Scenario 1

Dear Ramon all you have mentioned in your post is absolutely correct, but we are talking
about a proficiency test, which as you know, requires an oral and written production to
evaluate the four language skills that learners develop, as a proficiency test requires.
Scenario 2
Filling rating sheets on my own opinion and experience, is an excellent tool to evaluate oral
tasks, they are dependable, of course there are some situations that must be taken in
account, like those that Douglas Brown called Student-related reliability that might be
caused by temporary illness, fatigue, a bad day and another phychological factors that
might affect the learners development during the task.
Scenario 3
Feedback conference is just a wonderful way on correcting errors and mistakes on students
language development, usually; learners feel comfortable about getting an efficient and
true feedback from the teacher. A long semester portfolio carries out a lot of information, I
am not really sure about to give conferences in such a long period of time, since Brown
argues: It may be appropriate to examine the extent to which a test calls for performance
that matches that of the course or unit of study being tested.
Scenario 4
If authenticity is the degree of correspondence of the characteristics of a given language
task to the features of a target language task (Bachman and palmer 1996, p. 23) then this
kind of language assessment is complete and correct since learners and teacher have
worked together to achieve the objective.
Scenario 5
Since washback is the effect of testing on teaching and learning (Hughes, 2003, p.1) the
assessment practice is achieving its goal, learners would be affected by the process of the
test once they checked out their results and construct their knowledge.