Introducing Second Language Assessment

ix CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 Statement of problem 1 Statement of research questions 4 Organization of the study 4 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 5 1. Validation of a test in language testing and assessment 5 1.1. The conception of validity in language testing and assessment 5 1.2. Approaches in validation studies in language testing and assessment 8 1.2.1. The concept of validation in language testing and assessment 8 1.2.2. Main approaches in validation studies in language testing and assessment 9 2. The argument-based validation approach in language testing and assessment .10 2.1. Using interpretative argument in examining validity in language testing and assessment. .10 2.2. Conducting an argument-based validation study in language testing and assessment........ 11 2.3. Building a validity argument in language testing and assessment 13 2.4. A critical review of the argument-based validation approach 17 2.5. The argument-based validation approach in practice so far 19 3. English placement test (EPT) in language testing and assessment 28 3.1.English placement test (EPT) 28 3.2.Validation of an EPT 31 3.3.Testing and assessment of listening in second language 33 4. Summary 36 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 39 1. Context of the study 39 1.1. Description of the EPT test at Iowa State University (ISU) 39 1.1.1. About the test 39 1.1.2. Test purpose 42

Language assessment has been integral to language teaching for decades, and its importance has largely increased in recent years. As a result, research in applied linguistics has focused on developing more effective and efficient language assessment methods. This research aims to explore the relationship between English language teaching and classroom assessment, focusing on how language assessment can be used to improve language teaching and learning outcomes. The study was qualitative in nature; the data was collected through semi-structured interviews with English language university teachers and analysed through thematic analysis. The findings of the analysis showed that no assessment practice was inherently good or bad. The efficacy of any formative assessment technique was directly proportional to where, when, how and with whom to use it. The maximum benefit could be obtained only when the language assessment practices are situation-based and context-specified. There was nothing that can be called ‘tested, tried and perfect’ in all situations. Since applied linguistics and second language acquisition are expanding areas of research, the field is wide and open for future researchers to explore new dimensions of language assessment that facilitate language learning. The findings may be helpful, particularly for university administrations and policymakers who will gain insights into language assessment through this study and make improvements accordingly. Key Words: Applied linguistics, English language pedagogy, English language testing, Formative assessment practices, Teachers’ perceptions, Central Punjab, Pakistan References Al Musawi, A. S. (2011). Blended learning. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 8(2), 3–8. Alkharusi, H. (2011). Self-perceived assessment skills of pre-service and in-service teachers. Journal Pendidikan Malaysia, 36(2), 9–17. Aravinthan, V., & Aravinthan, T. (2010, January). Effectiveness of self-assessment quizzes as a learning tool. In Proceedings of Engineering Education Conference (EE 2010). Arshad, W., Maqsood, A., Zaidi, S. S., Haroon, M., Qadir, U. M., Sultana, U., ... & Sanaullah, S. (2024, September). Kalam E Iqbal: Current Requirements And Our Priorities. Bachman, L. F., & Cohen, A. D. (1998). Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research. Cambridge University Press. Begum, S., & Ambreen, M. (2021). Differentiated instruction based on formative assessment in Associate Degree in Education Program. Journal of Educational Research (1027-9776), 24(1). Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Granada Learning. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Brown, H. D., & Abeywickrama, P. (2019). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices (3rd ed.). Pearson Education ESL. Bugarski, R. (1987). Unity in diversity: Aspects of language policy in the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. Sociolinguistica, 1(1), 1–12. Byrnes, H. (2013). Notes from the editor. Modern Language Journal, 97(4), 825–827. Cheng, L., & Fox, J. (2017). Assessment in the language classroom: Teachers supporting student learning. Bloomsbury Publishing. Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE Publications. Dewaele, J.-M., & Leung, K. C. (2022). Teacher proficiency and classroom practice in English as a Foreign Language teaching. ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1345752.pdf Dhindsa, H. S., Omar, K., & Waldrip, B. (2007). Upper secondary Bruneian science students’ perceptions of assessment. International Journal of Science Education, 29(10), 1261–1280. Einar H. Dyvik. (2024). The most spoken languages worldwide. Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/266808/the-most-spoken-languages-worldwide/#statisticContainer. Retrieved on 12-7-24. Flores, M. A., Veiga Simão, A. M., Barros, A., & Pereira, D. (2014). Perceptions of effectiveness, fairness and feedback of assessment methods: A study in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 40(9), 1523–1534. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.881348 Goldman, S. (2008). Brief report: Narratives of personal events in children with autism and developmental language disorders: Unshared memories. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38, 1982–1988. Gordon, W. T. (2008). Linguistics for beginners. Red Wheel/Weiser. Green, A. (2013). Exploring language assessment and testing: Language in action. Routledge. Jawaid, A., Mukhtar, J., Mahnoor, D. P. K., Arshad, W., & ul Haq, M. I. (2025). ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING OF CHALLENGING STUDENTS: A UNIVERSITY CASE. Journal of Applied Linguistics and TESOL (JALT), 8(1), 679-686. https://jalt.com.pk/index.php/jalt/article/view/370 Jawaid, A., Batool, M., Arshad, W., Kaur, P., & ul Haq, M. I. (2024). English language pronunciation challenges faced by tertiary students. Contemporary Journal of Social Science Review, 2(04), 2104-2111. https://contemporaryjournal.com/index.php/14/article/view/361 Kampira, A., & Meyer, J. (2021). A brief introduction to thematic analysis. Research Gate, 10. Karacop, A., & Inaltekin, T. (2023). Formative assessment in educational research published at the beginning of the new millennium: Bibliometric analysis. Journal of Formative Design in Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41686-023-00081-9 Kazem, M. (2016). Effects of co-curricular activities on second language learners in higher education (Master’s thesis). Sakarya Universities (Turkey). Kelle, U. (2006). Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in research practice: Purposes and advantages. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(4), 293–311. Kuckartz, U. (2019). Qualitative content analysis: From Kracauer’s beginnings to today’s challenges. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 20(3), 20. Lamprianou, I., & Athanasou, J. (2009). A teacher’s guide to educational assessment: Revised edition. Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087909147 Lantolf, J., & Appel, G. (Eds.). (1994). Vygotskyan approaches to second language research. Ablex. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Second language acquisition and applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 165–181. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719050020010X Larsen-Freeman, D., & Freeman, D. (2008). Language moves: The place of “foreign” languages in classroom teaching and learning. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 147–186. Linn, R. L., & Miller, M. D. (2005). Measurement and assessment in teaching (8th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall. Marzano, R. J. (2009). Classroom management that works—Research-based strategies for every teacher. Pearson Education. McDonough, S. (2017). Applied linguistics in language education. Routledge. Moita Lopes, L. P. (2009). Da aplicação da Linguística à Linguística Aplicada indisciplinar. In R. C. Pereira & P. Roca (Eds.), Linguística Aplicada: Um Caminho com muitos Acessos (pp. 11–24). Contexto. Myers, G. (2005). Applied linguists and institutions of opinion. Applied Linguistics, 26(4), 527–544. Omemen, M. (2019). Teachers and students’ views towards the impact of assessment practices on teaching and learning of EFL in the Libyan higher education sector. Plonsky, L. (2017). Quantitative research methods. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language research (pp. 505–521). Routledge. Reinholz, D. (2016). The assessment cycle: A model for learning through peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(2), 301–315. Rose, J., & Johnson, C. W. (2020). Contextualising reliability and validity in qualitative research: Toward more rigorous and trustworthy qualitative social science in leisure research. Journal of Leisure Research, 51(4), 432–451. Saneewong, S. (2020). Thai primary teachers’ thinking about formative assessment (Doctoral dissertation). Monash University. Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagne, & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation (pp. 39–83). Rand McNally. Scriven, M. (1991). Chapter II: Beyond formative and summative evaluation. Teachers College Record, 92(6), 19–64. Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4–14. Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 3–14.

