This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Upshur, J. A. Articles by Turner, C. E. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Systematic effects in the rating of second-language speaking ability: test method and learner discourse

Concordia University, Montreal

Carolyn E. Turner

McGill University, Montreal, cx9x{at}musica.mcgill.ca

Major differences exist in two approaches to the study of second-language performance. Second-language-acquisition (SLA) research examines effects upon discourse, and is typically unconcerned with scores. Language-testing (LT) research investigates effects upon scores, generally without reference to discourse. Within a general framework of test taking and scoring, we report research from these two fields as it relates to questions of systematic effects on second-language tests. We then examine findings incidental to a test-development project.

The findings were consistent with LT research into systematic effects of task and rater on ratings, and with SLA research into systematic effects of task on discourse. Using empirically derived scales as indicators of salient features of discourse, we infer that task type influences strategies for assessing language performance. Explanations for these joint findings are not afforded by either standard LT or SLA perspectives. There is no theory of method to explain how particular aspects of method affect discourse, how those discourse differences are then reflected in ratings and how task features influence the basis for judgement. We conclude that a full account of performance testing requires a paradigm that incorporates relationships that are not specified in either the major language-testing research tradition or the tradition of second-language-acquisition research.

Language Testing, Vol. 16, No. 1, 82-111 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/026553229901600105


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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				U. Knoch Diagnostic assessment of writing: A comparison of two rating scales Language Testing, April 1, 2009; 26(2): 275 - 304. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. Fulcher and R. M. Reiter Task difficulty in speaking tests Language Testing, July 1, 2003; 20(3): 321 - 344. [Abstract] [PDF]

				W. J. Bonk and G. J. Ockey A many-facet Rasch analysis of the second language group oral discussion task Language Testing, January 1, 2003; 20(1): 89 - 110. [Abstract] [PDF]

				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]

				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]