This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted 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 Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Malabonga, V. Articles by Carpenter, H. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Self-assessment, preparation and response time on a computerized oral proficiency test

Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, DC, valerie{at}cal.org

Dorry M. Kenyon

Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, DC

Helen Carpenter

Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, DC

Two studies investigated technical aspects of a computer-mediated test, the Computerized Oral proficiency Instrument (COPI), particularly in contrast to a similar tape-mediated test, the Simulated Oral proficiency Interview (SOPI). The first study investigated how examinees used self-assessment to choose an appropriate starting level on the COPI. The second study looked at examinees’ planning and response time on the COPI, and the factors that affected their use of time. Fifty-five university students took the COPI and SOPI in one of three languages: Arabic, Chinese, or Spanish. Results show that the majority of examinees (92%) were able to use the self-assessment instrument to select test tasks at appropriate difficulty levels. However, the COPI starting level (which was based on examinees’ self-assessment) might have been problematic for a small proportion (8%) of the examinees who appeared to choose tasks that were too difficult for them. As for planning and response time on the COPI, different amounts of time were used across four main levels of proficiency. Examinees with the highest proficiency levels tended to use less planning time but gave longer responses.

Language Testing, Vol. 22, No. 1, 59-92 (2005)
DOI: 10.1191/0265532205lt297oa


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