Advances in Asian Social Science (AASS) 899

Vol. 4, No. 3, 2013, ISSN 2167-6429

Copyright World Science Publisher, United States
www.worldsciencepublisher.org

Authenticity in Second Language Assessment:
A Social-Constructivist Perspective


1
Parviz Birjandi,
2
Hossein Ahmadi
*

1
Islamic Azad University Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran
2
Islamic Azad University Malayer Branch, Malayer, Iran

Email: pbirjandi@yahoo.com, ahmadikhm@gmail.com

Abstract - The definition of the term authenticity as applied to second language instruction and
assessment has been a subject of great debate for over three decades. The inception of authenticity in
applied linguistics can be dated back to the emergence of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)
in the 1970s. The present paper provides a brief review of various aspects of authenticity and mainly
focuses on a discussion of a social-constructivist approach to authenticity in second language
assessment. Within the field of social constructivism, there is a great emphasis laid upon the
importance of social context. The paper argues that authenticity in second language assessment defined
in terms of the interaction between the test taker and the input is a socially constructed product
influenced by such factors as test tasks, test constructors, test administrators, test takers, as well as
contexts. Moreover, authenticity is treated as an ongoing unstable process rather than a fixed product.

Keywords - Authenticity; Assessment; Language; Constructivism



1. Introduction

The concept of authenticity has been the subject of
much debate in applied linguistics including second
language assessment. Some scholars have argued that
language tests are by definition inauthentic as they do not
matched real-life language use features. In this regard,
Klein-Braley (1985) states that if authenticity means real-
life behavior, then any language testing procedure is non-
authentic (p. 76). Similarly, Spolsky ( 1985), citing
Searles distinction between real questions and exam
questions, states:
from this analysis we are forced to the conclusion that
testing is not authentic language behavior, that examination
questions are not real, however much like real-life
questions they seem, and that an examinee needs to learn
the special rules of examinations before he or she can take
part in them successfully.(p. 36)
Along the same line, Stevenson (1985) maintains that
the situation of examiner-candidate cannot be supposed to
be representative of 'real- life communication' as both
participants are aware that it is a test.
On the other hand, it may be argued that language tests
have their own authenticity. Concerning the authenticity of
language tests, Alderson (1981) posits that:
The authenticity argument . . . seems to assume that the
domains of language teaching and language testing do not
have their own set of specifications for language use which
are distinct from the specifications of other domains. Thus
What is this? - Its a pencil is authentic language teaching
language, and so on. If one does not accept this, then
authentic tasks are in principle impossible in a language
testing situation. (p. 48)
To resolve the dilemma of authenticity, we may resort to
the definition proposed by Widdowson . Distinguishing
between genuineness and authenticity, Widdowson
(1978) emphasized the readers significant role in text
comprehension, and the importance of authenticity in L2
instruction. Genuineness is a characteristic of the passage
itself and is an absolute quality. Authenticity is a
characteristic of the relationship between the passage and
Parviz Birjandi, et al., AASS, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 899-903, 2013 900

the reader and has to do with appropriate response.

(Widdowson, 1978, p. 80). Accordingly, elsewhere
Widdowson (1979, p. 161) considered genuineness as a
quality of texts, and authenticity as an attribute bestowed
on texts by the audience. In other words, Widdowsons
concept of authenticity is concerned with the importance of
the interaction between the audience and the text.
Following Widdowson (1978), Bachman (1990 and
1991) distinguished between two types of authenticity:
situational authenticity that is, the perceived match
between the characteristics of test tasks to target language
use (TLU) tasks and interactional authenticity that is,
the interaction between the test taker and the test task.
Bachman (1990), in his interactional approach, defines
authenticity as the interaction between the language user,
the context, and the discourse (p.302). As to interactional
authenticity, Bachman (1990) goes on to state that:
Authenticity is thus a function of the interaction
between the test taker and the test task. If we could develop
a means of classifying test tasks on the basis of dimensions,
or factors that we abstract from authentic language use, we
should be able to characterize the relative authenticity of a
given test task in terms of its potential for generating an
authentic interaction with the abilities of a given group of
test takers. (p. 317)
Bachman and Palmer (1996) use the term authenticity
to refer to situational authenticity and use the term
interactiveness to refer to interactional authenticity (i.e.,
the interaction of the test takers, and their abilities with the
task).

