Concerns with computerized adaptive oral proficiency assessment: A commentary on "Comparing Examinee Attitudes Toward Computer-Assisted and Other Oral Proficient Assessments" by Dorry Kenyon and Valerie Malabonga

Language Learning and Technology

Volumn 5, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 99-105

  Norris, John M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 3042637214     PISSN: 10943501     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Note

References (32)

1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council for Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
2. Alderson, J. C. (2000). Technology in testing: The present and the future. System, 28, 593-603.
3. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (1999). ACTFL proficiency guidelines - speaking: Revised 1999. Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: Author.
4. Bennett, R. E. (1999). Using new technology to improve assessment. Educational measurement: Issues and practice, 18(3), 5-12.
5. Bernstein, J. (1997). Speech recognition in language testing. In A. Huhta, V. Kohonen, L. Kurki-Suonio, & S. Luoma (Eds.), Current developments and alternatives in language assessment - Proceedings of LTRC 96 (pp. 534-537). Jyväskylä, Finland: University of Jyväskylä.
6. Breiner-Sanders, K. E., Lowe, P., Miles, J., & Swender, E. (1999). ACTFL proficiency guidelines - speaking: Revised 1999. Foreign Language Annals, 33(1), 13-17.
7. Brown, J. D. (1997). Computers in language testing: Present research and some future directions. Language Learning & Technology, 1(1), 44-59. Retrieved January 15, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://llt.msu.edu/vol1num1/brown/default.html.
8. Burstein, J. C., Kaplan, R. M., Rohen-Wolf, S., Zuckerman, D. L., & Lu, C. (1999). A review of computer-based speech technology for TOEFL 2000 (TOEFL Monograph Series Report No. 13). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
9. Butler, F. A., Eignor, D., Jones, S., McNamara, T., & Suomi, B. K. (2000). TOEFL 2000 speaking framework: A working paper. (TOEFL Monograph Series Report No. 20). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
10. Chalhoub-Deville, M. (Ed.). (1999). Issues in computer adaptive testing of reading proficiency. New York: Cambridge University Press.
11. Chalhoub-Deville, M., & Deville, C. (1999). Computer adaptive testing in second language contexts. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 273-299.
12. Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing, and research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
13. Douglas, D. (1998). Testing methods in context-based second language research. In L. F. Bachman & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research (pp. 141-155). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14. Dunkel, P. A. (1999). Considerations in developing or using second/foreign language proficiency computer-adaptive tests. Language Learning & Technology, 2(2), 77-93. Retrieved January 15, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://llt.msu.edu/vol2num2/dunkel/default.html.
15. Green, B. F. (2000). System design and operation. In H. Wainer (Ed.), Computerized adaptive testing: A primer (pp. 23-35). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16. Flaugher, R. (2000). Item pools. In H. Wainer (Ed.), Computerized adaptive testing: A primer (pp. 37-59). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17. Heilenman, L. K. (1990). Self-assessment of second language ability: The role of response effects. Language Testing, 7, 172-198.
18. Jamieson, J., Jones, S., Kirsch, I., Mosenthal, P., & Taylor, C. (2000). TOEFL 2000 framework: A working paper. (TOEFL Monograph Series Report No. 16). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
19. Kenyon, D. M., & Tschirner, E. (2000). The rating of direct and semi-direct oral proficiency interviews: Comparing performance at lower proficiency levels. Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 85-101.
20. Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., & Almond, R. G. (1999). On the roles of task model variables in assessment design (CSE Technical Report 500). Los Angeles, CA: Center for the Study of Evaluation, Graduate School of Education & Information Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles.
21. Norris, J. M. (1997). The German Speaking Test: Utility and caveats. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 30(2), 148-158.
22. Norris, J. M. (2000). Purposeful language assessment. English Teaching Forum, 38(1), 18-23.
23. Ordinate Corporation (1998). PhonePass test validation report. Menlo Park, CA: Author.
24. Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 109-148.
25. Salaberry, R. (2000). Revising the revised format of the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview. Language Testing, 17(3), 289-310.
26. Stansfield, C. W., & Kenyon, D. M. (1992). Research on the comparability of the Oral Proficiency Interview and the Simulated Oral Proficiency Interview. System, 20, 347-364.
27. Thissen, D., & Mislevy, R. (2000). Testing algorithms. In H. Wainer (Ed.), Computerized adaptive testing: A primer (pp. 101-133). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28. Thompson, I. (1995). A study of interrater reliability of the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview in five European languages: Data from ESL, French, German, Russian, and Spanish. Foreign Language Annals, 28, 407-422.
29. Thompson, I. (1996). Assessing foreign language skills: Data from Russian. Modern Language Journal, 80, 47-65.
30. nd edition). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31. Wainer, H., & Mislevy, R. J. (2000). Item response theory, item calibration, and proficiency estimation. In H. Wainer (Ed.), Computerized adaptive testing: A primer (pp. 61-100). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
32. Young, R., & He, A. W. (1998). Talking and testing: Discourses approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.