[Home ] [Archive]   [ فارسی ]  
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
:: Volume 21, Issue 1 (4-2018) ::
IJAL 2018, 21(1): 215-262 Back to browse issues page
Authenticity Evaluation of TOEFL iBT Speaking Module from the Perspective of Applied Linguistics and General Education
Marzieh Souzandehfar
Abstract:   (71 Views)
For the first time, this study combined models and principles of authentic assessment from two parallel fields of applied linguistics as well as general education to investigate the authenticity of the TOEFL iBT speaking module. The study consisted of two major parts, namely task analysis and task survey. Utilizing Bachman and Palmer’s (1996) definition of authenticity, the task analysis examined the degree of the correspondence between the characteristics of the speaking module tasks in the TOEFL iBT test and those of target language use (TLU) tasks. In the task survey, a Likert Scale questionnaire of authenticity was developed by the researcher based on Herrington and Herrington’s (1998; 2006) four criteria of authentic assessment. The questionnaire was sent through email to 120 subjects who had already taken the test in order to elicit their attitudes towards the degree of the authenticity of the speaking section tasks. The results of the task analysis revealed a limited correspondence between the characteristics of the test tasks and those of the TLU tasks. However, the results of the task survey indicated that except for one factor (indicators), most of the test takers had a positive view toward the authenticity of the speaking module tasks in terms of the three other factors (context, student factor, task factor).     
Keywords: Authentic assessment, Speaking module, TOEFL iBT
Full-Text [PDF 630 kb]   (45 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special
Received: 2017/10/24 | Accepted: 2018/02/10
References
1. Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental consideration in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Bachman, L. (1991). What does language testing have to offer? TESOL Quarterly, 25 (4), 671–704. [DOI:10.2307/3587082]
3. Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Breen, M. (1985). Authenticity in the language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 6, 60–70. [DOI:10.1093/applin/6.1.60]
5. Broughton, G. (1965). A technical reader for advanced students. London: Macmillan.
6. Burkill, S., Dunne, L., Filer, T. and Zandstra, R. (2009). Authentic voices: Collaborating with students in refining assessment practices, Presentation at ATN Assessment Conference, RMIT University.
7. Dunne, L., Filer, T., & Zandstra, R. (2009, November). Authentic voices: collaborating with students in refining assessment practices. In ATN Assessment Conference 2009: Assessment in Different Dimensions (p. 84).
8. Close, R.A. (1965). The English we use for science. London: Longman.
9. Farnsworth, T. (2013). Assessing the oral English abilities of international teaching assistants in the USA. The Companion to Language Assessment, 1, 471-483. [DOI:10.1002/9781118411360.wbcla082]
10. Frey, B., & Schmitt, V. (2007). Coming to terms with classroom assessment. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18, 402-423. [DOI:10.4219/jaa-2007-495]
11. Gilmore, A. (2007). Authentic materials & authenticity in foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 40(2), 97-118. [DOI:10.1017/S0261444807004144]
12. Gilmore, A. (2009). The times they are a-changin': Strategies for exploiting authentic materials in the language classroom. In Rilling, S. & Dantas Whitney, M. (eds.), TESOL classroom practice series: Authenticity in adult classrooms and beyond. Virginia: TESOL Publications, 155-168.
13. Gilmore, A. (2011). "I prefer not text": Developing Japanese learners' communicative competence with authentic materials. Language Learning, 61(3), 786-819. [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00634.x]
14. Gulikers, J., Bastiaens, T., & Kirschner, P. (2006). Authentic assessment, student teacher perceptions: The practical value of the five-dimensional framework. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 58, 337-357. [DOI:10.1080/13636820600955443]
15. Herrington, J., & Herrington, A. (1998). Authentic assessment and multimedia: How university students respond to a model of authentic assessment. Higher Education Research and Development, 17(3), 305-322. [DOI:10.1080/0729436980170304]
16. Herrington, J., & Herrington, A. (2006). Authentic conditions for authentic assessment: Aligning task and assessment. In A. Bunker, & I. Vardi (Eds.). Research and development in higher education Volume 29, (pp. 146-151). Milperra, NSW: HERDSA.
