Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Computer-Assisted Language Assessment

  • Living reference work entry
  • Latest version View entry history
  • First Online:
Language, Education and Technology

Part of the book series: Encyclopedia of Language and Education ((ELE))

  • 249 Accesses

Abstract

Computer-assisted language assessment (CALA) employs the use of technology to facilitate, contextualize, and enhance the assessment of linguistic abilities. CALA is becoming normalized, concomitant with advances in technology and its propagation in language learning contexts. Within CALA, though, most attention has been devoted to technology in language tests (computer-assisted language testing or CALT). Early CALT developments reviewed include initial forays into performance tests, comparisons between paper-and-pencil tests and CALT, and explorations into computer-adaptive tests (CATs). Major contributions to CALA have included foundational book-length treatments of CALT, published in the 1990s and 2000s, as well as more recent review articles. Work describing washback in CALA from the same period has provided lasting guidance for researchers and practitioners. Large CALA projects are currently underway in a number of universities and governmental organizations, including efforts to develop computer-delivered tests for a wide variety of languages, create holistic e-portfolios, employ computers in placement and achievement testing in K-16 contexts, expand computer-mediated performance testing, and provide rater training. CALA, as a young and dynamic field, grapples with how technological advances and adoption filter into language learning and assessment, challenging conceptualizations of CALA itself as well as language ability constructs. Exemplifying the latter, two contended language constructs are highlighted: listening (with or without visual context) and computerized writing assessment. In the future, research related to computerized writing assessment (and scoring), CALA feasibility and fairness for underserved populations, and forms of assessment which uniquely utilize technology is expected, and encouraged, to thrive.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Arslan, R. S., & Sahin-KizIl, A. (2010). How can the use of blog software facilitate the writing process of English language learners? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(3), 183–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballard, L., Lee, S. (2015, March 18). How young children respond to computerized reading and speaking test tasks. Paper presented at the Language Testing Research Colloquium, Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, J., Van Moere, A., & Cheng, J. (2010). Validating automated speaking tests. Language Testing, 27(3), 355–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. D. (1997). Computers in language testing: Present research and some future directions. Language Learning and Technology, 1(1), 44–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, A., & Bax, S. (2006). Making CALL work: Towards normalisation. System, 34(4), 465–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapelle, C. A. (2010). Utilizing technology in language assessment. In E. Shohamy & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (Vol. 7, pp. 123–134). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapelle, C. A., & Chung, Y.-R. (2010). The promise of NLP and speech processing technologies in language assessment. Language Testing, 27(3), 301–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapelle, C. A., & Douglas, D. (2006). Assessing language through computer technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J., White, S., McCloskey, M., Soroui, J., & Chun, Y. (2011). Effects of computer versus paper administration of an adult functional writing assessment. Assessing Writing, 16(1), 49–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, I.-C., Kim, K. S., & Boo, J. (2003). Comparability of a paper-based language test and a computer-based language test. Language Testing, 20(3), 295–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, T. L., & Davies, R. S. (2012). Using automatic speech recognition technology with elicited oral response testing. CALICO Journal, 29(4), 601–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deane, P. (2013). On the relation between automated essay scoring and modern views of the writing construct. Assessing Writing, 18(1), 7–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delmonte, R. (2002). Feedback generation and linguistic knowledge in ‘SLIM’ automatic tutor. ReCALL, 14(2), 209–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dikli, S., & Bleyle, S. (2014). Automated essay scoring feedback for second language writers: How does it compare to instructor feedback? Assessing Writing, 22, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunkel, P. A. (1999). Considerations in developing or using second/foreign language proficiency computer-adaptive tests. Language Learning and Technology, 2(2), 77–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, N., & Williamson, D. M. (2013). Automated assessment of writing. Assessing Writing, 18(1), 1–6. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2012.11.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fulcher, G. (2005). Better communications test will silence critics. The Guardian. Available at http://gu.com/p/xth56/sbl

