We test, evaluate, and assess students at different stages during their learning and our teaching of English for Specific Purposes (ESP), but how many of us are able to distinguish among these terms or among the criteria at the basis of a valid, reliable, and authentic test, let alone apply such a test? What if our evaluation methods are biased towards negative outcomes, if we predominantly test rather than continuously assess and provide formative feedback, or if we test specialised knowledge

more »

... ather than the students' communicative competence? Could the directive speech acts we employ when we administer a test increase the students' anxiety, which in turn is likely to trigger negative washback effects? Do we just test and measure according to a procrustean bed the correct use of terms and standard structures or are we able to transform the information obtained from evaluation into a learning opportunity? How can tests reflect and simulate realities that students will confront with in their future professional communication or, to put it differently, how can we ensure that our tests will predict the students' performance in a real situation, not just during the test? What are the roles of motivation, anxiety, attitude, and other individual, noncognitive factors involved in ESP assessment? How can we make language assessment more dynamic, supportive, and contextualised?