17. Herrington, J., Oliver, R., & Reeves, T.C. (2003). Patterns of engagement in authentic online learning environments. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1), 59-71. [DOI:10.14742/ajet.1701]
18. Hung, D., & Victor Chen, D. T. (2007). Context–process authenticity in learning: implications for identity enculturation and boundary crossing. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(2), 147-167. [DOI:10.1007/s11423-006-9008-3]
19. Ingram, D.E. (2003). Methodology in the new millennium: Towards more authenticity in language learning and assessment. Paper to the First International Conference on pedagogies and learning, New meanings for the new millennium, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, 1-4 October, 2003.
20. Keyser, S., & Howell, S. (2008). The state of authentic assessment. Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) database. (ERIC Document No ED503679) (10 March 2010).
21. Kroll, D.L., Masingila, J.O., & Mau, S.T. (1992). Grading cooperative problem solving. Mathematics Teacher, 85(8), 619-627.
22. Lajoie, S. (1991). A framework for authentic assessment in mathematics. NCRMSE Research Review: The Teaching and Learning of Mathematics, 1(1), 6-12.
23. Lam, R. (2015). Language assessment training in Hong Kong: Implications for languageassessment literacy. Language Testing, 32(2), 169-197. [DOI:10.1177/0265532214554321]
24. Lewkowicz, J. A. (2000). Authenticity in language testing: Some outstanding questions. Language Testing, 17: 43-64. [DOI:10.1177/026553220001700102]
25. Linn, R.L., Baker, E.L., & Dunbar, S.B. (1991). Complex, performance-based assessment: Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 20(8), 15-21. [DOI:10.3102/0013189X020008015]
26. Malone M.E. (2017). Training in Language Assessment. In E. Shohamy, & S. May, (eds). Language testing and assessment. Encyclopedia of language and education (3rd ed.). (pp. 225-239). Springer, Cham. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-02261-1_16]
27. Malone, M. E., & Montee, M. (2014). Stakeholders' beliefs about the TOEFL iBT® test as a measure of academic language ability. ETS Research Report Series, (2), 1-51.
28. Meng-li, L. I. (2010). On the authenticity of iBT TOEFL oral test [J]. Journal of Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications (Social Science Edition), 4, 1-27.
29. Meyer, C.A. (1992). What's the difference between authentic and performance assessment? Educational Leadership, 49(8), 39-40.
30. Mishan, Freda. (2005). Designing Authenticity into Language Learning Materials. Bibliovault OAI Repository, the University of Chicago Press.
31. Morrow, K. (1977). Authentic Texts in ESP. In S. Holden (Ed.). English for specific purposes. (pp. 13-17). London: Modern English Publications.
32. Morrow, C. K. (2018). Communicative language testing. In J. I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1-7). New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell [DOI:10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0383]
33. Norris, J. M. (2002). Interpretations, intended uses and designs in task-based language assessment. Language Testing, 19 (4), 337–346. [DOI:10.1191/0265532202lt234ed]
34. Norris, J. M. (2009). Task-based teaching and testing. In M. Long, & C., Doughty (Eds.), Handbook of language teaching (pp. 578–594). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell [DOI:10.1002/9781444315783.ch30]
35. Ockey, G. J., Koyama, D., Setoguchi, E., & Sun, A. (2015). The extent to which TOEFL iBT speaking scores are associated with performance on oral language tasks and oral ability components for Japanese university students. Language Testing, 32(1), 39-62. [DOI:10.1177/0265532214538014]
36. Pinner, R. (2015). What we talk about when we talk about Authenticity [Invited guest post for popular EFL blog]. Retrieved from http://malingual.blogspot.jp/2015/02/what-we-talk-about-when-we-talk-about.html
37. Pinner, R. (2016). The nature of authenticity in English as a foreign language: A comparison of eight inter-related definitions. ELTWO Journal, 9(1), 78-93.
