Pronunciation assessment

After an extended period of being on the periphery, numerous advancements in the field of second language (L2) pronunciation over the past decade have led to increased activity and visibility for this subfield within applied linguistics research. As Derwing (2010) underscored in her 2009 plenary at the first annual Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching (PSLLT) conference, a record number of graduate students researching L2 pronunciation and subsequently launching into academic positions at international universities assures L2 pronunciation a bright future in research and teacher training. Other indicators of momentum include the focus of a Language Teaching timeline on the topic of pronunciation (Munro & Derwing 2011), the appearance of multiple encyclopedia volumes or handbooks of pronunciation (e.g. Levis & Munro 2013; Reed & Levis 2015), and the establishment of the specialized Journal of Second Language Pronunciation in 2015, which constitutes a milestone in the professionalization of the field and ‘an essential step toward a disciplinary identity’ (Levis 2015: 1)

A most engaging scholar:Tim McNamara and the role of language testing expertise

Research in language testing often highlights a mismatch of expectations between test developers, who seek to create and maintain the best possible tests for different contexts, and other stakeholders, whose more pragmatic use of tests and test scores may conflict with established testing principles. Discussion of research findings may then point to the importance of improving stakeholders’ language assessment literacy. However, where does responsibility lie for such a project and by what methods is it likely to be achieved? How can the appropriate approach be found between simply asserting that the testing experts know best and underselling the contribution that this field can make to finding real-world solutions? During his career, Tim McNamara has theorised on and provided critique of policy and practice in language and citizenship testing, and language analysis for the determination of origin of asylum seekers, among many areas of study. He has consistently challenged the field of language testing to look for new ideas beyond its self-imposed borders. In this chapter, we reflect on the need for and implications of active engagement between academic expertise and decision-making processes that have possibly life-changing consequences for those involved

Diagnostic assessment of reading and listening in a second or foreign language:elaborating on diagnostic principles

Alderson, Brunfaut and Harding (2014) recently investigated how diagnosis is practised across a range of professions in order to develop a tentative framework for a theory of diagnosis in second or foreign language (SFL) assessment. In articulating this framework, a set of five broad principles were proposed, encompassing the entire enterprise of diagnostic assessment. However, there remain questions about how best to implement these principles in practice, particularly in identifying learners’ strengths and weaknesses in the less well-documented areas of SFL reading and listening. In this paper, we elaborate on the set of principles by first outlining the stages of a diagnostic process built on these principles, and then discussing the implications of this process for the diagnostic assessment of reading and listening. In doing so, we will not only elaborate on the theory of diagnosis with respect to its application in the assessment of these skills, but also discuss the ways in which each construct might be defined and operationalized for diagnostic purposes

Bridging assessment and learning:a view from second and foreign language assessment

This paper considers issues around the relationship between assessment and learning, as put forward by Baird, Andrich, Hopfenbeck and Stobart (2017), from the perspective of the field of second and foreign language assessment. In our response, we describe shared observations on the nature of research and practice in general educational assessment and in language assessment (including with respect to linking assessment with theories of learning, managing impact, and enhancing assessment literacy). At the same time, we also identify areas where language assessment seems to diverge from current research and practice in general educational assessment (for example in the areas of assessment purposes, construct definitions, and validation theory and practice). As a consequence, we believe that close monitoring of advances in both fields is likely to be mutually beneficial

Bridging assessment and learning:a view from second and foreign language assessment

This paper considers issues around the relationship between assessment and learning, as put forward by Baird, Andrich, Hopfenbeck and Stobart (2017), from the perspective of the field of second and foreign language assessment. In our response, we describe shared observations on the nature of research and practice in general educational assessment and in language assessment (including with respect to linking assessment with theories of learning, managing impact, and enhancing assessment literacy). At the same time, we also identify areas where language assessment seems to diverge from current research and practice in general educational assessment (for example in the areas of assessment purposes, construct definitions, and validation theory and practice). As a consequence, we believe that close monitoring of advances in both fields is likely to be mutually beneficial

Towards a theory of diagnosis in second and foreign language assessment:insights from professional practice across diverse fields

Diagnostic language assessment has received increased research interest in recent years, with particular attention on methods through which diagnostic information can be gleaned from standardized proficiency tests. However, diagnostic procedures in the broader sense have been inadequately theorized to date, with the result that there is still little agreement on precisely what diagnosis in second and foreign language learning actually entails. In order to address this problem, this article investigated how diagnosis is theorized and carried out in a diverse range of professions with a view to finding commonalities that can be applied to the context of language assessment. Ten semi-structured interviews were conducted with professionals from the fields of car mechanics, IT systems support, medicine, psychology and education. Data were then coded, yielding five macro-categories that fit the entire data set: (i) definitions of diagnosis, (ii) means of diagnosis, (iii) key players, (iv) diagnostic procedures, (v) treatment/follow-up. Based on findings within these categories, a set of five tentative principles of diagnostic language assessment is drawn-up, as well as a list of implications for future research

Epilogue—Note from an outgoing editor

In this brief epilogue, outgoing editor Luke Harding reflects on his time as editor and considers the future Language Testing

International language proficiency standards in the local context:Interpreting the CEFR in standard setting for exam reform in Luxembourg

In the field of second and foreign language learning, the Common European Framework of Reference for languages (CEFR) is widely-used for setting language proficiency standards within European, and increasingly global, contexts. Few studies, however, have investigated the ways in which systemic, macro-level factors within national educational contexts may influence standard setting practices using the CEFR. In this paper, we explore this issue through an analysis of recorded discussions within standard setting sessions for the Épreuve Commune for English, a national English language examination in Luxembourg. The data reveals four key sources of influence on standard setting decision-making: Luxembourg’s unique language ecology, streamed schooling, the national curriculum, and an ongoing exam reform project. Through this analysis, we argue that Luxembourg functions as a critical case illustrating the tension between international standards of language proficiency and local realities