2. Constructivism

Constructivism can claim a long and prestigious
heritage: Dewey, Piaget, Bruner, and Vygotsky, are all the
leading contributors to constructivism (Jordan, 2004 ). As
Brinner (1999) puts it, according to this theory, learners
construct their own knowledge by testing ideas and
approaches based on their prior knowledge and experience,
applying these to a new situation, and integrating the new
knowledge gained with pre-existing intellectual
constructs(p.2).
All constructivists are unanimously in total opposition to
the idea of objective truth (Jordan, 2004). Constructivists
propose the view that contrary to common sense, there is
no unique real world that pre-exists and is independent of
human mental activity and human symbolic language
(Bruner, 1986, p.27).
As Brown (2007) maintains, we may think of two
branches of constructivism: cognitive and social. In the
cognitive version of constructivism, there is emphasis on
the individual constructing his own view of reality. As
Slavin (2003) argues "Learners must individually discover
and transform complex information if they are to make it
their own (pp. 257-258). For Piaget, "learning is a
developmental process that involves change, self-
generation, and construction, each building on prior
learning experiences" (Kaufman, 2004, p. 304). Along the
same line, Lincoln and Guba, (1985) posit that there are
multiple, often conflicting, constructions and all (at least
potentially) are meaningful.(p. 85)
In contrast to cognitive constructivism, social
constructivists sees knowledge solely as the product of
social processes of communication and negotiation- the
social construction of reality- (Lincoln, 1990, p. 144). As
cited in Kaufman (2004), Vygotsky , as a social
constructivist, advocated the view that "children's thinking
and meaning-making is socially constructed and emerges
out of their social interactions with their environment" ( p .
304). We have seen that within the field of social
constructivism there is great emphasis laid upon the
importance of social context.

3. Social-constructivist approach to
authenticity

The social constructivist approach taken in the present
paper views authenticity in terms of widdowsons (1978)
authenticity, Bachmans (1990) interactional authenticity
and Bachman and Palmers (1996) interactiveness.
Therefore, in this approach, authenticity is treated as a
relative rather than an absolute phenomenon. The same
language test may be authentic for one group of test takers
but not for another group. When we mean to claim that a
test is authentic, we should ask to whom, where, when, at
what level of proficiency, and so forth?
In their social constructivist model of education,
Williams and Burden (1997) have identified four key sets
of factors which influence the learning process teachers,
learners, tasks, and contexts. They all interact as part of a
dynamic ongoing process. They elaborate that the context
includes: emotional, physical, social, political and cultural
environments (p.43). Following such a social constructivist
approach and building upon William and Burdens (1997)
model, we may define authenticity in second language
assessment as an ongoing process influenced by test tasks,
test constructors, test administrators, test takers, as well as
contexts. We will elaborate on these five factors bellow.

3.1. Test tasks

The content of the text used in the test task can affect
the test takers engagement. As the goal is to enhance the
learners interaction with the text, test constructors need to
choose texts with certain learners in mind. As mentioned
above, Widdowson (1978) posits that authenticity refers
to the response of the user to the text, and he argues that
simplification within the conventions of a given language
field does no damage to authenticity in this sense. This
implies that a text resulting in the L2 test takers response
and communication contributes to the authentication
process, regardless of simplification, modification, and
genuineness.
A point of concern is that the test takers response to the
text in a test task may be influenced by different variables.
Parviz Birjandi, et al., AASS, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 899-903, 2013 901

The degree of contextualization, for instance, can influence

the degree of the test takers engagement and his response
to the text. Building on Cumins (1983) notion of context
embeddedness, Bachman (1990) treats context-
embeddedness of the test input as a matter of continuum.
As an example of context-reduced test task, he refers to a
reading test with passages containing technical information
and concepts unfamiliar to the test taker. Such information
and concepts may disturb the test takers response to the
input and the authentication process. Regarding text factors
influencing interaction, Ebrahimi and Ebrahimi (2012)
found that Iranian English language newspapers largely use
reflexive language or metadiscourse to persuade the reader
to read. And this enhances the readers interaction with the
text. In the same line, ONeill and McPeek (1993) found
that in reading comprehension, men performed better than
women on texts with science and technical content, while
women outperformed men on texts relating to social
sciences and the humanities. Therefore, in developing tests,
care should be taken to select texts that promote the test
takers interaction and the authentication process.