Antony John Kunnan is a language assessment specialist. His research interests are fairness of tests and testing practice, assessment literacy, research methods and statistics, ethics and standards, and language assessment policy. His most recent publications include a four-volume edited collection of 140 chapters titled The Companion to Language Assessment (Wiley, 2014), a four-volume set of 75 previously published papers titled Language Testing and Assessment (Routledge, 2014) and Talking about Language Assessment (Routledge, 2015). He was the founding editor of Language Assessment Quarterly (2003-2013) and the founding president of the Asian Association for Language Assessment. He has held academic and professorial appointments at universities in Bangalore, Ann Arbor, Los Angeles, Taichung, Hong Kong and Singapore. Currently, he is a research consultant at the Center for Linguistics and Applied Linguistics at Guangdong University of Foreign Studies in Guangzhou. The interview you are about to read here was recorded before Kunnan’s plenary talk at the 4 th International Conference on English Language Teaching (ICELT2015) in Melaka, Malaysia. My colleague, Dr. Seyed Ali Rezvani Kalajahi, managing editor of the International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature (IJALEL) also accompanied us during the interview.

Antony John Kunnan teaches and does research on language assessment theory, practice, and policy. He is a professor in the Department of English at the University of Macau and Associate Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Humanities. His previous positions were at Nanyang Technological University, the University of Hong Kong, Tunghai University (as a Fulbright Professor), and California State University, Los Angeles. His latest book is titled Evaluating language assessments (Routledge, 2017). He also published two four-volume edited sets titled The Companion to Language Assessment (Wiley, 2014) and Language Testing and Assessment (Routledge, 2014). He has also published widely in journals and in edited collections. He was the founding editor of Language Assessment Quarterly, past president of the International Language Testing Association and the founding president of the Asian Association for Language Assessment. He also directs the Language Assessment Seminar Research Group at UM (see https://fah.umac.mo/laser/). What follows is an interview by Karim Sadeghi (KS) with Prof. Antony Kunnan (AK) on his professional life as well as recent trends in language assessment.

Carol A. Chapelle (1955– ) is distinguished professor of liberal arts and sciences at Iowa State University, where she has taught and conducted in research applied linguistics since 1985. Her research and teaching is aimed at developing productive links between knowledge in applied linguistics and educational practices, particularly with respect to the use of technology for language learning and assessment. Her limited success as a learner of Russian in high school and college may have prompted her interest in the challenges faced by the adult language learner and their practical consequences for teaching—an interest that has sustained her teaching and research in computer‐assisted language learning and language assessment.

