Validation of Spoken Language Assessments for Adult L2 Learners

2021 ◽  
pp. 273-284
Author(s):  
Carol A. Chapelle ◽  
Hye-won Lee
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Test Scores ◽  
Language Assessment ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Language Courses ◽  
Language Assessments

Assessments of second language speaking are used for a range of purposes, from assigning grades in language courses to certifying qualifications for employment and assessing readiness for university study. The types of validation efforts undertaken across language assessment contexts are equally wide-ranging. This chapter introduces the validation practices used to evaluate the degree to which interpretations and uses of test scores are justified in particular contexts. The types of validation practices are tied to the types of inferences that are made when tests of spoken language are used as well as the need to present empirical evidence and theoretical rationales to support the inferences.

Discussion on Scoring Issues in Second Signed or Spoken Language Assessment

2021 ◽  
pp. 329-332
Author(s):  
Tobias Haug ◽  
Ute Knoch ◽  
Wolfgang Mann
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Nonverbal Communication ◽  
Rasch Analysis ◽  
Language Assessment ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Rater Training ◽  
Signed Language ◽  
Language Assessments ◽  
New Research

This chapter is a joint discussion of key items related to scoring issues related to signed and spoken language assessment that were discussed in Chapters 9.1 and 9.2. One aspect of signed language assessment that has the potential to stimulate new research in spoken second language (L2) assessment is the scoring of nonverbal speaker behaviors. This aspect is rarely represented in the scoring criteria of spoken assessments and in many cases not even available to raters during the scoring process. The authors argue, therefore, for a broadening of the construct of spoken language assessment to also include elements of nonverbal communication in the scoring descriptors. Additionally, the importance of rater training for signed language assessments, application of Rasch analysis to investigate possible reasons of disagreement between raters, and the need to conduct research on rasting scales are discussed.

Discussion of Validation Issues in Signed and Spoken Assessments for Adult L2 Learners

2021 ◽  
pp. 295-298
Author(s):  
Carol A. Chapelle ◽  
Peter C. Hauser ◽  
Hye-won Lee ◽  
Christian Rathmann ◽  
Krister Schönström
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Test Development ◽  
Language Assessment ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Functional Communication ◽  
Validity Argument ◽  
Signed Language ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Test Use

The use of argument-based validity as a framework for discussion of validity issues in spoken and signed second language (L2) assessment reveals many areas of commonality. Common areas include the role of systematic test development practices in the validity argument, the complexity of rating issues, the need to define and assess a construct of functional communication of meaning, and the centrality of test use in the validity argument. Examining these areas of commonality in this chapter reveals the fundamental similarities in the basic validity issues faced in spoken and signed language assessment. This chapter is a joint discussion of key items related to validation issues related to signed and spoken language assessment that were discussed in Chapters 8.1 and 8.2.

The Handbook of Language Assessment Across Modalities

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Assessment ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Assessment Literacy ◽  
Signed Language ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
Relevant Field ◽  
The Common ◽  
New Perspective ◽  
First Time

In Language Assessment Across Modalities: Paired-Papers on Signed and Spoken Language Assessment, volume editors Tobias Haug, Wolfgang Mann, and Ute Knoch bring together—for the first time—researchers, clinicians, and practitioners from two different fields: signed language and spoken language. The volume examines theoretical and practical issues related to 12 topics ranging from test development and language assessment of bi-/multilingual learners to construct issues of second-language assessment (including the Common European Framework of Reference [CEFR]) and language assessment literacy in second-language assessment contexts. Each topic is addressed separately for spoken and signed language by experts from the relevant field. This is followed by a joint discussion in which the chapter authors highlight key issues in each field and their possible implications for the other field. What makes this volume unique is that it is the first of its kind to bring experts from signed and spoken language assessment to the same table. The dialogues that result from this collaboration not only help to establish a shared appreciation and understanding of challenges experienced in the new field of signed language assessment but also breathes new life into and provides a new perspective on some of the issues that have occupied the field of spoken language assessment for decades. It is hoped that this will open the door to new and exciting cross-disciplinary collaborations.