3.2. Test developers

In the constructivist and naturalistic paradigm,
authenticity is to do with the extent to which the relevant
constructs are fairly and adequately covered in the
assessment. The fairness aspect of authenticity suggests
that all groups constructs are included rather than just the
test developers (Guba and Lincoln, 1989, cited in Gipps,
1994, p.168). Therefore, test developers must take into
account the test takers cultural values and attitudes. Test
takers may not be willing to concentrate on texts with
content insulting their cultural values. This implies that test
developers need to choose the test content carefully so that
they can ensure the test takers engagement and response to
the text. This is to say that test developers should avoid
offensive content. In this regard, the guidelines of
Educational Testing Service (2009) state offensive content
may make it difficult for test takers to concentrate on the
meaning of a reading passage or the answer to a test item,
thus serving as a source of construct-irrelevant difficulty.
(p. 5)

3.3. Test administrator

In L2 oral interviews, the interviewer has a significant
mediating role to play in the authentication process. The
concept of mediation as proposed by Vygotsky has to do
with the part played by other significant people in learners
lives. The role of the mediator is to help the learner to learn
(Williams & Burden, 1997). The same holds true about the
process of authentication in L2 oral interviews. The
interaction between the interviewer and the interviewee can
be facilitated by interviewers mediating role. This enables
the interviewer to tap the interviewees performance within
ZPD. In other words, mediation enables the interviewee to
demonstrate his best response to the input. In the same line,
Bachman (1990) argues that it is quite possible to engage
test takers in authentic illocutionary acts. Thus the test
administrator can promote the test takers , to use
widdowsons (1978) words, responding to the text.
As Brown (2003) reports:
Interviewers have been found to vary in aspects of
behaviour as diverse as:
The level of rapport that they establish with candidates
(Lazaraton, 1996a; McNamara and Lumley, 1997; Morton
et al., 1997);
Their functional and topical choices (Brown and
Lumley, 1997; Reed and Halleck, 1997);
The ways in which they ask questions and construct
prompts (Lazaraton, 1996b; Ross, 1996; Brown and
Lumley, 1997);
The extent to which or the ways in which they
accommodate their speech to that of the candidate (Ross,
1992; Ross and Berwick, 1992; Berwick and Ross, 1996;
Lazaraton, 1996b; Brown and Lumley, 1997; Morton et al.,
1997); and
The ways in which they develop and extend topics
(Berwick and Ross, 1996). (p.3)

It needs to be pointed out that such factors as rapport,
topical choices, the way of asking questions , the way of
speech accommodation and the way of topic development
can influence the degree of the interviewees engagement
and responding to the input (i.e. Widdowsonss
authenticity). These findings demonstrate the determining
role the interviewer can play in the authentication process.

3.4. Test taker
The social constructivist approach to authenticity in
language assessment should also take into account the
unique contribution that each individual test taker brings to
the assessment situation. Among learner characteristics,
reference can be made to communicative competence.
Models of communicative competence (see, Canale and
Swain, 1980, Canale 1983a; 1983b, Bachman, 1990,
Bachman and Palmer, 1996, Celce-Murcia, et al., 1995
)involve sets of test-taker- related factors influencing the
test-takers interaction with the test (i.e., authenticity). In
addition, test-takers learning style, attitudes, feelings and
other characteristics of test-takers can influence, to use
Newbys (2000) words, learner authentication. In other
words, test takers characteristics influence their interaction
with the context and discourse, which is what Bachman
(1990) calls interactional authenticity. For instance, Azimi
Tabar, Gorjian and Pazhakh (2012) found a significant
difference between males and females in utilizing their
emotional intelligence faculties in test taking processes.
Moreover, regarding test taker characteristics and reader
response to reading texts, Fahim and Ahmadi (2012) found
that high critical thinkers outperformed the low critical
thinkers in reading both content-familiar and content-
unfamiliar texts.

