Intern
ati
o
n
a
l
Jo
urn
a
l
o
f
E
v
al
ua
ti
o
n
and
Rese
arch in
Education (I
JE
RE)
V
o
l.3
,
No
.3
, Sep
t
em
b
e
r
20
14, pp
. 152
~157
I
S
SN
: 225
2-8
8
2
2
1
52
Jo
urn
a
l
h
o
me
pa
ge
: h
ttp
://iaesjo
u
r
na
l.com/
o
n
lin
e/ind
e
x.ph
p
/
IJERE
An Assessment of IELTS Speaking Test
S
h
a
h
z
a
d
Ka
rim,
Na
us
ha
ba
H
a
q
Department o
f
English,
The Islamia
University
o
f
Bahawalpur, Pakistan
Article Info
A
B
STRAC
T
Article histo
r
y:
Received April
04, 2014
Rev
i
sed
Ju
l 15
,
20
14
Accepted Aug 24, 2014
The presen
t stu
d
y
fo
cused on
assessing the speaking
test of I
ELTS
.
Th
e
assessm
ent discussed both positive
as
pe
cts a
nd weaknesses
in IE
LTS
speaking modu
le. The researchers ha
d
also
suggested so
me possible
m
eas
ures
for th
e im
provem
e
nt
in IE
LTS
s
p
eak
ing tes
t
and
inc
r
eas
ing
it
s
validi
t
y
and re
li
abili
t
y
.
The res
earch
ers had an
al
y
s
ed and
assessed IELTS
speaking test in the light of
both th
eor
e
ti
ca
l
and pra
c
ti
ca
l
pers
pect
ives
presented b
y
ex
perien
ced resear
chers
in the field of language testing an
d
evalu
a
tion
.
Th
e
resear
chers’ m
a
jor con
cern
in
the assessm
ent of IELTS
speaking test was to do utmost ef
fort to
av
oid th
e
elem
ent of
s
ubje
c
tivi
t
y
and
to present some logical
and practic
al suggestions for improv
ing IELTS
spe
a
k
ing te
st.
Keyword:
Assessm
ent
Ev
alu
a
tion
IELTS
Sp
eak
i
ng
Copyright ©
201
4 Institut
e
o
f
Ad
vanced
Engin
eer
ing and S
c
i
e
nce.
All rights re
se
rve
d
.
Co
rresp
ond
i
ng
Autho
r
:
N
a
u
s
ha
ba
Haq
,
Depa
rt
m
e
nt
of En
gl
i
s
h,
Th
e
Islam
i
a Un
iv
ersity o
f
Bah
a
wal
p
ur,
Pakistan.
Em
a
il: lsn
tl@c
c
u
.
ed
u.tw
1.
INTRODUCTION
Spea
king is a
productive skill. From
test
ing point of view, it
is speci
al because it is
int
e
ractive in
n
a
ture
an
d h
a
s
to
b
e
m
easu
r
ed
d
i
rectly
in
li
v
e
i
n
teraction
.
Th
e b
a
sic pu
rpo
s
e o
f
d
e
v
e
l
o
pin
g
sp
eak
i
ng
sk
ill
is
to
in
teract su
ccessfu
lly in
that p
a
rticu
l
ar l
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
a
n
d i
t
i
n
v
o
l
v
es
c
o
m
p
rehensi
o
n
a
s
wel
l
as
pr
od
uct
i
o
n
.
Spea
king test
has
been a pa
rt and
pa
rcel of world wi
de large
scale
language
proficienc
y tests like IELTS,
TOEF
L, an
d
C
a
m
b
ri
dge e
x
am
s l
i
k
e FC
E and C
A
E.
Ho
weve
r, t
h
e
pre
s
ent
st
u
d
y
aim
s
at
assessi
ng
IELT
S
Spea
ki
n
g
Test
onl
y
.
Spea
king test is the last of the
four tests in IELTS. It consi
s
ts of
a face to face intervie
w betwee
n the
candi
dat
e
an
d
an IE
LTS t
r
ai
ned e
x
am
i
n
er.
The i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
l
a
st
s for
1
1
t
o
15 m
i
nut
es a
nd i
s
reco
r
d
ed
on a
n
audi
o-cas
set
t
e
. The
t
e
st
i
s
di
v
i
ded i
n
t
o
t
h
ree
pha
ses.
Phase 1
is in
tro
d
u
c
tion
wh
ich
is carried
o
u
t
in
a series
o
f
sh
ort qu
estion
s
an
d
an
swers in
ord
e
r to
m
a
k
e
t
h
e can
di
dat
e
com
f
ort
a
bl
e a
n
d t
o
de
vel
o
p s
o
m
e
fam
i
li
ari
t
y
wi
t
h
t
h
e
can
di
dat
e
.
The
ex
am
i
n
er ask
s
ve
r
y
sim
p
l
e
quest
i
o
ns ab
o
u
t
can
di
dat
e
’s
ow
n sel
f
l
i
k
e hi
s/
he
r
hom
e, fam
i
l
y
,
cou
n
t
r
y
,
wo
r
k
,
st
udy
, i
n
t
e
rest
s
et
c. For e
x
am
pl
e:
“Why
di
d
y
ou deci
de t
o
st
udy
En
gi
ne
eri
n
g
?
” “
W
hat
are som
e
of the m
o
st
popul
a
r
dri
nks
i
n
y
o
u
r
cou
n
t
r
y
?
”
Phase
2
is an in
d
i
v
i
du
al lon
g
turn wh
ere th
e cand
id
at
e
has
t
o
s
p
ea
k
on
a sel
ect
ed
t
opi
c
fo
r
2 t
o
3
m
i
nut
es. Eac
h
candi
dat
e
i
s
gi
ven
a t
o
pi
c a
n
d
he/
s
he
has
t
o
t
a
l
k
a
b
out
i
t
i
n
t
h
e
f
o
rm
of
a m
onol
o
gue
i
n
l
i
m
i
t
e
d t
i
m
e
i
.
e. 2 t
o
3 m
i
nut
es. The
o
b
ject
o
r
t
opi
c t
o
be
de
scri
be
d i
s
ge
ne
ral
i
n
nat
u
re l
i
k
e a ri
ve
r,
beac
h
or a film
etc.
Phase
3
com
p
ri
ses o
f
a
t
w
o
way
di
sc
ussi
on
or
di
al
og
ue
be
t
w
een t
h
e ca
nd
i
d
at
e an
d t
h
e i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
wer
.
