No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The relationship between poststimulus pause, learner proficiency, and working memory in an Elicited Imitation Task
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 July 2022
Abstract
The Elicited Imitation Task (EIT) is a popular technique for efficiently measuring global proficiency in multiple languages, and accumulated evidence indicates high reliability and strong relationships with other proficiency measures. Nevertheless, several dimensions of EIT design remain open to investigation, including the assumption that a pause is required in between the aural stimulus and oral response, to ensure processing of the input and prevent so-called parroting. This study investigated the relationship between three poststimulus pause conditions, learners’ proficiency and working memory, and their EIT scores as well as their perceptions of task difficulty, mental effort, focus, and interest. Findings indicated no differences in performances or perceptions between the 0-second pause, 2-second pause, and 5-second pause conditions, and a weak relationship between EIT performance and working memory. Across all conditions, the EIT distinguished consistently among proficiency levels, correlated strongly with a criterion proficiency measure, and produced remarkably reliable scores.
- Type
- Research Report
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1971). The control processes of short-term memory. Institute for Mathematical Studies in the Social Sciences, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Bernstein, J., Van Moere, A., & Cheng, J. (2010). Validating automated speaking tests. Language Testing, 27, 355–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowden, H. W. (2016). Assessing second-language oral proficiency for research: The Spanish elicited imitation task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 647–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corkin, S. (2013). Permanent present tense: The unforgettable life of the amnesic patient, HM (Vol. 1000). Basic Books.Google Scholar
Council of Europe. (2001). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching and assessment. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, L., & Norris, J. M. (2021). Developing an innovative Elicited Imitation Task for efficient English proficiency assessment (TOEFL Research Report RR-96). Educational Testing Service.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Educational Testing Service. (2021). TOEFL Essentials Listen & Repeat Scoring Guide. https://www.ets.org/s/toefl-essentials/rsc/pdf/speaking-rubric.pdfGoogle Scholar
Erlam, R. (2006). Elicited imitation as a measure of L2 implicit knowledge: An empirical validation study. Applied Linguistics, 27, 464–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erlam, R., & Wei, L. (2021). The importance of increased processing demands in the design of Elicited Imitation tests. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211026032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaillard, S., & Tremblay, A. (2016). Linguistic proficiency assessment in second language acquisition research: The elicited imitation task. Language Learning, 66, 419–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isbell, D. R., & Son, Y. A. (2021). Measurement properties of a standardized Elicited Imitation Test: An integrative data analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Advance online publication. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263121000383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y., Tracy-Ventura, N., & Jung, Y. (2016). A measure of proficiency or short‐term memory? Validation of an Elicited Imitation Test for SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 655–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kostromitina, M., & Plonsky, L. (2021). Elicited imitation tasks as a measure of L2 proficiency: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Advance online publication. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263121000395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDade, H. L., Simpson, M. A., & Lamb, D. E. (1982). The use of elicited imitation as a measure of expressive grammar: A question of validity. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 47, 19–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2018). Developing and investigating C-tests in eight languages: Measuring proficiency for research purposes. In Norris, J. M. (Ed.), Developing C-tests for estimating proficiency in foreign language research (pp. 7–33). Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okura, E., & Lonsdale, D. (2012). Working memory’s meager involvement in sentence repetition tests. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2132–2137). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Olsthoorn, N. M., Andringa, S., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2014). Visual and auditory digit-span performance in native and non-native speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism, 18, 663–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L., Iwashita, N., Norris, J.M. and Rabie, S. (2002, October)
An investigation of elicited imitation tasks in crosslinguistic SLA research
. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
Papageorgiou, S., Davis, L., Norris, J. M., Garcia Gomez, P., Manna, V. F., & Monfils, L. (2021).
Design framework for the TOEFL Essentials test 2021
(Research Memorandum No. RM-21-03). Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Papageorgiou, S., Tannenbaum, R. J., Bridgeman, B., & Cho, Y. (2015). The association between TOEFL iBT® test scores and the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) levels (Research Memorandum No. RM-15-06). Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Park, H.I., Solon, M., Henderson, C., & Dehghan–Chleshtori, M. (2020). The roles of working memory and oral language abilities in Elicited Imitation performance. The Modern Language Journal, 104, 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purpura, J. E. (1997). An analysis of the relationships between test-takers’ cognitive and metacognitive strategy use and second language test performance. Language Learning, 47, 289–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sasayama, S., & Norris, J. M. (2019). Unravelling cognitive task complexity: Learning from learners’ perspectives on task characteristics and second language performance. In Wen, Z. & Ahmadian, M. (Eds.), Researching second language task performance and pedagogy: Essays in honor of Peter Skehan (pp. 95–132). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spada, N., Shiu, J. L. J., & Tomita, Y. (2015). Validating an elicited imitation task as a measure of implicit knowledge: Comparisons with other validation studies. Language Learning, 65, 723–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tracy-Ventura, N., McManus, K., Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2014). “Repeat as much as you can”: Elicited imitation as a measure of oral proficiency in L2 French. In Leclercq, P., Hilton, H., & Edmonds, A. (Eds.), Proficiency assessment issues in SLA research: Measures and practices (pp. 143–166). Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Vinther, T. (2002). Elicited imitation: A brief overview. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12, 54–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, S., Tio, Y., & Ortega, L. (2022). Elicited imitation as a measure of L2 proficiency: New insights from a comparison of two L2 English parallel forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 44, 271–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, S. L., & Ortega, L. (2013). Measuring global oral proficiency in SLA research: A new elicited imitation test of L2 Chinese. Foreign Language Annals, 46, 680–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yan, X., Maeda, Y., Lv, J., & Ginther, A. (2016). Elicited imitation as a measure of second language proficiency: A narrative review and meta-analysis. Language Testing, 33, 497–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar