L2 teaching has been subjected to •significant changes over the last few years. These changes can mainly be attributed to the fact that more attention has been given to the needs and aims of L2 learners. Agreement has been reached that language is essentially a tool for communication and that the most important need of L2 learners is the need to use the L2 for communicative purposes. Since the implementation of the communicative syllabus for English L2 for std 5, 6 and 7 pupils in 1986, the focus has been on communication. An indisputable link exists between teaching and testing. This implies that, should the overriding aim of a L2 syllabus be communicative competence, then the natural result of this should be the periodic testing of the communicative abilities of the pupils. Communicative teaching has already been explored to a considerable extent. One can assume that the amount of literature available on communicative teaching has resulted in a (positive) change in L2 classrooms. Communicative testing has not been explored sufficiently, however. In fact, there is enough reason to believe that the co-ordination that should exist between L2 teaching and L2 testing is lacking. In this mini-dissertation an attempt has been made to give guidance to L2 teachers in the bridging of the gap that exists between L2 teaching and L2 testing. Test construction has become a specialized field, and L2 teachers should get sufficient training in this field, so as to enable them to measure the progress of their pupils scientifically. In this mini-dissertation the following aspects of testing are discussed: validity, reliability, subjectivity/objectivity, the characteristics of communicative testing, the use of different scales for the evaluation of communicative competence, and techniques that can be applied in the testing of communicative competence. Knowledge of the above-mentioned aspects could lead to more scientific approach to L2 testing and this may help to eliminate the disharmony currently existing between L2.~eaching and L2 testing. It is concluded that communicative language testing in the junior secondary phase is indeed possible if the techniques proposed in this mini-dissertation are followed. / Skripsie (MEd)--PU vir CHO, 1990

L2 teaching has been subjected to •significant changes over the last few years. These changes can mainly be attributed to the fact that more attention has been given to the needs and aims of L2 learners. Agreement has been reached that language is essentially a tool for communication and that the most important need of L2 learners is the need to use the L2 for communicative purposes. Since the implementation of the communicative syllabus for English L2 for std 5, 6 and 7 pupils in 1986, the focus has been on communication. An indisputable link exists between teaching and testing. This implies that, should the overriding aim of a L2 syllabus be communicative competence, then the natural result of this should be the periodic testing of the communicative abilities of the pupils. Communicative teaching has already been explored to a considerable extent. One can assume that the amount of literature available on communicative teaching has resulted in a (positive) change in L2 classrooms. Communicative testing has not been explored sufficiently, however. In fact, there is enough reason to believe that the co-ordination that should exist between L2 teaching and L2 testing is lacking. In this mini-dissertation an attempt has been made to give guidance to L2 teachers in the bridging of the gap that exists between L2 teaching and L2 testing. Test construction has become a specialized field, and L2 teachers should get sufficient training in this field, so as to enable them to measure the progress of their pupils scientifically. In this mini-dissertation the following aspects of testing are discussed: validity, reliability, subjectivity/objectivity, the characteristics of communicative testing, the use of different scales for the evaluation of communicative competence, and techniques that can be applied in the testing of communicative competence. Knowledge of the above-mentioned aspects could lead to more scientific approach to L2 testing and this may help to eliminate the disharmony currently existing between L2.~eaching and L2 testing. It is concluded that communicative language testing in the junior secondary phase is indeed possible if the techniques proposed in this mini-dissertation are followed. / Skripsie (MEd)--PU vir CHO, 1990