A many-facet Rasch analysis of the second language group oral discussion task

By W. Bonk, G. Ockey. 2003

234 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Language and Linguistics, Management Science and Operations Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5a9955d969ada964fe8a450a150df13383e97e5a

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Language and Linguistics

1. Larry Davis
2. L. Taylor
3. Lindsay Brooks
4. E. Galaczi
5. G. Ockey
6. Sumie Matsuno
7. U. Knoch
8. Tim McNamara

In Management Science and Operations Research

1. Larry Davis
2. U. Knoch
3. Lindsay Brooks
4. Sumie Matsuno
5. L. Taylor
6. E. Galaczi
7. Tim McNamara
8. G. Ockey

Citations in the corpus

• The influence of training and experience on rater performance in scoring spoken language (2016, background): “…novice raters who are overly severe or lenient or who show poor internal consistency seem to become more like their more experienced peers after a few scoring sessions (Lim, 2011), or following additional professional or personal experience with the test taker population (Bonk & Ockey, 2003).”
• Interactional Competence: Conceptualisations, Operationalisations, and Outstanding Questions (2018, background): “…could play a role here, for example, Rasch models, which take into account different sources of variability in the assignment of scores (Bonk & Ockey, 2003) or test design and the use of different interactional formats (e.g., a speaking test comprising a question-and-answer interview task, a…”
• Interacting in pairs in a test of oral proficiency: Co-constructing a better performance (2009, background): “…Reves, 1982); an attempt to have a positive washback effect in that paired testing is more reflective of typical classroom activities (Berry, 1997; Bonk & Ockey, 2003; Hilsdon, 1991; Taylor, 2000) and the greater range of tasks possible in a paired format (Shohamy, Reves, & Bejarano, 1986;…”
• The effects of group members' personalities on a test taker's L2 group oral discussion test scores (2009, background): “Based on the results of two separate administrations of an English group oral (N = 1324 and N = 1103) to Japanese university test takers, Bonk and Ockey (2003) concluded that the group oral does have potential for yielding valid score-based inferences.”
• The influence of interlocutor proficiency in a paired oral assessment (2009, result): “The standard errors for the interlocutor measures were 0.14, which is relatively high compared to standard error measures typically seen in larger-scale studies (e.g. Bonk & Ockey, 2003) and this may have contributed to the lack of statistical significance.”
• Self-, peer-, and teacher-assessments in Japanese university EFL writing classrooms (2009, background): “Bonk and Ockey (2003) stated that ‘a common rule of thumb for acceptable values is the range from .70 or .80 to 1.20 or 1.30, but this is based on wellbehaved data from multiple-choice items, and these values may not represent realistic fit goals for rating data’ (p. 96).”
• The Rasch wars: The emergence of Rasch measurement in language testing (2012, background): “Bonk and Ockey (2003) used multi-faceted Rasch measurement in their study of a group oral assessment in English language at a Japanese university, in which groups of three or four students were assessed in conversation by two raters.”