Exploring the Use of Video-Conferencing Technology in the Assessment of Spoken Language: A Mixed-Methods Study

References

• Abrams, Z. I. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 157–167. doi:10.1111/modl.2003.87.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bernstein, J., Van Moere, A., & Cheng, J. (2010). Validating automated speaking tests. Language Testing, 27(3), 355–377. doi:10.1177/0265532210364404
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berry, V. (2007). Personality differences and oral test performance. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model. Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Bonk, W. J., & Ockey, G. J. (2003). A many-facet Rasch analysis of the second language group oral discussion task. Language Testing, 20(1), 89–110. doi:10.1191/0265532203lt245oa
   Google Scholar
• Brooks, L. (2003). Converting an observation checklist for use with the IELTS Speaking Test. Cambridge ESOL Research Notes, 11, 20–21.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, A. (2003). Interviewer variation and the co-construction of speaking proficiency. Language Testing, 20(1), 1–25. doi:10.1191/0265532203lt242oa
   Google Scholar
• Clark, J. L. D. (1988). Validation of a tape-mediated ACTFL/ILR-scale based test of Chinese speaking proficiency. Language Testing, 5(2), 187–205. doi:10.1177/026553228800500205
   Google Scholar
• Clark, J. L. D., & Hooshmand, D. (1992). ‘Screen-to-screen’ testing: An exploratory study of oral proficiency interviewing using video conferencing. System, 20(3), 293–304. doi:10.1016/0346-251X(92)90041-Z
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.). London, UK: RoutledgeFalmer.
   Google Scholar
• Craig, D. A., & Kim, J. (2010). Anxiety and performance in videoconferenced and face-to-face oral interviews. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 13(3), 9–32.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand, Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Field, J. (2011). Cognitive validity. In L. Taylor (Ed.), Examining speaking: Research and practice in assessing second language speaking (Studies in Language Testing, Vol. 30) (pp. 65–111). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Galaczi, E. D. (2010). Face-to-face and computer-based assessment of speaking: Challenges and opportunities. In L. Araújo (Ed.), Computer-based assessment of foreign language speaking skills (pp. 29–51). Luxemburg: European Union.
   Google Scholar
• Galaczi, E. D. (2014). Interactional competence across proficiency levels: How do learners manage interaction in paired speaking tests? Applied Linguistics, 35(5), 553–574. doi:10.1093/applin/amt017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Hoejke, B., & Linnell, K. (1994). Authenticity in language testing: Evaluating spoken language tests for international teaching assistants. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 103–126. doi:10.2307/3587201
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inoue, C. (2013, November). Investigating the use of language functions for validating speaking test specifications. Paper presented at Language Testing Forum 2013, Nottingham, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Isaacs, T. (2010). Issues and arguments in the measurement of second language pronunciation ( Unpublished PhD thesis), McGill University, Montreal, QC.
   Google Scholar
• Itakura, H. (2001). Describing conversational dominance. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(12), 1859–1880. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00082-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kenyon, D., & Malabonga, V. (2001). Comparing examinee attitudes toward computer-assisted and other proficiency assessments. Language Learning and Technology, 5(2), 60–83.
   Google Scholar
• Kiddle, T., & Kormos, J. (2011). The effect of mode of response on a semidirect test of oral proficiency. Language Assessment Quarterly, 8(4), 342–360. doi:10.1080/15434303.2011.613503
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, J., & Craig, D. A. (2012). Validation of a videoconferenced speaking test. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(3), 257–275. doi:10.1080/09588221.2011.649482
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lazaraton, A. (2002). A qualitative approach to the validation of oral language tests ( Studies in Language Testing, Vol. 14). Cambridge, UK: UCLES/Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Linacre, M. (2013a). Facets computer program for many-facet Rasch measurement, version 3.71.2. Beaverton, OR: Winsteps.com.
   Google Scholar
• Linacre, M. (2013b). A user’s guide to FACETS: Rasch-model computer programs. Retrieved from www.winsteps.com/a/facets-manual.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Luoma, S. (1997). Comparability of a tape-mediated and a face-to-face test of speaking: A triangulation study ( Unpublished Licentiate thesis), University of Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla, Finland. Retrieved May 14, 2014, from http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:jyu-1997698892
   Google Scholar
• May, L. (2011). Interaction in a paired speaking test: The rater’s perspective. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• McNamara, T., & Roever, C. (2006). Language testing: The social dimension. Malden, MA & Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Nakatsuhara, F. (2013). The Co-construction of conversation in group oral tests. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Nakatsuhara, F., Inoue, C., Berry, V., & Galaczi, E. (2016). Exploring performance across two delivery modes for the same L2 speaking test: Face-to-face and video-conferencing delivery - A preliminary comparison of test-taker and examiner behaviour. IELTS Partnership Research Papers, 1, 1–67.
   Google Scholar
• Nakatsuhara, F., Inoue, C., & Taylor, L. (2017). An investigation into double-marking methods: Comparing live, audio and video rating of performance on the IELTS Speaking Test. IELTS Research Report Online Series, 1, 1–49.
   Google Scholar
• O’Loughlin, K. (2001). The equivalence of direct and semi-direct speaking tests ( Studies in Language Testing, Vol. 13). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• O’Sullivan, B., & Weir, C. J. (2011). Test development and validation. In B. O’Sullivan (Ed.), Language testing theories and practices (pp. 13–32). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillian.
   Google Scholar
• O’Sullivan, B., Weir, C. J., & Saville, N. (2002). Using observation checklists to validate speaking-test tasks. Language Testing, 19(1), 33–56. doi:10.1191/0265532202lt219oa
   Google Scholar
• Qian, D. (2009). Comparing direct and semi-direct modes for speaking assessment: Affective effects on test takers. Language Assessment Quarterly, 6(2), 113–125. doi:10.1080/15434300902800059
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. doi:10.1353/lan.1974.0010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shohamy, E. (1994). The validity of direct versus semi-direct oral tests. Language Testing, 11(2), 99–123. doi:10.1177/026553229401100202
   Google Scholar
• Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The Modern Language Journal, 87(1), 25–38. doi:10.1111/1540-4781.00177
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stansfield, C. (1990). An evaluation of simulated oral proficiency interviews as measures of oral proficiency. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown university roundtable of languages and linguistics 1990 (pp. 228–234). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stansfield, C., & Kenyon, D. (1992). Research on the comparability of the Oral Proficiency Interview and the Simulated Oral Proficiency Interview. System, 20(3), 347–364. doi:10.1016/0346-251X(92)90045-5
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, L. (2011). Introduction. In L. Taylor (Ed.), Examining speaking: Research and practice in assessing second language speaking (Studies in Language Testing, Vol. 30) (pp. 1–35). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• UCLES. (2015). IELTS Scores Guide. Cambridge, UK: UCLES.
   Google Scholar
• van Moere, A. (2012). A psycholinguistic approach to oral language assessment. Language Testing, 29(3), 325–344. doi:10.1177/0265532211424478
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weir, C. J. (2005). Language testing and validation: An evidence-based approach. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Weir, C. J., Vidakovic, I., & Galaczi, E. (2013). Measured constructs ( Studies in Language Testing, Vol. 37). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, B., & Linacre, M. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit values. Retrieved March 27, 2012, from www.rasch.org
   Google Scholar
• Yanguas, I. (2010). Oral computer-mediated interaction between L2 learners: It’s about time! Language Learning and Technology, 14(3), 72–93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar