G. M. (1975). Speech recording in reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 323–39.30 Koda, K. (2007). Reading and language learning: Cross‐linguistic constraints on second‐language reading development. Language Learning, 57, 1–44.
31 Koda, K. (2016). Development of word recognition in a second language. In X. Chen, V. Dronijc, & R. Helms‐Park (Eds.), Reading in a second language: Cognitive and psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 70–98). London, England: Routledge.
32 Koda, K. (2017). Reading acquisition in Japanese. In L. Verhoeven & C. Perfetti (Eds.), Reading acquisition across languages and writing systems: An international handbook (pp. 57–81). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
33 Koda, K., & Ke, S. E. (2018). Advanced reading proficiency in collegiate foreign language learners. In P. A. Malovrh & A. G. Benati (Eds.), The handbook of advanced proficiency in second language acquisition (pp. 483–504). New York, NY: John Wiley.
34 Koda, K., & Miller, R. (2018). Cross‐linguistic interaction in L2 word meaning inference in English as a foreign language. In H. Pae (Ed.), Writing systems, reading processes, and cross‐linguistic influences: Reflections from the Chinese, Japanese and Korean languages. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
35 Levy, B. A. (1975). Vocalization and suppression effects in sentence memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 304–16.
36 Muljani, D., Koda, K., & Moates, D. (1998). Development of L2 word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 99–113.
37 Nagy, W., & Anderson, R. C. (1984). How many words are there in printed school English? Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 304–30.
38 Nagy, W. E., McClure, E., & Mir, M. (1997). Linguistic transfer and the use of context by Spanish–English bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18, 431–52.
39 Nagy, W., & Townsend, D. (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as language acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 91–108.
40 Nunes, T., & Bryant, P. (2006). Improving literacy by teaching morphemes. London, England: Routledge.
41 Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L. (1991). Comprehension instruction. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 815–60). New York, NY: Longman.
42 Reddy, P., & Koda, K. (2012). Orthographic constraints on phonological awareness in biliteracy development. Writing System Research, 4, 1–21.
43 Schreuder, R., & Flores d'Arcais, G. B. (1992). Psycholinguistic issues in the lexical representation of meaning. In W. Marslen‐Wilson (Ed.), Lexical representation and process (pp. 409–36). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
44 Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 523–68.
45 Shankweiler, D., & Liberman, I. Y. (1972). Misreading: A search for causes. In J. F. Kavanaugh & I. G. Mattingly (Eds.), Language by eye and by ear (pp. 293–317). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
46 Share, D. L. (2008). On the Anglocentricities of current reading research and practice: The perils of overreliance on an “outlier” orthography. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 584–615.
47 Share, D. L., & Stanovich, K. E. (1995). Cognitive processes in early reading development: Accommodating individual differences into a model of acquisition. In J. S. Carlson (Ed.), Issues in education: Contributions from psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 1–57). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
48 Shin, Y., & Kim, Y. (2012). Assessing the relative roles of vocabulary and syntactic knowledge in reading comprehension. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28(2), 169–98.
49 Torgesen, J. K., & Burgess, S. R. (1998). Consistency of reading‐related phonological processes throughout early childhood: Evidence from longitudinal‐correlational and instructional studies. In J. L. Metsala & L. C. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 161–88). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
50 Verhoeven, L. (2000). Components in early second language reading and spelling. Scientific Studies of Reading, 4, 313–30.
51 Zhang, D., & Koda, K. (2013). Morphological awareness and reading comprehension in a foreign language: A study of young Chinese EFL learners. System, 41, 901–31.
52 Zhang, H., & Koda, K (2017). Vocabulary knowledge and morphological awareness in Chinese as a heritage language (CHL) reading development. Reading and Writing, 31, 53–74.
Suggested Readings
1 Chen, X., Dronijc, D., & Helms‐Park, R. (Eds.). (2016). Reading in a second language: Cognitive and psycholinguistic perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.
2 Davis, J. M., Norris, J. M., & Malone, E. (Eds). (2018). Useful assessment and evaluation in language education. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
3 Geva, E., & Ramirez, G. (Eds.). (2015). Focus on reading. London, England: Oxford University Press.
4 Koda, K., & Yamashita, J. (Eds.). (2018). Reading to learn in a foreign language. New York, NY: Routledge.
5 Lesaux, N. K., & Harris, J. R. (2015). Cultivating knowledge, building language. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
6 Malovrh, P. A., & Benati, A. (Eds.). (2018). The handbook of advanced proficiency in second language acquisition. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley‐Blackwell.
7 Pae, H. K. (Ed.). (2018). Writing systems, reading processes, and cross‐linguistic influences. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
8 Verhoeven, L., & Perfetti, C. (Eds.). (2018). Reading acquisition across languages and writing systems: An international handbook. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
9 Wen, X., & Xin, J. (Eds.). (2018). Empirical studies on learning and teaching Chinese as a second language. New York, NY: Routledge.
Assessment of Speaking
APRIL GINTHER
Assessment of speaking requires that we either observe a “live” oral performance or capture the performance by some means for later evaluation. Capturing speaking performances in audio and video, once a considerable challenge, has become a relatively easy task due to technological advances. As Lim (2018) observes:
Technology has made face‐to‐face conversations between people thousands of miles apart—once by definition a contradiction in terms—not only possible but increasingly commonplace, giving rise to learners who are “digital natives” (Prensky, 2001). Automated technologies are also beginning to be applied more widely to the delivery and scoring of speaking tests (Bernstein, 2012; Xi, Higgins, Zechner, & Williamson, 2012). (p. 215)
Facilitated by the availability of computer‐based assessment platforms, language programs now have expanded opportunities to place, evaluate, and track the progress of their own students/examinees. The merits of localization (O'Sullivan, 2005), the process of examining the fit between large‐scale, international assessments and the characteristics of test takers within their own contexts, easily extend to the growth of locally developed, embedded
