Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T00:28:01.240Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Policy and Social Considerations in Language Assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 May 2010

Tim McNamara
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There has been great recent interest in the social and policy context of language testing and assessment, to the point where it represents perhaps the most significant area of new thought and debate in the field of language testing. The topic has also produced a ferment of activity, reflected in policy statements, special symposia, and special issues of professional journals devoted to aspects of the subject. These discussions have been accompanied by the beginnings of a movement away from the traditional positivist, asocial paradigm for language testing research as traced in Lynch and Hamp-Lyons (1996; Hamp-Lyons and Lynch in press).

Type
Integrated Perspectives on Learning and Assessment
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 18 , March 1998 , pp. 304 - 319
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

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.)

References

UNANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alderson, J. C., Clapham, C. and Wall, D.. 1995. Language test construction and evaluation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
and Hamp-Lyons., L. 1996. TOEFL preparation courses: A study of washback. Language Testing. 13.280–297.Google Scholar
Association of Language Testers in Europe (ALTE). 1995. The ALTE code of practice. Cambridge: ALTE.Google Scholar
Bailey, K. M. 1996. Working for washback: A review of the washback concept in language testing. Language Testing. 13.257–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, E. L. and O'Neil, H. F. Jr. 1996. Performance assessment and equity. In Kane, M. B. and Mitchell, R. (eds.) Implementing performance assessment: Promises, problems and challenges. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum. 183–199.Google Scholar
Cheng, L.-Y. 1997. How does washback influence teaching? Implications for Hong Kong. Language in Education. 11.1.38–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cumming, A. 1994. Does language assessment facilitate recent immigrants' participation in Canadian society? TESL Canada Journal. 11.2.117–133.Google Scholar
Davidson, F. and Lowenberg, P.. 1996. Language testing and World Englishes: A proposed research agenda. Paper presented at the 3rd Conference of the International Association of World Englishes. Honolulu, HI, December 1996.Google Scholar
, Turner, C. and Huhta, A.. 1998. Language testing standards. In Clapham, C. M. and Corson, D. (eds.) Language testing and assessment. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. 303–311. [Volume 7 of the Encyclopaedia of language and education.]Google Scholar
Davies, A. 1996. Australian immigrant gatekeeping through English language tests: How important is proficiency? Paper presented at the annual Language Testing Research Colloquium. Tampere, Finland, August 1996.Google Scholar
Davies, A. 1997a. Demands of being professional in language testing. Language Testing. 14.328–339.Google Scholar
Davies, A. 1997b. Introduction: The limits of ethics in language testing. Language Testing. 14.235–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elder, C. 1996. The effect of language background on ‘foreign’ language test performance: The case of Chinese, Modern Greek and Italian. Language Learning. 46.233–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elder, C. 1997a. Is it fair to assess native and non-native speakers in common on school foreign language examinations? Paper presented at the annual Language Testing Research Colloquium. Orlando, FL, March 1997.Google Scholar
Elder, C. 1997b. The background speaker as learner of Italian, Modern Greek and Chinese: Implications for foreign language assessment. Parkville, Victoria: University of Melbourne. Ph.D. diss.Google Scholar
Elder, C. 1997c. What does test bias have to do with fairness? Language Testing. 14.261–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, M. 1979. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison, [trans. Sheridan, A..] New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Fredericksen, J. R. and Collins, A.. 1989. A systems approach to educational testing. Educational Researcher. 18.9.27–32.Google Scholar
Gipps, C. V. 1994. Beyond testing: Towards a theory of educational assessment. London: The Falmer PressGoogle Scholar
Hamayan, E. 1995. Approaches to alternative assessment. In Grabe, W., et al. (eds.) Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 15. Survey of applied linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press. 212–226.Google Scholar
Hamp-Lyons, L. 1996. Applying ethical standards to portfolio assessment of writing in English as a second language. In Milanovic, M. and Saville, N. (eds.) Performance testing, cognition and assessment: Selected papers from the 15th Language Testing Research Colloquium. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 151–164.Google Scholar
Hamp-Lyons, L. 1997. Washback, impact and validity: Ethical concerns. Language Testing. 14.295–303.Google Scholar
Hamp-Lyons, L. 1998. Ethics in language testing. In Clapham, C. M. and Corson, D. (eds.) Language testing and assessment. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. 323–333. [Volume 7 of the Encyclopaedia of language and education.]Google Scholar
Hamp-Lyons, L. and Lynch, B. K.. In press. Perspectives on validity: A historical analysis of language testing conference abstracts. In A. J. Kunnan (ed.) Issues in language testing research: Conventional validity and beyond. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hanson, F. A. 1993. Testing testing: Social consequences of the examined life. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Hawthorne, L. 1996. The politicisation of English: The case of the step test and the Chinese students. In G. Wigglesworth and C. Elder (eds.) The language testing cycle: From inception to washback. [Australian Review of Applied Linguistics. Series S. 13.13–32.]Google Scholar
