In the service of the stakeholder: a critical, mixed-method program of research in high-stakes language assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The three studies presented here represent a two-year program of research that critically explored one case of high-stakes language assessment—English proficiency assessment for teacher certification in Quebec, Canada.The first study was an examination of the final administration of a writing test used for this purpose at one Quebec university before this test was replaced. In this study, mismatches were revealed in stakeholder perceptions of the task to be produced in this assessment. The second study examined the pilot administration of a new replacement test. It focused on the socio-political environment of the test—namely, how the perception of high or low stakes by raters affected scoring. Results from this study suggested that test stakes—to all stakeholders, including raters—is a worthwhile focus of study. The third study examined the first official administration of the new test, and focused on rater behavior from a socio-cognitive perspective, suggesting that information on decision-making style may provide insight into variability in rater scoring.This program of research has been critical in that •it has integrated social and political values into the test validation process;•test stakeholders, including the test takers themselves, have not only been consulted but have determined the direction of the research program to a great extent; and•the conflicting views and competing interests of the stakeholders have been embraced and have enriched the research program.These studies will make contributions to the field of language assessment, and in particular, in better understanding how all elements of the subjectively-scored assessment situation interact. Because of its critical approach, these studies have demonstrated a responsible and progressive approach to researching the assessment of language proficiency for professional certification. In addition, the use of mixed methods designs in all three studies has been somewhat innovative and will add to the emerging field of mixed method research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.267 | 0.215 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".