It
i
s
th
em
a
ticall
y
li
n
k
e
d
t
o
th
e topic o
f
th
e l
o
ng
t
u
rn
i.e.
p
h
a
se 2.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
ERE
I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
2
2
An A
ssess
ment
of
Ielts Spea
kin
g
Test (Sha
hza
d
Ka
ri
m
)
15
3
2.
METHO
D
OL
OGY
The
foc
u
s
o
f
t
h
e
prese
n
t
st
u
d
y
i
s
on
assess
i
ng t
h
e s
p
ea
ki
ng
t
e
st
o
f
IEL
T
S. M
a
ny
re
se
arche
r
s
ha
ve
p
r
op
o
s
ed
v
a
rio
u
s
asp
ects an
d
ways o
f
assessing
th
e oral ab
ility. Ho
wev
e
r, Hug
h
e
s’ (200
3) criteria for
assessing oral ability seem
appropriate in assessing the oral ab
ility. Hughe
s (2003) e
m
phasises followi
ng
steps in assessi
ng the
oral abil
ity [1].
To
set an
app
r
o
p
riate task
t
o
elicit rep
r
esen
tativ
e sam
p
le o
f
th
e
p
opu
latio
n.
To
en
su
re v
a
li
d
ity an
d reliab
i
lity o
f
elicited
sam
p
le an
d
it’s scoring
.
Hence
,
keepi
n
g i
n
vi
e
w
t
h
e
com
p
rehe
nsi
v
e
ap
pr
oac
h
of
Hu
g
h
es’
(
2
00
3
)
presc
r
i
b
e
d
c
r
i
t
e
ri
on,
t
h
e
researc
h
er
s
ha
ve
deci
de
d t
o
f
o
l
l
o
w
hi
s
st
eps
wi
t
h
s
o
m
e
var
i
at
i
on i
n
o
r
de
r
t
o
assess
IEL
T
S
spea
ki
n
g
m
odul
e
[1
]. As in
IELTS in
terv
iew is u
s
ed
as a tool fo
r eliciti
ng sam
p
l
e
of spea
k
i
ng, s
o
fi
rst
l
y
t
h
e ap
pr
o
p
ri
at
e
n
ess o
f
in
terv
iew as a to
o
l
for elicitin
g rep
r
esen
tativ
e sam
p
le
will b
e
assessed an
d th
en
it will b
e
fo
llowed
by th
e
assessm
en
t o
f
v
a
lid
ity, reliab
i
lity an
d
practicality o
f
th
e
IELTS sp
eak
i
n
g test.
3.
R
E
SU
LTS AN
D ANA
LY
SIS
3.
1.
Assessme
n
t of th
e Appr
opri
ate
n
ess
of In
te
rview as
a S
a
mple Eliciting Tool
Tho
ugh
in
terv
i
e
w is th
e m
o
st wid
e
ly u
s
ed
task
for testin
g
sp
eak
i
n
g sk
ill,
yet it h
a
s so
m
e
d
r
awb
acks
as well. He
re we will discuss intervie
w in t
h
e context
of
IELTS speaki
n
g test. In IE
LTS, interview is
use
d
in
its trad
itio
n
a
l
fo
rm
wh
ich
h
a
s on
e seriou
s
drawb
a
ck
i.e.
i
n
su
ch
in
terv
iews th
e i
n
terv
iewer rem
a
in
s domin
an
t
because he is responsi
b
le for taking all the initiatives, wh
il
e the candidate
or interv
iewee
has j
u
st to respond
to
th
e qu
estions ask
e
d to
h
i
m. Th
u
s
, i
n
t
h
is way
on
ly
o
n
e
st
y
l
e of
s
p
eec
h i
s
el
i
c
i
t
e
d a
n
d
m
a
ny
aspe
ct
s o
f
sp
eak
i
ng
lik
e ask
i
ng
qu
estion
and
tak
i
ng
in
itiativ
es to
start a d
i
scu
ssi
on
rem
a
in
h
i
d
d
en
. Hug
h
e
s (20
0
3
:
119
)
d
i
scu
s
sed th
is i
d
ea in th
e
fo
llowing
words [1
]
.
“The
rel
a
t
i
ons
hi
p
bet
w
e
e
n
t
h
e t
e
st
er a
n
d
t
h
e
can
di
dat
e
is usu
a
lly su
ch
t
h
at th
e can
d
i
d
a
te
sp
eak
s
as to
a superi
or
and
is unwilling to
take the i
n
itiati
ve.
As
a
result, only one style of
speech is elicited, a
nd
m
a
ny
fu
nct
i
o
n
s
(s
uch
as a
s
ki
ng
f
o
r
i
n
fo
rm
ati
o
n
)
are
not
represente
d in ca
ndidate’s
pe
rformance.”
So, in each
phase, the candi
date
shoul
d be given
t
h
e opportunity
to ask
ques
tions. It will
not only
h
e
lp
th
e cand
i
d
a
te in
b
u
ild
i
n
g
up
h
i
s con
f
i
d
en
ce, pu
t h
i
m in
to
ease, b
u
t
will also
h
e
lp
th
e in
terv
iewer in
assessing
can
d
id
ate’s
q
u
e
stion
i
ng
sk
ills. Moreov
er, it will
al
so
h
e
l
p
the can
d
i
d
a
te to
g
e
t
clarificatio
n
t
o
av
o
i
d
goi
ng
ast
r
ay
d
u
ri
ng
t
h
e c
o
urs
e
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w a
n
d
be
m
o
re f
o
cus
s
ed
.
Ano
t
h
e
r
d
r
awb
ack of th
e
IELTS in
terv
iew is its form
al
co
n
t
ex
t. In
real life situ
atio
n
,
m
o
stl
y
, we
h
a
v
e
t
o
sp
eak
in
in
fo
rm
al co
n
t
ex
t.
As th
e req
u
i
rem
e
n
t
s o
f
sp
eak
i
n
g
sk
ill v
a
ry in
bo
th
fo
rm
al an
d
in
form
a
l
co
n
t
ex
t, th
e
form
al co
n
t
ex
t of IELTS in
terview m
a
y n
o
t
elicit an
d
an
alyze sp
eak
i
ng
skill in
its tru
e
sen
s
e.
Mo
reo
v
e
r, th
e
co
n
t
ro
lled
co
nd
itio
n
s
during
th
e in
terv
iew
do
no
t allo
w in
terv
iewee to
speak as freely as one
sp
eak
s
in real l
i
fe. Th
us, t
h
e i
n
fo
rm
atio
n
elicited
cann
o
t
b
e
tru
e
rep
r
esen
tat
i
v
e
of
real life
sp
eak
i
ng
sk
ills.
In real life we
have to s
p
ea
k in diffe
re
nt situa
tions and contexts and our language
varie
s
according
t
o
t
h
ose
di
ffe
re
nt
co
nt
ext
s
.
I
n
i
n
t
e
rvi
e
w, t
h
e
use
of l
a
ng
ua
g
e
i
n
t
h
ose
di
ffe
rent
c
ont
e
x
t
s
c
a
nn
ot
be asses
s
ed as
i
t
can be
assess
ed t
h
ro
u
g
h
r
o
l
e
pl
ay
t
a
sks
.
H
u
ghe
s (
2
00
3)
co
nf
orm
s
t
o
t
h
i
s
i
d
ea
by
say
i
ng:
“In m
y
expe
ri
ence
,
h
o
wev
e
r,
wh
ere th
e aim
is to elicit ‘n
atural
’ langu
ag
e an
d atte
m
p
t h
a
s
been
m
a
d
e
to get th
e can
d
i
d
a
t
e
s to
forg
et, t
o
so
m
e
ex
ten
t
at least, th
at th
ey are bein
g
tested
,
ro
l
e
p
l
ay can
d
e
st
ro
y th
is illu
sion
.” (p
.
1
20) [1]. So
in
stead
of ask
i
n
g
th
e can
d
i
d
a
te to
sp
eak
in
th
e form
o
f
a
mo
no
logu
e, it is
b
e
tter to
let h
i
m/h
e
r sp
eak
throug
h
so
m
e
ro
le p
l
ay
activ
ity wh
ich
is m
o
re relev
a
n
t
to
real-life
situ
atio
n
s
.
More
ove
r, in
real life, ideas are
n
o
t
wel
l
fo
rm
ed i
n
m
i
nd. They
hav
e
t
o
be ge
nerat
e
d i
m
m
e
di
at
ely
and
quic
k
res
p
ons
es are re
quired.
Whereas i
n
IEL
T
S, es
pe
ci
ally
in
th
e seco
nd
part i.e. of in
d
i
v
i
du
al lon
g
t
u
rn
t
h
e can
di
dat
e
i
s
gi
ve
n
som
e
t
i
m
e
t
o
f
o
rm
ul
ate i
d
eas,
eve
n
s
p
are
pa
per
an
d
pe
nci
l
are
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
t
o
j
o
t
do
wn
t
h
e
ideas which,
norm
ally does not ha
ppe
n i
n
real life. These aspects
of IELTS s
p
e
a
king test seem
a bit
u
n
n
a
tural.
Hence, it is sugg
est
e
d
th
at it sho
u
l
d
b
e
m
a
d
e
m
o
re n
a
tural an
d clo
s
e t
o
real life
situ
atio
n
s
.
3.
2.
Assessme
n
t of Validity
Th
e
v
a
lid
ity o
f
a test can
b
e
ju
dg
ed
b
y
con
s
id
ering
“do
e
s t
h
e test test what it is su
ppo
sed
to test
?
”
[2]
.
I
n
o
r
der t
o
have a bet
t
e
r i
d
ea o
f
t
h
e val
i
di
t
y
of t
h
e IE
L
T
S spea
ki
n
g
m
o
d
u
l
e
, w
e
m
a
y i
nvest
i
g
at
e i
t
un
de
r
its su
b-catego
r
ies lik
e con
t
en
t v
a
lid
ity,
face v
a
lid
ity an
d
criteri
o
n
v
a
l
i
d
ity. Bu
t b
e
fo
re
d
i
scu
ssing it in
accorda
n
ce wi
th the above
mentioned
cat
egories, we may have a bri
e
f
desc
ription of what validity is.
Accord
ing
to
Hugh
es (20
03) a test is said
to
b
e
v
a
lid
if it
measures acc
urately what
it is sup
p
o
s
ed
to
measu
r
e
[1]
.
Ho
we
ver
,
Hen
n
i
g
(
1
9
8
7
),
B
achm
a
n (1
9
9
0
)
a
nd M
e
ssi
ck (
1
99
5)
are
o
f
t
h
e
opi
ni
o
n
t
h
at
val
i
d
i
t
y
i
s
r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
and i
t
de
pe
nd
s
up
o
n
t
h
e
pu
r
pos
e o
f
t
h
e t
e
st
. A t
e
st
can
not
be com
p
l
e
t
e
l
y
val
i
d
. It
m
a
y
be val
i
d
fo
r o
n
e
pu
r
pose
b
u
t
no
t
fo
r a
not
her
[
3
]
-
[
5
]
.
M
e
ssi
c
k
(
1
99
6
)
c
onsi
d
ers
val
i
d
i
t
y
as
an i
n
t
e
g
r
al
an
d
uni
fi
ed c
o
nc
ept
[
6
]
.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:
2
252
-88
22
I
J
ERE
Vo
l. 3
,
N
o
. 3
,
Sep
t
emb
e
r
201
4
:
1
52
–
15
7
15
4
But for the sa
ke of c
o
nve
nience and
t
o
analyze it thoroughly that no m
a
jo
r
s
o
urce of validity
shoul
d rem
a
in
hi
d
d
en
, t
h
e
v
a
l
i
d
i
t
y
of t
h
e
IE
LTS s
p
ea
ki
n
g
t
e
st
i
s
bei
n
g a
s
s
e
ssed
he
re t
h
ro
ug
h t
y
pe
by
t
y
pe.
a)
Co
n
t
en
t Valid
i
t
y
A test is said to
h
a
v
e
con
t
en
t v
a
lid
ity if its co
n
t
en
ts
co
nsist o
f
item
s
wh
ich
can elicit th
e
represen
tativ
e
sam
p
le o
f
th
at
p
a
rticu
l
ar
sk
il
l. Th
e im
p
o
r
tan
ce
o
f
con
t
en
t v
a
lid
ity lies in
th
e fact
th
at
th
e
accuracy
of measurem
ent of
a certain
skill depe
nds upon t
h
e accuracy of th
e content va
lidity. Hughes
(2003)
el
abo
r
at
es t
h
at
t
h
e cont
e
n
t
s
o
f
a t
e
st
shoul
d not
be
base
d o
n
w
h
at
i
s
easy
t
o
t
e
st
rat
h
er what
i
s
im
port
a
nt
t
o
test [1]
.
