Advertisement

Technologies for Performance-Based Assessment

  • Marta González-LloretEmail author
Chapter
  • 1.4k Downloads
Part of the Educational Linguistics book series (EDUL, volume 14)

Abstract

Basic skills in technology and digital literacy are two key competencies identified by the Joint Interim Report of the Commission and Council (2005: 30). However, the reality of how much these competencies are incorporated and developed in the classroom is drastically different (ANECA, Libro Blanco. Estudios en el ámbito de las lenguas, literaturas y aspectos de cultura y civilización, 2004). This chapter proposes that the foreign/second language classroom is an optimal environment to remedy this disparity, not only in the activities that can be integrated in the classroom, but also through the use of technology for language assessment in a competence-based language curriculum. The chapter presents existing examples of technology for performance-based assessment and proposes different tools that can easily be used in the language classroom to integrate technology and performance-based assessment. Finally, the chapter suggests new lines of research in this novel field of technology and competence-based assessment.

Keywords

Performance Assessment Language Learning Test Taker Computer Adaptive Testing Language Classroom 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Alderson, J.C. 2005. Diagnosing foreign language proficiency: The interface between learning and assessment. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  2. Appel, M.C. 1999. Tandem language learning by E-mail: Some basic principles and a case study. Centre for language and communication studies. Dublin: Trinity College.Google Scholar
  3. Bachman, L.F. 2002. Some reflections on task-based language performance assessment. Language Testing 19: 453–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belz, J.A., and S. Thorne (eds.). 2006. Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.Google Scholar
  5. Brindley, G., and H. Slatyer. 2002. Exploring task difficulty in ESL listening assessment. Language Testing 19: 369–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, J.D., and T. Hudson. 1998. The alternatives in language assessment. TESOL Quarterly 32(4): 653–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, J.D., T.D. Hudson, J.M. Norris, and W. Bonk. 2002. Investigating task-based second language performance assessment. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
  8. Chalhoub-Deville, M. 2001a. Language testing and technology: Past and future. Language, Learning and Technology 5(2): 95–98.Google Scholar
  9. Chalhoub-Deville, M. 2001b. Task-based assessments: Characteristics and validity evidence. In Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing, ed. M. Bygate, P. Skehan, and M. Swain, 210–228. New York: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  10. Chapelle, C.A. 2009. Computer-assisted teaching and testing. In The handbook of language teaching, ed. M. Long and C. Doughty, 628–644. Malden: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Council of Europe. 2001. Common European framework of reference for languages. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press & Council of Europe.Google Scholar
  12. Eisner, E.W. 1999. The uses and limits of performance assessment. Phi Delta Kappan 80: 658.Google Scholar
  13. Elder, C., N. Iwashita, and T. McNamara. 2002. Estimating the difficulty of oral proficiency tasks: What does the test-taker have to offer? Language Testing 19: 347–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Furstenberg, G., S. Levet, K. English, and K. Maillet. 2001. Giving a virtual voice to the silent language of culture: The CULTURA project. Language, Learning and Technology 5(1): 55–102.Google Scholar
  15. Godwin-Jones, B. 2001. Emerging technologies. Language testing tools and technologies. Language, Learning and Technology 52(2): 8–12.Google Scholar
  16. Hauptman, P.C., R. LeBlanc, and M. Wesche (eds.). 1985. Second language performance testing. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.Google Scholar
  17. Jacoby, S., and T. McNamara. 1999. Locating competence. English for Specific Purposes 18(3): 213–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kern, R. 2006. Perspectives on technology in learning and teaching languages. TESOL Quarterly 40: 183–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kol, S., and M. Schcolnik. 2008. Asynchronous forums in EAP: Assessment issues. Language, Learning and Technology 12(2): 49–70.Google Scholar
  20. Long, M.H., and J.M. Norris. 2000. Task-based teaching and assessment. In Encyclopedia of language teaching, ed. M. Byram, 597–603. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Miniwatts Marketing Group. 2010. Internet World Stats. http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm. Accessed 15 June 2010.
  22. Mislevy, R.J., L.S. Steinberg, and R.G. Almond. 2002. Design and analysis in task-based language assessment. Language Testing 19: 477–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Myers, M.J. 2002. Computer-assisted second language assessment: To the top of the pyramid. ReCALL 14(1): 167–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Netcraft. 2010. June 2010 Web Server Survey. http://news.netcraft.com/archives/category/web-server-survey. Accessed 15 June 2010.
  25. Norris, J. 2002. Interpretations, intended uses and designs in task-based language assessment. Language Testing 19: 337–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Norris, J.M., J.D. Brown, T.D. Hudson, and W. Bonk. 2002. Examinee abilities and task difficulty in task-based second language performance assessment. Language Testing 19: 395–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. O’Dowd, R., and P.D. Ware. 2009. Critical issues in telecollaborative task design. Computer Assisted Language Learning 22: 173–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. O’Rourke, B. 2008. The other C in CMC: What alternative data sources can tell us about text-based synchronous computer mediated communication and language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning 21: 227–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Prensky, M. 2001. Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon 9: 1–6.Google Scholar
  30. Ramírez de Vereger, A., Viader Junyent, M., García Izquierdo, I., and Suárez, B. 2004. Libro Blanco.Titulo de grado en estudios en el ámbito de las lenguas, literaturas y aspectos de cultura y civilización. Agencia Nacional de Evaluación de la Calidad y Acreditación (ANECA).Google Scholar
  31. Rich, M. 2008. Literacy debate: Online, R U really reading? The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/books/27reading.html?pagewanted  =  1&_r  =  1. Accessed 30 July 2008.
  32. Shetzer, H., and M. Warschauer. 2000. An electronic literacy approach to network-based language teaching. In Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice, ed. M. Warschauer and R. Kern, 171–185. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sifry, D. 2007. The State of the Live Web. http://www.sifry.com/alerts/archives/000493.html. Accessed 30 June 2007.
  34. Stansfield, C. 1986. Technology and language testing. Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
  35. Sykes, J. 2008. A dynamic approach to social interaction: Synthetic immersive environments & Spanish pragmatics. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  36. van den Branden, K., V. Depauw, and S. Gysen. 2002. A computerized task-based test of second language Dutch for vocational training purposes. Language Testing 19: 438–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vanmontfort, M. 1999. Een kwestie van drempels: De computer als bijkomende ondersteuning voor laaggeschoolde anderstalige volwassenen in de taalles Nederlands [A matter of thresholds: The computer as an additional tool for supporting nonnative speakers of Dutch in the language classroom]. In Artikelen van de derde sociolingui¨stische conferentie [Proceedings of the third sociolinguistic conference], ed. E. Huls and B. Weltens, 464–473. Delft: Uitgeverij Eburon.Google Scholar
  38. Warschauer, M. 1999. CALL vs. electronic literacy: Reconceiving technology in the language classroom. http://www.cilt.org.uk/research/resfor2/warsum1.htm. Accessed 15 Jan 2006.
  39. Warschauer, M. 2003. Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  40. Weigle, S.C. 2002. Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wiggins, G. 1993. Assessing student performance. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  42. Wolf, A. 1995. Competence-based assessment. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Wolf, A. 2001. Competence-based assessment. In Competence in the learning society, ed. J. Raven and J. Stephenson, 453–466. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  44. Wolf, D., J. Bixby, J. Glenn, and H. Gardner. 1991. To use their minds well: Investigating new forms of student assessment. In Review of educational research, vol. 17, ed. G. Grant, 31–74. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Languages and Literatures of Europe and the AmericasUniversity of Hawaii at ManoaHonoluluUSA

Personalised recommendations