Jo-ELT (Journal of English Language Teaching) Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris IKIP https://e-journal.undikma.ac.id/index.php/joelt Email: joelt@ikipmataram.ac.id June 2021, Vol.8 No.1 online: 2548-5865 print: 2355-0309 pp.83-93 doi:10.33394/jo-elt.v8i1.3841 Jo-ELT (Journal of English Language Teaching) Fakultas Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris IKIP, June 2021. Vol.8 No.1 | Page 83 STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT ON INSTITUTIONAL TOEFL AN EVALUATION AT FBS UNIVERSITAS WIJAYA PUTRA *1 Arjunani, #2 Yeni Probowati, *3 Yulis Setyowati, *4 Deni Kuswahono *1 EnglishLlecturer, Language and Literature Faculty, Universitas Wijaya Putra, Indonesia #2 EnglishLlecturer, Language and Literature Faculty, Universitas Wijaya Putra, Indonesia *3 EnglishLlecturer, Language and Literature Faculty, Universitas Wijaya Putra, Indonesia *4 EnglishLlecturer, Language and Literature Faculty, Universitas Wijaya Putra, Indonesia Corresponding Author Email: yeniprobowati@uwp.ac.id A B S T R A C T S A R T I C L E I N F O This study tries to describe students’ achievement on institutional TOEFL in Universitas Wijaya Putra. The test is meant as a means of evaluation upon the launching of a mandatory subject as a prerequisite towards final paper writing. The program begins with ten weeks of test preparation completed with a try-out test and the final test. This is a descriptive study since it tries to depict the result of their achievement and the most difficult section of the test. The data analysis uses the computation upon the results mostly applied for Excel Program, particularly in finding the Mean (X) and the Standard Deviation (S). The findings derived from the data analysis tell that 62.85% of the class belong to Grade D which means it is far below expectation. The finding also identified that Listening Section is to be the most difficult part of the test. Still, the findings say none of the students included into the level of either extremely excellent or failed. It is a big task to fulfill a better target for the coming classes by undergoing revision and development in many aspects, especially in time allocation and the module. Article History: Received: May, 2021 Revised: May, 2021 Published: June, 20216 Aug 2018nline 09 Sep 2018 Keywords: Students’ Achievement, Institutional TOEFL, Evaluation, How to cite: Arjunani, A., Probowati, Y., Setyowati, Y., & Kuswahono, D. (2021). Students’ Achievement on Institutional TOEFL an Evaluation at FBS Universitas Wijaya Putra. Jo-ELT (Journal of English Language Teaching) Fakultas Pendidikan Bahasa & Seni Prodi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris IKIP, 8(1), 83-93. doi:https://doi.org/10.33394/jo-elt.v8i1.3841 INTRODUCTION It should be realized that every single thing people do is based on the cycle of planning, organizing, actualizing, and controlling (management). In fact, it just a matter of time span they need to do it: meaning, sometimes human beings have enough time to prepare all the steps, yet mostly they do it spontaneously. However, official work does need well prepared. In academic work, teaching-learning activities particularly, the lecturers also have to follow the cycle of management properly in terms of planning for the coming schedule of each semester; organizing the right lectures on their expertise; Actualizing the instructions as scheduled in classroom practice: controlling the whole three chains into an assessment through periodic evaluation such as Mid-semester Test and Final-semester Test. In reality, teaching-learning activities as a whole including the administering of a test must be well planned in order to get feedback on varied aspects of the instructions that have been completed in a period of time. The feedback may identify how far the objectives of mailto:yeniprobowati@uwp.ac.id Probowati Students’ Achievement on Institutional……… Jo-ELT (Journal of English Language Teaching) Fakultas Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris IKIP, June 2021. Vol.8 No.1 | Page 84 instructions are achieved; whether the materials are properly selected; whether the methods used are applicable and acceptable by the students, whether the right lecturer on the right subject, and further information can be depicted from a test result. In fact, administering a test as controlling is the most point to be highlighted since it can tell lots of things when it wants to see beyond the lines. Generally, the result of a test may tell the performance of both lectures and students along the semester as the Mean of the scores indicates how well the students were able to absorb and comprehend the subject matter their Lecture gave. Each student can see his position among the peers to they should know how to upgrade himself to the achievement expected. While for the lecture, he is expected to diagnose through his test-item analysis to identify which part of the previous instructions are least comprehended and need remedial instruction. As controlling that important, the writer is intended to give a closed look and study on the utmost final assessment that the Fakultas Bahasa dan Sastra of Universitas Wijaya Putra Surabaya hold as a requirement for those students who have completed their Final-paper writing (thesis). The assessment is named under institutional TOEFL which is internally used only, yet not customized since faculty does always up-date TOEFL (PBT) collection from which FBS has one complete test sample to save, meaning it is not used as classroom material; instead saved the set as the item-test bank. The institutional TOEFL is completed with the writing and speaking section, so all in all there will be 5 sections including listening, structure, and written expressions, as well as reading comprehension. The last three sections will apply the standardized scoring system of real TOEFL in line with the set taken from it. However, the speaking and writing sections which generally received little attention (Underhill, 1987: 3) will apply the FSI (Foreign Service Institute) in scoring them. the result of this study is expected to give the real-solid official information upon the holistic performance of lectures as big teamwork and to generally tell academic achievement upon the target of language learning that comprised of four language skills (listening, speaking, reading, writing) and three language components (vocabulary, pronunciation, grammar). Language Teaching is generally the same as other instructional activities. The only difference lays in whether the language teaching is about the mother-tongue / local, national language, or other-country language known as a foreign language. The fact is, even teaching other-country language can be considered as a second language or completely as a foreign language. For example, the English Teaching in Malaysia more to TESL (Teaching English as Second Language), while the English Teaching in Indonesia tends to be TEFL (Teaching English as Foreign Language) (Rivers, 1985). Teaching English as a foreign language includes both knowing about the language (the usage), meaning to communicate using the target language. Thus, the teaching process should properly apply the 3 P: Present, Practice, and Produce. The teacher is expected to introduce the language properly as vocabulary cannot be separated from pronunciation since a slightly different pronunciation may completely change the meaning of a word. Even the use of grammar correctly is needed, for it may indicate the difference between active sentence construction and passive one. Djiwandono (2008) says penyelenggaraan pengajaran yang utuh secara keseluruhan bahkan meliputi pula penyelenggaraan tes untuk memperoleh berbagai macam dan bentuk umpan balik tentang pengajaran yang telah diselenggarakan. Meaning that the teaching-learning process as a whole includes the administering test with the intention of getting feedback in various types and kinds from the given instruction. Probowati Students’ Achievement on Institutional……… Jo-ELT (Journal of English Language Teaching) Fakultas Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris IKIP, June 2021. Vol.8 No.1 | Page 85 Constructing a test should be related to the target of language learning to consider it valid. In fact, language should be taught integrated comprising the language skills and language components. In practice, the lecturer tends to focus on giving the language components (vocabulary, pronunciation, Grammar) as discrete subjects with the expectation of broad knowledge and a huge reservoir to have strong basic support to perform the language skills (listening, speaking, reading, writing). The attitude towards the target of language learning inspired the administering of the institution test of English as a Foreign Language as an internal assessment hold for the final-semester students at FBS of Universitas Wijaya Putra Surabaya. It