3.5. Contexts
Parviz Birjandi, et al., AASS, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 899-903, 2013 902

The last, but defiantly not the least, factor determining
the nature of authenticity in second language assessment is
the context. As discussed above, Bachman (1990) defines
authenticity as the interaction between the language user,
the context, and the discourse (p.302). The context is said
to include, emotional, physical, social, political and cultural
environments.(Williams and Burden, 1997,p.43).
There are texts in L2 tests that fail to engage test takers
in EFL contexts. This is partly because what is authentic to
the native speaker in the native language context is
sometimes uninteresting or obscure to the L2 test taker.
Moreover, regarding the testing environment, such test
method facets as (1) familiarity of the place and equipment
used in administering the test; (2) the personnel involved in
the test; (3) the time of testing, and (4) physical conditions
can influence the test takers performance (Bachman,1990).
Regarding the personnel involved in oral interviews,
Shohamy and Reves (1985) state:
In the 'one-to-one' tests (interview, role-play, reporting),
it is probably the first time the tester and the test taker have
met. They may be coming from very different and mutually
unknown backgrounds, and they are probably not used to
talking to one another. These factors make the interaction
artificial, awkward and difficult. (p. 55)
This implies that such test method facets affect the test
takers engagement and the authentication process.
Furthermore, language tests do not exist in a political
vacuum. Political contexts in which tests are used need to
be taken into account. As the guidelines of Educational
Testing Service (2009) put it Do not appear to promote or
defend particular personal or political values in
discussions. (p.43). Like culturally offensive materials,
some political issues may create negative feelings in test
takers and affect what Widdowson (1978) calls the readers
response to the text. Therefore, the various aspects of
assessment context play a determining role in the test
takers authentication of the text.

4. Conclusion

Basically social constructivism suggests that knowledge
and social reality are created through interactions between
people and particularly through discourse (Brown, 2007).
In an attempt to approach authenticity from social
constructivist perspective, the present paper identified five
factors influencing the nature of authenticity defined in
terms of interaction. These factors all interact in the
dynamic ongoing process of authentication. This implies
that authenticity is a complex (Breen, 1985), unstable
process rather than a fixed product. What is inauthentic to
a given second language test taker at a given time can
become authenticated at a later time under the interactive
influence of at least the five factors identified in the present
paper. Therefore, a social constructivist approach can delve
into the complex and chaotic nature of authenticity in
second language assessment and can present useful
principles to the stakeholders involved in second language
assessment.

