Trends in computer-based second language assessment

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics

Volumn 25, Issue , 2005, Pages 228-242

  Jamieson, Joan ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 21644477774     PISSN: 02671905     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1017/S0267190505000127     Document Type: Review

References (55)

1. ACT, Inc. (2000). COMPASS/ESL reference manual Iowa City, Iowa: Author.
2. Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. New York: Cambridge University Press.
3. Attali, Y., & Burstein, J. (2004). Automated essay scoring with E-rater V.2.0. Available on-line at http://www.ets.org/research/erater.html
4. Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (1996). Language testing in practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
5. Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., & Helt, M. (2002). Speaking and writing in the university: A multidimensional comparison. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 9-48.
6. Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., Helt, M., Clark, V., Cortez, V., Csomay, E., Urzua, A. (2004). Representing language use in the university: Analysis of the TOEFL 2000 Spoken and Written Academic Language Corpus. TOEFL Monograph MS-25. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
7. Brown, J. D. (2004). For computerized language tests, potential benefits outweigh problems. Essential Teacher, 1, 4, 37-40.
8. Buck, G. (2001). Assessing listening. New York: Cambridge University Press.
9. Burstein, J., & Chodorow, M. (1999, June). Automated essay scoring for normative English speakers. In Proceedings of the ACL99 Workshop on Computer-Mediated Language Assessment and Evaluation of Natural Language Processing. College Park, MD. Available online at http://www.ets.org/research/dload/ac199rev.pdf
10. Burstein, J., Chodorow, M., & Leacock, C. (2003). Criterion online essay evaluation: An application for automated evaluation of student essays. Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, Acapulco, Mexico. Available online at: http://www.ets.org/research/dload/iaai03bursteinj.pdf
11. Burstein, J., Frase, L., Ginther, A., & Grant, L. (1996). Technologies for language assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 16, 240-260.
12. Canale, M. (1986). The promise and threat of computerized adaptive assessment of reading comprehension. In C. Stansfield (Ed.), Technology and language testing (pp. 30-45). Washington, DC: TESOL Publications.
13. Chalhoub-Deville, M. (Ed.) (1999). Issues in computer adaptive testing of reading proficiency. Studies in Language Testing, 10. New York: Cambridge University Press.
14. Chalhoub-Deville, M., & Deville, C. (1999). Computer adaptive testing in second language contexts. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 273-299.
15. Chapelle, C. A. (2004). English language learning and technology. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
16. Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
17. Chapelle, C. A., Enright, M. K., & Jamieson, J. (forthcoming). Challenges in developing a test of academic English. In C. A. Chapelle, M. K. Enright, & J. Jamieson (Eds.), Building a validity argument for TOEFL. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
18. Chapelle, C. A., Jamieson, J., & Hegelheimer, V. (2003). Validation of a web-based ESL test. Language Testing, 20, 409-439.
19. Chodorow, M., & Burstein, J. (2004). Beyond essay length: Evaluating e-rater's performance on TOEFL essays. TOEFL Research Reports, Report 73. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
20. Choi, I-C., Sung Kim, K., & Boo, J. (2003). Comparability of a paper-based language test and a computer-based language test. Language Testing, 20, 295-320.
21. Clapham, C. (2000). Assessment and testing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 147-161.
22. Douglas, D. (2000). Assessing languages for specific purposes. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23. Educational Testing Service (ETS). (2000). The computer-based TOEFL score user guide. Princeton, NJ: Author.
24. Eignor, D. (1999). Selected technical issues in the creation of computer-adaptive tests of second language reading proficiency. In Issues in computer adaptive testing of reading proficiency: Studies in Language Testing, 10 (pp. 167-181). New York: Cambridge University Press.
25. Enright, M. K., Bridgeman, B., Eignor, D., Lee, & Powers, D. E. (forthcoming). Designing measures of listening, reading, writing, and speaking. In C. A. Chapelle, M. K. Enright, & J. Jamieson (Eds.), Building a validity argument for TOEFL Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. Godwin-Jones, R. (2001). Emerging technologies. Language Learning & Technology, 5(2), 8-12.
