HEJ, HU ISSN 1418-7108
Manuscript no.: LIN-001101
|  
 |
|
LSP testing differs from more general purpose language testing in two
important aspects: it is characterised by (situational and
interactional) authenticity of task and the interaction between
language knowledge and specific purpose content (background)
knowledge. (Douglas, 1997) LSP examinations face serious problems in
terms of content and face validity (if their specificity level is
low), practicality (separate tests for each target discipline) and
reliability (subjective scoring of authentic tasks, comparability of
parallel tests). In recent years, several public ESP proficiency tests
have been withdrawn (TEEP and PLAB) or their specificity reduced
(IELTS) (West, 1998).
Keeping LSP examinations at the institutional
level is one possible solution. (Szépe, 1994) However, the decree
seems to have put an end to the existence of in- house examinations as
exit language requirements, which is a development with regard to test
quality and comparability.
In terms of testing expertise we can say
that a number of tertiary language teachers have taken part in LSP
training courses in Hungary and abroad, partly in the framework of the
Ministry of Education and World Bank funding programmes or, in the
case of the English language, British Council ESP projects, where they
have got acquainted with the techniques employed in LSP testing. This
expertise should be put together in order to devise a comprehensive
LSP proficiency examination, rather than letting those outside
everyday LSP teaching practice do so. Although description and
evaluation of the State LSP Examination falls outside the scope of
this paper, I would like to note here that the "Special language
examinations /supplemented with professional terminology" (Bárdos,
1986: 59) that SFLEB offers, as even their name suggests, concentrate
mainly on specialist terminology rather than professional language use
in a variety of situations.
| HEJ, HU ISSN 1418-7108
Manuscript no.: LIN-001101
|
|
|