Redefining Validity and Assessment Practices in Language Testing: Personal Insights from Argument-Based Models and Empirical Practice

This article examines the evolving concept of validity in language assessment, critiquing traditional models while highlighting the advantages of an argument-based approach. Building on the work of Kane and the Assessment Use Argument (AUA) model by Bachman and Palmer, it explores how shifting focus from constructs to claims can enhance the practicality and relevance of validation studies. This article outlines a structured framework for argument-based validation through detailing specific claims, warrants, rebuttals, and their interconnections, providing a comprehensive approach to validating assessment practices. Additionally, the article delves into the disparities in assessment literacy between language testers and non-testers, with a particular emphasis on the Iranian high school context. It discusses various score resolution methods, their pros and cons, and the implications of scoring consistency for the validity of assessments. The article further compares key high-stakes language tests, including TOEFL and IELTS, focusing on their assessment procedures for speaking and writing. Finally, it highlights the role of corpus linguistics in challenging established beliefs about second language assessment, presenting evidence on how it can enhance rubric validation and inform automated scoring systems. By synthesizing theoretical insights with practical applications, this article aims to contribute to the ongoing dialogue on effective language assessment practices and offers directions for future research in the field.

کلیدواژه ها:

Assessment Literacy ، Validity ، Argument-based Approach Validity ، Assessment Use Argument