Construct Refinement in Tests of Academic Literacy

Chapter
Part of the English Language Education book series (ELED, volume 6)

Abstract

For several reasons, the construct underlying post-entry tests of academic literacy in South Africa such as the Test of Academic Literacy Levels (TALL) and its postgraduate counterpart, the Test of Academic Literacy for Postgraduate Students (TALPS), deserves further scrutiny. First, the construct has not been further investigated in close to a decade of use. Second, acknowledging the typicality of academic discourse as a starting point for critically engaging with constructs of academic literacy may suggest design changes for such tests. This contribution surveys and critiques various attempts at identifying the typical features of academic discourse and concludes that the uniqueness of academic discourse lies in the primacy of the logical or analytical mode that guides it. Using this characteristic feature as a criterion is potentially productive in suggesting ways to add components to the current test construct of academic literacy tests that are widely used in South Africa, such as TALL, TAG (the Afrikaans counterpart of TALL), and TALPS, as well as a new test of academic literacy for Sesotho. Third, a recent analysis of the diagnostic information that can be gleaned from TALPS (Pot 2013) may inform strategies of utilising post-entry tests of language ability (PELAs) more efficiently. This contribution includes suggestions for modifications and additions to the design of current task types in tests of academic literacy. These tentative suggestions allow theoretically defensible modifications to the design of the tests, and will be useful to those responsible for developing further versions of these tests of academic literacy.

Keywords

Academic literacy Test construct Task types Test specifications Academic discourse Diagnostic information Post-entry assessment 