F
o
r e
x
am
ple a test fo
r
post
g
ra
d
u
a
t
e level l
earn
e
rs sh
ou
ld no
t
co
n
t
ain th
e
same set o
f
item
s
an
d
structures as
for
unde
rgra
duate level learners.
IELT
S
s
p
eaki
n
g t
e
st
ha
s
sam
e
st
ruct
ur
e an
d c
ont
e
n
t
fo
r t
h
e
learn
e
rs
o
f
all
lev
e
ls and no
co
nsid
eration is p
a
i
d
to
t
h
ei
r educat
i
o
nal
ba
ckg
r
ou
n
d
or
a
g
e. Th
us,
t
h
e
c
ont
e
n
t
v
a
lid
ity o
f
IELTS sp
eak
i
n
g test m
a
y b
e
qu
estio
n
e
d.
An
ot
he
r
basi
c con
s
i
d
erat
i
o
n
of c
o
nt
ent
va
l
i
d
i
t
y
i
s
that the langua
ge s
a
m
p
le collected in a s
h
ort
peri
od
of t
i
m
e
of t
h
e t
e
st
sh
o
u
l
d
be re
pre
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e o
f
t
h
e l
a
ng
ua
ge u
s
ed i
n
real
-l
i
f
e si
t
u
at
i
on as
Hasse
l
g
ree
n
(
200
4
:
12
)
says
[7
]:
“The sam
p
le of language
coll
ected
in t
h
e s
h
ort s
p
ace
of te
st-tim
e is somehow
re
prese
n
tative of the
l
a
ng
uage
o
f
re
al
-l
i
f
e com
m
u
n
i
cat
i
on, a
n
d r
e
l
e
vant
to
the sp
ecified
do
main
. Th
is rep
r
esen
tativ
en
ess
is ev
alu
a
ted
in
th
e pro
cess
of
co
n
t
en
t
v
a
lid
atio
n
,
with resp
ect n
o
t
on
ly to
l
i
n
g
u
i
stic fo
rm
s bu
t also to
t
h
e f
u
nct
i
ons
a
n
d
co
n
d
i
t
i
ons
of
spea
ki
n
g
.”
The IELTS s
p
eaking test does not
ful
f
il this criterion
of
conte
n
t
validit
y as the interview cannot
r
e
pr
esen
t th
e
use of
spok
en
lan
g
u
a
g
e
in
real-life situ
atio
n
s
. Th
e in
terv
iew usu
a
lly tends to
b
e
m
o
re fo
rm
al
an
d unn
atur
al.
b)
Face validity
Accord
ing
to
Hugh
es (20
0
3
:
3
3
) “a test is said
to
h
a
v
e
face v
a
lid
ity if it l
o
ok
s as if it measu
r
es wh
at
i
t
i
s
su
pp
ose
d
t
o
m
easure”
[
1
]
.
Ha
sse
lgr
een (2
004
: 14)
m
e
n
tio
n
s
t
w
o im
p
o
r
tant
factors
which m
a
y affect the
face
validity of a test [7]. T
h
e
two
factors a
r
e
:
Un
fam
i
liarity
of
f
o
rm
at
Lack
o
f
au
t
h
enticit
y in
test task
If
we e
v
aluate
IELTS
s
p
eaki
n
g test for face
validity,
it can
be sai
d
that
IE
LTS
fulfils t
h
e
criterion
of
face validity as its form
at is
quite clear and well esta
blished. Besides,
many so
urces
like books, re
s
earch
repo
rts and
web
s
ites are av
ailab
l
e wh
ich prov
id
e
no
t on
ly
su
itab
l
e gu
id
eli
n
es ab
ou
t
format but also
provide
h
e
lp
ing
m
a
terials to
th
e cand
i
d
a
tes.
c)
Criterio
n
-relat
e
d
v
a
lid
ity
Th
ere are two
k
i
nd
s
o
f
criteri
o
n
-related valid
ity.
C
onc
ur
re
nt
val
i
di
t
y
Pred
ictiv
e v
a
li
d
ity
IELTS s
p
ea
king test
m
a
y not fulfil concurre
nt validity
as it consists of
jus
t
a short 11 to
14 m
i
nutes
in
terv
iew in
wh
ich
all asp
ects o
f
sp
eak
i
ng
sk
ill
m
a
y
n
o
t
b
e
assessed
as th
ey can
b
e
assessed
in
ro
le-p
lay
task
s, oral p
r
esen
tatio
n
s
o
r
p
i
ctu
r
e cu
ed
tasks. Thu
s
, th
e speak
ing
sk
ill eli
c
ited
fro
m
in
te
rv
iew
m
a
y n
o
t
b
e
the
represen
tativ
e
o
f
ov
erall sp
eak
i
ng
ab
ility in
all co
n
t
ex
ts of
real life.
Pred
ictiv
e v
a
lid
ity “co
n
cern
s
th
e d
e
gree to
wh
ich
a te
st ca
n predict candidates’ future perform
a
nce”
[1]. In both te
sts of IE
LTS i
.
e. IEL
T
S ge
neral and
IELT
S for academ
ic purpose s
p
ea
king test is the sa
m
e
.
There is no change in the s
p
eaking test with refe
renc
e to the change of conte
x
t
of the
two. IELTS s
p
eaking
test
m
a
y h
a
v
e
b
e
tter
p
r
ed
ictive v
a
lid
ity in
g
e
n
e
ral con
t
ex
t as th
e
way it is
ad
m
i
n
i
stered
, i
t
m
a
y assess gen
e
ral
spea
king a
b
ility in a
better way com
p
ared to t
h
e spea
king in aca
dem
i
c c
onte
x
t because
the re
quirem
e
nts of
spea
king in ge
neral a
r
e
quite
diffe
re
nt from
that
of
diffe
re
nt subject s
p
ecific academ
ic context.
3.
3.
Assessment of Relia
bility
Th
e reliab
ility
o
f
a test is
d
e
term
in
ed
b
y
th
e
co
nsisten
c
y of
its
m
a
rk
s as remark
ed
b
y
Hug
h
e
s (2
003
:
36
) “T
he
m
o
re si
m
i
l
a
r t
h
e sc
ores
w
o
ul
d
ha
ve
been
, t
h
e m
o
re
rel
i
a
bl
e t
h
e t
e
st
i
s
sai
d
t
o
be.”
