Contextualizing Performances: Comparing Performances During TOEFL iBT^TM and Real-Life Academic Speaking Activities

REFERENCES

• Bachman, L.F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barkaoui, K., Brooks, L., Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2013). Test-takers’ strategic behaviors in independent and integrated speaking tasks. Applied Linguistics, 34(3), 304–324.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biber, D. (2006). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., & Helt, M. (2002). Speaking and writing at the university: A multidimensional comparison. TESOL Quarterly, 36(1), 9–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bridgeman, B., Powers, D., Stone, E., & Mollaun, P. (2012). TOEFL iBT speaking test scores as indicators of oral communicative language proficiency. Language Testing, 29(1), 91–108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brooks, L. (2009). Interacting in pairs in a test of oral proficiency: Co-constructing a better performance. Language Testing, 26(3), 341–366.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brooks, L., & Swain, M. (2015). Students’ voices: The challenge of measuring speaking for academic contexts. In B. Spolsky, O. Inbar, & M. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Challenges for language education and policy: Making space for people (pp. 65–80). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Brooks, L., & Swain, M. (2013, March). Strategic speaking clusters in testing and real-life contexts. Paper presented at the AAAL Conference, Dallas, TX.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, A. (2003). Interviewer variation and the co-construction of speaking proficiency. Language Testing, 20(1), 1–25.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, A., Iwashita, N., & McNamara, T. (2005). An examination of rater orientations and test-taker performance on English-for-Academic-Purposes speaking tasks ( TOEFL Monograph No. 29). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Butler, F. A., Eignor, D., Jones, S., McNamara, T., & Suomi, B. K. (2000). TOEFL 2000 speaking framework: A working paper (TOEFL Monograph No. 20). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47.
   Google Scholar
• Chalhoub-Deville, M. (2003). Second language interaction: Current perspectives and future trends. Language Testing, 20(4), 369–383.
   Google Scholar
• Chalhoub-Deville, M., & Deville, C. (2006). Old, borrowed, and new thoughts in second language testing. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational Measurement (4th ed.) (pp. 517–530). Westport, CT: American Council on Education and Praeger Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Chapelle, C. A., Enright, M. K., & Jamieson, J. M. (2008). Test score interpretation and use. In C. A. Chapelle, M. K. Enright, & J. M. Jamieson (Eds.), Building a validity argument for the Test of English as a Foreign Language^TM (pp. 1–25). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Chapelle, C. A., Enright, M. K., & Jamieson, J. (2010). Does an argument-based approach to validity make a difference? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 29(1), 3–13.
   Google Scholar
• Chapelle, C., Grabe, W., & Berns, M. (1997). Communicative language proficiency: Definition and implications for TOEFL 2000 ( TOEFL Monograph No. 10). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Cobb, T. (2006). The Web Vocabulary Profiler (Version 3.0). [Computer program]. University of Québec, Montréal. Retrieved from http://www.lextutor.ca/vp/eng/
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cole, M. (2005). Putting culture in the middle. In H. Daniels (Ed.), An introduction to Vygotsky (pp. 199–226). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Deville, C., & Chalhoub-Deville, M. (2006). Old and new thoughts on test score variability: Implications for reliability and validity. In M. Chalhoub-Deville, C. A. Chapelle, & P. Duff (Eds.), Inference and generalizability in applied linguistics: Multiple perspectives (pp. 9–25). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Enright, M. K., Bridgeman, B., Eignor, D., Kantor, R. N., Mollaun, P., Nissan, S., Powers, D. E., & Schedl, M. (2008). Prototyping new assessment tasks. In C. A. Chapelle, M. K. Enright, & J. M. Jamieson (Eds.), Building a validity argument for the Test of English as a Foreign Language^TM (pp. 97–143). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Farr, F. (2003). Engaged listenership in spoken academic discourse: The case of student-tutor meetings. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(1), 67–85.
   Google Scholar
• Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Flowerdew, J. (Ed.). (2002). Academic discourse. London, UK: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 354–375.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. London: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, M. A. K. (1989). Spoken and written language (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London, UK: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• He, A. W., & Young, R. (1998). Language proficiency interviews: A discourse approach. In R. Young & A. W. He (Eds.), Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency (pp. 1–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Heatley, A., & Nation, P. (1994). Range. [Computer program] Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Retrieved from http://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/resources/range.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Henning, G. (1987). A guide to language testing: Development, evaluation, research. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
   Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. (2002). Genre: Language, context, and literacy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 113–135.
