SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 28

Emergent Trends and Research Topics in Language Testing and Assessment

Tuğba Elif TOPRAK YILDIZ
Pages
66–81
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Overall, the results demonstrated that the assessment of language skills still constitute the backbone of language testing and assessment research.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis::This study, which is of descriptive nature, aims to explore the emergent trends and research topics in language testing and assessment that have attracted increasing attention of language testing and assessment researchers.
📊
Key Findings & Data:To this end, 300 articles published within the last seven years (2012-2018) in two leading journals of the field were analyzed by using thematic analysis method.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Overall, the results demonstrated that the assessment of language skills still constitute the backbone of language testing and assessment research.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2012-2018 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

:This study, which is of descriptive nature, aims to explore the emergent trends and research topics in language testing and assessment that have attracted increasing attention of language testing and assessment researchers. To this end, 300 articles published within the last seven years (2012-2018) in two leading journals of the field were analyzed by using thematic analysis method. Overall, the results demonstrated that the assessment of language skills still constitute the backbone of language testing and assessment research. While the term communicative has become the established norm in language testing and assessment, the field has grown more interested in professionalization, understanding the dynamics that underlie test performance and validation. Moreover, the results revealed that even though the latest advancements in the fields of computer, cognitive sciences and information/communication technologies seem to make their way into language testing and assessment, more research is needed to make the most of these advancements and keep up with the rapidly changing nature of communication and literacy in the 21st century. The results are discussed and the implications are made.

🔖

Cite This Article

YILDIZ, T. E. T. (2019). Emergent Trends and Research Topics in Language Testing and Assessment. Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 28, 66–81. https://ajindex.com/articles/142337

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Appel, R., & Wood, D. (2016). Recurrent word combinations in EAP test-taker writing: Differences between high-and low-proficiency levels. Language Assessment Quarterly, 13(1), 55–71.
  2. Aryadoust, V. (2016). Gender and academic major bias in peer assessment of oral presentations. Language Assessment Quarterly, 13(1), 1–24.
  3. Aryadoust, V., & Zhang, L. (2016). Fitting the mixed Rasch model to a reading comprehension test: Exploring individual difference profiles in L2 reading. Language Testing, 33(4), 529–553.
  4. Attali, Y., Lewis, W., & Steier, M. (2013). Scoring with the computer: Alternative procedures for improving the reliability of holistic essay scoring. Language Testing, 30(1), 125–141.
  5. Babaii, E., Taghaddomi, S., & Pashmforoosh, R. (2016). Speaking self-assessment: Mismatches between learners’ and teachers’ criteria. Language Testing, 33(3), 411–437.
  6. Bachman, L. F. (2000). Modern language testing at the turn of the century: Assuring that what we count counts. Language Testing, 17(1), 1–42.
  7. Baker, B. A. (2012). Individual differences in rater decision-making style: An exploratory mixed-methods study. Language Assessment Quarterly, 9(3), 225–248.
  8. Barkaoui, K. (2014). Examining the impact of L2 proficiency and keyboarding skills on scores on TOEFLiBT writing tasks. Language Testing, 31(2), 241–259.
  9. Bax, S. (2013). The cognitive processing of candidates during reading tests: Evidence from eye tracking. Language Testing, 30(4), 441–465.
  10. Bochner, J. H., Samar, V. J., Hauser, P. C., Garrison, W. M., Searls, J. M., & Sanders, C. A. (2016). Validity of the American Sign Language Discrimination Test. Language Testing, 33(4), 473–495.
  11. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
  12. Bridgeman, B., Cho, Y., & DiPietro, S. (2016). Predicting grades from an English language assessment: The importance of peeling the onion. Language Testing, 33(3), 307–318.
  13. Brooks, L., & Swain, M. (2014). Contextualizing performances: Comparing performances during TOEFL iBTTM and real-life academic speaking activities. Language Assessment Quarterly, 11(4), 353–373.
  14. Butler, Y. G., & Zeng, W. (2014). Young foreign language learners’ interactions during task-based paired assessments. Language Assessment Quarterly, 11(1), 45–75.
  15. Cai, H. (2013). Partial dictation as a measure of EFL listening proficiency: Evidence from confirmatory factor analysis. Language Testing, 30(2), 177–199.
  16. Cai, H. (2015). Weight-based classificati