Thi
s
si
m
i
l
a
ri
ty
and
co
nsi
s
t
e
nc
y
of
sco
r
es
de
p
e
nd
s
up
o
n
t
w
o
fact
or
s [
1
]
.
Raters’ gra
d
in
g
Test con
d
ition
s
We m
a
y
di
scus
s t
h
ese t
w
o
fac
t
ors
o
n
e
by
o
n
e
wi
t
h
refe
re
nce
t
o
t
h
e
IE
LTS
s
p
eaki
n
g
m
odul
e.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
ERE
I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
2
2
An A
ssess
ment
of
Ielts Spea
kin
g
Test (Sha
hza
d
Ka
ri
m
)
15
5
a)
Rater
s
’
gr
ad
i
ng
Reliab
ilit
y b
a
sed
on
raters’
grad
i
n
g is
o
f
two
typ
e
s, i
n
ter-rater reliab
ility an
d in
tra-rater
reliab
ility.
These t
w
o type
s are
disc
usse
d by
Hasselgree
n
(2
0
04: 2
1
)
i
n
the follo
win
g
wo
rd
s
[
7
]
:
“In
t
er-rater rel
i
ab
ility is th
e
ex
ten
t
to
wh
ich
d
i
fferen
t raters are able to
ag
ree on
th
e sam
e
p
e
rform
a
n
ces, wh
ile in
tra-rater reliab
ility is th
e ex
t
e
n
t
to
wh
ich th
e sa
m
e
rater wou
l
d
(hy
pot
het
i
cal
l
y
)
be c
onsi
s
t
e
nt
i
f
ap
pl
y
i
ng
t
h
e
sam
e
cri
t
e
ri
a to t
h
e
sam
e
perf
orm
a
nce re
peat
edl
y
.”
In IE
LTS s
p
ea
king m
odule, inter-rater relia
bility
m
a
y be affected
beca
use the oral abi
lity of the
candi
dat
e
i
s
as
sessed
by
a si
ngl
e
rat
e
r. M
o
reo
v
er
, t
h
e
gra
d
i
n
g i
s
d
o
n
e o
n
t
h
e
basi
s o
f
vag
u
e,
h
o
l
i
s
t
i
c
ban
d
scal
e i
n
w
h
i
c
h t
h
e
r
e i
s
ge
n
e
ral
di
vi
si
on
of
ba
nds
o
n
t
h
e ba
si
s o
f
ca
t
e
go
ri
es l
i
k
e f
l
uency
,
gram
m
a
t
i
cal
accuracy, c
o
he
rence a
n
d pronunciation,
but no s
p
ecifi
c
marks are allocated to
eac
h
category which m
a
y
resu
lt in
t
o
m
a
rk
ing
acco
r
d
i
ng to
th
e
preference o
f
th
e
rate
r.
Thu
s
, i
n
ord
e
r
to
rem
o
v
e
th
e
d
oub
t of su
bj
ectiv
ity
test shoul
d be
score
d
by
two
inde
pende
n
t ra
ters who s
h
oul
d
not kn
ow how each
one
of
them
has score
d
the
test.
Th
e im
p
act o
f
th
e in
terv
iewer d
i
fferen
ces
on th
e resu
lt and
fin
a
l score of th
e test sh
ou
ld
b
e
seriou
sly
t
a
ken i
n
t
o
acc
ou
nt
i
n
a rat
i
n
g
pr
ocess
beca
use a ca
n
d
i
d
at
e’s re
p
o
rt
e
d
pr
ofi
c
i
e
ncy
l
e
vel
i
s
n
o
t
o
n
l
y
hi
s/
he
r
in
h
e
ren
t
ab
ilit
y b
u
t
also
d
e
pen
d
s up
on
in
terv
iewer’s
v
a
ri
ab
ility an
d
subj
ectiv
ity. For ex
am
p
l
e, so
m
e
raters
treat ‘fillers’ a
s
positive
beca
use
of
its
native-like speech style;
whereas
others m
a
y consider it as a
refl
ection
of lim
ited voc
abula
r
y. Sim
ilarly, so
m
e
assessors consi
d
e
r
‘disflue
ncy’
as a native
-
like speec
h style because
man
y
ti
mes in
real-life situ
atio
n
s
t
h
e n
a
tiv
e
sp
eak
e
rs te
nd t
o
pa
use in t
h
eir speec
h
es
pecially when they
spea
k
whi
l
e
dee
p
l
y
thi
n
ki
n
g
. O
n
t
h
e ot
her ha
n
d
, s
o
m
e
assessors m
a
y
t
h
i
nk o
f
‘
d
i
s
fl
ue
ncy
’
as a draw
bac
k
. B
r
o
w
n
an
d
Hill (200
7: 5
5
) also
say t
h
at th
ere are
gen
e
rally tw
o
ty
p
e
s
o
f
i
n
terv
iewers:
‘th
e
d
i
ffi
cu
lt in
terv
iewers and
th
e easy in
terv
i
e
wers’
[8
]. The fo
rm
er on
es
ev
en indu
ce
com
p
lex
sk
ills o
f
sp
ecu
l
atin
g and
j
u
stifyin
g
op
i
n
ion
s
wh
ile assessing
th
e can
d
i
d
a
tes’ sp
eak
i
ng
sk
ill. Th
ey
so
m
e
ti
m
e
s ten
d
to
argu
e and
in
terru
p
t
cand
id
ates with
anot
her
quest
i
on e
v
en
bef
o
r
e
t
h
ey
com
p
l
e
t
e
t
h
ei
r resp
on
se t
o
t
h
e pre
v
i
ous
q
u
est
i
o
n
.
I
n
co
nt
rast
, t
h
e
l
a
t
t
e
r
one
s n
o
rm
al
l
y
use si
m
p
l
e
and ec
on
om
i
cal
que
st
i
ons
an
d
do
n
o
t
b
o
t
h
e
r
t
h
e can
di
dat
e
s
wi
t
h
ar
g
u
m
e
nt
at
i
v
e
que
st
i
ons
. Th
ey
norm
a
l
l
y
ask o
p
e
n
-e
nde
d
quest
i
o
ns,
s
h
ow sca
f
f
o
l
d
i
n
g be
havi
ou
r a
nd m
a
ke ques
t
i
ons
u
n
d
e
rstand
ab
le [9
]. Hen
ce, so
m
e
e
l
e
m
en
t o
f
u
n
fairn
e
ss is ev
id
en
t in
th
e latter o
n
e
s even
th
oug
h
th
ey
see
m
coope
r
ative wi
th the candi
dates becau
se the
candidates wi
th assistance te
nd to
perform better than the ones
with
ou
t assistan
ce. So
d
i
fferen
t
typ
e
of in
t
e
rv
iewers
ca
us
e di
ffe
re
nt
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
for t
h
e
candi
dat
e
s t
h
r
o
u
g
h
whi
c
h t
h
e can
d
i
dat
e
s can be e
i
t
h
er ad
vant
a
g
ed o
r
di
sa
dva
n
t
ag
ed
b
y
th
e ‘luck
of draw’ in
in
terv
iew allo
catio
n
.
