Language Assessment: Now And Then

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 1 Sayı: 1, 1 - 20, 15.10.2017

PINAR Uyanıker

Öz

``As ye teach, so shall ye test.'' Underhill (1982, p. 18)

This article is a historical overview of English language testing. It starts with a history of testing and offers a discussion of changing trends that have occurred during the last 25 years starting from communicative language testing to learner oriented language testing. In this article, changing trends in psychometric principles will also be discussed in-depth. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

language assessment, history

Kaynakça

• Alderson, J.C., & Wall, D. (1993). Does Washback exist? Applied Linguistics., Vol. 14, pp. 15-29.
• Aschbacher, P.A. (1991). Performance Assessment. State Activity, interest, and concerns. Applied Measurement in Education, Vol. 4, pp. 275-288.
• Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
• Bachman, L.F., & Palmer, A.S. (1996). Language Testing in Practice. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
• Bachman, L.F. (2000). Modern Language Tests at the turn of the century: Assuring that what we count counts. Language Testing, 17 (1), pp. 1-42.
• Bailey,K. (1996). Working for Washback: A Review of the washback Concept in Language Tests. Language Testing, Vol.13, pp. 257-279.
• Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), pp. 151-167.
• Büchel, F.P., & Scharnhorst,U. (1993). ‘The learning potential assessment device (LPAD): Discussion of theoretical and methodological problems’, in J.H.M. Hamers, In K. Sijtsma, andA.J.J.M. Ruijssenaars (eds.), Learning Potential Assessment: Theoretical, Methodological and Practical Issues, Swets & Zeitlinger, Amsterdam.
• Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1981). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1(1), 1–47.
• Carless, D. (2007). Learning-oriented assessment: Conceptual basis and practical implications. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(1), 57-66. Carless, D. (2007b). Conceptualizing pre-emptive formative assessment. Assessment in Education, 14(2), pp.171- 184.
• Carless, D. (2009) Learning-oriented assessment: Principles, practice and a project. In L. H. Meyer, S. Davidson, H. Anderson, R. Fletcher, P.M. Johnston, & M. Rees (Eds.), Tertiary Assessment & Higher Education Student Outcomes: Policy, Practice & Research pp.79-90. Wellington, New Zealand: Ako Aotear
• Carless, D. (2015a). Excellence in University Assessment: Learning from award-winning practice. London: Routledge.
• Carless, D. (2015b). Exploring learning-oriented assessment processes. Higher Education, 69(6), pp.963-976.
• Carrol,B.J. (1986). LT + 25, and beyond? Comments. Language Testing, Vol.3, pp. 123-129.
• Coombe, C., Davidson, P., O'Sullivan, B., & Stoynoff, S. (2012). The Cambridge Guide to Second Language Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Cronbach, L.J, & Meehl, P.E (1995). Construct Validity in Psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, pp. 281-302.
• Davies, A. (1968). Language Testing Symposium: A Psycholinguistic Approach. Oxford University Press:UK.
• Dudley-Evans, T., & St. John, M. J. (1998). Developments in English for Specific Purposes.
• Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Farhady, H. (1983a). On the plausibility of the unitary language proficiency factor. In J. W. Oller, Jr.
• (Ed.), Issues in language testing research (pp.11–28). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
• Farhady, H. (1997). Construct Validity in Language Testing. The Proceedings of the conference on language, cognition and interpretation. Islamic Azad University: Khorasgan.
• Farhady, H. (1999). Ethics in Language Testing. Moddaress Journal of human sciences 3 (11), pp. 447-464.
• Farhady, H. (2005). Language Assessment a Linguametric Perspective Language Assessment Quarterly, 2(2), 147–164.
• Farhady, H. (2014). Language Assessment [Powerpoint Slides].
• Fulcher, G. (1999b) ‘Ethics in language testing.’ TAE SIG Newsletter Vol.1, (1), pp.1–4.
• Fulcher, G., & Davidson, F. (2007). Language Testing and Assessment: An advanced Resource Book. Routledge: New York.
• Giri, A. (2003). Language Testing: Now and Then. Journal of NELTA, 8(1), pp.49-67.
• Guterman, E. (2002). Toward dynamic assessment of reading: applying metacognitive awareness
• guidance to reading assessment tasks. Journal of Research in Reading, Vol.25, pp. 283-298.
• Hamp-Lyons, L. (1997). Washback, impact and Validity: Ethical Concerns. Language Testing, Vol.14 (3), pp. 295-303.
• Henning, G. (1987). A guide to language testing: Development, evaluation and research Cambridge, Mass: Newbury House
• Hudson, T., Detmer, E., & Brown, J.D. (1992). A Framework for Testing Cross-cultural Pragmatics. Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center: University of Hawaii.
• Huerta-Macias A. (1999). Alternative Assessment:Responses to commonly asked questions. TESOL Journal, Autumn, pp.8-11.
• Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for Specific Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Kunnan, A.J. (2000). Fairness and Justice for All. 19th Language Testing Research Colloquium, Orlando, Florida: Cambridge University Press.
• Lado, R. (1961). Language Testing. Longman: London.
• Lantolf, J. P. and Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language
• Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Lantolf, J.,& Poehner, M. (2008). Dynamic Assessment in E. Shohamy and N. H. Hornberger (eds), Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 2nd Edition, Language Testing and Assessment, Vol. 7, pp. 1–12.
• Madsen, H.S. (1983). Techniques in Testing. Oxford University Press: Oxford
• Messick, S. (1989). “Validity” In Linn, R.L (Ed.) Educational Measurement. MacMillan New York.
• Messick, S. (1996). Validity and Washback in Language Testing. Language Testing,Vol.13, pp.241- 256.
• Oller, J. (1979). 'The Psychology of Language and Contrastive Linguistics: The Research and the
• Debate'. ENC EJ206643.
• Özgür, B., & Kantar, M. (2012). Dynamic Assessement and Zone of Proximal Development.EALTA, Ankara.
• Peña, E.D. (2000). Measurement of modifiability in children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 21(2), pp. 87-97.
• Popham, W. J. (1997). Consequential Validity: Right Concern Wrong Concept. Educational Measurement., 9, pp.9-13.
• Savignon, S.J. 1983: Communicative competence: theory and classroom practice. 1st edn. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
• Shohamy, E. (1997). Testing Methods, Testing Consequences: Are they ethical? Are they fair? Language Testing, Vol. 14, pp.340-349.
• Skehan, P. (1988). Language testing, part 1: state of the art article. Language Teaching, Vol. 21, (4), pp.211-218.
• Spolsky, B. (1981). Some ethical questions about language Testing. In C. Klein-Braley and D.K: Stevenson (eds.), Practice and Problems in Language Testing 1(pp.5-21). Frankfurt, Germany, Verlag Peter Lang.
• Spolsky, B. (1978). Linguistics and language testers. In B. Spolsky (Ed.) Papers in applied linguistics: Advances in language testing, Vol.2, pp.v-x. Arlington Virginia: The Center of Applied Linguistics.
• Tratnik, A. (2008). Key Issues in Testing English for Specific Purposes. Scripta Manent,Vol, 4, (1), pp. 3-13.
• Underhill, N., 1987. Testing Spoken Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Widdowson, H.G. 1983: Learning purpose and language use. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Willingham, W.W.,& Cole, N.S. (1997). Gender bias and fair assessment. Hillsdale: NJ:Erlbaum.
• Yıldırım, Ö. (2008). Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory and Dynamic Assessment in Language Learning. Anadolu University Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 8, (1), pp.301-308.