Studies have shown that language assessment literacy (LAL) is important for language teachers since they make important classroom decisions to improve student learning based on their assessment. However, some studies have shown that teachers need more knowledge and skills in assessment. Teachers also seem unconfident in assessing their students and need proper training. In order to help them to be more assessment literate, an instrument is needed to identify their LAL levels and needs. However, AL/LAL instruments available to date were based on dated 1990 Standards that did not address the latest development in assessment. Those instruments were not developed based on a specific domain of interest or teachers' needs in their local assessment context. A new LAL instrument is needed, which should be developed based on sound principles of test development framework, on teachers' assessment needs or profiles, and on a specific domain interest. In addition, since language assessment is a complex construct, the instrument should be developed following the principles of scenario-based assessment, which some studies suggest might have the potential to measure complex constructs. This dissertation study is aimed at developing such an instrument. In order to achieve the aim of this dissertation study, a scenario-based LAL test (SBLALT) was developed following the principles of Evidence-Centered Design. The activities in the first step of Evidence-Centered Design, Domain Analysis, were distributing a LAL questionnaire to Indonesian EFL teachers, interviewing eight Indonesian EFL teachers, and reviewing related literature. The results of the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of the 324 questionnaire responses were the six factors of LAL deemed important by Indonesian EFL teachers. In the next stage of ECD, Domain Modeling, the results of EFA and those of the literature review were organized into assessment arguments. This organized assessment argument was the input for the next step of ECD, the Conceptual Assessment Framework, where technical specifications for developing the test were elaborated. After getting feedback from five content experts of ELESP, five Ph.D. students of Applied Linguistics and Technology at Iowa State University, and five ELESP students who took the pencil and paper version of SBLALT, SBLALT was revised, and its final draft consists of four tasks of a test development process. Content analysis of SBLALT was conducted by distributing a short Likert-scale survey (0= very poor to 5 = very good) asking five content experts of ELESP to judge the content of SBLALT, whether the test items match the proficiency level of ELESP students, align with the objectives and the course materials of a language assessment-related course offered in ELESP. The content experts of ELESP agree that the SBLALT test items are very good, and the test items align with the course's objectives and materials. Classical Test Theory was used to analyze the psychometric properties of SBLALT. One hundred ELESP students took the final (online) version of SBLALT. Three indices were computed to analyze the effectiveness of SBLALT at the test level: score dependability, confidence interval, and classification dependability. Three indices were computed to analyze the effectiveness of SBLALT at the item level: B-index*, item phi index*, and item facility*. To set the cut score to determine the master and non-master students, five ELESP lecturers were invited to determine the cut score through the standard-setting process following the Angoff method. The cut score for SBLALT was 75%. The score dependability of SBLALT was not satisfactory (.64) but only marginally below the acceptable level of .70 for low-stakes, classroom-based assessments. The confidence interval of SBLALT was .07, which shows that the individual scores were not measured reliably by SBLALT. However, the classification dependability, the most important dependability measure for criterion-referenced measurements, was quite high (.84). SBLAT was quite consistent in classifying students into masters or non-masters. From the item analysis of SBLALT, eight out of fifteen items have a recommended B-index* of ≥ .20. This shows that those items did their job well in discriminating between the test takers who passed and failed the test. The rest of the test items (7 items) have a low positive B-index* (≤ .20), which means that these items did not effectively discriminate between the test takers who passed and failed the test. SBLALT differs from other measures of AL/LAL because SBLALT was developed based on the latest developments in language assessment and on the specific needs of EFL teachers. SBLALT was also based on specific curriculum objectives, which means that SBLALT supports curriculum and instruction. It is developed based on a scenario that resembles the context the test-taker participants will likely encounter as future teachers in their teaching careers. The scenario also facilitated the scaffolded test development tasks, which enables teachers who use this test in their teaching to focus on specific knowledge, skills, and abilities their students still need to improve. This study contributes to the field of LAL by developing a formative, classroom-based language assessment literacy test. The psychometric properties of SBLALT suggest that SBLALT has the potential to be applied as a measure of LAL in the Indonesian EFL context, specifically in the Indonesian English teacher education context. Using scenario-based assessment design enables SBLALT to document what students have achieved, improve students' learning, and provide a useful learning experience for students.

The following article is based on the action research done among English as foreign language (EFL) educators to identify the language assessment literacy level; hence, educational assessment has always been an integral element of teaching. The principle aim in undertaking the following research was to investigate the language assessment level of EFL teachers at Higher Educational Institutions (HEI) and mitigate the barriers to success in gaining procedural/ conceptual level of assessment literacy. There are many studies on language assessment literacy, taking the definition of assessment literacy as the root and focusing on the competence of language teachers, there exist several definitions. They will include a range of skills related to the test production, test score analysis, and the roles/ functions of assessment in education and society. The following research was undertaken with the help of two data collection methods: qualitative and quantitative. Qualitative method helped to identify the perception of teachers the language testing and assessment and generate the answers. Test with authentic and contextualized scenarios was used as quantitative method. Both data helped to identify the level of teachers’ assessment literacy. A total of 103 EFL educators from three language universities: Uzbekistan state university of world languages, Samarkand state institute of foreign languages and Nukus state pedagogical institute named after Ajiniyaz, were involved in the study. The result showed that the gap between subject matter knowledge and pedagogy of assessment can be bridged by aligning pre-service and in-service teacher programs. The consistency in developing teachers’ language assessment competence can be reached if conducting a clear and well-developed assessment course in practicing classroom assessment.

The rapid change and use of computer technology has had a profound influence in the field of language teaching and assessment, and the changes that computer and technology has brought to language assessment in particular are not only in the delivery method, but also in the scoring systems (Chapelle & Douglas, 2006). For instance, a wide variety of tasks be given as a test online worldwide, and scores can be available immediately to the test takers. However, along with such advances come potential problems and concerns.