There
f
ore, in
my opinion, both types
of inte
rvie
wers
should
be
prese
n
t as
exam
iners for
each ca
ndi
date
.
b)
Test Cond
itio
n
s
Th
e test co
nd
itio
n
s
lik
e p
a
rtner co
m
p
atib
ilit
y, p
h
y
sical en
v
i
ro
n
m
en
t an
d test p
r
o
cedu
r
e also
p
l
ay a
v
ital ro
le t
o
ensu
re test-reliabilit
y.
In IELTS
the condition
of partner
com
p
atibility is not fulfilled
because
, in it, the inte
rvie
wer
rem
a
i
n
s
d
o
m
in
an
t an
d is resp
on
si
b
l
e fo
r tak
i
ng
all the in
itiativ
es.
C
onsi
d
eri
ng t
h
e aspect
of t
e
st
proce
d
u
r
e, i
t
has al
so
been noticed that the use
o
f
j
u
s
t
o
n
e
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
.
e
.
in
terv
iew to assess th
e sp
eak
i
ng
sk
ill of t
h
e cand
id
ate
may n
o
t
work well as so
m
e
o
n
e
m
a
y n
o
t
feel
com
f
ortable in
form
al and somewhat
restricted
con
t
ex
t of th
e in
terv
iew an
d
m
a
y n
o
t
p
e
rform
well. While
th
e sam
e
can
d
i
d
a
te
m
a
y p
e
rfo
r
m
well in
so
m
e
o
t
h
e
r item lik
e ro
le-p
l
a
y o
r
o
t
h
e
r task
s
u
s
ed
t
o
elicit
lan
g
u
a
g
e
sam
p
le. So
so
m
e
a
d
d
ition
a
l task
sh
ou
l
d
b
e
u
s
ed
to
elicit reliab
l
e d
a
ta as
Hu
gh
es
(200
3
:
4
4
)
su
gg
ests th
at “th
e
ad
d
ition
of fu
rt
h
e
r item
s
will
m
a
k
e
a te
st
m
o
re reliab
l
e” [1
]. Mo
reov
er, h
e
sugg
ests
t
h
at
t
h
e ot
her i
t
em
shoul
d be
di
ffe
re
nt
fr
om
t
h
e p
r
evi
ous
o
n
e s
o
t
h
at
m
o
re i
n
f
o
rm
at
i
on sho
u
l
d
be
gai
n
e
d
.
Th
is ad
d
ition
a
l
in
fo
rm
atio
n
mak
e
s
resu
lts mo
re reliab
l
e.
3.
4.
Pra
c
tica
lity
Ano
t
h
e
r im
p
o
r
tan
t
asp
ect in
testin
g
is th
e p
r
acticality an
d
efficien
cy of th
e test. If a test is n
o
t
p
r
actical, it w
i
ll b
e
o
f
no
u
s
e ev
en
tho
ugh it is r
e
liab
l
e an
d
v
a
lid.
W
e
ir
(
199
3)
m
e
n
tio
n
s
t
h
at pr
acticalit
y
i
n
v
o
l
v
es
q
u
est
i
ons
o
f
ec
on
om
y
,
ease o
f
a
d
m
i
ni
st
rat
i
o
n
,
sc
or
i
ng a
n
d i
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
a
t
i
on o
f
re
sul
t
s [1
0]
. C
o
nsi
d
eri
n
g
all these aspects IELTS seem
s
to be highly practical as
it does not take
m
u
ch tim
e
and is easy to ad
m
i
nister.
M
o
re
ove
r,
it also
red
u
ces
the
fa
t
i
gue
fact
or
o
n
t
h
e
can
di
d
a
t
e
.
4.
DIS
C
USSI
ON
The study foc
u
sed on assessi
ng the
IELTS
spea
king test. Hughes’ (2
003) criteria were
followe
d to
assess a
n
d evaluate the
IE
LT
S s
p
eaki
n
g test [1]. T
h
e
I
ELT
S s
p
eaki
n
g wa
s assesse
d i
n
t
w
o steps
.
Firs
tly, the
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:
2
252
-88
22
I
J
ERE
Vo
l. 3
,
N
o
. 3
,
Sep
t
emb
e
r
201
4
:
1
52
–
15
7
15
6
ap
pro
p
riaten
ess o
f
in
terv
iew as a too
l
fo
r elicitin
g
representative sample was
assess
ed. T
h
e sec
ond ste
p
co
nsisted
o
f
assessin
g
th
e v
a
li
d
ity, reliab
ility
and
p
r
acticality o
f
th
e
IELTS sp
eak
i
ng
test.
Wh
ile assessi
ng
th
e in
terv
iew as a sp
eak
i
n
g
d
a
ta elicitin
g
to
o
l
in
IELTS, i
t
was fo
und
that th
e ro
le of
th
e in
terv
iewer rem
a
in
s d
o
m
in
an
t and
th
e in
terv
iewee
ha
s t
o
resp
on
d o
n
l
y
t
o
t
h
e que
st
i
ons as
ked
b
y
t
h
e
in
terv
iewer.
Hen
ce, it elicits
o
n
l
y on
e asp
e
ct o
f
sp
eak
i
ng.
Othe
r aspects
of s
p
ea
king like asking questions a
nd
taking i
n
itiatives to start disc
ussion
rem
a
in dorm
ant. This
is in accorda
n
ce with what
Hughes (2003) poi
nts
out as a
wea
k
ness in a s
p
eaki
ng test [1].
Anothe
r wea
k
ne
s
s
of t
h
e IELTS
spea
king test is its form
al c
onte
x
t
o
n
l
y.
In d
a
ily life we
h
a
v
e
to
sp
eak
m
o
stly i
n
inform
al co
ntex
t, bu
t th
e
IELTS sp
eak
i
n
g
test d
o
e
s
no
t test th
e
sp
eak
i
ng
sk
ills in
in
fo
rm
al co
n
t
ex
ts. Moreover, in
real life, id
eas are no
t well fo
rm
ed
in
m
i
n
d
.
Th
ey hav
e
to
be ge
nerat
e
d i
m
m
e
di
at
ely
an
d q
u
i
c
k res
p
o
n
s
es are req
u
i
r
e
d
. B
u
t
i
n
IELT
S, especi
al
l
y
in i
t
s
second
pa
rt
, t
h
e
candi
date is given e
n
ough t
i
m
e
to fo
rm
ulate his/her ide
a
s. This is not
in accordanc
e
w
ith the rea
l
life
sp
eak
i
ng
sk
ills. Hen
ce, th
e assessm
en
t o
f
speak
in
g
sk
ills in IELTS can
b
e
said
a
b
it unn
atu
r
al.
A
l
d
e
r
s
on
(
1995
:17
0
)
says th
at th
e v
a
lid
ity of
a test is j
udged
b
y
co
nsid
erin
g
“d
o
e
s th
e t
e
st test w
h
at
it is
su
p
p
o
s
ed
to
test
?
”
In
ord
e
r to
h
a
v
e
a b
e
tter id
ea ab
ou
t th
e v
a
lid
ity
o
f
th
e IELTS
sp
eak
i
ng
test, it was
assessed by
dividing it int
o
s
u
b-categories
like content
va
l
i
dity, face validity and crite
ri
on-related vali
dity [2].
The c
o
ntent
va
lidity of the
IE
LTS s
p
ea
king
test
m
a
y
be questione
d
because it has
the sa
me conte
n
t for the
l
earner
s
of al
l
l
e
vel
s
wi
t
h
o
u
t
bri
ngi
ng i
n
t
o
consi
d
erat
i
o
n t
h
ei
r educat
i
o
nal
back
gr
o
u
n
d
a
nd a
g
e. T
h
e co
nt
ent
validity of the
IELTS
s
p
eaki
n
g test ca
n als
o
be
questio
ne
d on t
h
e
grounds that t
h
e
IEL
T
S inte
rvie
w c
a
nnot
represe
n
t the
use of spoken langua
ge
in
real-life situ
atio
ns. Th
is is
wh
at
H
a
sselgr
een
(
200
4)
says that th
e
l
a
ng
uage sam
p
l
e
col
l
ect
ed i
n
sho
r
t
peri
o
d
of
t
i
m
e
of t
h
e t
e
st
shoul
d be re
p
r
esent
a
t
i
v
e o
f
t
h
e l
a
ng
ua
ge us
ed i
n
real-life situations
[7]. So
far as the face
va
lidity is concerned, Ha
s
s
elgre
e
n (2004) m
e
ntions two im
porta
nt
factors whic
h may affect the
face validity
of a test
[7]. The two factors are
unfam
iliarit
y
of form
at and lack of
authe
n
ticity
in task. The IEL
T
S spea
ki
ng test fulfils the criterion of face va
lidity. Its format
is quite cle
a
r and
well-estab
lish
e
d
.
Besid
e
s, may so
urce lik
e b
ook
s,
res
earch re
ports a
n
d sam
p
le tests
are available
whi
c
h
provide e
n
ough
gui
deline a
b
out t
h
e
fo
rm
at of the
IELTS
spea
king test.
Criterion-related
validity has
t
w
o
aspects: concurre
nt validity
and
pre
d
ictive validity. The IELTS spea
ki
ng test
m
a
y not fulfil the concurrent
validity because it consists of
j
u
st 11 to
14 minutes inte
rvie
w in which all aspects
of spea
king skills m
a
y not
be assessed. IELTS
pre
d
ictive
validity m
a
y a
l
so be
qu
estioned
because
it may asse
ss ge
neral spea
king
ability
in a
better
way
com
p
ared to
s
p
eaki
n
g in an a
cadem
ic c
o
n
t
ex
t b
e
cau
s
e th
e
requ
irem
en
ts of sp
eak
i
n
g in gen
e
ral
are
qui
t
e
di
ffe
r
e
nt
f
r
om
t
h
at
o
f
di
ffe
rent
subject specific aca
dem
i
c contexts
.
Reliab
ilit
y
me
an
s con
s
isten
c
y in
sco
r
es and
th
e co
n
s
isten
c
y o
f
scores
d
e
p
e
nd
s up
on
two
factors:
raters’
grad
i
n
g an
d test con
d
i
tio
n
s
[1
]. Furth
e
r, th
e
rate
rs’ g
r
ad
ing
is
o
f
t
w
o
typ
e
s: in
ter-rater
reliab
ility an
d
intra-rater relia
bility. In IELT
S spea
ki
ng m
odule, inter-rate
r reliability
m
a
y be affected
because the
spe
a
king
sk
ill o
f
a can
d
i
d
a
te is assessed
b
y
on
ly on
e
rater. M
o
re
ov
er, t
h
e rating
is
d
o
n
e
on
th
e b
a
sis o
f
a
ho
listic
b
a
nd
scale. In m
a
tter of test c
o
nditi
ons, the
IELTS spea
king test does
not fulfil the c
o
nd
ition of
partner
com
p
atibilit
y
because in it
t
h
e interviewer rem
a
ins dom
i
n
ant a
n
d is
re
sponsi
ble for t
a
ki
ng all initiatives.
Co
n
s
i
d
eri
n
g
t
h
e asp
ect of test p
r
o
cedure, t
h
e u
s
e of
on
l
y
in
terv
iew t
o
assess th
e speak
ing
sk
ills o
f
t
h
e
candi
dat
e
m
a
y
not
w
o
r
k
wel
l
as som
e
can
di
d
a
t
e
s m
a
y
not
fe
el
com
f
ort
a
bl
e
i
n
f
o
rm
al
and s
o
m
e
what
rest
ri
ct
ed
co
n
t
ex
t
o
f
t
h
e i
n
terv
iew. Hugh
es
(200
3
:
44
)
righ
tly su
gg
est
s
th
at “th
e
add
i
tio
n
o
f
fu
rt
h
e
r
ite
m
s
will
m
a
k
e
th
e
test
m
o
re reliable” [1]. In m
a
tter of
practicality, the IELTS spea
king test
can
be
said highly
practical
because
it see
m
s to
fu
lfil th
e prin
cip
l
es of eco
n
o
m
y, ease of
a
d
m
i
nist
rat
i
on,
sc
ori
n
g a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
p
ret
a
t
i
on
of
res
u
l
t
s
.
