Bilingual dictionaries in tests of L2 writing proficiency: do they make a difference?

Abstract

Whether test takers should be allowed access to dictionaries when taking L2 tests has been the subject of debate for a good number of years. Opinions differ according to how the test construct is understood and whether the underlying value system favours process-orientated assessment for learning, with its concern to elicit the test takers' best performance, or product-focused assessment of learning, with its emphasis on the discriminatory power of the test. One key study into bilingual dictionaries and writing tests (Hurman & Tall, 1998) concluded that dictionary use improves test scores. This study was influential in a recent decision to ban dictionaries in several high-stakes L2 examinations in the UK. Research into dictionary use in reading tests has suggested, however, that dictionary availability makes no statistically significant difference to test scores. This article presents the findings of a further study into bilingual dictionary use in writing tests that also indicated no significant difference to scores. Considering this finding alongside those of studies other than Hurman and Tall's casts some doubt on whether the UK ban was fully justified.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Assessment Reform Group 2002a: Assessment for learning: 10 principles. Retrieved 26 October 2004 from http://www.assessment-reform-group.org.uk

—— 2002b: Testing, motivation and learning. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Faculty of Education .

Bachman, L.F. 1990: Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

—— 2000: Modern language testing at the turn of the century: Assuring that what we count counts. Language Testing 17, 1—42.

Bachman, L.F. and Palmer, A.S. 1996: Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bensoussan, M. , Sim, D. and Weiss, R. 1984: The effect of dictionary usage on EFL test performances compared with student and teacher attitudes and expectations. Reading in a Foreign Language 2, 262—76.

Birmingham University 2000: Review 2000. Retrieved 1 April 2003 from http://www.bham.ac.uk/publications/review2000/research.html.

Bishop, G. 2000: Dictionaries, examinations and stress. Language Learning Journal 21, 52—65.

Cambridge University 1999 : Assessment for learning: Beyond the black box. Cambridge: University of Cambridge School of Education.

10.

Canale, M. and Swain, M. 1980: Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1, 1—47.

11.

Des 1990: MFL for ages 11—16. London: Department of Education and Science.

12.

Elder, C. 1997: What does test bias have to do with fairness? Language Testing 14, 261—77.

13.

Hamp-Lyons, L. 1990: Second language writing: Assessment issues. In Kroll, B. , editor, Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 69—87.

14.

Hatch, E. and Lazaraton, A. 1991: The research manual: Design and statistics for applied linguistics. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.

15.

Hurman, J. and Tall, G. 1998: The use of dictionaries in GCSE modern foreign languages written examinations (French). Birmingham: University of Birmingham School of Education.

16.

—— 2002: Quantitative and qualitative effects of dictionary use on written examination scores. Language Learning Journal 25, 21—26.

17.

Idstein, B. 2003: Dictionary use during reading comprehension tests: An aid or a diversion? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania.

18.

Jacobs, H.L. , Zinkgraf, S.A. , Wormuth, D.R. , Hartfiel, V.F. , and Hughey, J.B. 1981. Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

19.

Lumley, T. and McNamara, T. 1995: Rater characteristics and rater bias: Implications for training. Language Testing 12, 54—71.

20.

Luther, M. , Cole, E. and Gamlin, P. , editors, 1996: Dynamic assessment for instruction: From theory to applications. North York, ON, Canada: Captus Press.

21.

Messick, S. 1989: Validity. In Linn, R.L. , editor, Educational measurement, third edition. New York: Macmillan, 13—103.

22.

—— 1996: Validity and washback in language testing. Language Testing 13, 241—56.

23.

Nesi, H. and Meara, P. 1991: How using dictionaries affects performance in multiple-choice EFL tests. Reading in a Foreign Language 8, 631—43.

24.

Oxford University Language Centre 2003: Online tests. Retrieved 3 February 2003 from http://www.lang.ox.ac.uk/placement.html

25.

Rivera, C. and Stansfield, C.W. 1998: Leveling the playing field for English language learners: Increasing participation in state and local assessments through accommodations. Retrieved 4 August 2004 from http://ceee.gwu.edu/standards_assessments/researchLEP_accommodintro.htm

26.

Spolsky, B. 2001: A note on the use of dictionaries in examinations. Unpublished paper.

27.

Swain, M. 1985: Large-scale communicative language testing: A case study . In Savignon, S. and Burns, M. , editors, Initiatives in communicative language teaching. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 185—201.

28.

Tall, G. and Hurman, J. 2002: Using dictionaries in modern languages GCSE examinations . Educational Review 54, 205—17.

29.

Weigle, SC 1999: Investigating rater/prompt interactions in writing assessment: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Assessing Writing 6, 145—78.

30.

———— 2002: Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

31.

White, E.M. 1985: Teaching and assessing writing. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

32.

Wiggins, G. 1989: A true test: Towards more authentic and equitable assessment . Phi Delta Kappan 70(9), 703—13.