Discussion of Issues Related to Assessment of Signed or Spoken Language Development in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder

2021 ◽  
pp. 145-152
Author(s):  
Amy Kissel Frisbie ◽  
Aaron Shield ◽  
Deborah Mood ◽  
Nicole Salamy ◽  
Jonathan Henner
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Developmental Disorders ◽  
Language Assessment ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Autism Spectrum ◽  
Pragmatic Language ◽  
Signed Language ◽  
Pragmatic Language Skills ◽  
Language Assessments ◽  
Hearing Children

This chapter is a joint discussion of key items presented in Chapters 4.1 and 4.2 related to the assessment of deaf and hearing children on the autism spectrum . From these chapters it becomes apparent that a number of aspects associated with signed language assessment are relevant to spoken language assessment. For example, there are several precautions to bear in mind about language assessments obtained via an interpreter. Some of these precautions apply solely to D/HH children, while others are applicable to assessments with hearing children in multilingual contexts. Equally, there are some aspects of spoken language assessment that can be applied to signed language assessment. These include the importance of assessing pragmatic language skills, assessing multiple areas of language development, differentiating between ASD and other developmental disorders, and completing the language evaluation within a developmental framework. The authors conclude with suggestions for both spoken and signed language assessment.

Score Use and Interpretation of First Signed Language Assessments

2021 ◽  
pp. 63-74
Author(s):  
Charlotte Enns ◽  
Patrick Boudreault
Keyword(s):  
Test Scores ◽  
Language Assessment ◽  
Critical Examination ◽  
Shared Understanding ◽  
Language Support ◽  
Signed Language ◽  
Critical Issues ◽  
Language Competency ◽  
Language Assessments ◽  
Accurate Reporting

This chapter provides a critical examination of the different uses of test scores; their interpretation by test administrators, educators, professionals, and researchers; and the implications these scores may have for test-takers. Before discussing the issues of test scores, an overview of the complexities involved in defining the L1 of deaf signers will be shared. Understanding the potential pitfalls of signed language assessment with a diverse background of L1 users is emphasized. Four sections address critical issues on scoring and interpreting assessments: purpose, consistency, norming and scoring, and interpreting the results beyond the score. Conducting valid and reliable language assessment is critical to establishing a baseline for intervention, education or research, monitoring an individual’s language competency and growth, justifying the need for additional language support, and providing accurate reporting to parents and administrators.

Discussion on New Technologies in Spoken and Signed Language Assessment

2021 ◽  
pp. 431-436
Author(s):  
Sarah Ebling ◽  
Phuong Nguyen ◽  
Volker Hegelheimer ◽  
Necati Cihan Camgöz ◽  
Richard Bowden
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Language Assessment ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Management Systems ◽  
Language Recognition ◽  
Interactional Competence ◽  
Signed Language ◽  
Technological Developments

This chapter discusses the implications of second language (L2) spoken assessment technologies and signed language assessment technologies. Specifically, the authors discuss how signed language recognition technology can be applied for the assessment of interactional competence in L2 spoken language assessment. The chapter outlines assessment management systems and the improvement of signed language recognition and animation technologies as important steps to support L2 signed language assessment. The authors also propose directions for future technological developments in both spoken language and signed language assessment. This chapter is a joint discussion of key items related to the use of new technologies in signed and spoken language assessment that were discussed in Chapters 12.1 and 12.2.