References

  1. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bailey, A. L. (Ed.). (2007). The language demands of school: Putting academic English to the test. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Beekman, L., Dube, C., & Underhill, J. (2011). Academic literacy. Cape Town: Juta.Google Scholar
  4. Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2001). Register variation: A corpus approach. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 175–196). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Blanton, L. L. (1994). Discourse, artefacts and the Ozarks: Understanding academic literacy. In V. Zamel & R. Spack (Eds.), Negotiating academic literacies: Teaching and learning across languages and cultures (pp. 219–235). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  6. Butler, G. (2007). A framework for course design in academic writing for tertiary education. PhD thesis, University of Pretoria, Pretoria.Google Scholar
  7. Butler, G. (2013). Discipline-specific versus generic academic literacy intervention for university education: An issue of impact? Journal for Language Teaching, 47(2), 71–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/jlt.v47i2.4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Butler, G. (2015). Translating the Test of Academic Literacy Levels (TALL) into Sesotho. To appear in Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies.Google Scholar
  9. Chapelle, C. A. (2012). Conceptions of validity. In G. Fulcher & F. Davidson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language testing (pp. 21–33). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Cliff, A. F., & Hanslo, M. (2005). The use of ‘alternate’ assessments as contributors to processes for selecting applicants to health sciences’ faculties. Paper read at the Europe Conference for Medical Education, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  11. Cliff, A. F., Yeld, N., & Hanslo, M. (2006). Assessing the academic literacy skills of entry-level students, using the Placement Test in English for Educational Purposes (PTEEP). Mimeographed MS.Google Scholar
  12. Davidson, F., & Lynch, B. K. (2002). Testcraft: A teacher’s guide to writing and using language test specifications. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Department of Basic Education. (2011a). Curriculum and assessment policy statement (CAPS) for English Home Language, Further Education and Training phase, grades 10–12. Pretoria: Department of Basic Education.Google Scholar
  14. Department of Basic Education. (2011b). Curriculum and assessment policy statement (CAPS) for English first additional language, further education and training phase, grades 10–12. Pretoria: Department of Basic Education.Google Scholar
  15. Du Plessis, C., Steyn, S., & Weideman, A. (2016). Towards a construct for assessing high level language ability in grade 12. Report to the Umalusi Research Forum, 13 March 2013. Forthcoming on LitNet.Google Scholar
  16. Flower, L. (1990). Negotiating academic discourse. In L. Flower, V. Stein, J. Ackerman, M. Kantz, K. McCormick, & W. C. Peck (Eds.), Reading-to-write: Exploring a cognitive and social process (pp. 221–252). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Gee, J. P. (1998). What is literacy? In V. Zamel & R. Spack (Eds.), Negotiating academic literacies: Teaching and learning across languages and cultures (pp. 51–59). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  18. Green, A. (2014). Exploring language assessment and testing: Language in action. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Gunnarsson, B. (2009). Professional discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  20. Habermas, J. (1970). Toward a theory of communicative competence. In H. P. Dreitzel (Ed.), Recent sociology 2 (pp. 41–58). London: Collier-Macmillan.Google Scholar
  21. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  22. Halliday, M. A. K. (2002). Linguistic studies of text and discourse, ed. J. Webster. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  23. Halliday, M. A. K. (2003). On language and linguistics, ed. J. Webster. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  24. Hartnett, C. G. (2004). What should we teach about the paradoxes of English nominalization? In J. A. Foley (Ed.), Language, education and discourse: Functional approaches (pp. 174–190). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  25. Hasan, R. (2004). Analysing discursive variation. In L. Young & C. Harrison (Eds.), Systemic functional linguistics and critical discourse analysis: Studies in social change (pp. 15–52). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  26. Hyland, K. (2011). Academic discourse. In K. Hyland & B. Paltridge (Eds.), Continuum companion to discourse analysis (pp. 171–184). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  27. Hyland, K., & Bondi, M. (Eds.). (2006). Academic discourse across disciplines. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  28. Hymes, D. (1971). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  29. ICELDA (Inter-Institutional Centre for Language Development and Assessment). (2015). [Online]. Available http://icelda.sun.ac.za/. Accessed 10 May 2015.
  30. Knoch, U., & Elder, C. (2013). A framework for validating post-entry language assessments (PELAs). Papers in Language Testing and Assessment, 2(2), 48–66.Google Scholar
  31. Livnat, Z. (2012). Dialogue, science and academic writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McNamara, T., & Roever, C. (2006). Language testing: The social dimension. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  33. Messick, S. (1998). Consequences of test interpretation and use: The fusion of validity and values in psychological assessment. Princeton: Educational Testing Service. [Online]. Available http://ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-98-48.pdf. Accessed 15 Apr 2015.Google Scholar
  34. Myburgh, J. (2015). The assessment of academic literacy at pre-university level: A comparison of the utility of academic literacy tests and Grade 10 Home Language results. MA dissertation, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein.Google Scholar
  35. Patterson, R., & Weideman, A. (2013a). The typicality of academic discourse and its relevance for constructs of academic literacy. Journal for Language Teaching, 47(1), 107–123. http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/jlt.v47i1.5.Google Scholar
  36. Patterson, R., & Weideman, A. (2013b). The refinement of a construct for tests of academic literacy. Journal for Language Teaching, 47(1), 125–151. http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/jlt.v47i1.6.Google Scholar
  37. Pot, A. (2013). Diagnosing academic language ability: An analysis of TALPS. MA dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Groningen.Google Scholar
  38. Pot, A., & Weideman, A. (2015). Diagnosing academic language ability: Insights from an analysis of a postgraduate test of academic literacy. Language Matters, 46(1), 22–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10228195.2014.986665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Read, J. (2010). Researching language testing and assessment. In B. Paltridge & A. Phakiti (Eds.), Continuum companion to research methods in applied linguistics (pp. 286–300). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  40. Snow, C. E., & Uccelli, P. (2009). The challenge of academic language. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of literacy (pp. 112–133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Strauss, D. F. M. (2009). Philosophy: Discipline of the disciplines. Grand Rapids: Paideia Press.Google Scholar
  42. Suomela-Salmi, E., & Dervin, F. (Eds.). (2009). Cross-linguistic and cross-cultural perspectives on academic discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  43. Van der Walt, J. L., & Steyn, H. (2007). Pragmatic validation of a test of academic literacy at tertiary level. Ensovoort, 11(2), 138–153.Google Scholar
  44. Van Dyk, T., & Weideman, A. (2004a). Switching constructs: On the selection of an appropriate blueprint for academic literacy assessment. Journal for Language Teaching, 38(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
  45. Van Dyk, T., & Weideman, A. (2004b). Finding the right measure: From blueprint to specification to item type. Journal for Language Teaching, 38(1), 15–24.Google Scholar
  46. Weideman, A. (2003). Assessing and developing academic literacy. Per Linguam, 19(1 and 2), 55–65.Google Scholar
  47. Weideman, A. (2006). Assessing academic literacy in a task-based approach. Language Matters, 37(1), 81–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Weideman, A. (2007). Academic literacy: Prepare to learn (2nd ed.). Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.Google Scholar
  49. Weideman, A. (2009). Beyond expression: A systematic study of the foundations of linguistics. Grand Rapids: Paideia Press.Google Scholar
  50. Weideman, A. (2011). Academic literacy tests: Design, development, piloting and refinement. SAALT Journal for Language Teaching, 45(2), 100–113.Google Scholar
  51. Weideman, A. (2013). Academic literacy interventions: What are we not yet doing, or not yet doing right? Journal for Language Teaching, 47(2), 11–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/jlt.v47i2.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Weideman, A. (2014). Innovation and reciprocity in applied linguistics. Literator, 35(1), 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/lit.v35i1.1074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Weideman, A., & Van Dyk, T. (Eds.). (2014). Academic literacy: Test your competence. Potchefstroom: ICELDA.Google Scholar
  54. Yeld, N., et al. (2000). The construct of the academic literacy test (PTEEP) (Mimeograph). Cape Town: Alternative Admissions Research Project, University of Cape Town.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Office of the Dean: HumanitiesUniversity of the Free StateBloemfonteinSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations