No abstract

Language testing differs from testing in other content areas because language teachers have more choices to make. The purpose of this article is to help language teachers decide what types of language tests to use in their particular institutions and classrooms for their specific purposes. The various kinds of language assessments are classified into three broad categories: (a) selected‐response assessments (including true‐false, matching, and multiple‐choice assessments); (b) constructed‐response assessments (including fill‐in, short‐answer, and performance assessments); and (c) personal‐response assessments (including conference, portfolio, and self‐ or peer assessments). For each assessment type, we provide a clear definition and explore its advantages and disadvantages. We end the article with a discussion of how teachers can make rational choices among the various assessment options by thinking about (a) the consequences of the washback effect of assessment procedures on language teaching and learning, (b) the significance of feedback based on the assessment results, and (c) the importance of using multiple sources of information in making decisions based on assessment information.

Over the past decade criterion-referenced testing (CRT) has become an emerging issue in language assessment. Most language testing books have hitherto focused almost exclusively on norm-referenced testing, whereby test takers' scores are interpreted with reference to the performance of other test takers, and have ignored CRT, an approach that examines the level of knowledge of a specific domain of target behaviours. It is designed to comprehensively address the wide variety of CRT and decision-making needs that more and more language-teaching professionals must address in their daily work. Criterion-referenced Language Testing is the first volume to create a nexus between the theoretical constructs and practical applications of this new area of language testing.

T his arlicJc s t•mmarizcs findings from inv~s tigaci on s into the development and usc of n pr<)LOtype English language task-based performance tcs~. D::H~ inc-luded pcrfonmmces by 90 examinees on 13 complex and sk ills ·inlcg ra~ivctasks. a priori estimaliOJlS of examinee proficiency differe nc-es, tt priori esL imaiJons of task dif1iculcy based on cognitive processing demands. pe-rformance ratings accord ing L o ta.sk-SJ)C.Citlc as well as holistic scales a nd criteria, and cxamincesdf-ratings. Findings indicated that the task-based test could infonn intended illferMces about examinees· abi lities to accomplish spcx:ific tasks as wcU as inference..'>aboul examinees' likely abilities with a dom;ain of tasks. A llhough a relationship between task difficulty esLimaL es and examinee pcrformance.s was observed, these estimates were not found ~o provide a lru.stworlhybasis for infe1 ·ringexaminees' likely abiliLies with other tasks. These findings, as weU as srudy limitations, are further discussed in light o f the inLended uses for perfom1ance assessment within kmg\mge education, ~m d rccomrneJldatior\S are made for needed. rcsc.·uch into the interaction bel ween task features. cogniLive processing and l~mguage perronnarlce.

No abstract