References
[1] J. C., Alderson , Reaction to Morrow paper (3). In J. C.
Alderson & A. Hughes (Eds.), Issues in language testing:
1981, ELT documents 11 1 (pp. 45-54). London: The
British Council.
[2] F. L. Bachman, Fundamental consideration in language
testing. Oxford: OUP, 1990
[3] F. L. Bachman, What does language testing have to
offer? TESOL Quarterly, 1991, 25, 671704.
[4] F. L. Bachman, A.S., Palmer, Language testing in
practice. Oxford University Press, 1996
[5] M., Breen, Authenticity in the language classroom.
Applied Linguistics, 1985, 6 (1), 6070.
[6] J., Brinner, Postmodernism and constructivism.
Retrieved from
http://curriculum.calstatela.edu/faculty/psparks/theorists/ht
m. 1999
[7] A., Brown, Interviewer variation and the co-
construction of speaking proficiency. Language Testing,
2003,20, 1, 125.
[8] H. D., Brown, Principles of language learning and
teaching (5th ed.). New York: Pearson Education, Inc.
2007
[9] J., Bruner, Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge
MA: Harvard University Press, 1986
[10] M., Canale, From communicative competence to
communicative language pedagogy. In C. Richards & R.
W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication, 1983,
pp. 227. London: Longman.
[11] M., Canale, On some dimensions of language
proficiency. In J. W. Oller (Ed.), Issues in language
testing research 1983, pp. 333342. Rowley, MA: Newbury
House,
[12] M., Canale, M., Swain, Theoretical bases of
communicative approaches to second language teaching
and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1980 1(1), 147.
[13] M., Celce-Murcia, Z., Drnyei, S., Thurrell,
Communicative competence: A pedagogically motivated
model with content specifications. Issues in Applied
Linguistics, 1995, 2, 535.
[14] J. P., Cummins, Language proficiency and academic
achievement. In Oller (Ed.), Issues in language testing
research, 1983, pp. 108-26). Rowley,Mass.: Newbury
House.
[15] S. J., Ebrahimi, S. F., Ebrahimi, Advances in English
Linguistics, 2012, 1 (4), 91-94.
[16] Educational Testing Service. ETS guidelines for
fairness review of assessments. Retrieved from
http://www.ets.org/Media/About_ETS/pdf/overview.pdf ,
2009
[17] M., Fahim, H., Ahmadi, Critical thinking, content
schemata and EFL readers comprehension and recall.
Journal of Comparative Literature and Culture, 2012, 1(2),
23-28.
Parviz Birjandi, et al., AASS, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 899-903, 2013 903

[18] C. V., Gipps, (Beyond testing: Towards a theory of

educational assessment. London: The Falmer Press, 1994
[19] G., Jordan, Theory construction in second language
acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Company, 2004
[20] D. Kaufman, Constructivist issues in language
learning and teaching. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 2004, 24, 303-319.
[21] C., Klein-Braley, A cloze-up on the c-test: a study in
the construct validation of authentic tests. Language
Testing, 1985 2 (1), 76-104.
[22] Y. S. Lincoln, The making of a constructivist: A
remembrance of transformations past. In E. Guba (Ed.),
The paradigm dialog (pp.70-89). Newbury Park CA: Sage,
1990.
[23] Y. S., Lincoln, E.G., Guba, Naturalistic Enquiry.
Beverly Hills CA: Sage, 1985.
[24] F., Mishan, Designing authenticity into language
learning materials. Bristol: Intellect, 2005.
[25] D., Newby, Authenticity in practice: examples and
comments. In A. Fenner & D. Newby (Eds.), Approaches
to materials design in European textbooks: Implementing
principles of authenticity, learner autonomy, cultural
awareness (pp.25 76). European Centre for Modern
Languages, 2000.
[26] K. A., ONeill, W. M. McPeek, Item and test
characteristics that are associated with differential item
functioning. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.),
Differential item functioning (pp. 255276). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1993
[27] T. H., Azimi, B., Gorjian, A., Pazhakh, The effect of
emotional intelligence on male and female high school
students performance in production and recognition test
item formats of reading comprehension. Advances in
English Linguistics,2012, 1 (3), 61-65.
[28] E., Shohamy, T., Reves,. Authentic language tests:
Where from and where to? Language Testing, 1985, 2(1),
4859.
[29] R. Slavin, Educational psychology: Theory and
practice. Boston: AJlyn and Bacon, 2003.
[30] B., Spolsky, The limits of authenticity in language
testing. Language Testing, 1985, 2(1), 31- 40.
[31] D. K., Stevenson, Authenticity, validity and a tea-
party. Language Testing, 1985, 2(1), 4147.
[32] H. G., Widdowson,. Teaching language as
communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978
[33] H. G., Widdowson, Explorations in applied linguistics.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979
[34] M., Williams, R. L., Burden,. Psychology for language
teachers: A social constructivist approach. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1997

Vitae

Hosssein Ahmadi is currently a Ph.D. candidate of TEFL
at Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch,
Tehran, Iran. He is also a faculty member of Islamic Azad
University, Malayer Branch, Malayer, Iran. He has taught
English courses for 11 years at different universities in
Malayer, Iran. Furthermore, he has presented and published
articles and published books on teaching English language.