Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-pnlb5 Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-10-31T08:26:09.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TRENDS IN ASSESSMENT SCALES AND CRITERION-REFERENCED LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2005

Thom Hudson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two current developments reflecting a common concern in second/foreign language assessment are the development of: (1) scales for describing language proficiency/ability/performance; and (2) criterion-referenced performance assessments. Both developments are motivated by a perceived need to achieve communicatively transparent test results anchored in observable behaviors. Each of these developments in one way or another is an attempt to recognize the complexity of language in use, the complexity of assessing language ability, and the difficulty in interpreting potential interactions of scale task, trait, text, and ability. They reflect a current appetite for language assessment anchored in the world of functions and events, but also must address how the worlds of functions and events contain non skill-specific and discretely hierarchical variability. As examples of current tests that attempt to use performance criteria, the chapter reviews the Canadian Language Benchmark, the Common European Framework, and the Assessment of Language Performance projects.

Information

Type
RESEARCH IN LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 25 , March 2005 , pp. 205 - 227
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). 1989. The ACTFL provisional proficiency guidelines. In T.V. Higgs(Ed.), Teaching for proficiency, the organizing principle (pp. 219– 226). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.
Alderson J. C. 1991. Bands and scores. In J. C. Alderson & B. North. Language testing in the 1990s (pp. 71– 86). London: Macmillan.
American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), and National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME). 1999. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Bachman L. F. 1988. Problems in examining the validity of the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10, 149– 164Google Scholar
Bachman L. F. 1990. Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Bachman L. F. 2002. Alternative interpretations of alternative assessments: Some validity issues in educational performance assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 2, 5– 18Google Scholar
Bachman L. F., & Palmer A. S. 1983. Oral interview test of communicative proficiency in English. Urbana, IL: Photo-offset.
Bachman L. F., & Palmer A. S. 1996. Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Borman W. C. 1986. Behavior-based rating scales. In R. A. Berk(Ed.), Performance assessment: Methods & applications (pp. 100– 120). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Canale M., & Swain, M. 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1– 47Google Scholar
Carson J. 1993. Reading for writing: Cognitive perspectives. In J. G. Carson & I. Leki(Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom (pp. 85– 104). Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
(2002, January 10). Education Week Editorial projects in education, 17. Retrieved Septemeber 3, 2004, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d02/tables/ dt153.asp.
Foreign Service Institute (FSI). Absolute language proficiency ratings. In M. L. Adams & J. R. Frith(Eds.), Testing kit: French and Spanish (n.d.) (pp. 13– 17). Washington, D.C.: Department of State.
Glaser R. 1963. Instructional technology and the measurement of learning outcomes: Some questions. American Psychologist, 18, 519– 521Google Scholar
Glaser R. & Klaus D. J. 1962. Proficiency measurement: Assessing human performance. In R. M. Gagne(Ed.), Psychological principles in systems development (pp. 419– 474). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Khattri N., Reeve A., & Kane M. (1998). Principles and practices of performance assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lantolf J. P. & Frawley W. 1985. Oral proficiency testing: A critical analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 69, 337– 345Google Scholar
Lee J. F. L., & Musumeci D. 1988. On hierarchies of reading skills and text types. The Modern Language Journal, 72, 173– 187Google Scholar
Linacre J. M. 1992. Many-faceted Rasch measurement. Chicago: Mesa Press
McNamara T. 1996. Measuring second language performance. New York: Longman.
Mislevy R. J., Steinberg L. S., Breyer F. J., Almond R. G., & Johnson L. (2002b). Making sense of data from complex assessments. Applied Measurement in Education. 15, 363– 389Google Scholar
Mislevy R. J., Steinberg L. S., & Almond R. G. (2002b). On the roles of task model variables in assessment design. In S. H. Irvine & P. C. Kyllonen(Eds.), Item generation for test development, (pp. 97– 128). Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Norris J., Brown J. D., Hudson T., & Yoshioka J. (1998). Designing second language performance assessments. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press
Norton B., & Stewart G. 1999. Accountability in language assessment of adult immigrants in Canada. Canadian Modern Language Review, 56, (2) 223– 244Google Scholar
Park S. 1999. Testing the EFL skills and text hierarchy of the ACTFL reading guidelines. Unpublished masters thesis, Department of English as a Second Language, University of Hawai'i
Popham W. J. 1981. Criterion-referenced measurement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Shohamy E. 1995. Performance assessment in language testing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 188– 211Google Scholar
Skehan P. 1998. A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Tukey J. W. 1962. The future of data analysis. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 33 (1), 1– 67Google Scholar
Wilds C. P. 1975. The oral interview test. In, B. Spolsky & R. Jones (Eds.) Testing language proficiency (pp. 29– 44). Washington, DC Center for Applied Linguistics.