Testing as a form of control in teaching English in secondary school

Problems in the testing control

An integral part of the process of foreign language teaching in schools is to control the level of ownership by non-native students’ skills. Proper organization of control depends on the quality of learning. F.M Rabinovich said that there are the important rules for testing:

1. Monitoring should be regular.
2. Monitoring should include the maximum number of students.
3. The volume of test material should not be large, but sufficiently representative to power on its assimilation (undigested), ownership (lack of fluency) them students it was possible to understand whether they have acquired the necessary skills.
4. The control should be based on the specific objectives of the lesson.
Questions to improve control in teaching foreign languages ​​became the subject of protection of many Methodists. Yet problems verification and accounting knowledge, skills, methods of their organization and conduct have not lost their relevance.
The appearance of the project temporary state educational standards in a foreign language, developed under the leadership of I.L Bim and A.A Mirolyubova, solves a number of problems associated with the implementation of control. This is primarily the allocation of control objects and selection of the most reliable and effective forms of its realization.
M.E Breygina gives the definition of control and makes it stand out features: diagnostic, management, correction, evaluation, stimulating, motivating and planned learning. In the control function is implemented and ensures interaction between teacher and students in the pedagogical process.
However, overreliance on testing without proper critical understanding of different aspects of it can lead to insufficient objective evaluation of its educational value and thereby harm instead of good business practice of foreign language teaching.
It should be noted that, despite the extensive literature on these types of tests, their wide approbation in practice and numerous experimental studies, a number of fundamental questions remain, according to the testers themselves, not fully understood. In particular, the question is subject to implementation in these tests, one of the most basic requirements – requirements of their adequacy (validity).
Even the adequacy of «language» test (lexical, grammatical and phonetic), the development of which was started much earlier, «speech» (checking or that skill) is not unconditional. The fact is that in all the objective tests, the subject is given all the linguistic material, including one that is the right answer and that the subject must learn only (see or hear). In other words, based on the implementation of the test task is recognition and conclusive data defining the conditions under which recognition indicates that the subject is able to reproduce the same unit yourself unavailable. Moreover, there is no solid evidence that the recognition of the linguistic unit objectively or subjectively similar to it is an indication that the subject will be able to find it in the natural flow of sounding speech or reading. After placing controlled units of similar units unwittingly makes her the subject to focus on their differential tests that is for him a kind of clue. Therefore, in the whole series of experiments was obtained as a low correlation between not test and test tasks, and between «language» and «speech» tests.
Thus, the successful implementation of the language test is not unique, an indicator of the student's ability to operate the relevant material in speech activity, productive or even receptive. The only thing we can say with certainty is that the negative result of the test indicates the non-possession of a suitable material.
Even more complicated with the «speech» tests, the development of which has only just begun. Complexity of the issue is compounded by the fact that still remains basically unclear how using the test to check the ownership of one or another kind of speech activity. Here you can find two approaches, according to which the possession of one or another kind of speech activity set a) directly, by assessing the verbal behavior, during the execution of the test itself speech activity, and b) indirectly, through ownership verification students specific language material (which used «language» tests) and any other related or other speech activity. An example of the second approach can serve as a test developed by the Institute of English at the Michigan University (USA), which are modeled on tests in many countries. Thus, to assess the ability to speak English (foreign) language proposed test suite, the components of which have been developed by R. Lado in the 50s, the set includes three «language» test (checking listening linguistic units of a different order, and lexical grammar tests) and one «speech» (essay). Vulnerable in tests assessing to control indirectly, is the lack of evidence of correlation between the controlled entity and the entities proposed in the tests. In this regard, the first approach is more reliable as. It should be noted that his supporters do not constitute a single camp. Some testers offer to put the test in real conditions of speech activity in which he hears or reads the specific texts, written or sounded. However, this procedure makes the test very cumbersome (e. g to check listening comprehension invited to listen to texts 10–12), which deprives the test form control its advantages compared with other not test. In addition, it is extremely difficult, almost impossible becomes almost equal difficulty selection texts for several versions of the same test. Trying to compensate for these and other drawbacks, some researchers suggest this approach to judge of formation of a particular type of speech activity on the basis of a) the results of the success of the activity itself and b) test whether the subjects of individual skills necessary for the implementation of speech activity (for this purpose for each of its kind – while primarily for listening and reading – compiled a list of skills, the presence of which is considered necessary for its implementation). When carrying out this kind of test the number of questions in each text included such that it is checked understanding type: Main idea is that the text that: a)… b)… c)… d)… (in paragraphs a, b, c, d are offered various statements that relate to the text, but, except for one of them, are not a reflection of his main thoughts), and such, the answer to which makes it possible to judge whether the test subject specific skills – for example, to determine whether the student is able to relate the word to the context (this skill is important for receptive speech activities), may be offered a question like the word»…» as used herein means: a)… b)… c)… d)….
Specified kind of test, along with «pure language» test is currently the most popular. This form of controlling the test, of course, much easier to implement in practice than, obviously, due to its prevalence. However, its value, even only for receptive speech activities, cannot be proven that they recognize themselves and his supporters. First, expressed doubts about the reliability of the results of the degree of understanding of the text, or possession by some skill: it is not clear, for example, when there is understanding of the text – in the process of hearing /reading, or at the time when the student works with the test questions and compares the proposed it solve the problem, selects one of the ready-made solutions. Secondly, as yet there is no exhaustive list of skills necessary to perform a particular type of speech activity. Thirdly, the question remains unresolved whether to test all skills (at least of the number of installed) or can be limited to a few, but if we can restrict multiple skills, then what. The latter problem is closely connected with the question of the possibility of compensation one other skill, which is also not yet have answers. Finally, the question itself is also sending – judge of formation of a particular type of speech activity on the basis of individual skills. These doubts expressed N. Brooks and other researchers in the 60s.

3. 
   
4.