Language testing and technology: Past and future

Language Learning and Technology

Volumn 5, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 95-98

  Chalhoub Deville, Micheline ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 3042645960     PISSN: 10943501     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Note

References (20)

1. Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental consideration in language testing. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
2. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
3. Bernhardt, E. (1991). Reading development in a second language: Theoretical, empirical, and classroom perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
4. Brown, A., & Iwashita, N. (1996). Language background and item difficulty: the development of a computer-adaptive test of Japanese. System, 24(2), 199-206.
5. Brown, A., & Iwashita, N. (1998). The role of language background in the validation of a computeradaptive test. In A. Kunnan (Ed.), Connecting fairness and validation in language testing (pp. 195-207). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
6. Brown, J. D. (1997). Computers in language testing: Present research and some future directions. Language Learning & Technology, 1(1), 44-59. Retrieved August 15, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://llt.msu.edu/vol1num1/brown/default.html.
7. Burstein, J., Frase, L., Ginther, A., & Grant, L. (1997). Technologies for language assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 16, 240-260.
8. Chalhoub-Deville, M. (Ed.). (1999). Issues in computer adaptive testing of reading proficiency. New York: Cambridge University Press.
9. Chalhoub-Deville, M. (in press). Technology in standardized language assessments. In R. Kaplan (Ed.), Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp. x-x). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press
10. Chalhoub-Deville, M., Alcaya, C., & Lozier , V. M. (1997). Language and measurement issues in developing computer-adaptive tests of reading ability: The University of Minnesota model. In A. Huhta, V. Kohonen, L. Kurki-Suonio, & S. Luoma (Eds.), Current developments and alternatives in language assessment (pp. 546-585). Jyväskylä, Finland: University of Jyväskylä.
11. Chalhoub-Deville, M., & Deville, C. (1999). Computer adaptive testing in second language contexts. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 273-299.
12. Christensen, C. (1997). The innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press
13. Dunkel, P. (Ed). (1991). Computer assisted language learning and testing: Research issues and practice. New York: Newbury House.
14. Dunkel, P. (1997). Computer-adaptive testing of listening comprehension: A blueprint for CAT development. The Language Teacher Online, 21, 1-8. Retrieved August 15, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://langue.hyper.chubu.ac.jp/jalt/pub/tlt/97/oct/dunkel.html.
15. Mislevy, R. J. (1996). Test theory reconceived. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 379-416.
16. Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., Breyer, F. J., Almond, R. G., & Johnson, L. (1999). A cognitive analysis, with implications for designing simulation-based performance assessment. Computers in Human Behavior, 15, 335-374.
17. Shermis, M. (1996). Computerized adaptive testing for reading placement and diagnostic assessment. Journal of Developmental Education, 38(1), 45-52.
18. Spolsky, B. (1997). The ethics of gatekeeping tests: What have we learned in one hundred years? Language Testing, 14, 242-247.
19. Stansfield, C. (1986). Technology and language testing. Washington, DC: TESOL.
20. Young, Y., Shermis, M. D., Brutten, S. R., & Perkins, K. (1996). From conventional to computeradaptive testing of ESL reading comprehension. System, 24, 23-40.