| 2 |
Task parallelness: investigating the difficulty of two spoken narrative tasks
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 3 |
Opening the black box: exploring automated speaking evaluation ; Issues in Language Testing Around the World: Insights for Language Test Users.
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 4 |
Re-engineering a speaking test used for university admissions purposes: considerations and constraints: the case of IELTS
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 5 |
Analysing multi-person discourse in group speaking tests: how do test-taker characteristics, task types and group sizes affect co-constructed discourse in groups?
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 6 |
Investigating the use of language functions for validating speaking test specifications
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 7 |
The IELTS Speaking Test: what can we learn from examiner voices?
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 8 |
Academic speaking: does the construct exist, and if so, how do we test it?
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 10 |
Applying the socio-cognitive framework: gathering validity evidence during the development of a speaking test ; Lessons and Legacy: A Tribute to Professor Cyril J Weir (1950–2018)
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 11 |
A comparison of holistic, analytic, and part marking models in speaking assessment
|
|
|
|
Abstract:
This mixed methods study examined holistic, analytic, and part marking models (MMs) in terms of their measurement properties and impact on candidate CEFR classifications in a semi-direct online speaking test. Speaking performances of 240 candidates were first marked holistically and by part (phase 1). On the basis of phase 1 findings – which suggested stronger measurement properties for the part MM – phase 2 focused on a comparison of part and analytic MMs. Speaking performances of 400 candidates were rated analytically and by part during that phase. Raters provided open comments on their marking experiences. Results suggested a significant impact of MM; approximately 30% and 50% of candidates in phases 1 and 2 respectively were awarded different (adjacent) CEFR levels depending on the choice of MM used to assign scores. There was a trend of higher CEFR levels with the holistic MM and lower CEFR levels with the part MM. While strong correlations were found between all pairings of MMs, further analyses revealed important differences. The part MM was shown to display superior measurement qualities particularly in allowing raters to make finer distinctions between different speaking ability levels. These findings have implications for the scoring validity of speaking tests.
|
|
Keyword:
English language assessment; English language testing; language assessment; Q110 Applied Linguistics; speaking
|
|
URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532219898635
http://hdl.handle.net/10547/623759
|
|
BASE
|
|
Hide details
|
|
|
| 12 |
Validating speaking test rating scales through microanalysis of fluency using PRAAT
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 13 |
ПЕРЕДУМОВИ ЯКІСНОГО ОЦІНЮВАННЯ УМІНЬ АНГЛІЙСЬКОГО УСНОГО МОВЛЕННЯ ; DEVELOPING QUALITY ASSESSMENTS OF ORAL SPEECH IN ENGLISH
|
|
|
|
In: Ars linguodidacticae; № 1 (2017); 16-24 ; ARS LINGUODIDACTICAE; № 1 (2017): Ars linguodidacticae; 16-24 ; 2663-0303 (2020)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
|
|