   Google Scholar
• Iwashita, N., Brown, A., McNamara, T., & O’Hagan, S. (2008). Assessed levels of second language speaking proficiency: How distinct? Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 24–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jamieson, J. M., Eignor, D., Grabe, W., & Kunnan, A. J. (2008). Frameworks for a new TOEFL. In C. A. Chapelle, M. K. Enright, & J. M. Jamieson (Eds.), Building a validity argument for the Test of English as a Foreign Language^TM (pp. 55–95). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, M. (2001). The art of non-conversation: A re-examination of the validity of the oral proficiency interview. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kane, M. (2012). Articulating a validity argument. In G. Fulcher & F. Davidson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language testing (pp. 34–47). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lantolf, J. P., & Frawley, W. (1985). Oral-proficiency testing: A critical analysis. Modern Language Journal, 69(4), 337–345.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lazaraton, A. (1996). Interlocutor support in oral proficiency interviews: the case of CASE. Language Testing, 13(2), 151–172.
   Google Scholar
• Lazaraton, A. (2002). A qualitative approach to the validation of oral language tests. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lumley, T., & Brown, A. (1996). Specific purpose language performance tests: Task and interaction. In G. Wigglesworth & C. Elder (Eds.), The language testing cycle: From inception to washback. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, Series S, 13, 105–136.
   Google Scholar
• Luoma, S. (2004). Assessing speaking. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Magnan, S. S. (1988). Grammar and the ACTFL oral proficiency interview: Discussion and data. Modern Language Journal, 72(3), 266–276.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara, T. F. (1997). ‘Interaction’ in second language performance assessment: Whose performance? Applied Linguistics, 18(4), 446–466.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michel, M. C., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). The influence of complexity in monologic versus dialogic tasks in Dutch L2. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45(3), 241–259.
   Google Scholar
• Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555–578.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Loughlin, K. (2001). The equivalence of direct and semi-direct speaking tests. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Plough, I. C., Briggs, S. L., & Van Bonn, S. (2010). A multi-method analysis of evaluation criteria used to assess the speaking proficiency of graduate student instructors. Language Testing, 27(2), 235–260.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shohamy, E. (1994). The validity of direct versus semi-direct oral tests. Language Testing, 11(2), 99–123.
   Google Scholar
• Skehan. P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Swain, M. (2001). Examining dialogue: Another approach to content specifications and to validating inferences drawn from test scores. Language Testing, 18(3), 275–302.
   Google Scholar
• Swain, M. (2013a). The inseparability of cognition and emotion in second language learning. Language Teaching, 46(2), 195–207.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swain, M. (2013b, March). The intertwining of emotion and cognition: A Vygotskian sociocultural perspective. Paper presented at the AAAL Conference, Dallas, TX.
   Google Scholar
• Swain, M., Huang, L.-S., Barkaoui, K., Brooks, L., & Lapkin, S. (2009). The speaking section of the TOEFL iBT™ (SSTiBT): Test-takers’ reported strategic behaviors (TOEFL iBT™ Report No. TOEFL iBT-10). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Swain, M., Kinnear, P., & Steinman, L. (2011). Sociocultural theory in second language education: An introduction through narratives. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, C. A., & Angelis, P. (2008). The evolution of the TOEFL. In C. A. Chapelle, M. K. Enright, & J. M. Jamieson (Eds.), Building a validity argument for the Test of English as a Foreign Language^TM (pp. 27–54). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ure, J. (1971). Lexical density and register differentiation. In G. E. Perren & J. L. M. Trimm (Eds.), Applications of linguistics (pp. 443–452). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Van Lier, L. (1989). Reeling, writhing, drawling, stretching, and fainting in coils: Oral proficiency interviews as conversation. TESOL Quarterly, 23(3), 489–508.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vermeer, A. (2000). Coming to grips with lexical richness in spontaneous speech data. Language Testing, 17(1), 65–83.
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language ( A. Kozulin, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weir, C. J. (2005). Language testing and validation: An evidence-based approach. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Zareva, A. (2009). Informational packaging, level of formality, and the use of circumstance adverbials in L1 and L2 student academic presentations. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(1), 55–68.
   Google Scholar