Assessing English Language Learners’ Oral Performance: A Comparison of Monologue, Interview, and Group Oral Test

Ahmadi, Alireza; Sadeghi, Elham

doi:10.1080/15434303.2016.1236797

Cited by 21 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, based on their results, they strongly recommend not interrupting students while they are speaking but instead teachers should wait until the end of the task in order not to undermine the student's self-esteem. Furthermore, the fact that students who are being assessed feel more communicative pressure when their interlocutor is someone with higher power and knowledge, such as a teacher, may also increase their anxiety (Ahmadi & Sadeghi 2016). Self-assessment is considered a viable alternative to formal second language assessment for placement and criterion-referenced interpretations, although variation in self-assessment validity coefficients suggests potential difficulty in accurate interpretation (Ross 1998).…”

Section: Corrective Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

Students’ feedback beliefs and anxiety in online foreign language oral tasks

Martin

Valdivia

2017

Int J Educ Technol High Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research about the interrelation between anxiety and corrective feedback has mostly been conducted in face-to-face environments. The present study examines the relationship between students showing anxiety when speaking a FL and feedback as a potential anxiety inhibitor in an online oral synchronous communication task. Two questionnaires, the Foreign Language Anxiety Scale (FLAS) and the Corrective Feedback Belief Scale (CFBS), were administered to 50 students from the School of Languages in an online learning environment. T-test analysis showed a significant difference between the learners' preferences in two methods of CF. Recast and Metalinguistic feedback were better rated by the students who reported higher levels of anxiety in oral communication classes. Additionally, the High-level anxiety group rated teacher feedback as more effective than the other sources of feedback when compared to the Low-level anxiety group. These results indicate the need to take into account individual differences in terms of anxiety foreign language learning and students' beliefs about CF in order to help them achieve their learning goals in an interactive online environment.

show abstract

Section: Corrective Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

Students’ feedback beliefs and anxiety in online foreign language oral tasks

Martin

Valdivia

2017

Int J Educ Technol High Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The communicative component was assessed using a 5‐point scale and had descriptors related to collaboration, such as the ability to negotiate meaning, ask an interlocutor to elaborate, and find links with interlocutor's ideas. Similarly, Ahmadi and Sedeghi () also used the CEFR analytic rubric to assess L2 learners’ performance during paired and group oral tests. The interaction component included behaviors associated with collaboration, such as relating personal contributions to those of an interlocutor, facilitating discussion, confirming comprehension, and inviting an interlocutor to contribute.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying Linguistic Markers of Collaboration in Second Language Peer Interaction: A Lexico‐grammatical Approach

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although there is consensus that collaboration refers to two or more learners working together to accomplish a task (Davin & Donato, 2013;Ohta, 2001), debate remains about how to assess collaboration. Researchers have pursued two approaches to evaluate collaboration during peer interaction: rater judgments (e.g., Ahmadi & Sedeghi, 2016;Winke, 2013) and qualitative coding of interactional patterns (e.g., Galaczi, 2008;Storch, 2002a). Largely absent, however, has been any attempt to describe the linguistic features of collaboration. Therefore, the present study uses corpus linguistic techniques to identify the linguistic markers of collaborative and noncollaborative peer interactions. Students of English as a second language (N = 80) enrolled in an intensive English program carried out a paired oral test as part of the program's formative assessment procedures. Their interactions were audio-recorded and rated using an analytic rubric with three categories (collaboration, task completion, and style), and transcripts were analyzed for 146 linguistic features using the Biber Tagger (Biber, 1988). Linguistic features associated with high collaboration included first-and second-person pronouns, wh-questions, that deletion, and subordinate conjunctions, whereas low-collaboration interactions were characterized by nominal forms. The collaborative and noncollaborative functions served by these linguistic features are discussed.

show abstract

“…The findings from the previous studies (Ahmadi & Sadeghi, 2016;Gan, 2013;Qiu, 2019) suggest that monologues can outperform other task types (incl., dyadic and group tasks) in the way they affect task performance positively. In fact, scholars (e.g., Ockey, Koyama, & Setoguchi, 2013) note other merits of monologues.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Gan explained this finding, suggesting that while delivering their presentations, learners did not experience as much pressure as they did in the group discussions, which made them perform much better. Similarly, Ahmadi and Sadeghi (2016) used monologue, interview, and group task formats with 23 EFL learners. They found that the language used in the interview and group tasks was less complex than that used in monologues.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experiential versus attitudinal topic types and task performance in EFL monologues

Assiri

2019

Indonesian J. Appl. Linguist.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the aim of contributing to the existing ‎literature on the relationships between task ‎and topic facets, discourse features, topic ‎familiarity, and task performance in speaking, this study used EFL monologues to examine how two different sets of ‎topics―experiences/preferences versus opinions/attitudes―relate to task performance. The ‎task performance was measured using discourse features, including how language ‎elicited was complex, fluent, and lexically diverse. The study also explores how discourse ‎features themselves relate to one another across the two sets of topics. The data for the study ‎came from monologues performed by 63 adult EFL learners at the intermediate level of an ‎intensive English program in Saudi Arabia. The learners produced the monologues in response ‎to two summative tests (i.e., Test 1: experiences & preferences and Test 2: opinions & ‎attitudes). Using parametric statistical analyses (incl., the paired samples T-test and the ‎Pearson correlation), it was found that while experiences and preferences evoked more fluent ‎language than did opinions and attitudes, the latter elicited more complex and lexically ‎diverse language. Also, a significant, positive correlation existed between fluency and complexity for experiences and preferences, whereas lexical diversity was significantly positively correlated with complexity for opinions and attitudes. The study report concludes ‎with practical implications for enhancing task performance of monologues in the areas of ‎complexity, fluency, and lexical diversity.‎

show abstract

Assessing English Language Learners’ Oral Performance: A Comparison of Monologue, Interview, and Group Oral Test

Cited by 21 publications

References 47 publications

Students’ feedback beliefs and anxiety in online foreign language oral tasks

Students’ feedback beliefs and anxiety in online foreign language oral tasks

Identifying Linguistic Markers of Collaboration in Second Language Peer Interaction: A Lexico‐grammatical Approach

Experiential versus attitudinal topic types and task performance in EFL monologues

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About