Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Language Testing
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fulcher, G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Testing tasks: issues in task design and the group oral

Glenn Fulcher

University of Surrey

This article investigates some of the issues which surround the use of tasks in oral tests, with particular reference to the group discussion. This is done from the perspective of a group of students who were asked to attempt three oral tasks. Questionnaire techniques and retrospective reports were used to collect data from the students. The principle is that test-takers have a great deal to offer to the test researcher in making judgements about the value of the tests which they take (Brown, 1993).

The issues surrounding task design and use are complex, and are currently being debated not only in language-testing circles but also in the fields of second language acquisition and discourse analysis. For this reason, this article will refer to discussions in all three areas to shed light on the selection of tasks for use in oral tests. Information from the statistical analysis of tests will also be presented. All views about tests and tasks used in tests, however much some authors might eschew theory or statistical analysis (Underhill, 1987), spring from inherent theoretical positions. These positions make predictions about test scores under particular conditions, and the results of analysis enable the researcher to assess whether a view can be supported by empirical evidence.

Finally, the article will look at what is possibly one of the most problematic questions in proficiency testing: the generalizability of a test score given on one task to another task or tasks. It is arguably the case that, if this is not possible, there is no justification for proficiency testing.

Language Testing, Vol. 13, No. 1, 23-51 (1996)
DOI: 10.1177/026553229601300103


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Language TestingHome page
L. Brooks
Interacting in pairs in a test of oral proficiency: Co-constructing a better performance
Language Testing, July 1, 2009; 26(3): 341 - 366.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Language TestingHome page
A. M. Ducasse and A. Brown
Assessing paired orals: Raters' orientation to interaction
Language Testing, July 1, 2009; 26(3): 423 - 443.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Language TestingHome page
G. J. Ockey
The effects of group members' personalities on a test taker's L2 group oral discussion test scores
Language Testing, April 1, 2009; 26(2): 161 - 186.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Language TestingHome page
G. Fulcher
Does thick description lead to smart tests? A data-based approach to rating scale construction
Language Testing, July 1, 1996; 13(2): 208 - 238.
[Abstract] [PDF]