Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T21:56:55.595Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ELICITED IMITATION: A TEST FOR ALL LEARNERS?

EXAMINING THE EI PERFORMANCE OF LEARNERS WITH DIVERGING EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUNDS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 April 2020

Bart Deygers Open the ORCID record for Bart Deygers [Opens in a new window]
Bart Deygers*
Affiliation:
Ghent University
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Professor Bart Deygers, Ghent University, Faculty of Arts and Philosophy, Department of Translation, Interpreting and Communication, Groot-Brittanniëlaan 45, 9000 Ghent, Belgium. E-mail: bart.deygers@ugent.be
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Elicited imitation (EI) is a much-used measurement instrument in applied linguistics, and it is considered a reliable and quick assessment of holistic speaking ability and implicit grammar knowledge. To date, however, EI research has overwhelmingly relied on highly educated participants. Only a few small-scale EI studies in applied linguistics have considered low-literate learners. Using Item Response Theory (IRT) and inferential parametric and nonparametric statistics, this study examined the EI performance of 113 L2 learners of Dutch with diverging educational backgrounds. All participants were enrolled in A1 and A2 Dutch L2 courses. Additionally, this study examined to what extent EI performances align with standardized tests of speaking and receptive vocabulary. The results indicate that EI can be used with both highly literate and low-educated participants, who will—however—be outperformed by higher educated learners. Especially the repetition of sentences containing pseudowords appears to result in substantial performance differences between the two groups.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 42 , Issue 5 , December 2020 , pp. 933 - 957
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We would like to thank the editor and reviewers for a thorough and constructive review process. This study was funded by Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) under grant number 12Q6717N.

References

REFERENCES

ACTFL. (2016). Assigning CEFR Ratings to ACTFL Assessments. https://www.actfl.org/publications/guidelines-and-manuals/assigning-cefr-ratings-actfl-assessmentsGoogle Scholar
Andringa, S., & Godfroid, A. (2019). SLA for all? Reproducing SLA research in non-academic samples. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/MP47B.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barkaoui, K. (2014). Multifaceted Rasch analysis for test evaluation. In Kunnan, A. (Ed.), The companion to language assessment. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
Bengtsson, S., Nagy, Z., Skare, S., Forsman, L., Forssberg, H., & Ullén, F. (2005). Extensive piano practicing has regionally specific effects on white matter development. Nature Neuroscience, 8, 1148–1150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1905). Development of intelligence in children (Kite, E. S., Trans.). Publications of the Training School, Department of Research.Google Scholar
Bowden, H. (2016). Assessing second-language oral proficiency for research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 647–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlsen, C. (2017). Giving LESLLA-learners a fair chance in testing. In Proceedings of the 12th LESLLA symposium. University of Granada.Google Scholar
Carroll, J., Carton, A., & Wilds, C. (1959). An investigation of “cloze” items in the measurement of achievement in foreign languages. Graduate School of Education, Harvard University, Laboratory for Research in Instruction.Google Scholar
Castro-Caldas, A., Reis, A., & Guerreiro, M. (1997). Neuropsychological aspects of illiteracy. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 7, 327–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Champely, S. (2018). Pwr: Basic Functions for Power Analysis. R package version 1.2-2.Google Scholar
Clark, N., McRoberts, G., Van Dyke, J., Shankweiler, D., & Braze, D. (2012). Immediate memory for pseudowords and phonological awareness are associated in adults and pre-reading children. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 26, 577–596.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Croissant, Y. (2018). Mlogit: Multinomial Logit Models. R package version 0.3-0.Google Scholar
Da Silva, C., Petersson, K., Faísca, L., Ingvar, M., & Reis, A. (2004). The effects of literacy and education on the quantitative and qualitative aspects of semantic verbal fluency. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 26, 266–277.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dehaene, S., Pegado, F., Braga, L. W., Ventura, P., Filho, G., Jobert, A., …, & Cohen, L. (2010). How learning to read changes the cortical networks for vision and language. Science, 330, 1359–1364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demoulin, C., & Kolinsky, R. (2016). Does learning to read shape verbal working memory? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 703–722.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Devescovi, A., & Caselli, M. (2007). Sentence repetition as a measure of early grammatical development in Italian. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 42, 187–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duñabeitia, J., Crepaldi, D., Meyer, A., New, B., Pliatsikas, C., Smolka, E., & Brysbaert, M. (2018). MultiPic: A standardized set of 750 drawings with norms for six European languages. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 808–816.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dunn, L., Dunn, L., & Schlichting, L. (2005). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III-NL. Handleiding. Pearson Assessment and Information B.V.Google Scholar
Erlam, R. (2006). Elicited imitation as a measure of L2 implicit knowledge: An empirical validation study. Applied Linguistics, 27, 464–491.CrossRefGoogle 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
Gass, S. (2018). SLA elicitation tasks. In Phakiti, A., De Costa, P. I., Plonsky, L., & Starfield, S. (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of applied linguistics research methodology (pp. 313–337). Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goeman, J., & De Jong, N. (2018). How well does the sum score summarize the test? Summability as a measure of internal consistency. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 37, 54–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, C., Lonsdale, D., Kennington, C., Johnson, A., & McGhee, J. (2008). Elicited imitation as an oral proficiency measure with ASR scoring. In Calzolari, N., Choukri, K., Maegaard, B., Mariani, J., Odijk, S. Piperidis, & Tapias, D. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on language resources and evaluation (pp. 1604–1610). European Language Resources Association.Google Scholar
Graham, C., McGhee, J., & Millard, B. (2010). The role of lexical choice in elicited imitation item difficulty. In Prior, M. T., Watanabe, Y., & Lee, S. (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 2008 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 57–72). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Grosche, M. (2012). Analphabetismus und Lese-Rechtschreib-Schwächen . In Beeinträchtigungen in der phonologischen Informationsverarbeitung als Ursache für funktionalen Analphabetismus im Erwachsenenalter. Waxmann.Google Scholar
Hansen, K. (2005). Impact of literacy level and task type on oral L2 recall accuracy. University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Heimann, M., Laberg, K., & Nordøen, B. (2006). Imitative interaction increases social interest and elicited imitation in non-verbal children with autism. Infant and Child Development, 15, 297–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huettig, F., & Mishra, R. (2014). How literacy acquisition affects the illiterate mind—a critical examination of theories and evidence. Language and Linguistics Compass, 8, 401–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juffs, A. (2006). Working memory, second language acquisition and low educated second language and literacy learners. In Van de Craats, I., Kurvers, J., & Young-Scholten, M. (Eds.), Low educated adult second language learners and literacy acquisition (pp. 89–105). LOT Occasional Papers.Google Scholar
Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M. (2010a). SUBTLEX-NL: A new measure for Dutch word frequency based on film subtitles. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 643–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M. (2010b). Wuggy: A multilingual pseudoword generator. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 627–633.CrossRefGoogle 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
Kurvers, J. (2015). Emerging literacy in adult second-language learners: A synthesis of research findings in the Netherlands. Writing Systems Research, 7, 58–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linacre, J. (2012). A User’s Guide to FACETS Rasch-Model Computer Programs.Google Scholar
Linacre, M. (2015). Facets (Version 3.71.4). Winsteps.com.Google Scholar
Magez, W. (2007). Cognitieve vaardigheidstest (Covaar) voor anderstalige nieuwkomers e.a. Handleiding. 4. Testinstructies. Centrum Schoolpsychologie KU Leuven.Google Scholar
Massol, S., Midgley, K., Holcomb, P., & Grainger, J. (2011). When less is more: Feedback, priming, and the pseudoword superiority effect. Brain Research, 1386, 153–164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mehrani, M. (2018). An elicited imitation test for measuring preschoolers’ language development. Psychological Reports, 121, 767–786.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milton, J. (2010). The development of vocabulary breadth across the CEFR levels. In Pallotti, G. (Ed.), Communicative proficiency and linguistic development: Intersections between SLA and language testing research. Creative Commons.Google Scholar
Moll, K., Hulme, C., Nag, S., & Snowling, M. (2015). Sentence repetition as a marker of language skills in children with dyslexia. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 203–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Netwerk Basiseducatie. (2017). Strategisch Beleidsplan Netwerk Basiseducatie. Basiseducatie over morgen. Netwerk Basiseducatie.Google Scholar
Nicolas, S., Andrieu, B., Croizet, J.-C., Sanitioso, R., & Burman, J. (2013). Sick? Or slow? On the origins of intelligence as a psychological object. Intelligence, 41, 699–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. (2005). For what and for whom is our research? The ethical as transformative lens in instructed SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 89, 427–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ozubko, J., & Joordens, S. (2011). The similarities (and familiarities) of pseudowords and extremely high-frequency words: Examining a familiarity-based explanation of the pseudoword effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 123–139.Google ScholarPubMed
Perry, K., Shaw, D., Ivanyuk, L., & Tham, Y. (2018). The “ofcourseness” of functional literacy: Ideologies in adult literacy. Journal of Literacy Research, 50, 74–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersson, K., Reis, A., Askelöf, S., Castro-Caldas, A., & Ingvar, M. (2000). Language processing modulated by literacy: A network analysis of verbal repetition in literate and illiterate subjects. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 364–382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.R-project.orgGoogle Scholar
Revelle, W. (2018). psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research. Northwestern University.Google Scholar
Sarandi, H. (2015). Reexamining elicited imitation as a measure of implicit grammatical knowledge and beyond…? Language Testing, 32, 485–501.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
Suzuki, Y., & DeKeyser, R. (2015). Comparing elicited imitation and word monitoring as measures of implicit knowledge. Language Learning, 65, 860–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tammelin-Laine, T., & Martin, M. (2015). The simultaneous development of receptive skills in an orthographically transparent second language. Writing Systems Research, 7, 39–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarone, E. (2010). Second language acquisition by low-literate learners: An understudied population. Language Teaching, 43, 75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarone, E., Hansen, K., & Bigelow, M. (2013). Alphabetic literacy and adult SLA. In Herschensohn, J. & Young-Scholten, M. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 180–204). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompkins, A., & Binder, K. (2003). A comparison of the factors affecting reading performance of functionally illiterate adults and children matched by reading level. Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 236–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torchiano, M. (2017). Effsize: Efficient effect size computation. R package.Google 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., Edmonds, A., & Hilton, H. (Eds.), Measuring L2 proficiency: Perspectives from SLA (pp. 143–166). Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UNESCO. (2017a). Literacy Rates Continue to Rise from One Generation to the Next (No. FS/2017/LIT/45). UNESCO.Google Scholar
UNESCO. (2017b). More than one-half of children and adolescents are not learning worldwide. UNESCO.Google Scholar
UNESCO. (2018). One in five children, adolescents and youth is out of school . UNESCO.Google Scholar
Vagvoelgyi, R., Coldea, A., Dresler, T., Schrader, J., & Nuerk, H.-C. (2016). A review about functional illiteracy: Definition, cognitive, linguistic, and numerical aspects. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1617.Google Scholar
Verboven, K., Buyse, E., Magez, W., & Verschueren, K. (2004). Covaar-II. Technische handleiding. Centrum voor Schoolpsychologie, KU Leuven.Google Scholar
Vinther, T. (2002). Elicited imitation: A brief overview. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12, 54–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Windisch, H. (2015). Adults with low literacy and numeracy skills: A literature review on policy intervention. OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
World Bank. (2019). School enrollment, tertiary (% gross). https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.TER.ENRRGoogle 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
Young-Scholten, M., & Naeb, R. (2010). Non-literate l2 adults’ small steps in mastering the constellation of skills required for reading. In Wall, T. & Leong, M. (Eds.), Low educated second language and literacy acquisition. Proceedings of the 5th symposium (pp. 80–91). Bow Valley College.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Deygers supplementary material

Deygers supplementary material

Download Deygers supplementary material(File)
File 89.6 KB