Testing Grammar in an EFL Context

  • Yasmine ChnitiEmail author
Part of the Second Language Learning and Teaching book series (SLLT)


The testing of grammar has an important role in learning and teaching second and/or foreign language(s). This study aimed to investigate grammar testing in an EFL context, putting the emphasis on teachers’ and students’ perceptions of test specifications (specs). The study used different methodologies whose specific aim was to provide empirical evidence on how ‘fair’ a grammar test can be shaped at universities and how test designers work to write a well-constructed and balanced test. In this study, data were collected from the Faculty of Human and Social Sciences of Tunis, Tunisia (FHSST), University of Humanities at Tunis. It included 20 EFL teachers, 104 students, and 100 grammar test scores. The framework of this study followed a triangulation of quantitative as well as qualitative data collection methods. Concerning the quantitative method, a students’ questionnaire was conducted. For collecting data qualitatively, a set of interviews were performed with English university teachers to seek variables in their perceptions of the grammar test specs. Added to that, grammar tests and test scores were investigated. Results from the quantitative analyses indicated that there were similarities and differences in terms of conceptions among first year students of English. The statistical findings from the ANOVA test proved that there was mostly agreement between EFL teachers in the main principles of creating a grammar test.


Grammar EFL Testing Teachers’ and students’ perceptions Quantitative Qualitative data collection 


  1. Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bachman, L. F. (1991). What does language testing have to offer? TESOL Quarterly, 25(4), 671–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bachman, L. F., & Cohen, A. D. (Eds.). (1998). Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, G. T. L., & Gao, L. (2015). Chinese teachers’ conceptions of assessment for and of learning: Six competing and complementary purposes. Cogent Education, 2(1–19), 993836. Scholar
  7. Brumfit, C. (1997). How applied linguistics is the same as any other science. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 86–94. Scholar
  8. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clapham, C. M., & Corson, D. (Eds.). (1997). Language testing and assessment: Encyclopedia of language and education (Vol. 7). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, A. (1994). Assessing language ability in the classroom (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.Google Scholar
  11. De Saussure, F. (1913). Course in general linguistics. New York: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar
  12. Hidri, S. (2015). Conceptions of assessment: Investigating what assessment means to secondary and university teachers. Arab Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 19–43.Google Scholar
  13. Hughes, A. (1989). Testing for language teachers (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Jensen, A. R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kunnan, A. J. (2000). Fairness and validation in language assessment: Selected papers from the 19th language testing research Colloquium, Orlando, Florida. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. McNamara, T., & Roever, C. (2006). Language testing: The social dimension. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  17. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  18. Nunan, D. (2003). Practical English language teaching (pp. 342–353). New York: Mc Grow Hill Education.Google Scholar
  19. Popham, W. J. (2000). Stopping the mismeasurement of educational quality. School Administrator, 57(11), 12–15.Google Scholar
  20. Purpura, J. (2004). Assessing grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rothwell, A. (1996). Questionnaire design. In B. Allison et al. (Eds.), Research skills for students (pp. 69–97). London: Kogan Press.Google Scholar
  22. Shehan. (1989). Improving testing for English language learners. A comprehensive approach to designing, building, implementing, and interpreting better academic assessments. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Shohamy, E. (1997). Second language assessment. Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 4, 141–49. Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
  24. Weir, C. J. (2005). Language testing and validation: An evidence-based approach. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Xiaoming, X. I. (2010). How do we go about investigating test fairness? Language Testing, 27(2), 147–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Human and Social Sciences of TunisTunisTunisia

Personalised recommendations