Hawthorne, L. 1997. The political dimension of English language testing in Australia. Language Testing. 14.248–260.Google Scholar
Hill, C. and Parry, K. (eds.) 1994. From testing to assessment: English as an international language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
International Language Testing Association (ILTA). 1997. Code of practice for foreign/second language testing. Lancaster: ILTA. [Draft, March 1997.]Google Scholar
Jacoby, S. and Ochs, E.. 1995. Co-construction: An introduction. Research on Language and Social Interaction. 28.3.171–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khattri, N. and Sweet, D.. 1996. Assessment reform: Promises and challenges. In Kane, M. B. and Mitchell, R. (eds.) Implementing performance assessment: Promises, problems and challenges. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum. 1–21.Google Scholar
Kunnan, A. J. 1995. Test taker characteristics and test performance: A structural modeling approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kunnan, A. J. 1996. Connecting fairness with validation in assessment. Paper presented at the annual Language Testing Research Colloquium. Tampere, Finland, August 1996.Google Scholar
Lynch, B. K. 1994. Language program evaluation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lynch, B. K. 1997a. In search of the ethical test. Language Testing. 14.315–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, B. K. 1997b. The ethical potential of alternative language assessment. Paper presented at the 31st Annual TESOL Convention. Orlando, FL, March 1997.Google Scholar
Lynch, B. K. and Hamp-Lyons, L.. 1996. Positivistic versus alternative perspectives on validity within the LTRC. Paper presented at the annual Language Testing Research Colloquium. Tampere, Finland, August 1996.Google Scholar
McNamara, T. F. 1996a. Characterizing performance: Criterion statements in performance assessment. Paper presented at Applied Linguistics Association of Australia Annual Conference. University of Western Sydney, October 1996.Google Scholar
McNamara, T. F. 1996b. Measuring second language performance. London: Addison-Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
McNamara, T. F. 1997. ‘Interaction’ in second language performance assessment: Whose performance? Applied Linguistics. 18.446–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messick, S. 1989. Validity. In Linn, R. L. (ed.) Educational measurement. 3rd ed.New York: Macmillan. 13–103.Google Scholar
Messick, S. 1994. The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Educational Researcher. 23.2.13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messick, S. 1996. Validity and washback in language testing. Language Testing. 13.241–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, H. 1996. Telling what is real: Competing views in assessing English as a Second Language development. Linguistics and Education. 8.189–228.Google Scholar
Moss, P. A. 1994. Can there be validity without reliability? Educational Researcher. 23.2.5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, P. A. 1996. Enlarging the dialogue in educational measurement: Voices from interpretive research traditions. Educational Researcher. 25.1.20–28.Google Scholar
Norton, B. 1998. Accountability in language assessment. In Clapham, C. M. and Corson, D. (eds.) Language testing and assessment. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. 313–322. [Volume 7 of the Encyclopaedia of language and education.]Google Scholar
and Starfield, S.. 1997. Covert language assessment in academic writing. Language Testing. 14.278–294.Google Scholar
Parry, K. 1994. The test and the text: Readers in a Nigerian secondary school. In Hill, C. and Parry, K. (eds.) 1994. From testing to assessment: English as an international language. London: Longman. 82–113.Google Scholar
Pennycook, A. 1990. Towards a critical applied linguistics for the 1990s. Issues in Applied Linguistics. 1.1.9–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rea-Dickins, P. 1997. So, why do we need relationships with stakeholders in language testing? A view from the UK. Language Testing. 14.304–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepard, L. A. 1993. Evaluating test validity. Review of Research in Education. 19.405–450.Google Scholar
Shohamy, E. 1994. The use of language tests for power and control. In Alatis, J. (ed.) Educational linguistics, crosscultural communication, and global interdependence. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. 57–72. [Georgetown University Roundtable on Language and Linguistics 1994.]Google Scholar
, Donitsa, S.-Schmidt and Ferman, I.. 1996. Test impact revisited: Washback effect over time. Language Testing. 13.298–317.Google Scholar
Spolsky, B. 1997. The ethics of gatekeeping tests: What have we learned in a hundred years? Language Testing. 14.242–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valdes, G. and Figueroa, R. A.. 1994. Bilingualism and testing: A special case of test bias. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Wall, D. 1996. Introducing new tests into traditional systems: Insights from general education and from innovation theory. Language Testing. 13.334–354.Google Scholar
Wall, D. 1998. Impact and washback in language testing. In Clapham, C. M. and Corson, D. (eds.) Language testing and assessment. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. 291–302. [Volume 7 of the Encyclopaedia of language and education.]Google Scholar
Waschl, A. 1996. Assessing Australian children with the Test for Auditory Comprehension of Language—Revised. Parkville, Victoria: University of Melbourne. M.A. diss.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Y. 1996. Does grammar translation come from the entrance examination? Preliminary findings from classroom-based research. Language Testing. 13.318–333.Google Scholar