Comparing examinee attitudes toward computer-assisted and other oral proficiency assessments

Language Learning and Technology

Volumn 5, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 60-83

  Kenyon, Dorry M ^a,b,c   Malabonga, Valerie ^a,d,e,f  

^a CENTER FOR APPLIED LINGUISTICS   (United States)

^b AMERICAN UNIVERSITY IN CAIRO   (Egypt)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^d HARVARD GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION   (United States)

^e PACIFIC INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH AND EVALUATION   (United States)

^f GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 3042648026     PISSN: 10943501     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (21)

1. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (1986). Proficiency guidelines. Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: Author.
2. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (1999). ACTFL proficiency guidelines - speaking: Revised 1999. Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: Author.
3. Clark, J. L. D. (1988). Validation of a tape-mediated ACTFL/ILR-scale based test of Chinese speaking proficiency. Language Testing, 5(2), 197-205.
4. Clark, J. L. D., & Clifford, R. (1988). The FSI/ILR/ACTFL proficiency scales and testing techniques: Development, current status, and needed research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10(2), 129 - 147.
5. Kenyon, D. M. (1997). Further research on the efficacy of rater self-training. In A. Huhta, V. Kohonen, L. Kurki-Suonio, & S. Luoma (Eds.), Current developments and alternatives in language assessment: Proceedings of LTRC 96 (pp. 257-273). Jyväskylä, Finland: University of Jyväskylä.
6. Kenyon, D. M., & Stansfield, C. W. (1993). A method for improving tasks on performance-based assessments through field testing. In A. Huhta, K. Sajavaara, & S. Takala (Eds.), Language Testing: New Openings (pp. 90-102). Jyväskylä, Finland: University of Jyväskylä.
7. 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.
8. Kuo, J., & Jiang, X. (1997). Assessing the assessments: The OPI and the SOPI. Foreign Language Annals, 30 (4), 503-512.
9. Malabonga, V., & Kenyon D. M. (1999). Multimedia computer technology and performance-based language testing: A demonstration of the Computerized Oral Proficiency Instrument (COPI). In M. B. Olsen (Ed.), Computer mediated language assessment and evaluation in natural language processing: Proceedings of a symposium sponsored by the Association for Computational Linguistics and International Association of Language Learning Technology (pp. 16-23). New Brunswick, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics.
10. Norris, J. M. (1997). The German Speaking Test: Utility and caveats. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 30(2), 148-158.
11. Schumann, J. H. (1997). The Neurobiology of affect in language. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
12. Shohamy, E., Gordon, C., Kenyon, D. M., & Stansfield, C. W. (1989). The development and validation of a semi-direct test for assessing oral proficiency in Hebrew. Bulletin of Higher Hebrew Education, 4, 4-9.
13. Stansfield, C. W. (1990). An evaluation of simulated oral proficiency interviews as measures of oral proficiency. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics 1990, (pp. 228-234). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
14. Stansfield, C. W. (1996). SOPI test development handbook.. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
15. Stansfield, C. W., & Kenyon, D. M. (1991). Development of the Texas Oral Proficiency Test (TOPT). Final Report. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 332 522).
16. Stansfield, C. W., & Kenyon, D. M. (1992a). The development and validation of a simulated oral proficiency interview. The Modern Language Journal, 76, 129-141.
17. Stansfield, C. W., & Kenyon, D. M. (1992b). Research on the comparability of the Oral Proficiency Interview and the Simulated Oral Proficiency Interview. System, 20, 347-364.
18. Stansfield, C. W., & Kenyon, D. M. (1993). Development and validation of the Hausa Speaking Test with the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 4, 5-31.
19. Stansfield, C. W., Kenyon, D. M., Paiva, R., Doyle, F., Ulsh, I., & Cowles, M. A. (1990). The development and validation of the Portuguese Speaking Test. Hispania, 72, 641-651.
20. Swain, M. (1985). Large-scale communicative language testing: A case study. In Y. P. Lee, A. C. Y. Fok, R. Lord, & G. Low (Eds.): New directions in language testing (pp. 35-46). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
21. Swender, E. (Ed.). (1999). ACTFL oral proficiency interview tester training manual. Yonkers, NY: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.