The purpose of the TEM is to measure the English proficiency of Chinese university undergraduates majoring in English Language and Literature and to examine whether these students meet the required levels of English language abilities as specified in the National College English Teaching Syllabus for English Majors (hereafter the Syllabus, NACFLT, 2000). Since the Syllabus divides the four-year English major undergraduate programme into the foundation stage (the first and second year) and the advanced stage (the third and fourth year), the TEM test battery correspondingly consists of TEM4 and TEM4 Oral, assessing students' English proficiency at the end of the foundation stage, and TEM8 and TEM8 Oral, assessing students' English proficiency at the end of the advanced stage. Length and administration: The TEM is administered by the National Advisory Committee for Foreign Language Teaching (NACFLT) on behalf of the Higher Education Department, Ministry of Education, People's Republic of China. The four tests in the battery are all administered once a year with TEM4 in April, TEM8 in March, TEM4 Oral in May and TEM8 Oral in December. The total test time is 135 minutes for TEM4 and 195 minutes for TEM8. Each oral test takes approximately 25 minutes to complete. Scores: TEM test scores are reported to the Academic Affairs Office of the participating universities. In the case of TEM4 and TEM8, individual test takers scoring 60 or above receive a certificate from the NACFLT on which their level of performance is reported, including 'excellent' (score 80 or above), 'good' (score between 70 and 79) and 'pass' (score between 60 and 69). Neither composite scores nor section scores are reported to test takers. They can, however, check their composite scores through the Academic Affairs Office of their university. For the two oral tests, test takers who pass the tests are awarded a separate certificate from the NACFLT on which the same three levels are reported: 'excellent', 'good' and 'pass'. The levels are converted from the average of the total raw scores awarded by two TEM authorized oral examiners.

No abstract

No abstract

This paper provides a narrative review of empirical research on the assessment of speaking proficiency published in selected journals in the field of language assessment. A total of 104 published articles on speaking assessment were collected and systematically analyzed within an argument-based validation framework (Chapelle et al., 2008). We examined how the published research is represented in the six inferences of this framework, the topics that were covered by each article, and the research methods that were employed in collecting the backings to support the assumptions underlying each inference. Our analysis results revealed that: (a) most of the collected articles could be categorized into the three inferences of evaluation, generalization, and explanation; (b) the topics most frequently explored by speaking assessment researchers included the constructs of speaking ability, rater effects, and factors that affect spoken performance, among others; (c) quantitative methods were more frequently employed to interrogate the inferences of evaluation and generalization whereas qualitative methods were more frequently utilized to investigate the explanation inference. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of this study in relation to gaining a more nuanced understanding of task-or domain-specific speaking abilities, understanding speaking assessment in classroom contexts, and strengthening the interfaces between speaking assessment, and teaching and learning practices.

Recent investigations into language assessment literacy (LAL) suggest that stakeholder groups might differ in interests, needs, and expectations in assessment practice, resulting in different LAL profiles. This qualitative study furthers this line of research by examining the effect of contextual and experiential factors on the LAL profiles and development of different stakeholder groups. Semi-structured interviews were conducted among 20 participants from three stakeholder groups in China, including language testers, EFL teachers, and graduate students. Results indicate that LAL profile differences existed at both group and individual levels. At the group level, language-testing researchers and students demonstrated greater familiarity with assessment concepts than did EFL teachers; however, EFL teachers were able to understand and link those concepts with assessment practices. At the individual level, each participant experienced a different LAL development process; yet, these processes share some common patterns. Based on these patterns, a common LAL development model for all stakeholders is proposed. Assessment training should consider the resources in stakeholders’ assessment contexts and their experiences in assessment development, use, and research and develop realistic expectations in LAL development for different stakeholders.