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 Wigglesworth, 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?

An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse

Gillian Wigglesworth

Macquarie University

The inclusion of planning time in semi-direct oral interaction tests adds consider ably to the overall length of the test, and it is important to be clear that the increase in length is justified by the language outcome. Previous research has shown that the effect of planning time in second language can differentially influence the resultant discourse with planned discourse eliciting more complex language on a range of measures. However, where planning time has been provided it has gener ally been a substantial amount of time (ten minutes or more), and in a second language classroom situation, rather than a testing situation. Where planning time is provided in an oral interaction test it is generally limited to one or two minutes. In this study planning time was manipulated as a variable in a trial administration of a semi-direct test. Discourse analytic techniques were then used to determine the nature and/or significance of differences in the elicited discourse across the two conditions in terms of complexity and accuracy. In addition, candidates were divided into high-proficiency versus low-proficiency groups. The findings suggest that for the high-proficiency candidates, planning time may improve accuracy on some measures where the cognitive load of the task is high, but that this effect does not extend to the low-proficiency candidates.

Language Testing, Vol. 14, No. 1, 85-106 (1997)
DOI: 10.1177/026553229701400105
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
 Applied LinguisticsHome page
T. M. Derwing, M. J. Munro, and R. I. Thomson
A Longitudinal Study of ESL Learners' Fluency and Comprehensibility Development
Applied Linguistics, September 1, 2008; 29(3): 359 - 380.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Applied LinguisticsHome page
N. Iwashita, A. Brown, T. McNamara, and S. O'Hagan
Assessed Levels of Second Language Speaking Proficiency: How Distinct?
Applied Linguistics, March 1, 2008; 29(1): 24 - 49.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Language Teaching ResearchHome page
N. Mochizuki and L. Ortega
Balancing communication and grammar in beginning-level foreign language classrooms: A study of guided planning and relativization
Language Teaching Research, January 1, 2008; 12(1): 11 - 37.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language Teaching ResearchHome page
N. Taguchi
Chunk learning and the development of spoken discourse in a Japanese as a foreign language classroom
Language Teaching Research, October 1, 2007; 11(4): 433 - 457.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
C. J. Weir and J. R.W. Wu
Establishing test form and individual task comparability: a case study of a semi-direct speaking test
Language Testing, April 1, 2006; 23(2): 167 - 197.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
T. Lumley and B. O'Sullivan
The effect of test-taker gender, audience and topic on task performance in tape-mediated assessment of speaking
Language Testing, October 1, 2005; 22(4): 415 - 437.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
X. Xi
Do visual chunks and planning impact performance on the graph description task in the SPEAK exam?
Language Testing, October 1, 2005; 22(4): 463 - 508.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
V. Malabonga, D. M. Kenyon, and H. Carpenter
Self-assessment, preparation and response time on a computerized oral proficiency test
Language Testing, January 1, 2005; 22(1): 59 - 92.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
C. Elder, N. Iwashita, and T. McNamara
Estimating the difficulty of oral proficiency tasks: what does the test-taker have to offer?
Language Testing, October 1, 2002; 19(4): 347 - 368.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
B. O'Sullivan, C. J. Weir, and N. Saville
Using observation checklists to validate speaking-test tasks
Language Testing, January 1, 2002; 19(1): 33 - 56.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
L. F. Bachman
Modern language testing at the turn of the century: assuring that what we count counts
Language Testing, January 1, 2000; 17(1): 1 - 42.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language Teaching ResearchHome page
P. Foster and P. Skehan
The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance
Language Teaching Research, July 1, 1999; 3(3): 215 - 247.
[Abstract] [PDF]