The underlying methodological approach of the CEFR is defined as being “action-oriented” and task-based (Council of Europe. 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press: 9), although it explicitly leaves room for a variety of approaches, since the CEFR is a framework document. The action-oriented approach is, however, not coherently developed throughout the publication as it does not explain its application in assessment (Chapter 9). Chapter 9 presents a general introduction to the principles of language assessment but does not explain how the assessment can be contextualised so that the test-taker acts as a “social agent”. Although related documents on testing and assessment such as the Manual for Relating Language Examinations to the CEFR (Council of Europe 2009) and the Manual for Language Test Development and Examining (Council of Europe 2011) provide tools on assessment practices, they do not explain how to conceptualise an action-oriented task-based assessment. The CEFR Companion Volume (Council of Europe 2020) also stresses the underlying action-oriented approach of the CEFR in teaching and learning, but as it focuses explicitly on teaching and learning, it too does not cover the area of testing and assessment. For university language teaching, learning and assessment, it is necessary to develop a coherent, holistic methodology that applies the action-oriented and task-based approach to language teaching, learning and assessment, and applies a constructive alignment, which has a particular focus on the learner as a social agent. Initially, this requires the development of course content and the related assessment tasks to be based on a thorough needs analysis for a specific language teaching programme. In this way, university language centres can rethink their approach to teaching and assessment and implement changes both in their teaching and in their assessment and testing in order to offer a more coherent programme to their learners, which makes better use of the CEFR Framework. This paper summarises the principles of task-based language testing and explains in which contexts this approach might be particularly fruitful. It also presents the author’s experience gained in implementing the approach at institutional and national levels, and the challenges involved in managing this change.

Glenn Fulcher is the Professor of Applied Linguistics and Language Assessment in the English Department at the University of Leicester, UK. He got his PhD in Applied Linguistics and Language Testing from Lancaster University (1993) and his MA in Applied Linguistics from the University of Birmingham (1987). Professor Fulcher has been the editor of Sage's Language Testing (2006-2015) and an influential member of the Executive Board of The International Language Testing Association (ILTA) for many years. He has extensive experience and expertise in the philosophy of assessment, test design, the development of data-based rating scales as well as teaching language assessment. Professor Fulcher's book Language Testing and Assessment co-authored by Davidson (2007) has been the main resource for the ELT masters' courses in language testing in Iran for many years. Among his other publications are Re-examining Language Testing: A Philosophical and Social Inquiry (2015, the winner of the 2016 SAGE/LTA Book Award), The Rutledge Handbook of Language Testing (2012), Practical Language Testing (2010), Testing Second Language Speaking (2003) , and Writing in the English Language Classroom (1997). In an online interview, Professor Glenn Fulcher has joined Dr. Bahram Behin who is a zealous adherent of Fulcher's philosophy of assessment and has presented language testing courses based on his books.