is confirmed that the sections of listening, structure, and written expressions, as well as reading comprehension, are assessed using the standard TOEFL system. the speaking section will apply the holistic rating scale that has 7 bands (Sohamy, 1985: 179) while the writing section will use the rating scale for evaluating holistic written language that bears 5 bands (Shohamy, 1985: 197). The application of that two holistic assessments is in accordance with the impromptu task an examinee has to do within a time limit; in order words, spontaneity is far from perfection, yet an examiner is still to hold the assessment officially by using a legal measurement. As teaching adult learners at the university level is more field-specific oriented, the test for Speaking can be constructed which are designed to assess the testability to communicate in relation to typical language the target genres (Brown, 2004). In assessing speaking the examiner may use elicitation as it is the process of drawing out something, of provoking a response. RESEARCH METHOD Research Design According to Ary, Jacob & Razavieh (1972), descriptive studies are designed to obtain information concerning the current status of the phenomenon and are directed toward determining the nature of the situation as it exists at the time of the study. In line with the statement above, as this study is a case study, the writers decided to use descriptive studies as the research design. In a sense, descriptive studies are merely the accumulation of basic data that have nothing to do with seeking and explaining any correlation, testing hypothesis, establishing prediction, even finding implications. The current study tries to find out the achievement of the final-semester students at FBS-UWP Surabaya toward institutional TOEFL in terms of all sections (listening; structure and written expression; reading comprehension; writing; and speaking). This descriptive method is considered appropriate since it is intended to describe what exists at the time of the study. For this purpose, the most needed is a quantitative design to determine the percentage of the achievers of each section. In the end, every outcome will be described in terms of determining criteria. Population and sample The test-taker for the institutional TOEFL is the students of FBS Universitas Wijaya Putra Surabaya, the writer determine to include all of them (35 students) as the respondents. Thus, this study will not need sampling. Data Analysis The data of this study is collected from the scores of the institutional TOEFL in every section. It is credible as it is stated that a test is a means of measuring the knowledge, skills, feeling, intelligence, or aptitude of individuals or groups (Gay, 1987: 127). Probowati Students’ Achievement on Institutional……… Jo-ELT (Journal of English Language Teaching) Fakultas Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris IKIP, June 2021. Vol.8 No.1 | Page 86 The data of this study is collected after the scoring of the test that was held in May 2017 took place in Kampus-1 Universitas Wijaya Putra, started from 10 a.m up to 2 p.m. The test lasted from 10 to 12 a.m followed by a lunch break, then began with the Writing section for 35 minutes, ended with the speaking section. Data will be analyzed by section. After the scores were listed from the highest to the lowest, the researcher can find out the Mean and the Standard Deviation by using the Excell system in the computer. Using the Mean (X) and Standard Deviation (S) we may find out the spreading of the scores for grading the students, how many of them belong to normal achievers between (X-1S) - (X+1S) means score C; above normal achievers between (X-1S) - (X-2S) means D, while < (X-2S) means E. From the percentage of the achievers by section we can identify how well the subjects go along complete academic years (8 semester or 4 years). Then, the program or even a department evaluation may take place as well. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Research Findings There are a total of 35 test-takers, three of them are alumnus from varied academic-year who are interested in joining the institutional TOEFL then. However, they will not be included as the population of the research since this study is meant to evaluate the current achievement of the students in the same academic year. Thus, the respondents of the study consist of 35 test-takers with detailed scores in table 1. Probowati Students’ Achievement on Institutional……… Jo-ELT (Journal of English Language Teaching) Fakultas Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris IKIP, June 2021. Vol.8 No.1 | Page 87 Table 1 TOEFL Score Data of FBS Universitas Wijaya Putra No Respondent NPM Listening Reading Structure Total Score Toefl Equivalent 1. PNA 12181007 42 44 44 130 433 2. AR 12181020 41 42 36 119 397 3. NH 12181027 47 51 37 135 450 4. BI 13181002 46 44 35 125 417 5. PF 13181004 49 54 43 146 487 6. DPS 13181005 48 55 42 145 483 7. K 13181006 47 52 36 135 450 8. KN 13181007 41 44 41 126 420 9. MSI 13181008 41 53 39 133 443 10. SH 13181009 44 43 35 122 407 11. LHIM 13181013 38 43 43 124 413 12. NH 13181014 41 51 32 124 413 13. EMS 13181015 59 63 54 176 587 14. RS 13181016 45 57 48 150 500 15. UP 13181017 41 50 29 120 400 16. NNI 13181018 45 55 29 129 430 17. AP 13181021 44 45 35 124 413 18. ITUN 13181024 45 52 39 136 453 19. MFN 13181026 45 46 35 126 420 20. YP 13181027 41 45 38 124 413 21. IIM 13181028 45 54 32 131 437 22. VND 13181029 51 51 44 146 487 23. SA 13181030 32 50 28 110 367 24. OKC 13181031 43 41 37 121 403 25. RSW 13181032 42 54 34 130 433 26. SAZ 13181033 54 60 54 168 560 27. APPS 13181034 35 42 28 105 350 28. TF 13181035 48 60 47 155 517 29. RIS 13181038 51 51 41 143 477 30. SK 13181040 44 51 34 129 430 31. DARP 13181047 41 56 46 143 477 32. DP 15071028 51 56 39 146 487 33. AEN 15071033 41 45 46 132 440 34. FDH 16071026 41 48 34 123 410 35. AF 13181041 31 42 29 102 340 In the process of analyzing the data, the researcher grades the respondent's score from the highest to the lowest, in addition, the researcher also includes the Mean score (X) and Standard Deviation (S). Probowati Students’ Achievement on Institutional……… Jo-ELT (Journal of English Language Teaching) Fakultas Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris IKIP, June 2021. Vol.8 No.1 | Page 88 Table 2 Score Analysis of the Listening Section No Respondent Listening Score No Respondent Listening Score 1. EMS 59 19. SK 44 2. SAZ 54 20. OKC 43 3. VND 51 21. PNA 42 4. RIS 51 22. RSW 42 5. DP 51 23. AR 41 6. PF 49 24. KN 41 7. DPS 48 25. MSI 41 8. TF 48 26. NH 41 9. NH 47 27. UP 41 10. K 47 28. YP 41 11. BI 46 29. DARP 41 12. RS 45 30. AEN 41 13. NNI 45 31. FDH 41 14. ITUN 45 32. LHIM 38 15. MFN 45 33. APPS 35 16. IIM 45 34. SA 32 17. SH 44 35. AF 31 18. AP 44 Mean (X) = 44 Standard Deviation (S) = 5.625 In table 2 shows the results of the analysis upon the Listening Section upon the institutional TOEFL held by FBS-UWP Surabaya. The Mean score (X) of the listening section was 44 and the Standard Deviation (S) was 5.625. Probowati Students’ Achievement on Institutional……… Jo-ELT (Journal of English Language Teaching) Fakultas Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris IKIP, June 2021. Vol.8 No.1 | Page 89 Table 3 Score Analysis of the Reading Section No Respondents Reading Scores No Respondents Reading Scores 1. EMS 63 19. SK 51 2. SAZ 60 20. UP 50 3. TF 60 21. SA 50 4. RS 57 22. FDH 48 5. DARP 56 23. MFN 46 6. DP 56 24. AP 45 7. DPS 55 25. YP 45 8. NNI 55 26. AEN 45 9. PF 54 27. PNA 44 10. IIM 54 28. BI 44 11. RSW 54 29. KN 44 12. MSI 53 30. SH 43 13. K 52 31. LHIM 43 14. ITUN 52 32. AR 42 15. NH 51 33. APPS 42 16. NH 51 34. AF 42 17. VND 51 35. OKC 41 18. RIS 51 Mean / (X) = 50 Standard Deviation (S) = 5.901 In table 3 shows the results of the analysis upon the Reading Section upon the institutional TOEFL held by FBS-UWP Surabaya. The Mean score (X) of the reading section was 50 and the Standard Deviation (S) was 5.901. Probowati Students’ Achievement on Institutional……… Jo-ELT (Journal of English Language Teaching) Fakultas Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris IKIP, June 2021. Vol.8 No.1 | Page 90 Table 4 Score Analysis of the Structure and Written Expressions Section No Respondents Structure and Written Expressions Scores No Respondents Structure and Written Expressions Scores 1. EMS 54 19. OKC 37 2. SAZ 54 20. AR 36 3. RS 48 21. K 36 4. TF 47 22. BI 35 5. DARP 46 23. SH 35 6. AEN 46 24. AP 35 7. PNA 44 25. MFN 35 8. VND 44 26. RSW 34 9. PF 43 27. SK 34 10. LHIM 43 28. FDH 34 11. DPS 42 29. NH 32 12. KN 41 30. IIM 32 13. RIS 41 31. UP 29 14. MSI 39 32. NNI 29 15. ITUN 39 33. AF 29 16. DP 39 34. SA 28 17. YP 38 35. APPS 28 18. NH 37 Mean / (X) = 38.371 Standard Deviation (S) = 6.826 In table 4 shows the results of the analysis upon the Reading Section upon the institutional TOEFL held by FBS-UWP