38. Powers, D., & O'Neill, K. (1993). Inexperienced and anxious computer users: Coping with a computer-administered test of academic skills. Educational Assessment, 1(2), 153–173. [DOI:10.1207/s15326977ea0102_4]
39. Reeves, T.C., & Okey, J.R. (1996). Alternative assessment for constructivist learning environments. In B.G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 191-202). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
40. Resnick, L.B., & Resnick, D.P. (1992). Assessing the thinking curriculum: New tools for educational reform. In B.R. Gifford, & M.C. O'Connor (Eds.), Changing assessment: Alternative views of aptitude, achievement and instruction (pp. 37-75). Boston: Kluwer. [DOI:10.1007/978-94-011-2968-8_3]
41. Rosenfeld, M., Leung, S., & Oltman, P. K. (2001). The reading, writing, speaking, and listening tasks important for academic success at the undergraduate and graduate levels (TOEFL Monograph No. MS-21). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
42. Sawaki, Y., Stricker, L. J., & Oranje, A. H. (2009). Factor structure of the TOEFL Internet-based test. Language Testing, 26(1), 005-30. [DOI:10.1177/0265532208097335]
43. Schmidt, F. L., Urry, V. W., & Gugel, J. F. (1978). Computer assisted tailored testing: Examinee reactions and evaluations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38(2), 265–273. [DOI:10.1177/001316447803800208]
44. Schmitt, N., Gilliland, S. W., Landis, R. S., & Devine, D. (1993). Computer-based testing applied to selection of secretarial applicants. Personnel Psychology, 46(1), 149–165. [DOI:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb00871.x]
45. Spolsky, B. (1985). The limits of authenticity in language testing. Language Testing, 2 (l), 31–40. [DOI:10.1177/026553228500200104]
46. Stevenson, D. (1985). Authenticity, validity, and a tea party. Language Testing, 2 (1), 41–47. [DOI:10.1177/026553228500200105]
47. Stricker, L.,Wilder, G. Z., & Rock, D. A. (2004). Attitudes about the computer-based Test of English as a Foreign Language. Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 37–54. [DOI:10.1016/S0747-5632(03)00046-3]
48. Torrance, H. (1995). Introduction. In H. Torrance (Ed.), Evaluating authentic assessment: Problems and possibilities in new approaches to assessment (pp. 1-8). Buckingham: Open University Press.
49. van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity. London: Longman.
50. Widdowson, H. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
51. Wiggins, G. (1989). A true test: Toward more authentic and equitable assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 70(9), 703-713.
52. Wiggins, G. (1990). The case for authentic assessment. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Tests, Measurement, and Evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 328 606).
53. Wiggins, Grant (1990). The case for authentic assessment. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 2(2). Retrieved March 21, 2014 from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=2&n=2 .
54. Wiggins, G. (1993). Assessing student performance: Exploring the purpose and limits of testing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
55. Xi, X. (2008). Validating the use of TOEFL iBT speaking section scores for ITA screening and setting standards for international teaching assistants. (Research Spotlight. No. 1). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
56. Young, M.F. (1995). Assessment of situated learning using computer environments. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4(1), 89-96. [DOI:10.1007/BF02211586]
57. Zahedi, K., & Shamsaee, S. (2012). Viability of construct validity of the speaking modules of international language examinations (IELTS vs. TOEFL iBT): Evidence from Iranian test-takers. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 24(3), 263-277. [DOI:10.1007/s11092-011-9137-z]
Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:

CAPTCHA code


XML   Persian Abstract   Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Souzandehfar M. Authenticity Evaluation of TOEFL iBT Speaking Module from the Perspective of Applied Linguistics and General Education. IJAL. 2018; 21 (1) :215-262
URL: http://ijal.khu.ac.ir/article-1-2857-en.html


Volume 21, Issue 1 (4-2018) Back to browse issues page
Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.15 seconds with 31 queries by YEKTAWEB 3781