Can We Predict Task Difficulty in an Oral Proficiency Test? Exploring the Potential of an Information‐Processing Approach to Task Design

By Noriko Iwashita, Tim McNamara, C. Elder. 2001

245 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Language and Linguistics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f7915d432a08c721abe3f098135157434c4a724f

How researchers see this paper

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

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Language and Linguistics

Citations in the corpus

Estimating the difficulty of oral proficiency tasks: what does the test-taker have to offer? (2002, result): “It is worth noting at this point that the discourse analysis of candidate performance that has been reported in detail elsewhere (Iwashita et al., 2001) was found to parallel the above analyses, with the only signi cant difference in the quality of candidate production emerging 3The formula for…”
Assessed Levels of Second Language Speaking Proficiency: How Distinct? (2007, background): “In an earlier study (Iwashita et al. 2001), it was found that coders tended not to agree on what they considered to be errors or on whether they should be classified as grammatical or lexical.”
AN EXAMINATION OF RATER ORIENTATIONS AND TEST-TAKER PERFORMANCE ON ENGLISH-FOR-ACADEMIC-PURPOSES SPEAKING TASKS (2005, methodology): “An earlier study for the TOEFL project (Iwashita et al., 2001; McNamara, Elder, & Iwashita, 1999) also found that coders tended not to agree on what they considered to be errors, or on whether certain errors should be classified as grammatical or lexical errors.”
A multifaceted approach to investigating pre-task planning effects on paired oral test performance (2014, methodology): “…and language testing research have a reciprocal relationship in that issues proposed by task-based researchers have been applied and investigated in testing contexts and the results have then been fed back into task-based research (e.g., Elder et al., 2002; Iwashita et al., 2001; Skehan, 1998).”
Cognitive Complexity and Task Sequencing: Studies in a Componential Framework for Second Language Task Design (2005, methodology): “…on complex tasks (Study 2), and on the Here-and-Now/There-and-Then dimension there is support for the proposed beneficial effects of task complexity on accuracy, using a specific measure (TLU of articles, Study 1) and more general measures of accuracy (Iwashita et al. 2001; Rahimpour 1997, 1999).”
The Role of Task Complexity, Modality, and Aptitude in Narrative Task Performance (2012, background): “…have 9 examined systematically the combined effects of resource-directing and resource-dispersing variables on performance (but see Gilabert, 2005; Iwashita et al., 2001; Révész, 2009) although in real-world communicative tasks these two dimensions simultaneously affect performance (for a recent…”