{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028346456692913385, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005039370078740157, 'mean_word_length': 5.42914979757085, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Testing the untestable in language education

This book, co-edited by Amos Paran and Lies Sercu and published by Multilingual Matters, unpacks the oxymoron of its title, Testing the Untestable, in a collection of 13 articles organised around four themes intercultural competence, autonomy, literature and language and content. These dimensions of foreign language education are interlinked by a number of core concerns: the increasingly close association between assessment and teaching and learning (seen in both positive and negative terms), the resistance of those areas to easily fit into established assessment patterns and the pivotal role of language. The approach is interdisciplinary, informed by various bodies of theoretical research and multi-local empirical studies (ranging from experiences in primary, secondary and higher education in contexts as far afield as the UK, Finland, Denmark, Australia, the USA, Taiwan and Samoa). The contributions are correspondingly from academics based in various parts of the world, which provides a rich insight into attempts to answer two central questions for each relevant area: is testing possible in a meaningful way? What contribution, if any, can it make to learning, i.e. to what extent can it be ‘assessment for learning’ rather than ‘assessment of learning’? The variety of responses is what makes this book a very interesting read both in terms of academic research and pedagogical initiatives. For each area under consideration, the two terms of the equation, i.e. ‘testing’ and, in turn, ‘cultural awareness’, ‘creativity’, etc., are initially independently considered. This implies a review of existing parameters, some reconceptualisation, and an appraisal of the interface between the two. The term ‘testing’ is apprehended in slightly different ways between and within sections. It is often used interchangeably with formative and/or summative ‘assessment’, linked to qualitative and/or quantitative measurement, used for monitoring purposes. Where judgment differs is on the suitability of testing beyond research purposes. In the opening chapter, Paran warns against the ‘washback’ effect of testing, i.e. the disproportionate and detrimental impact on teaching when alignment with testing procedures and concern with testing outcomes become a tacit consideration. This finds resonance in Benson’s chapter (Chapter 5) which estimates that testing does not sit easily with autonomy given the multidimensionality of the concept, the difficulty of observing all aspects of relevant behaviour, and the possible side effect that students may mimic what they think is expected of them. Benson reviews a number of studies which have monitored specific dimensions of control, such as the development of metacognitive awareness and learning programmes which have incorporated a brief orientation towards autonomy, and comes to the conclusion that assessment of autonomy is best suited for research purposes or falls short of a holistic approach which would take into account the whole ecology of programmes. His final thoughts take the Language and Intercultural Communication Vol. 12, No. 4, November 2012, 388 390