02468nas a2200193   4500008004100000245010700041210007100148300001200219490000700231520172200238653002101960653003401981653001602015653003002031653002302061653004502084100001502129856013002144       2004                        eng d00aÉvaluation et multimédia dans l'apprentissage d'une L2 [Assessment and multimedia in learning an L2]0 aÉvaluation et multimédia dans lapprentissage dune L2 Assessment   a475-4870 v163 aIn the first part of this paper different areas where technology may be used for second language assessment are described. First, item banking operations, which are generally based on item Response Theory but not necessarily restricted to dichotomously scored items, facilitate assessment task organization and require technological support. Second, technology may help to design more authentic assessment tasks or may be needed in some direct testing situations. Third, the assessment environment may be more adapted and more stimulating when technology is used to give the student more control. The second part of the paper presents different functions of assessment. The monitoring function (often called formative assessment) aims at adapting the classroom activities to students and to provide continuous feedback. Technology may be used to train the teachers in monitoring techniques, to organize data or to produce diagnostic information; electronic portfolios or quizzes that are built in some educational software may also be used for monitoring. The placement function is probably the one in which the application of computer adaptive testing procedures (e.g. French CAPT) is the most appropriate. Automatic scoring devices may also be used for placement purposes. Finally the certification function requires more valid and more reliable tools. Technology may be used to enhance the testing situation (to make it more authentic) or to facilitate data processing during the construction of a test. Almond et al. (2002) propose a four component model (Selection, Presentation, Scoring and Response) for designing assessment systems. Each component must be planned taking into account the assessment function. 10aAdaptive Testing10aComputer Assisted Instruction10aEducational10aForeign Language Learning10aProgram Evaluation10aTechnology computerized adaptive testing1 aLaurier, M  uhttp://iacat.org/content/%C3%A9valuation-et-multim%C3%A9dia-dans-lapprentissage-dune-l2-assessment-and-multimedia-learning-l201836nas a2200205   4500008004100000245009000041210006900131300001100200490000700211520111400218653002101332653003001353653001601383653003201399653001601431653004501447100001501492700001601507856010701523       2003                        eng d00aA comparative study of item exposure control methods in computerized adaptive testing0 acomparative study of item exposure control methods in computeriz  a71-1030 v403 aThis study compared the properties of five methods of item exposure control within the purview of estimating examinees' abilities in a computerized adaptive testing (CAT) context. Each exposure control algorithm was incorporated into the item selection procedure and the adaptive testing progressed based on the CAT design established for this study. The merits and shortcomings of these strategies were considered under different item pool sizes and different desired maximum exposure rates and were evaluated in light of the observed maximum exposure rates, the test overlap rates, and the conditional standard errors of measurement. Each method had its advantages and disadvantages, but no one possessed all of the desired characteristics. There was a clear and logical trade-off between item exposure control and measurement precision. The M. L. Stocking and C. Lewis conditional multinomial procedure and, to a slightly lesser extent, the T. Davey and C. G. Parshall method seemed to be the most promising considering all of the factors that this study addressed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2005 APA )10aAdaptive Testing10aComputer Assisted Testing10aEducational10aItem Analysis (Statistical)10aMeasurement10aStrategies computerized adaptive testing1 aChang, S-W1 aAnsley, T N  uhttp://iacat.org/content/comparative-study-item-exposure-control-methods-computerized-adaptive-testing01145nas a2200205   4500008004100000245008200041210006900123260005600192520043100248653002100679653003000700653001600730653001600746653001800762100001500780700001700795700001700812700001400829856009600843       2002                        eng d00aThe work ahead: A psychometric infrastructure for computerized adaptive tests0 awork ahead A psychometric infrastructure for computerized adapti  aMahwah, N.J. USAbLawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.3 a(From the chapter) Considers the past and future of computerized adaptive tests and computer-based tests and looks at issues and challenges confronting a testing program as it implements and operates a computer-based test. Recommendations for testing programs from The National Council of Measurement in Education Ad Hoc Committee on Computerized Adaptive Test Disclosure are appended. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2005 APA )10aAdaptive Testing10aComputer Assisted Testing10aEducational10aMeasurement10aPsychometrics1 aDrasgow, F1 aPotenza, M P1 aFreemer, J J1 aWard, W C  uhttp://iacat.org/content/work-ahead-psychometric-infrastructure-computerized-adaptive-tests