Surabaya. The Mean score (X) of Structure and Written Expressions was 38.371 and the Standard Deviation (S) was 6.826. Moreover, it will measure their instructors’ accomplishment upon the subject had been given to their students; at the same time-in macroscope can be functioned as the evaluation of the instructional program as a whole. Score Distribution of Listening Section Bearing the Mean of 44 and the Standard Deviation of 5.625, the score distribution of the listening section is described in figure 1. Probowati Students’ Achievement on Institutional……… Jo-ELT (Journal of English Language Teaching) Fakultas Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris IKIP, June 2021. Vol.8 No.1 | Page 91 Figure 1. Score Distribution of the Listening Section The computation based on the Score Distribution Formula tells that grade A ranges between scores > 60.88, grade B ranges between scores 55.25 – 59.99, grade C ranges between scores 49.62 – 54.99, grade D ranges between scores 38.37 – 48.99, grade E ranges between scores 32.75 – 37.99, grade F ranges between scores 27.12 – 31.99. Score Distribution of Reading Section Having the Mean of 50 and the Standard Deviation of 5.901, the score distribution of the reading section is described in figure 2. Figure 2. Score Distribution of the Reading Section The computation based on the score distribution formula tells that grade A ranges between scores > 67.703, grade B ranges between scores 6.802 – 66.999, grade C ranges between scores 55.901 – 60.999, grade D ranges between scores 44.099 – 54.999, grade E ranges between scores 38.198 – 43.999, grade F ranges between scores 32.297 – 37.999. Scores Distribution of Structure and Written Expressions Bearing the Mean of 38.371 and the Standard Deviation of 5.076, the score distribution of the structure and written expression section is described in figure 3. Figure 3. Score Distribution of the Structure and Written Expression Section Grade A ranges between scores > 53.559, grade B ranges between scores 48.523 – 52.999, grade C ranges between scores 43.447 – 47.999, grade D ranges between scores 33.295 – 42.999, grade E ranges between scores 28.219 – 32.999, grade F ranges between scores 23.143 – 27.999. X + 1S = 44 + 5.625 = 49.625 X + 2S = 44 + 11.25 = 55.25 X + 3S = 44 + 16.875 = 60.875 X – 1S = 44 – 5.626 = 38.375 X – 2S = 44 – 11.25 = 32.75 X – 3S = 44 – 16.875 = 27.125 X + 1S = 50 + 5.901 = 55.901 X + 2S = 50 + 11.802 = 61.802 X + 3S = 50 + 17.703 = 67.703 X – 1S = 50 – 5.901 = 44.099 X – 2S = 50 – 11.802 = 38.198 X – 3S = 50 – 17.703 = 32.297 X + 1S = 38.371 + 5.076 = 43.447 X + 2S = 38.371 + 10.152 = 48.523 X + 3S = 38.371 + 15.228 = 53.599 X – 1S = 38.371 – 5.076 = 33.295 X – 2S = 38.371 – 10.152 = 28.219 X – 3S = 38.371 – 15.228 = 23.143 Probowati Students’ Achievement on Institutional……… Jo-ELT (Journal of English Language Teaching) Fakultas Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris IKIP, June 2021. Vol.8 No.1 | Page 92 Discussion The score distribution of Listening Section of the institutional TOEFL of FBS-UWP (IEP) are: A: > 61 ; B: 56 – 60 ; C: 50 – 55 ; D: 39 – 49 ; E: 33 – 38 ; F: 28 – 32. Based on the distribution of the listening scores, it is found out that; 1) There are no students (0%) who belongs to grade A, 2) There is 1 student (2.85%) who includes in grade B, 3) There are 4 students in the class (11.42%) gets grade C, 4) There are 26 students in the class (74.28%) belong to grade D, 5) There are 2 students (5.71%) belongs to grade E, 6) There are 2 students (5.71%) of the class belong to grade F. The results of the study showed that there were 74.28% of the students belong to grade D. It means that the listening section can be the most difficult section of TOEFL for all participants. It was because of some reasons such as fast conversations, unclear voice, and pronunciation, unfamiliar word meanings as well as limited time to do the test. The score distribution of reading section of the institutional TOEFL of FBS-UWP (IEP) are: A: > 68 ; B: 62 – 67 ; C: 56 – 61 ; D: 45 – 55 ; E: 39 – 44 ; F: 33 – 38. Based on the distribution of the reading scores, it is found out that; 1) There is no student (0%) who get grade A, 2) There is 1 student (2.85%) of the class belongs to grade B, 3) There are 5 students (14.28%) of the class belongs to grade C, 4) There are 20 students (57.14%) of the class belongs to grade D, 5) There are 9 students (25.71%) of the class belongs to grade E, 6) There