Contents: Introduction. Part I: Important Social Contexts in Research on Second Language Teaching and Learning. Introduction. M.E. Brisk, Bilingual Education. M.R. Hawkins, ESL in Elementary Education. P.A. Duff, ESL in Secondary Schools: Programs, Problematics, and Possibilities. D.E. Murray, ESL in Adult Education. S. Carkin, English for Academic Purposes. P. Master, English for Specific Purposes. C. Roberts, English in the Workplace. B. Tomlinson, English as a Foreign Language: Matching Procedures to the Context of Learning. Y. Kachru, Teaching and Learning of World Englishes. Part II: Methods in Second Language Research. Introduction. L. Harklau, Ethnography and Ethnographic Research on Second Language Teaching and Learning. L. van Lier, Case Study. A. Lazaraton, Quantitative Research Methods. D. Nunan, Classroom Research. A. Burns, Action Research. Part III: Applied Linguistics and Second Language Research. Introduction. T. Pica, Second Language Acquisition Research and Applied Linguistics. S.L. McKay, Sociolinguistics and Second Language Learning. J. Zuengler, K.M. Cole, Language Socialization and Second Language Learning. G. Kasper, C. Roever, Pragmatics in Second Language Learning. J.P. Lantolf, Sociocultural and Second Language Learning Research: An Exegesis. N. Markee, Conversation Analysis for Second Language Acquisition. R.B. Kaplan, Contrastive Rhetoric. S. Conrad, Corpus Linguistics and L2 Teaching. Part IV: Second Language Processes and Development. Introduction. G. Ioup, Age in Second Language Development. R. DeKeyser, A. Juffs, Cognitive Considerations in L2 Learning. Z. Han, L. Selinker, Fossilization in L2 Learners. M. Swain, The Output Hypothesis: Theory and Research. E. Tarone, Speaking in a Second Language. M. Rost, L2 Listening. T.G. Wiley, Second Language Literacy and Biliteracy. P. Byrd, Instructed Grammar. D.E. Eskey, Reading in a Second Language. I.S.P. Nation, Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. J.S. Hedgcock, Taking Stock of Research and Pedagogy in L2 Writing. E. Hinkel, Analyses of Second Language Text and What Can Be Learned From Them. Part V: Methods and Curricula in Second Language Teaching. Introduction. S.J. Savignon, Communicative Language Teaching: Strategies and Goals. S. Fotos, Traditional and Grammar Translation Methods for Second Language Teaching. J. Williams, Form-Focused Instruction. M.A. Snow, A Model of Academic Literacy for Integrated Language and Content Instruction. R. Ellis, Instructed Language Learning and Task-Based Teaching. M. Celce-Murcia, E. Olshtain, Discourse-Based Approaches: A New Framework for Second Language Teaching and Learning. C.A. Chapelle, Computer-Assisted Language Learning. N.J. Anderson, L2 Learning Strategies. Part VI: Second Language Testing and Assessment. T. McNamara, Introduction. A.J. Kunnan, Language Assessment From a Wider Context. A. Davies, C. Elder, Validity and Validation in Language Testing. M. Chalhoub-Deville, C. Deville, A Look Back at and Forward to What Language Testers Measure. T. Lumley, A. Brown, Research Methods in Language Testing. D. Douglas, Testing Languages for Specific Purposes. C. Leung, Classroom Teacher Assessment of Second Language Development: Construct as Practice. Part VII: Identity, Culture, and Critical Pedagogy in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Introduction. T. Ricento, Considerations of Identity in L2 Learning. M. Byram, A. Feng, Teaching and Researching Intercultural Competence. S. Canagarajah, Critical Pedagogy in L2 Learning and Teaching. Part VIII: Language Planning and Policy and Language Rights. R.B. Baldauf, Jr., Introduction. R.B. Baldauf, Jr., Language Planning and Policy Research: An Overview. T. van Els, Status Planning for Learning and Teaching. A.J. Liddicoat, Corpus Planning: Syllabus and Materials Development. R.B. Baldauf, Jr., R.B. Kaplan, Language-in-Education Planning. D.E. Ager, Prestige and Image Planning. S. May, Language Planning and Minority Language Rights.

Speaking skill is affected by two factors, the internal and external factors. The two external factors are instructional methods and learning resources. The complete and incomplete learning resources will surely affect the instructional process. As well as with instructional methods, it will affect the achievement of learning objectives. This research is aimed to get the empirical data and to find out the effect of instructional method and learning resources towards students’ speaking skill at state senior high schools in Bekasi. The research was conducted at SMA Negeri 1 and SMA Negeri 2 Sukatani-Bekasi. The total sample of this research is 40 students. The experiment was done from 17 Juli – 02 December in 2017. The technique of collecting data of instructional method and learning resources used questionnaires. Otherwise, the speaking skill was acquired from the test. The result of the research identifies there is the significant effect of instructional method and learning resources towards students speaking skill. Thus, the schools and the government should increasingly work hard in fulfillment of the completeness of learning resources and using an appropriate instructional method for the achievement of learning objectives.
 
