TRENDS IN COMPUTER-BASED SECOND LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT
Abstract
In the last 20 years, several authors have described the possible changes that computers may effect in language testing. Since ARAL's last review of general language testing trends (Clapham, 2000), authors in the Cambridge Language Assessment Series have offered various visions of how computer technology could alter the testing of second language skills. This chapter reflects these perspectives as it charts the paths recently taken in the field. Initial steps were made in the conversion of existing item types and constructs already known from paper-and- pencil testing into formats suitable for computer delivery. This conversion was closely followed by the introduction of computer-adaptive tests, which aim to make more, and perhaps, better, use of computer capabilities to tailor tests more closely to individual abilities and interests. Movement toward greater use of computers in assessment has been coupled with an assumption that computer-based tests should be better than their traditional predecessors, and some related steps have been taken. Corpus linguistics has provided tools to create more authentic assessments; the quest for authenticity has also motivated inclusion of more complex tasks and constructs. Both these innovations have begun to be incorporated into computer-based language tests. Natural language processing has also provided some tools for computerized scoring of essays, particularly relevant in large-scale language testing programs. Although computer use has not revolutionized all aspects of language testing, recent efforts have produced some of the research, technological advances, and improved pedagogical understanding needed to support progress.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cost of developing more authentic performance-based assessments is one of the key barriers, especially compared to traditional multiple-choice tests.
“The cost related to the development of more authentic performance-based assessments has been identified as one of the key barriers, especially compared to traditional multiple-choice tests”
From Taking a future perspective by learning from the past – A systematic review of assessment instruments that aim to measure primary and secondary school students' ICT literacy (2016) · cites this paper as Jamieson, 2005
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Siddiq, F., Hatlevik, O. E., Olsen, R. V., Throndsen, I., & Scherer, R. (2016) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2016.05.002 · Cited by 269 · see citing works
- Authors
- Jamieson, J.
- Corresponding author
- Jamieson, Joan
- Venue
- Annual Review of Applied Linguistics
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2005-03
- Volume
- 25
- Pages
- 228-242
- ISSN
- 0267-1905 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-6356
- OpenAlex
- W2131477431
- Cited by
- 59
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 8.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › English Language Learning and Teaching
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology and Assessment
- Keywords
- computer-based language testing, second language assessment, computerized adaptive testing, paper-and-pencil tests, authenticity in assessment, natural language processing, automated essay scoring, computerized scoring
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review