Questões de Concurso Sobre inglês

Set the Table

When you begin writing tests, you will discover a common pattern:

1. Create some objects

2. Stimulate them

3. Check the results

While the stimulation and checking steps are unique test-to-test, the creation step is often familiar. I have a 2 and 3. If I add them, I expect 5. If I subtract them, I expect – 1, if I multiply them, I expect 6. The stimulation and expected results are unique, the 2 and the 3 don’t change.

If this pattern repeats at different scales (and it does), then we’re faced with the question of how often do we want to create new objects. Looking back at our initial set of constraints, two constraints come into conflict:

· Performance—we would like our tests to run as quickly as possible

· Isolation—we would the success or failure of one test to be irrelevant to other tests

For performance sake, assuming creating the objects (we’ll call them collectively the “fixture”) is expensive, we would like to create them once and then run lots of tests.

But sharing objects between tests creates the possibility of test coupling. Test coupling can have an obvious nasty effect, where breaking one test causes the next ten to fail even though the code is correct. Test coupling can have a subtle really nasty effect, where the order of tests matters. If I run A before B, they both work, but if I run B before A, then A fails. Worse, the code exercised by B is wrong, but because A ran first, the test passes.

Kent Beck – Test-Driven Development By Example. Addison-Wesley Professional; Edição: 1. Novembro, 2002. Page 82.

       I have suggested that many, if not most teachers, could usefully adjust the values they emphasise. Here, three of them:

      1. From Short-Term to Long-Term Aims

          Learning a foreign language can be a valuable, long-term personal asset for the student. lt can be inhibited by over-emphasising short-term objectives — tests, pressure to speak before you are ready etc.

      2. From Knowledge to Skill

     Knowledge involves answers and explanations and is necessary, but not sufficient. What matters is not what you know, but what you can do. ‘Knowing’ a foreign language may be interesting; the ability to use it is life-enhancing.

     3. From Accuracy to Communication

       Successful communication always involves at least limited accuracy. Accuracy need not involve communication at all. Communication is a wider, more useful concept; successful language is more valuable than language which is only accurate.

(Michael Lewis. The lexical approach. 2002. Adaptado)

       I have suggested that many, if not most teachers, could usefully adjust the values they emphasise. Here, three of them:

      1. From Short-Term to Long-Term Aims

          Learning a foreign language can be a valuable, long-term personal asset for the student. lt can be inhibited by over-emphasising short-term objectives — tests, pressure to speak before you are ready etc.

      2. From Knowledge to Skill

     Knowledge involves answers and explanations and is necessary, but not sufficient. What matters is not what you know, but what you can do. ‘Knowing’ a foreign language may be interesting; the ability to use it is life-enhancing.

     3. From Accuracy to Communication

       Successful communication always involves at least limited accuracy. Accuracy need not involve communication at all. Communication is a wider, more useful concept; successful language is more valuable than language which is only accurate.

(Michael Lewis. The lexical approach. 2002. Adaptado)

      Characteristics of a good test

      In order to judge the effectiveness of any test, it is sensible to lay down criteria against which the test can be measured, as follows:

      Validity: a test is valid if it tests what it is supposed to test. Thus it is not valid, for example, to test writing ability with an essay question that demands specialist knowledge of history or biology — unless it is known that all students share this knowledge before they do the test.

      A particular kind of ‘validity’ that concerns most test designers is face validity. This means that the test should look, on the ‘face’ of it, as if it is valid. A test which consisted of only three multiple choice items would not convince students of its face validity however reliable or practical teachers thought it to be.

      Reliability: a good test should give consistent results. For example, if the same group of students took the same test twice within two days — without reflecting on the first test before they sat it again — they should get the same results on each occasion. If two groups who were demonstrably alike took the test, the marking range would be the same.

      In practice, ‘reliability’ is enhanced by making the test instructions absolutely clear, restricting the scope for variety in the answers. Reliability also depends on the people who mark the tests. Clearly a test is unreliable if the result depends to any large extent on who is marking it. Much thought has gone into making the scoring of tests as reliable as possible.

(Jeremy Harmer. The practice of English language teaching. 2007. Adaptado)

      Characteristics of a good test

      In order to judge the effectiveness of any test, it is sensible to lay down criteria against which the test can be measured, as follows:

      Validity: a test is valid if it tests what it is supposed to test. Thus it is not valid, for example, to test writing ability with an essay question that demands specialist knowledge of history or biology — unless it is known that all students share this knowledge before they do the test.

      A particular kind of ‘validity’ that concerns most test designers is face validity. This means that the test should look, on the ‘face’ of it, as if it is valid. A test which consisted of only three multiple choice items would not convince students of its face validity however reliable or practical teachers thought it to be.

      Reliability: a good test should give consistent results. For example, if the same group of students took the same test twice within two days — without reflecting on the first test before they sat it again — they should get the same results on each occasion. If two groups who were demonstrably alike took the test, the marking range would be the same.

      In practice, ‘reliability’ is enhanced by making the test instructions absolutely clear, restricting the scope for variety in the answers. Reliability also depends on the people who mark the tests. Clearly a test is unreliable if the result depends to any large extent on who is marking it. Much thought has gone into making the scoring of tests as reliable as possible.

(Jeremy Harmer. The practice of English language teaching. 2007. Adaptado)

      Characteristics of a good test

      In order to judge the effectiveness of any test, it is sensible to lay down criteria against which the test can be measured, as follows:

      Validity: a test is valid if it tests what it is supposed to test. Thus it is not valid, for example, to test writing ability with an essay question that demands specialist knowledge of history or biology — unless it is known that all students share this knowledge before they do the test.

      A particular kind of ‘validity’ that concerns most test designers is face validity. This means that the test should look, on the ‘face’ of it, as if it is valid. A test which consisted of only three multiple choice items would not convince students of its face validity however reliable or practical teachers thought it to be.

      Reliability: a good test should give consistent results. For example, if the same group of students took the same test twice within two days — without reflecting on the first test before they sat it again — they should get the same results on each occasion. If two groups who were demonstrably alike took the test, the marking range would be the same.

      In practice, ‘reliability’ is enhanced by making the test instructions absolutely clear, restricting the scope for variety in the answers. Reliability also depends on the people who mark the tests. Clearly a test is unreliable if the result depends to any large extent on who is marking it. Much thought has gone into making the scoring of tests as reliable as possible.

(Jeremy Harmer. The practice of English language teaching. 2007. Adaptado)