  • García, M. R., & Arias, F. V. (2000). A comparative study in motivation and learning through print-oriented and computer-oriented tests. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(4–5), 457–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrett, N. (2009). Republication from the modern language journal, 75, 1991, 74–101: Technology in the service of language learning: Trends and issues. The Modern Language Journal, 93(focus issue), 697–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godwin-Jones, R. (2011). Autonomous language learning. Language Learning and Technology, 15(3), 4–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruba, P. (2014). New media in language assessments. In A. J. Kunnan (Ed.), The companion to language assessment (Vol. II, Part 8, pp. 1–16). Malden: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, E. G., Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., Lee, M. J., & Forer, D. C. (2005). Accessibility of tests for individuals with disabilities within a validity framework. System, 33(1), 107–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howell, S. L., & Hricko, M. (Eds.). (2006). Online assessment and measurement: Case studies from higher education, K-12 and corporate. Hershey: Idea Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, J. P. H. D., Clarke, K., Milczarski, E., & Raby, C. (2011). The assessment of English language learners with learning disabilities: Issues, concerns, and implications. Education, 131(4), 732–739.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard, P. (2013). Making a case for learner training in technology enhanced language learning environments. CALICO Journal, 30(2), 163–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenyon, D. M., & Malabonga, V. (2001). Comparing examinee attitudes toward computer-assisted and other oral proficiency assessments. Language Learning and Technology, 5(2), 60–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, G., Bikowski, D., & Boggs, J. (2012). Collaborative writing among second language learners in academic web-based projects. Language Learning and Technology, 16(1), 91–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kpolovie, P. J., Iderima, C. E., & Ololube, N. P. (2014). Computer literacy and candidate performance on computer-based tests. In N. P. Ololube (Ed.), Advancing technology and educational development through blended learning in emerging economies (pp. 80–106). Hershey: IGI Global.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H. K. (2004). A comparative study of ESL writers' performance in a paper-based and a computer-delivered writing test. Assessing Writing, 9, 4–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, H., & Kahng, J. (2012). A review of criterion. Language Learning and Technology, 16(2), 38–45. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2012.11.002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Link, S., Dursun, A., Karakaya, K., & Hegelheimer, V. (2014). Towards better ESL practices for implementing automated writing evaluation. CALICO Journal, 31(3), 323–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, M. (2015). Second language acqusition and task-based language teaching. Malden: Wiley Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., Roscoe, R. D., Allen, L. K., & Dai, J. (2015). A hierarchical classification approach to automated essay scoring. Assessing Writing, 23(1), 35–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mislevy, R. J., Chapelle, C. A., Chung, Y.-R., & Xu, J. (2008). Options for adaptivity in computer-assisted language. In C. A. Chapelle & Y.-R. Chung (Eds.), Towards adaptive CALL: Natural language processing for diagnostic language assessment (pp. 9–24). Ames: Iowa State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, J. M. (2009). Task-based teaching and testing. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 578–594). Cambridge: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ockey, G. J. (2009). Developments and challenges in the use of computer-based testing for assessing second language ability. The Modern Language Journal, 93(focus issue), 836–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, L. (2014). When “the state of the art” is counting words. Assessing Writing, 21, 104–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2013). Bringing the ZPD into the equation: Capturing L2 development during computerized dynamic assessment (C-DA). Language Teaching Research, 17(3), 323–342. doi:10.1177/1362168813482935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, C. (2015, February 4). Common core-linked tests spur schools to teach typing. The Wall Street Journal. Available at http://www.wsj.com/articles/common-core-linked-tests-spur-schools-to-teach-typing-1423073700

  • Rott, S., & Weber, E. D. (2013). Preparing students to use wiki software as a collaborative learning tool. CALICO Journal, 30(2), 179–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarandi, H. (2015). Reexamining elicited imitation as a measure of implicit grammatical knowledge and beyond…? Language Testing, 32(4), 1–17. doi:10.1177/0265532214564504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spino, L. A., & Trego, D. (2015). Strategies for flipping communicative languages classes. CLEAR News, 19, 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, L. B. (2004). Testing times: Research directions and issues for Cambridge ESOL examinations. TESOL Quarterly, 38(1), 141–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teo, A. (2012). Promoting EFL students’ inferential reading skills through computerized dynamic assessment. Language Learning and Technology, 16(3), 10–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, M., & Reinders, H. (Eds.). (2010). Task-based language teaching and technology. New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, E. (2008). Video listening tests: What are they measuring? Language Assessment Quarterly, 5(3), 218–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, E. (2010). The effect of the use of video texts on ESL listening test-taker performance. Language Testing, 27(2), 493–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wainer, H. (Ed.). (2000). Computerized adaptive testing: A primer (2nd ed.). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weigle, S. C. (2013). English language learners and automated scoring of essays: Critical considerations. Assessing Writing, 18(1), 85–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winerip, M. (2012, April 23). Facing a robo-grader? Just keep obfuscating mellifluously. New York Times, p. A11. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/education/robo-readers-used-to-grade-test-essays.html

  • Xi, X. (2010). Automated scoring and feedback systems: Where are we and where are we heading? Language Testing, 27(3), 291–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zechner, K., Higgins, D., Xi, X., & Williamson, D. M. (2009). Automatic scoring of non-native spontaneous speech in tests of spoken English. Speech Communication, 51(10), 883–895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Second Language Studies Program, Department of Linguistics and Germanic, Slavic, Asian and African Languages, Michigan State University, 48823-1027, B-331 Wells Hall, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA

    Paula M. Winke

Authors
  1. Paula M. Winke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel R. Isbell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paula M. Winke .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Portland, Oregon, USA

    Steven Thorne

  2. Faculty of Education, University of Auckland, School of Critic, Auckland, New Zealand

    Stephen May

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this entry

Cite this entry

Winke, P.M., Isbell, D.R. (2017). Computer-Assisted Language Assessment. In: Thorne, S., May, S. (eds) Language, Education and Technology. Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02328-1_25-2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02328-1_25-2

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-02328-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-02328-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Chapter history

  1. Latest

    Computer-Assisted Language Assessment
    Published:
    28 March 2017

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02328-1_25-2

  2. Original

    Computer-Assisted Language Assessment
    Published:
    15 February 2017

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02328-1_25-1

Search

Navigation