Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
ABSTRACTAssistive writing tools that provide suggestions for word choice, sentence structure, and grammar correction are allowed as accommodations for students with learning disabilities on a case-by-case basis. These assistive technologies, including generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools, are increasingly accessible to more people than ever and are being utilized for second language classroom instruction and learning. In light of this trend, at a meeting of the Automated Language Assessment (ALA) SIG at the Language Testing Research Colloquium (LTRC) in New York City, a debate took place on the topic of allowing access to assistive technologies including generative AI in language assessment. This commentary, building and expanding on the debate that occurred between two opposing teams who argued for or against allowing students' access to these assistive technologies during language assessment, extends the exchange of ideas in a written debate. The debate raises issues related to construct definition, scoring and rubric design, validity, fairness, equity, bias and copyright. The debate also speculates on the use of generative AI by test takers at different proficiency levels and different stakes (high vs. low) assessments. The debate ends with thoughts on AI's impact on language teaching and learning and when access to such technologies might emerge in language assessment. The issues and questions raised in the debate forecast discussions regarding the feasibility of allowing test takers to use assistive technologies including generative AI during language assessment and the extent to which humans interact and collaborate with these new technologies. Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.Notes1 Since the stance taken by each team was assigned to them by the debate organizers, the statements and opinions expressed below may not represent how each author truly feels about this topic. This debate format was used to stimulate exchanges of progressive ideas that help to advance the field of language assessment.
Voss et al. (Fri,) studied this question.