Structural Minimality, CP and the initial state in second language acquisition

2002 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 348-392 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rakesh M. Bhatt ◽  
Barbara Hancin-Bhatt
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Current Debate ◽  
L2 Acquisition ◽  
Initial State ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Partial Transfer ◽  
Entire Array

This article considers the current debate on the initial state of second language acquisition (L2) and presents critical empirical evidence from Hindi learners of English as an L2 that supports the claim that the CP (complementizer phase) is initially absent from the grammar of L2 learners. Contrary to the predictions of Full Transfer (Schwartz and Sprouse, 1994; 1996), the data we present suggest that L2 learners start out without a CP and then graduate to a stage where overt expressions of CP (complementizer phase) are in fact manifest. Although the lack of evidence of CP appears to support the Minimal Trees/Partial Transfer (MT/PT) hypothesis (Vainikka and Young-Scholten, 1996a; 1996b), we show that the MT/PT hypothesis also fails to honour all the empirical facts.To account for the patterns in our data, we propose Structural Minimality - that clausal projections are IPs - as a hypothesis on the initial state of L2 acquisition. We argue that the Structural Minimality hypothesis accounts for the entire array CP-acquisition facts in Hindi-speaking learners of English as an L2.

Spoken Language Assessment Considerations for Children With Hearing Impairment When the Home Language Is Not English

2011 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Douglas
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Second Language ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Population Studies ◽  
Language Assessment ◽  
The United States ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Home Language ◽  
Hispanic American ◽  
The U.S

Although the most prominent language in the United States is English, the U.S. is not a monolingual country. According to the U.S. Census in 2000, there were over 40 languages other than English spoken by 55 million people, with 34 million speaking Spanish or Spanish Creole. Given projections based on population studies and the prevalence of hearing loss in the Hispanic-American population, the number of persons who speak English as a second language will grow substantially over the next several decades. Hence, hearing health care professionals must be equipped to provide services for children who have hearing loss and speak English as a second language. The following article describes special considerations speech-language pathologists, audiologists, and educators should take into account when providing intervention designed to develop spoken language for children who have hearing loss and for whom the home language is not English.

Discussion of Issues Related to Assessment Constructs in Spoken and Signed Languages

2021 ◽  
pp. 261-270
Author(s):  
Susy Macqueen ◽  
Tobias Haug
Keyword(s):  
Developmental Trajectories ◽  
Language Assessment ◽  
Spoken Language ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Assessment Practices ◽  
Language Abilities ◽  
Significant Challenge ◽  
Signed Languages ◽  
Signed Language ◽  
Language Assessments

Thinking about what is assessed—the construct—in any language assessment raises questions about the nature of language use, the nature of developmental trajectories, and whose language patterns determine what is ‘standard’. The assessment of signed languages draws attention to assessment practices and understandings that are entrenched, for better or worse, in the assessment of spoken languages. Spoken language assessments of standardized varieties tend to value the written sentence as an ideal unit, a legacy of standardization. Signed language assessments, on the other hand, may be emerging alongside processes of standardization. Capturing semiotic complexity in the construct remains a significant challenge for both signed and spoken language assessments, despite the development of corpora which exemplify it. This chapter discusses these theoretical, ideological, and practical challenges for assessing signed and spoken language abilities. It brings together key ideas from chapters Chapters 7.1 and 7.2 and offers future directions in the development of theory and practice in signed and spoken language assessments.

Fitting MD analysis in an argument-based validity framework for writing assessment: Explanation and generalization inferences for the ECPE

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xun Yan ◽  
Shelley Staples
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Test Scores ◽  
Writing Assessment ◽  
Performance Characteristics ◽  
Analytic Approach ◽  
Language Performance ◽  
Validation Framework ◽  
Language Assessments

The argument-based approach to validity (Kane, 2013) focuses on two steps: (1) making claims about the proposed interpretation and use of test scores as a coherent, interpretive argument; and (2) evaluating those claims based on theoretical and empirical evidence related to test performances and scores. This paper discusses the role of multidimensional (MD) analysis (Biber, 1988), a corpus analytic approach to examining linguistic and discourse characteristics of language performance, in an argument-based validation framework for writing assessment. We propose a set of warrants, assumptions and evidence for inferential steps pertaining to investigations of performance characteristics in language assessments. Then, we illustrate how MD analysis can provide evidence for generalization and explanation inferences through a case study that examines lexico-grammatical features of writing performances on the Examination for the Certification of Proficiency in English (ECPE).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document