5.
SUGGESTIONS
Keepi
ng i
n
vi
ew t
h
e ab
o
v
e
m
e
nt
i
oned
di
scussi
o
n
, t
h
e
following s
u
ggestions are
presente
d for
bri
ngi
ng im
provem
e
nts in the
IELTS
s
p
eaki
n
g te
st a
n
d m
a
king it m
o
re reliable and
valid.
Ti
m
e
fram
e
(1
1
to
15
m
i
n
u
t
es) is less to assess th
e
o
r
al ab
i
lity o
f
a non
-nativ
e sp
eak
e
r.
If t
h
e can
d
i
d
a
te
wan
t
s to
exp
a
n
d
th
e top
i
c an
d
ask
s
supp
lemen
t
ary q
u
e
stio
n
s
h
e
/sh
e
sh
ou
ld
b
e
en
cou
r
ag
ed. It will n
o
t
o
n
l
y
b
e
h
e
lpful to
elicit
m
o
re au
then
tic
d
a
ta bu
t
will also prov
id
e opp
ortu
n
ity to
t
h
e
rater to
assess
a
can
d
i
d
a
te’s
questio
n
i
ng
sk
ill
wh
ich
is an
imp
o
rtan
t asp
ect
o
f
sp
eak
i
ng
sk
i
ll.
A si
n
g
l
e task
i
.
e. in
terv
iew is no
t su
fficien
t
to
elic
it th
e req
u
i
red d
a
ta. At least o
n
e
m
o
re task lik
e
ro
l
e
p
l
ay or
p
i
ctu
r
e
cu
ed task should
also b
e
in
trod
u
c
ed
.
Th
ere shou
ld
be m
o
re th
an
on
e ex
am
in
er. It will n
o
t
o
n
l
y
in
crease t
h
e reliab
ility o
f
assessm
en
t b
u
t
wi
ll
also
redu
ce en
tire resp
on
si
b
ility fro
m
a sin
g
l
e rater. Fu
rth
e
r, it will also
h
e
lp
to
m
a
k
e
th
e
d
i
scu
ssi
on
m
o
re
in
fo
rm
al an
d
will red
u
c
e pressu
re on
t
h
e can
d
id
ate.
There
sh
o
u
l
d
al
so be s
o
m
e
vari
at
i
o
n i
n
gr
adi
n
g
scale conside
r
ing the
age fact
or a
n
d educationa
l
b
ackgr
oun
d of
th
e cand
i
date.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
ERE
I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
2
2
An A
ssess
ment
of
Ielts Spea
kin
g
Test (Sha
hza
d
Ka
ri
m
)
15
7
REFERE
NC
ES
[1]
Hughes, A., “Testing for
La
ngu
age Teachers”, C
a
mbridge: C
a
mb
ridge Univ
ersity
Press, 2003.
[2]
Alderson, J. C. Clapha
m
,
C. &
W
a
ll, D.,
”Lang
u
age Tes
t
Cons
t
r
uction and Ev
aluation
”
, Cambridge: Cambridg
e
University
Press
,
1995
.
[3]
Henning, G., “A Guide to Language
Testing: Development,
Evalu
a
tion
,
Research
”, Rowley
:
Newbur
y
House,
1987.
[4]
Bachman, L.F
.
,
“Fundamental C
onsiderations in
Langua
g
e
Testin
g”, Oxford
: Oxf
o
rd University
P
r
ess, 1990.
[5]
Me
ssic
k
,
S.,
“Validity
of Ps
y
c
hologic
a
l Asse
ssme
n
t”
,
American Psychologist
, vol/issue: 50(9), pp.
741-749, 1995
.
[6]
M
e
s
s
i
ck, S
., “
V
alidi
t
y
and W
a
s
hback in Langu
age Tes
t
ing”
,
Language Testing
, vol/issue: 13(
3), pp. 241-256,
1996.
[7]
Hesselgreen
, A., “Studies in
Lan
guage
Testin
g
”
,
Cambridge: C
a
mbridge Univers
i
ty
Press, 2004
.
[8]
Brown, A. & Hill, K., “
I
nterv
i
e
w
er St
y
l
e and C
a
ndida
tes’
Perform
ance in the IE
LTS Oral Intervi
e
w”, In I. Ta
yl
o
r
& P
.
F
a
lv
e
y
(eds
.),
I
E
LTS Collect
ed Papers: R
e
search in Spea
k
ing
and Writing
Assessment
.
New Y
o
rk: Cambridge
University
Press
,
2007
.
[9]
Van Patten
,
B.
& William
s
, J.,
“T
heories of Second Langu
age
Acquisition”,
M
a
hwah, NJ
: La
wrence Er
lbaum
,
2007.
[10]
Weir, C
.
, “Understanding
and D
e
velop
i
ng
Langu
age Tests”, Lond
on:
Princeton-H
a
ll,
1993
.
BIOGRAP
HI
ES OF
AUTH
ORS
S
h
ahzad Karim
is
an As
s
i
s
t
ant P
r
ofes
s
o
r in the De
partm
e
nt of
Engl
ish, The Islam
i
a
Universi
ty
of Bahawalpur, Pakistan.
His areas of
research
inter
e
st
are
second l
a
nguage acqu
i
s
ition
,
ass
e
ssm
ent and ev
aluation
,
languag
e
shift
and
langu
ag
e
maintenan
c
e,
cu
lture and
langu
age learning
and
textbook
eval
uation. His r
e
sear
ch papers
are pub
lished
in nation
a
l an
d
intern
ation
a
l res
earch journ
a
ls.
He has also authored
a book titled
‘Implicit and
Explic
it knowledge and mediu
m
of
instruction
in
Pa
kistan’ pub
lishe
d b
y
L
a
m
b
ert A
c
adem
ic P
ubl
is
hi
ng, German
y
(20
11).
Naushaba Haq is a Lecturer
in th
e Depart
ment of
English, Th
e Islamia University
o
f
Bahawalpur
, Pakistan
. Her areas of
res
earch
int
e
res
t
are
as
s
e
s
s
m
ent and ev
alu
a
tion
and s
econd
lang
uage l
earn
i
ng.
Her res
ear
ch p
a
pers
are
publis
h
e
d in
nation
a
l and inte
rnation
a
l
r
e
sear
c
h
journa
ls.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.