 References
 Abdullah, M. (2013). Students’ speaking ability through community language learning. ELITE: English and Literature Journal, 1(1), 97-125. http://journal.uin-alauddin.ac.id/index.php/elite/article/view/3353/3167
 Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment, principle, and classroom practice: Fourth edition. New York: Pearson Education, Inc.
 Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching language to young learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 Chaney, A. L., & Burk, T. L. (1998). Teaching oral communication in grades K-8. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
 Hughes, D. (2007). Public speaking. Jakarta: Gramedia Widiasarana.
 Keown, M. P. (1976). Reading a basic guide for parents and teacher. Singapore: Routledgeand Kegan Paul Ltd.
 Masbiran, G. & Fauzi, A. (2017). Speaking skill in using community language learning (CLL). IJIELT, 3(2), 198-205. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.24014/ijielt.v3i2.4844
 Muhroji, dkk. (2004). Fasilitas belajar mengajar. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
 Nurhayati & Mufliharsi, R. (2016). Perencanaan dan pengajaran bahasa Inggris. Jakarta: UNINDRA PRESS.
 Nurmalia, E. (2010). Pengaruh fasilitas dan lingkungan belajar terhadap prestasi belajar siswa kelas XI IPS MAN Malang 1. Skripsi tidak diterbitkan. Malang: Universitas Islam Negeri (UIN) Maulana Malik Ibrahim Malang.
 Richards J.C., & Rodgers. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 Sudjana. (1996). Metode statistika. Bandung: Tarsito.
 Setiyadi, B. (2006). Teaching english as foreign language. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu.

Classroom assessment, as a crucial element of the teaching journey, plays a significant part in enhancing student achievement, student learning, and teacher instruction. As such, teachers should possess a good grasp of assessment literacy. This study aimed to explore the EAP teachers’ perceptions regarding the demand for in-service training in various areas of language assessment, in particular, examining how a language testing and assessment (LTA) teacher education course would impact the EAP instructors’ Language Assessment Literacy (LAL). In this qualitative study, pursuing a descriptive narrative design, 60 EAP instructors were selected through purposive sampling from those who have been working in state universities in Tehran. From these participants, 30 EAP teachers were asked to write narratives regarding their needs for training on LAL, and the other 30 participants were involved in an online semi-structured interview to determine how such a course could promote or inhibit their perceptions and practices of LA and LAL. Using MAXQDA to do content and thematic analysis, the research findings revealed that EAP instructors highly perceived a need for further training especially a practice-based one. In particular, the instructors thought of teacher education courses as contributing to their theoretical and practical knowledge of LAL. Hence, teacher education courses with a specific focus on LAL are highly required, changing EAP teachers’ perspectives on LTA, from being taught solely in theory to being taught practically in real classroom environments.

This paper reflects on Dr Carol Ann Chapelle’s contributions to applied linguistics from the perspectives of some of her former students. As alumni of the Applied Linguistics and Technology (ALT) doctoral program at Iowa State University, we had the privilege of spending a significant amount of time with her, thus being able to closely observe her approach to research and teaching, her evolving research interests, and the increasing impact of her work in the field of applied linguistics. Our reflections on her accomplishments and contributions are centred around her academic achievements in areas such as computer-assisted language learning (CALL), computer-assisted language testing (CALT) and validity theory and validation practices; the qualities and traits that she exhibits which we believe enabled her to succeed; and her dedication to teaching, mentoring, and training of the next generation of applied linguists. Each author provided their reflections independently, based on their personal experiences of studying and collaborating with her. Dr Chapelle is a distinguished but low-key scholar. We intend to reveal the extensive efforts she has made behind the scenes to advance the knowledge and practice of language learning, teaching and assessment.

Animal GeneticsVolume 35, Issue 2 p. 164-164 Physical and linkage mapping of the lymphocyte antigen 86 (LY86) gene to porcine chromosome 7 S.-H. Zhao, S.-H. Zhao Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University, 2255 Kildee Hall, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA Permanent address: College of Animal Science and Technology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, China.Search for more papers by this authorA. Erickson, A. Erickson Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University, 2255 Kildee Hall, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USASearch for more papers by this authorC. K. Tuggle, C. K. Tuggle Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University, 2255 Kildee Hall, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USASearch for more papers by this author S.-H. Zhao, S.-H. Zhao Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University, 2255 Kildee Hall, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA Permanent address: College of Animal Science and Technology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, China.Search for more papers by this authorA. Erickson, A. Erickson Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University, 2255 Kildee Hall, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USASearch for more papers by this authorC. K. Tuggle, C. K. Tuggle Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University, 2255 Kildee Hall, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USASearch for more papers by this author First published: 17 March 2004 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2052.2004.01110.x C. K. Tuggle ([email protected]) Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL No abstract is available for this article. Volume35, Issue2April 2004Pages 164-164 RelatedInformation