Authenticity is known for its important feature of language tests, but this notion is

frequently use in relation to authentic material. In order to establish the importance of

authenticity in language testing, one may define authenticity. Authenticity has been
much debated in both applied linguistics and the fields of education as a whole
(Lewkowicz, 2000).

Authenticity and Debate

The statement It is impossible to design a truly authentic language test, a variety of
issues must be addressed. From there , it poses a question what does the word authentic
mean in the larger context of language testing?, while in smaller contexts what does the
word truly means. This means that both of these words are constructs, where it needs to
be defined so they can measured the test for both reliability and validity in order to know
what the test is actually testing , what it needs to and how well is it doing. The notion of
authenticity was first established within the applied linguistics in the 1960s. This
concerns materials writers such as Close (1965) and Broughton (1965) that language
learners were being display to texts that are not expressed in learning the target language.
In the late 1970s and 1980s, Widdowson introduced this debate on the nature of
authenticity. He viewed the conceptions of authenticity in language teaching and the
testing is focused on the use of genuine texts that has not been simplified and the tasks
are referred to the real world tasks (Lewkowicz, 2000). In the 1990s, many scholars
have agreed that language testing itself is a discipline derived from Applied Linguistics
(Bachman, 1991). Davis et al. (1999) propose that authenticity in testing is when both
content and skills reflect one another such as when testing students speaking ability,
they may be asked to do a role play using words taught in class.

Bachman (1991) defined authenticity using an interactional/ability approach that

emphasizes on the interaction between the language user, the context, and the discourse
as opposed to non-test language performance in the Real Language approach. Bachman
and Palmer (1996) reached a consensus, that test takers should conform to the language
being tested over the use of tasks. This can be expressed as relatively authentic tasks.

From their definition, we can infer that authenticity cannot be achieved for sure. But they
believed that there is a degree of communication, to which the test task perform the
actual taught language abilities that give common responses from testers. This might
achieve in language classes when students communicate with one another, for example
asking for directions as a given task that was previously taught in class. McNamara
(1996) argued that performance assessment is authentic if it reflects to real life, but some
might argued it is a virtual imitation and slightly achieve authenticity. All of these
definitions are similar in focusing mainly on the degree of authenticity, where there is
no completely authentic language test and it is located on a continuum.

Spolsky(1985) stated that to achieve authenticity in testing, it must include either the
language material extracted from primary resources (materials), or functions of tasks
(methodology). For example, if we testing for listening, do we read the passage to the
participants, or should the passage be derived from a newspaper?. Which do you think
shows the replication of a real life?. When measuring a test, do we need to measure its
validity and reliability?

Moreover, it is suggested that language testing has been limited by considerations of

validity, refers to whether tests measure what they are suppose to measure, while
reliability is when they produce similar results for more than one occasion (Finch, 2002).
Validity is fundamental to achieve authenticity in language test design. According to
Messick (1996), authenticity is for direct testing with specific validity standards that can
be seen through communicative behavior such as listening, reading, writing, and reading.
Spolsky(1985), however mentioned that validity is only for real language use. In the
previous paragraph that stated the findings about authenticity, we may conclude that there
is authentic assessment does not occur in realistic terms. My view on this, authenticity in
testing is a continuous process that uses certain validity constructs as a medium to
achieve its designated purposes through the use of primary resources as materials. This
definition is telling us that authenticity is used in test, whereas this assignment indicates
that authenticity is an ongoing assessment that cannot achieved fully through
reproduction of so called real life situations. A test is an assessment that cannot be

authentic by incorporating real life situations, while we encourage responses to lead us

closely to the real test design.

Issues in using authenticity in language testing and construct validity

There are many reasons why language tests cannot achieve authenticity. Based on
numerous literature readings on authenticity, it has been proposed by many scholars that
an authentic test is what replicates to real life situations. Davis et al(1999), affirm that
authenticity never fully achieved. His view is supported with four reasons. One is the test
is under assessment that fails to include genuine real life situations, called the real life
approach (RL) to authenticity (Bachman, 1990). In other words, Spolsky(1985) has a
similar view by saying that the observation of authentic language behaviour that is made
by the participants may produce an authentic assessment. He also added a point on the
participants undertaking a test is placed under anxiety that will affect the results of the
testing in a negative or positive approach. From here, it is a logical conclusion because of
the communicative context in the context of an assessment (Stevenson, 1985). Another
reason is that, other tests are constrained by language limitations, such as specific target
language use (TLU), which is impractical. Nevertheless, it is useful for a student to learn
the language, but it confines them in learning the TLU. Thirdly, tests are conducted in
specific time, place, and participants contradicts the notion of authenticity in testing
where it is perceived as a replication of real-life situations. In real life variables changes
that affects the language process, whereas tests have controlled variables. This involves
face validity, which neglects for having an accurate assessment (Alkubaidi, 2009). For
example, when students given a discussion topic, the teacher will have to assess their
speaking proficiency level, but with having the natural flow of language, how can we
design the criteria to serve an effective assessment?

Similarly, Bachman (1990) viewed authenticity using the interactional model. This
emphasized on the characteristics of communicative language use, the ability to
communicate through learners language ability, which measure by constructs of validity.
While Weir (2005) stated that we need to define the construct of measurement to an
accurate procedure before designing a language test to achieve accurate validity in a test.
When designing tests, authenticity will slightly achieve as constructs represents the
purpose .In my opinion, in order to achieve authenticity in language tests, the constructs
should have clear objectives. These objectives must measure students level of
proficiency and quantified in measurable terms. In an English Speaking Test, the
examiner must assess by first expressing a scale in which of the constructs measure the
learners proficiency level.

Norm Referencing Testing and Criterion Referencing Testing

When designing the next step for an authentic language test, we need to choose between
norm referenced testing and criterion referenced testing. Criterion referenced testing
would be suitable as it measures individual ability as opposed to performance in
comparison to group norms. But there are difficulties in specifying domains with respect
to real life approach to authenticity, identifying the characteristics of such tests and
defining these characteristics in the way that is consistent with considerations that should
me made with respect to validity and authenticity (Bachman, 1990). Bachman further
explain this complexity, in institutional settings where domains can reasonably be
specified, CR are particularly suited in achievement testing. Despite essential
complexities in the present state of theory and test design, CR testing is desirable to norm
referencing testing when designing an authentic language test (Brakefield, n.d)

My view on this, ensuring authenticity in test should serve a purpose. In order for an
authentic assessment to be achieved, the purpose of the test should be clear. Still, this

alone cannot be claimed as solely an application of authenticity through tests constructs.

For instance, Brown and Hudson (1998) example on selected responses, which is a
method used in true or false and fill in the blanks test questions were designed
accordingly to the test purpose, but it is not replicating the real world task.

Overall, authenticity in language test cannot be fully achieved. But we may try to
authenticate a test through a continuous series of testing and specific constructs should be
designed to measure the can dos in each test. When it comes to real life situations and
encouraging natural responses from students, primary resource material should be
connected with the learning process to produce an effective assessment. There is a need
for a realistic approach to achieve authenticity in language testing.