Advertisement

The Advantages of Interact

  • Martin East
Chapter
Part of the Educational Linguistics book series (EDUL, volume 26)

Abstract

This chapter reports findings from Stage I of the two-stage study. Stage I sought the comparative viewpoints of teachers as principal stakeholders on the usefulness of interact in comparison with converse, measured against six qualities of usefulness: construct validity, reliability, interactiveness, impact, practicality and authenticity. Findings were derived from two sources: an anonymous paper-based nationwide teacher survey (n = 152) targeted at the range of FLs taught in New Zealand, and interviews with teachers who had been using interact since its introduction (n = 14). The chapter presents results and analyses from Section I of the survey, a closed-ended section designed to tap into the different facets of the test usefulness construct, and findings from Section II, an open-ended section of the survey. These findings are compared to those elicited from the teacher interviews. The chapter focuses on perceived comparative advantages of interact. Implications for washback are also presented.

Keywords

Difference Score Target Language Language Teacher Teacher Interview Grammatical Structure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. East, M. (2014). Working for positive outcomes? The standards-curriculum alignment for Learning Languages and its reception by teachers. Assessment Matters, 6, 65–85.Google Scholar
  3. East, M. (2015). Coming to terms with innovative high-stakes assessment practice: Teachers’ viewpoints on assessment reform. Language Testing, 32(1), 101–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265532214544393
  4. Education Counts. (2012). Subject enrolment. Retrieved from http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/statistics/schooling/july_school_roll_returns/6052
  5. Graham, J. W. (2012). Missing data: Analysis and design. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Resnick, R. (2012). Comparison of postal and online surveys: Cost, speed, response rates and reliability. Sweet Springs, MO: Education Market Research/MCH Strategic Data.Google Scholar
  7. Winke, P. (2011). Evaluating the validity of a high-stakes ESL test: Why teachers’ perceptions matter. TESOL Quarterly, 45(4), 628–660. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.5054/tq.2011.268063/abstract

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin East
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Education and Social WorkThe University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations