and what is tested, uncovering discrepancies in skill
emphasis and topic coverage. The test predominantly assesses reading and
writing, neglecting speaking and listening skills, and fails to meet the broader
goals of the curriculum. While it exhibits some strengths in clarity, consistency,
and reliability, several aspects, such as content validity, construct validity,
and the testing of communicative competence, are found lacking. The test’s
design introduces negative backwash effects on the educational system, and
its length, repetitive nature, and unrealistic time constraints detract from its
practicality. The paper does not adequately reflect the content taught in the
syllabus, and there is a noticeable imbalance in the proportion of skills tested.
Suggestions for improvement include incorporating listening and speaking
components, rebalancing the content, and adjusting the test format and time
allocation to better align with the objectives of the curriculum.