is no student (0%) gets grade F. The highest average score of TOEFL was the reading section. In this section, the students must comprehend and understand the text as well as get closed meaning to new words and phrases. The results of the study showed that the average score was 50. It means that the reading section can be the easiest section of TOEFL for all participants. The score distribution of Structure and Written Expression Section of the institutional TOEFL of FBS-UWP (IEP) are: A: > 54 ; B: 49 – 53 ; C: 44 – 48 ; D: 34 – 43 ; E: 29 – 33 ; F: 24 – 28. Based on the distribution of the Structure and written scores, it is found out that; 1) There are 2 students (5.71%) who gets grade A, 2) There is no student (0%) who gets grade B, 3) There are 6 of the students (17.14%) belong to grade C, 4) There are 20 of the students (57.14%) belong to grade D, 5) There are 5 students (14.28%) belong to grade E, 6) There are 2 of the students (5.71%) belong to grade F. The lowest average score of TOEFL was the structure and written expressions section. In this section, the students must know the correct patterns of sentences. The results showed that the average score was 38.71. The students must prepare themselves much better to finish the test. It was because they can not remember all the correct patterns in English sentences. They feel difficulty in correcting the error identification. CONCLUSION The researchers conduct this study with the intention of finding out the holistic description of the achievement of the final-semester students in institutional TOEFL held by the Fakultas Bahasa dan Sastra, Universitas Wijaya Putra Surabaya. The research bears significant informant for all parties involving in running the academic activities, among others: 1) students are able to know their position among their peers, so they can decide their pace of learning to reach the expected achievement, 2) lectures may know how far their material is grasped, which material still needs remedy and have to be highlighted for the coming semester, 3) it is as a means of quality control for the board of the faculty (FBS particularly). Probowati Students’ Achievement on Institutional……… Jo-ELT (Journal of English Language Teaching) Fakultas Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris IKIP, June 2021. Vol.8 No.1 | Page 93 Since the standard score of institutional TOEFL is 480, which is still high for the students of FBS Universitas Wijaya Putra to obtain, it is necessary to give them good preparation. Suggestion written in this section is not meant to any correction, yet it is expected to share the shoulders among the team. Time allocation should be reconsidered between the training of TOEFL preparation weeks and the execution of the test itself. It is expected that the students have valuable time to prepare themselves well before doing the test. More tactful strategies to help the students' interest and memory stay inflame during the recess time of the training and the administering of the test. Hopefully, they can feel relax and stay calm as well as confident in finishing TOEFL. More alternative modules may be helpful during recess time. They can be an alternative solution to encourage the students to get a high score in TOEFL. The students can study various types of TOEFL items if they want to pass the standard score and have good English proficiency. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The researchers delivered their thanks to FBS students who participated in this study. The researchers also expressed their gratitude to Universitas Wijaya Putra Surabaya for supporting this research. REFERENCES Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (1972). Introduction to Research in Education. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Brown, D. H. (2004). Language Assessment, Principles, and Classroom Practice. New York, Pearson Education. Djiwandono, S. (2008). Test Bahasa: Pegangan bagi Pengajar Bahasa. PT. Indeks, Jakarta. Gay, L. (1987). Educational Research: Competence for Analysis and Application. Columbus: Merrillpub, Co. Rivers, W. M. (1985). Speaking in Many Tongues: Essays in Foreign-Language Teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Shohamy, E. (1985). A Practical Handbook in Language Testing for the Second Language Teacher. Tel Aviv University Press. Underhill, N. (1987). Testing Spoken Language: A Handbook of Oral Testing Techniques. New York: Cambridge, University Press.