본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

Man or Machine? Stakeholders’ Views on Foreign Language Oral Proficiency Testing in Korea

2

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

초록

This paper is the second part of a study looking at Oral Proficiency Tests (OPIs) and Simulated Oral Proficiency Tests (SOPIs). In the first, more quantitative part of the study, a strong preference had been found for OPIs on the part of test takers, many of whom objected the lack of interaction inherent to computer-based tests. OPIs were also criticised, mainly for the variability that the presence of a live interviewer introduced, as well as for their perceived higher cost. In this paper, various other stakeholders, including test developers, academics and commercial test providers, are interviewed to provide a more balanced representation of the interested parties' views. In addition, several test takers are interviewed to give a more detailed picture of the test experience. The results give a clearer picture of why OPIs are preferred by test takers and, paradoxically, why SOPIs continue to be developed in their place, with test developers and academics prioritizing factors connected with test administration over factors such as authenticity and interaction that are more closely related to the test taking experience.

Abstract

This paper is the second part of a study looking at Oral Proficiency Tests (OPIs) and Simulated Oral Proficiency Tests (SOPIs). In the first, more quantitative part of the study, a strong preference had been found for OPIs on the part of test takers, many of whom objected the lack of interaction inherent to computer-based tests. OPIs were also criticised, mainly for the variability that the presence of a live interviewer introduced, as well as for their perceived higher cost. In this paper, various other stakeholders, including test developers, academics and commercial test providers, are interviewed to provide a more balanced representation of the interested parties' views. In addition, several test takers are interviewed to give a more detailed picture of the test experience. The results give a clearer picture of why OPIs are preferred by test takers and, paradoxically, why SOPIs continue to be developed in their place, with test developers and academics prioritizing factors connected with test administration over factors such as authenticity and interaction that are more closely related to the test taking experience.

참고문헌 (35)

  1. Alderson, C, "Language testing and assessment (part 2)", Language Teaching, 35, pp.79~113 (2002)
  2. Alderson, C, "Language test construction and evaluation" (1995), Cambridge University Press
  3. Bachman,L, "Fundamental considerations in language testing" (1990), Oxford University Press
  4. Bachman, L, "Language testing in practice" (1996), Oxford University Press
  5. Berwick, R, "Cross cultural pragmatics in oral proficiency interview strategies, In Performance testing, cognition and assessment: selected papers from the 15th Language Testing Research Colloquium", pp.34~54 (1996), Cambridge University Press
  6. Brown,A, "Interviewer variation and the co-construction of speaking proficiency", Language Testing, 20(1), pp.1~25 (2003)
  7. Brown, A, "Interviewer variability in specific-purpose language performance tests, In Current developments and alternatives in language assessment", pp.137~150 (1997), University of Jyvaskyla and University of Tampere
  8. Chapelle,C, "Validity in language assessment", Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, pp.254~272 (1999)
  9. Choi,I, "The impact of testing on EFL education in Korea", Language Testing, 25(1), pp.39~62 (2008)
  10. Clark,J, "Direct versus semi-direct tests of speaking ability. In New concepts in language testing: some recent studies", pp.35~49 (1979), TESOL
  11. Clark,J, "Validation of a tape-mediated", ILR scale-based test for Chinese speaking proficiency, 1988, pp.5, 187~198
  12. Clark, J, "Development, validation, and dissemination of a proficiency-based test of speaking ability in Chinese and an associated assessment model for other less commonly taught languages", ERIC Document, 264~ (1986), No. ED 278 264
  13. Davies,A, "The construction of language tests" (1977), Oxford University Press
  14. Dean,M, "Man or machine? A survey of test takers’ views on foreign language oral proficiency testing in Korea", HUFS International Journal of Foreign Studies, 14 (2008)
  15. Henning,G, "A Guide to Language Testing" (1987), Heinle & Heinle Publishers
  16. Kenyon, D. M, "Comparing examinee attitudes toward computer-assisted and other oral proficiency assessments", Language Learning & Technology, 5(2), pp.60~83 (2001)
  17. Lazaraton,A, "Interlocutor support in oral proficiency interviews: the case of case", Language Testing, 13(2), pp.151~172 (1996)
  18. "High demand causes ‘TOEFL crisis’ in South Korea"[URL]
  19. Assessing the language of proficiency of health professionals. Recommendations for the reform of the occupational English test. A report submitted to the council of overseas professional qualifications. Technical report, "McNamara,T.F", Department of Russian and Language Studies, University of Melbourne, ~ (1987)
  20. McNamara,T.F, "Interaction in second language performance assessment: Whose performance?", Applied Linguistics, 18(4), pp.446~466 (1997)
  21. McNamara, T. F, "The effect of interlocutor and assessment mode variables in overseas assessments of speaking skills in occupational settings", Language Testing, (14), pp.140~156 (1997)
  22. An investigation of speaking test reliability with particular reference to examiner attitude to the speaking test format and, "examiner discourse produced. Technical report", Merrylees, B, 1997
  23. Messick,S, "Validity. In Educational Measurement (3rd edition)", pp.1989, American Council on Education
  24. Morton, J, G, "Approaches to the evaluation of interviewer performance in oral interaction tests. In Access: issues in English language test design and delivery", pp.175~196 (1997), National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research
  25. O’Loughlin,K, "The equivalence of direct and semi-direct language tests" (2001), Cambridge University Press
  26. Raffaldini,T, "The use of situation tests as measures of communicative ability", Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10(2), pp.197~216 (1988)
  27. Ross,S, "Accommodative questions in oral proficiency interviews", Language Testing, 9, pp.173~186 (1992)
  28. Shohamy,E, "The stability of the oral proficiency trait on the oral interview speaking tests", Language Learning, 33(4), pp.527~540 (1983)
  29. Shohamy,E, "A proposed framework for testing the oral language of second", foreign language learners, 1988, pp.10(2), 165~179
  30. Shohamy,E, "The validity of direct versus semi-direct oral tests", Language Testing, 11(2), pp.99~124 (1994)
  31. Stansfield,C, "A comparative analysis of simulated and direct oral proficiency interviews", ERIC Document, ~ (1991), No. 371 073
  32. Stevenson,D, "Authenticity, validity and a tea party", Language Testing, 2(1), pp.41~47 (1985)
  33. UCLES, "IELTS Handbook 2007" (2007), UCLES
  34. Underhill,N, "Testing Spoken Language: A Handbook of Oral Testing Techniques" (1987), Cambridge University Press
  35. Van Lier,L, "1989: Reeling, writhing, drawling, stretching and fainting in coils: oral proficiency interviews as conversations", TESOL Quarterly, 23(3), pp.480~508 (1989)

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (12건)