Language testing: The social dimension

By Carsten Roever, Tim McNamara. 2006

683 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Education, Management Science and Operations Research, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/962577048633bf93823de29a7dc0c0d7757f2ee9

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Education

In Management Science and Operations Research

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

The Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches and Methods in Language “Testing and Assessment” Research: A Literature Review (2016, background): “Another consequential factor of language testing in education is that it dictates what is to be taught (McNamara & Roever, 2006).”
Accent, listening assessment and the potential for a shared-L1 advantage: A DIF perspective (2012, methodology): “These three tests formed the diverse-accents (DA)-UTESL battery.”
Diagnostic Writing Assessment: The Development and Validation of a Rating Scale (2009, background): “We therefore have to investigate what social and cultural values and assumptions underlie test constructs (McNamara & Roever, 2006).”
Language assessment literacy as self-awareness: Understanding the role of interpretation in assessment and in teacher learning (2013, background): “She sees this as including “the social turn” in language assessment (McNamara & Roever, 2006) as well as critical views on the role of language tests in society (Shohamy, 2001).”
Interactional Competence: Conceptualisations, Operationalisations, and Outstanding Questions (2018, background): “Supporting this line of thought, McNamara (1997) and McNamara and Roever (2006) argued that interaction can be defined in two contrastive ways: as a psychological construct residing within an individual and as a social construct that involves joint construction of interaction between individuals,…”
What counts as “responding”? Contingency on previous speaker contribution as a feature of interactional competence (2018, background): “…among the nature of (interactional) language ability, the psychometric orientation of language assessments, and their institutional consequences, as McNamara and Roever (2006) aptly put it: Institutional needs are in line with the psychometric orientation to individual cognitive ability: what is…”
Assessing Multilingual Competencies: Adopting Construct Valid Assessment Policies (2011, background): “Thus, not only are the existing tests not congruent with the various multilingual approaches, they in fact work against these approaches (Cheng, 2009; Davies, 2009; McNamara & Roever, 2006; Menken, 2009; Shohamy, 2001; Spolsky, 2009).”
Textbook trends in teaching language testing (2008, background): “If McNamara (2000) and McNamara and Roever (2006) are concerned wholly with knowledge and principles in such a way that principles become part of the knowledge needed, Fulcher and Davidson (2007) is yet more all-embracing, offering in one volume what Bachman (1990) and Bachman and Palmer (1996)…”
The Routledge handbook of English language teaching (2018, neutral): “We have also included examples of dynamic assessment procedures based on collaboration and interaction, which need to be a source of learning and development, rather than a technique for testing.”
Constructing a language assessment knowledge base: A focus on language assessment courses (2008, background): “…& Hudson, 1998), perceiving the language evaluation process as a socially constructed activity embedded in the local context with teachers, students and other community members recognized as meaningful assessment partners (Leung, 2004; Lynch, 2001; Lynch & Shaw, 2005; McNamara & Roever, 2006).”