Policies of global English tests: test-takers’ perspectives on the IELTS retake policy

References

• Abraham, P. (2000). A microscopic look at assessment: Dropping a lowest test score. AURCO Mathematics Journal, 1, 1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Ahearn, S. (2009). ‘Like cars or breakfast cereal’: IELTS and the trade in education and immigration. TESOL in Context, 19(1), 39–51.
   Google Scholar
• American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bachman, L. F. (2000). Modern language testing at the turn of the century: Assuring that what we count counts. Language Testing, 17(1), 1–42.
   Google Scholar
• Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ball, S. J. (2009). Privatising education, privatising education policy, privatising educational research: Network governance and the ‘competition state’. Journal of Education Policy, 24(1), 83–99.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ball, S. J. (2012). Global Education Inc.: New policy networks and the neo-liberal imaginary. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Block, D., Gray, J., & Holborow, M. (2012). Neoliberalism and applied linguistics. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood Press.
   Google Scholar
• Buchmann, C., Condron, D. J., & Roscigno, V. J. (2010). Shadow education, American style: Test preparation, the SAT and college enrolment. Social Forces, 89(2), 435–461.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cameron, D. (2012). The commodification of language: English as a global commodity. In T. Nevalainen & E. C. Traugott (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English (pp. 1–7). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cheng, L. (2014). Validating test-takers’ voices. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference of the Association for Language Testing and Assessment of Australia and New Zealand, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, 27–29 November 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Cheng, L., & DeLuca, C. (2011). Voices from test-takers: Further evidence for language assessment validation and use. Educational Assessment, 16(2), 104–122.
   Google Scholar
• Coleman, H. (2010). The English language in development. London: British Council.
   Google Scholar
• Davidson, F. (1993). Testing English across cultures: Summary and comments. World Englishes, 12(1), 113–125.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, A. (1997). Introduction: The limits of ethics in language testing. Language Testing, 14(3), 235–241.
   Google Scholar
• Hamid, M. O. (2014a). Humanizing language testing: Voices of IELTS test-takers. Paper presented at the 18th AILA Congress, 10–15 August, Brisbane, Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Hamid, M. O. (2014b). World Englishes in international proficiency tests. World Englishes, 33(2), 263–277.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamp-Lyons, L. (2000). Social, professional and individual responsibility in language testing. System, 28(4), 579–591.
   Google Scholar
• International Language Testing Association. (2000). ILTA code of ethics. Retrieved from http://www.iltaonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=57&Itemid=47
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, K. E., Jordan, S. R., & Poehner, M. E. (2005). The TOEFL trump card: An investigation of test impact in an ESL classroom. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 2(2), 71–94.
   Google Scholar
• Kane, M. T. (2012). Validating score interpretations and uses. Language Testing, 29(1), 3–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khan, S. Z. (2009). Imperialism of international tests: An EIL perspective. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), English as an international language: Perspectives and pedagogical issues (pp. 190–205). Clevedon: Channel View Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Kunnan, A. (2000). Fairness and justice for all. In A. Kunnan (Ed.), Fairness and validation in language assessment (pp. 1–14). Cambridge: UCLES/Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McNamara, T. (1996). Review of Measured words: The development of objective language testing by Bernard Spolsky, OUP, 1995. Applied Linguistics, 17(4), 544–547.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara, T. (2010). The use of language tests in the service of policy: Issues of validity. Revue francaise de linguistique appliquee, 15(1), 7–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara, T., & Roever, C. (2006). Language testing: The social dimension. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• McNamara, T., & Ryan, K. (2011). Fairness versus justice in language testing: The place of English literacy in the Australian citizenship test. Language Assessment Quarterly, 8, 161–178.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Melhart, K. (2005, December 28). Petition seeks changes in SAT. Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Texas: Knight Ridder Tribune Business News.
   Google Scholar
• Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 13–103). New York: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, S., Stroupe, R., & Mahony, P. (2012). Perceptions of IELTS in Cambodia: A case study of test impact on a small developing country (IELTS Research Reports 13). Retrieved from http://www.ielts.org/PDF/vol13_Report6.pdf
   Google Scholar
• O'Loughlin, K. (2011). The interpretation and use of proficiency test scores in university selection: How valid and ethical are they? Language Assessment Quarterly, 8, 146–160.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillipson, R. (2011). English: From British empire to corporate empire. Sociolinguistic Studies, 5(3), 441–464.
   Google Scholar
• Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Sarich, E. (2012). Accountability and external testing agencies. Language Testing in Asia, 2(1), 26–44.
   Google Scholar
• Shohamy, E. (2001). The power of tests: A critical perspective on the uses of language tests. Harlow: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Shohamy, E. (2007). Tests as power tools: Looking back, looking forward. In J. Fox, M. Wesche, D. Bayliss, L. Cheng, C. E. Turner, & C. Doe (Eds.), Language testing reconsidered (pp. 141–152). Ottawa: Ottawa University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Spolsky, B. (1995). Measured words: The development of objective language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stansfield, C. W. (1993). Ethics, standards, and professionalism in language testing. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 189–206.
   Google Scholar
• Supiano, B., & Hoover, E. (2008, October 24). Baylor U. Rewarded freshmen who retook the SAT. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 55, A20.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, L. (2013). Communicating the theory, practice and principles of language testing to test stakeholders: Some reflections. Language Testing, 30(3), 403–412.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Templer, B. (2004). High-stakes tests as high fees: Notes and queries on the international English assessment market. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 2(1), 189–226.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, J. B. (1991). Editor's introduction. In J. B. Thompson (Ed.), Language and symbolic power (pp. 1–31). Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Traynor, R. (1985). The TOEFL: An appraisal. ELT Journal, 39(1), 43–47.
   Google Scholar
• Vigdor, J. L., & Clotfelter, C. T. (2003). Retaking the SAT. The Journal of Human Resources, 38(1), 1–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zyphur, M. J., Islam, G., & Landis, R. S. (2007). Testing 1, 2, 3, … 4? The personality of repeat SAT test takers and their testing outcomes. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(3), 715–722.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar