Assessing Language through Computer Technology

Chapelle, Carol A.; Douglas, Dan

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511733116

Cited by 176 publications

(126 citation statements)

References 3 publications

(1 reference statement)

Supporting

Mentioning

102

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the past decade or so, computer technology has been increasingly applied to almost all aspects of language testing, including test development, test delivery, and rating (Chapelle & Douglas, 2006). Using some type of computer technology in delivering and administering tests now appears to be a popular practice for professional testing organizations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing Direct and Semi-Direct Modes for Speaking Assessment: Affective Effects on Test Takers

Qian

2009

Language Assessment Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent decades, with an increasing application of computer technology to the delivery of oral language proficiency assessment, there have been renewed debates over the appropriateness of two different testing modes, namely, (a) face-to-face, or direct, testing, and (b) person-to-machine, or semi-direct, testing. Previous research conducted in various geographical regions has produced mixed results as to which format is more acceptable to test takers. The present investigation, carried out in the context of a university setting in Hong Kong, compared the popularity of two testing modes by analyzing reactions and perceptions of a group of test takers who had just sat for a direct test as well as a semi-direct test. The results indicate that, although a large proportion of the participants had no particular preference in terms of the testing mode, the number of participants who strongly favored direct testing far exceeded the number strongly favoring semi-direct testing. The participants' main reason cited for disliking semi-direct testing was its inability for the examiner and examinee to interact during the test, which appears to have created a psychological barrier for the test taker. BACKGROUND

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing Direct and Semi-Direct Modes for Speaking Assessment: Affective Effects on Test Takers

Qian

2009

Language Assessment Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Computers are employed for sundry uses such as presenting the input, scoring the text, and easing the process of recording auditory or written materials. The use of computers might affect both the executive cognitive processes (Weir, O"Sullivan, Yan, & Bax, 2007), and the scores as indicators of testees" performance (Chapelle & Douglas, 2006). In the present study, the focus is on the former, i.e., the effect of using computers in writing tasks on EFL learners" executive cognitive processes.…”

Section: Volume 15(2) June 2015mentioning

confidence: 90%

Writing on a Computer and Using Paper and Pencil: Is there any Difference in the Internal Cognitive Processes?

Hoomanfard

Moghimian

2015

GEMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study attempted to unveil the differences in the cognitive processes employed in writing in a second language while writing on computer, and with paper and pencil. In doing so, eleven upper-intermediate, Persian-speaking English Language learners wrote texts in response to two International English Language Testing System (IELTS) writing tasks on computer and with paper and pencil. The Cognitive Processes Questionnaire (Weir, et al., 2007) and stimulated recall interviews were employed to collect data. The quantitative and qualitative analysis of the collected data indicated that the participants spent less time on prewriting planning, in the computerized condition, but they paused more often during the writing process for online planning. Furthermore, the participants, in both conditions, spent less time for planning when they wanted to write examples pertinent to their own life experience. The participants, in the computerized writing, tended to evaluate and review the text during the process writing, while in the paper and pencil condition, the evaluation was postponed to the end of the writing process. Longer text revision and a higher number of the rearrangements of sentences and ideas were other features of computerized writing. These findings along with those of other studies can deepen our understanding of second language writing cognitive processes which can benefit second language teachers, curriculum developers, and test developers.

show abstract

“…Chapelle & Douglas [7] highlight the important role of student assessment, as students usually worry a lot about what is expected from them and try to fulfil the teacher's expectations as far as the tasks and activities they have to complete are concerned, especially if their partial or final grades depend on their performance. Because of this, it is very important to provide students with information on what would be assessed and how, as well as on the type of tasks they will be asked to do in such a way that they know how a correct or incorrect way of solving problems and completing activities will affect their grades.…”

Section: The Design and Evaluation Of Online Language Learning Mmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When using CALL materials, another aspect to be taken into account is whether the interface will be visible or not, which is a decision the designers have to make. This decision will depend on whether the fact that the interface is visible or invisible threatens to cause variations in the students' performance, which in turn would depend on the kind of tasks to be completed or in what is being assessed [7]. Although the processes of assessment and evaluation usually take place once the design process has been completed, both processes are often complementary and so interconnected that they may even overlap [9].…”

Section: The Design and Evaluation Of Online Language Learning Mmentioning

confidence: 99%

Designing and Evaluating Online Language Learning Materials for Higher Education

Sevilla-Pavón¹,

Sáez²,

Sanz³

2011

IJSSH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Nowadays, finding, choosing and developing or adapting materials is a very important component of education as well as a key element for the success of the whole learning process. A language teacher is also a materials developer and the materials development process should aim at ensuring that local needs and wants do not dictate decisions and that important learning principles are not forgotten. In the case of materials for Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL), a very thorough and pedagogically-sound set of guidelines should be followed prior to the design of the materials. Following that, a careful evaluation should take place so as to guarantee that those guidelines have been followed and that the materials are therefore valid, efficient and effective. This is especially important in the case of in-house CALL materials development. This paper describes the basis for the evaluation and validation of the InGenio FCE Online Course & Tester. These are two language learning in-house CALL materials for students of English, developed by the CAMILLE Research Group at the Universidad Politécnica de Valencia (UPV) in Spain. A large part of the focus of this paper will be on the aspects concerning the evaluation of the two previously mentioned materials according to well-established frameworks and guidelines from the most relevant literature.

show abstract

Assessing Language through Computer Technology

Cited by 176 publications

References 3 publications

Comparing Direct and Semi-Direct Modes for Speaking Assessment: Affective Effects on Test Takers

Comparing Direct and Semi-Direct Modes for Speaking Assessment: Affective Effects on Test Takers

Writing on a Computer and Using Paper and Pencil: Is there any Difference in the Internal Cognitive Processes?

Designing and Evaluating Online Language Learning Materials for Higher Education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About