McArthur, Том. A Foundation Course for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983McArthur, Том. A Foundation Course for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Pp. ix, 183.

1986 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 736-736
Author(s):  
Dalton London
Keyword(s):  
Language Teachers ◽  
Cambridge University

scholarly journals Moving the field of vocabulary assessment forward: The need for more rigorous test development and validation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
N Schmitt ◽  
Paul Nation ◽  
B Kremmel
Keyword(s):  
Test Development ◽  
Vocabulary Knowledge ◽  
Language Teachers ◽  
Assessment Literacy ◽  
Vocabulary Test ◽  
Cambridge University ◽  
Minimum Requirements ◽  
Rigorous Test ◽  
Vocabulary Assessment ◽  
Development And Validation

Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019. Recently, a large number of vocabulary tests have been made available to language teachers, testers, and researchers. Unfortunately, most of them have been launched with inadequate validation evidence. The field of language testing has become increasingly more rigorous in the area of test validation, but developers of vocabulary tests have generally not given validation sufficient attention in the past. This paper argues for more rigorous and systematic procedures for test development, starting from a more precise specification of the test's purpose, intended testees and educational context, the particular aspects of vocabulary knowledge which are being measured, and the way in which the test scores should be interpreted. It also calls for greater assessment literacy among vocabulary test developers, and greater support for the end users of the tests, for instance, with the provision of detailed users' manuals. Overall, the authors present what they feel are the minimum requirements for vocabulary test development and validation. They argue that the field should self-police itself more rigorously to ensure that these requirements are met or exceeded, and made explicit for those using vocabulary tests.

scholarly journals Moving the field of vocabulary assessment forward: The need for more rigorous test development and validation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
N Schmitt ◽  
Paul Nation ◽  
B Kremmel
Keyword(s):  
Test Development ◽  
Vocabulary Knowledge ◽  
Language Teachers ◽  
Assessment Literacy ◽  
Vocabulary Test ◽  
Cambridge University ◽  
Minimum Requirements ◽  
Rigorous Test ◽  
Vocabulary Assessment ◽  
Development And Validation

Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019. Recently, a large number of vocabulary tests have been made available to language teachers, testers, and researchers. Unfortunately, most of them have been launched with inadequate validation evidence. The field of language testing has become increasingly more rigorous in the area of test validation, but developers of vocabulary tests have generally not given validation sufficient attention in the past. This paper argues for more rigorous and systematic procedures for test development, starting from a more precise specification of the test's purpose, intended testees and educational context, the particular aspects of vocabulary knowledge which are being measured, and the way in which the test scores should be interpreted. It also calls for greater assessment literacy among vocabulary test developers, and greater support for the end users of the tests, for instance, with the provision of detailed users' manuals. Overall, the authors present what they feel are the minimum requirements for vocabulary test development and validation. They argue that the field should self-police itself more rigorously to ensure that these requirements are met or exceeded, and made explicit for those using vocabulary tests.

scholarly journals “It’s more fashionable to speak it badly”: indexicality and metasemiotic awareness among users of English from the Spanish-speaking world

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 297-332 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sonia Morán Panero
Keyword(s):  
English Language ◽  
Meaning Making ◽  
Native English Speakers ◽  
Language Teachers ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
Social Meaning ◽  
Cambridge University ◽  
Expanding Circle ◽  
English Language Teachers ◽  
Contextual Variability

Abstract As ELF scholars warn us against treating linguistic productions of “non-native” English speakers as “errors” when they are sociolinguistically driven variation, it is necessary to investigate how speakers in Expanding Circle settings conceptualise, label and experience such uses themselves. This paper reports a qualitative study of the metalinguistic and evaluative practices of university students in Chile, Mexico and Spain. It explores how they ascribe (un)desirable meanings to different ways of speaking English as an additional language (i. e. indexical relations), whether these symbolic associations are seen to influence students’ own linguistic use, and the extent to which such indexical relations are theorised as inherent in language form or as symbolic and negotiable (i. e. metasemiotic awareness). The analysis of more than 53 hours of elicited interview talk reveals a complex web of available social meaning relations and multidirectional accounts of the effects that such meanings have on students’ linguistic and semiotic practices. Although many students display awareness of the contextual variability of social meaning-making processes (Coupland. 2007. Style: Language variation and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), only a minority were able to directly challenge dominant indexical associations and stereotypical trait attributions. The findings underscore the need for English language teachers to understand their students’ semiotic goals and interpretative repertoires, firstly to avoid discriminating against sociolinguistically motivated variation in students’ English use and secondly, to provide them with additional tools to negotiate their position as speakers of English as an additional language. The paper also reflects on the implications that these findings have for how we explain variation and attitudinal ambivalence in ELF research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document