27. Jamieson, J., & Chapelle, C. A. (2002). Longman English Assessment. New York: Pearson Longman.
28. Jamieson, J., Eignor, D., Grabe, W., & Kunnan, A. (forthcoming). The frameworks for reconceptualization of TOEFL. In C. A. Chapelle, M. K. Enright, & J. Jamieson (Eds.), Building a validity argument for TOEFL. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
29. Jamieson, J., Jones, S., Kirsch, I., Mosenthal, P., & Taylor, C. (2000). TOEFL 2000 framework: A working paper. TOEFL Monograph Series 16. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
30. Kenyon, D., & Malabonga, V. (2001). Comparing examinee attitudes toward computer-assisted and other oral proficiency assessments. Language Learning & Technology, 5(2), 60-83.
31. Kenyon, D., Malabonga, V., & Carpenter, H. (2001). Response to the Norris commentary. Language Learning & Technology, 5(2), 106-108.
32. Lanfer, B., Elder, C., Hill, K., & Congdon, P. (2004a). Size and strength: Do we need both to measure vocabulary knowledge? Language Testing, 21, 202-226.
33. Lanfer, B., & Goldstein, Z. (2004b). Testing vocabulary knowledge: Size, strength, and computer adaptiveness. Language Learning, 54, 399-436.
34. Leacock, C. (2004). Scoring free-responses automatically: A case study of a large-scale assessment. Examens, 1,3. English version available online at http://www.ets.org/research/erater.html
35. LeLoup, J., & Pontierio, R. (2001). On the net, language testing resources. Language Learning & Technology, 5(2), 4-7.
36. Loumi, S. (2004). Assessing speaking. New York: Cambridge University Press.
37. Madsen, H. (1986). Evaluating a computer-adaptive ESL placement test. CALICO Journal, 4(2), 41-50.
38. Norris, J. (2001). Concerns with computerized adaptive oral proficiency assessment. Language Learning & Technology, 5(2), 99-105.
39. Ordinate Corp. (1999). PhonePass testing: Structure and content. Ordinate Corporation Technical Report. Menlo Park, CA: Author.
40. Polio, C. (2001). Review of Test Pilot. Language Learning & Technology, 5(2), 34-37.
41. Powers, D. E., Roever, C., Huff, K. L., & Trapani, C. S. (2003). Validating LanguEdge courseware scores against faculty ratings and student self-assessments. (ETS Research Report 03-11). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
42. Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. New York: Cambridge University Press.
43. Roever, C. (2001). Web-based language testing. Language Learning & Technology, 5(2), 84-94.
44. Rosenfeld, M., Leung, S., & Oltman, P. (2001). The reading, writing, speaking, and listening tasks important for academic success at the undergraduate and graduate levels. (TOEFL Monograph Series, MS-21). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
45. Rost, M., & Fuchs, M. (2003). Longman English Interactive. New York: Pearson Education.
46. Rupp, A., Garcia, P., & Jamieson, J. (2002). Combining multiple regression and CART to understand difficulty in second language reading and listening comprehension test items. International Journal of Language Testing, 1, 185-216.
47. Sawaki, Y. (2001). Comparability of conventional and computerized tests of reading in a second language. Language Learning & Technology, 5(2), 38-59.
48. Stoynoff, S., & Chapelle, C. A. (2005). ESOL tests and testing: A resource for teachers and administrators. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
49. Tang, K. L. (1996). Polytomous item response theory models and their applications in large-scale testing programs: Review of literature. (TOEFL Monograph Series MS-2). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
50. Tang, K. L., & Eignor, D. R. (1997). Concurrent calibration of dichotomously and polytomously scored TOEFL items using IRT models. (TOEFL Technical Report TR-13). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
51. Taylor, C., Kirsch, I., Jamieson, J., & Eignor, D. (1999). Examining the relationship between computer familiarity and performance on computer-based language tasks. Language Learning, 49, 219-274.
52. Thompson, I. (2001). From the special issue editor (Introduction). Language Learning & Technology, 5(2), 2-3.
53. Wainer, H., Dorans, N., Eignor, D., Flaugher, R., Green, B., Mislevy, R., Steinberg, L., & Thissen, D. (2000). Computer adaptive testing: A primer (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
54. Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
55. Winke, P., & MacGregor, D. (2001). Review of Version 5, Hot Potatoes. Language Learning & Technology, 5(2), 28-33.