Testing Second Language Speaking

By Glenn Fulcher. 2003

582 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7723dbda0afb158f5b370ed7c146f38ecd279da6

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

Citations in the corpus

The influence of interlocutor proficiency in a paired oral assessment (2009, background): “Despite the potential benefit of assessing students in pairs, a major concern regarding the paired test format has been the question of whether it matters who is paired with whom (Foot, 1999; Fulcher 2003).”
Interacting in pairs in a test of oral proficiency: Co-constructing a better performance (2009, background): “Although testers also co-construct performance when they interact with test-takers, the idea of a joint construction of performance tends to be viewed as being particularly problematic when pairs of students interact (see Fulcher, 2003).”
Limitations of the Common European Framework for developing comparable examinations and tests (2005, background): “, it must demonstrate theory-based validity (for the theory of the cognitive processes involved in speaking, see Levelt, 1993; Fulcher, 2003; for writing, see Grabe and Kaplan, 1996; Hyland, 2002; for reading, see Urquhart and Weir, 1998; Alderson, 2000; Grabe and Stoller, 2002; for listening, see B”
Dependability of scores for a new ESL speaking assessment consisting of integrated and independent tasks (2006, background): “…assessments in general (Linn, 1993; Shavelson et al., 1993; Gao et al., 1994; Linn et al., 1996; Miller and Linn, 2000) and performance-based writing (Dunbar et al., 1991; Brennan et al., 1995; Breland et al., 1999) and speaking assessments in particular (Lee et al., 2001; Fulcher, 2003).”
Diagnostic assessment of writing: A comparison of two rating scales (2009, background): “Fulcher (2003) distinguishes between two main approaches to scale development: intuitive methods or empirical methods.”
The influence of training and experience on rater performance in scoring spoken language (2016, background): “Review and discussion of the scoring rubric is assumed to help raters focus on the elements of performance targeted by the assessment (Fulcher, 2003), and while such training may guide and standardize raters’ perceptions (Weigle, 1994), variability in scoring criteria may persist following training…”
Understanding L2 Speaking Problems: Implications for ESL Curriculum Development in a Teacher Training Institution in Hong Kong. (2012, background): “A corollary of this argument is that anyone who wishes to speak a second language must learn the grammar and vocabulary of the language, and master its sounds (Fulcher, 2003).”
Diagnostic Writing Assessment: The Development and Validation of a Rating Scale (2009, methodology): “Fulcher (2003) points out that many rating scales are developed based on intuition (see also Brindley, 1991).”
Effective rating scale development for speaking tests: Performance decision trees (2011, methodology): “When features are isolated, the number of levels in a scale that can be empirically established using discriminant analysis; the resulting scale levels are then populated by descriptors drawn from the primary analysis (Fulcher, 1993; 1996; 2003).”
Deluded by Artifices? The Common European Framework and Harmonization (2004, methodology): “Language testing for asylum seekers and immigration is on the increase (Fulcher, 2003a), and governments are increasingly using language requirements as a method of control.”
Assessing paired orals: Raters' orientation to interaction (2009, methodology): “…Australia; email: A.Ducasse@latrobe.edu.au oral proficiency testing, through the Cambridge English Exams in the first part of the twentieth century, and subsequently through the highly influential FSI/ACTFL interviews (see Brown, 2005 and Fulcher, 2003, for a history of oral interview testing).”