Proposal Abstract (Summary) . . .a work in progress.

Proposal Abstract (Summary)

            The purpose of this project is to develop computer tools for the teaching and testing of second language skills. We have successfully developed a speaking test and administered it to over 1300 persons learning English as a second language, using an elicited imitation technique. We are currently doing basic research on a number of aspects of the test including: 1) item design—what should be the length and contents of each item and how can we generate new items using language corpora? 2) item administration—How should the items be administered?  Should there be a pause between the stimulus and response?  Should the examinee be in control of the presentation of each item?  Should there be a comprehension task between the presentation of the stimulus and the response? 3) item scoring—How should items be scored and what effect does the scoring method have on concurrent validity?  Our goal is to solve these basic research issues with regards to the test and its administration, and then to design a computer adaptive form of the test with a large calibrated item bank which can be used to delivered the test over the internet to any place in the world. We have already made a great deal of progress in the automatic scoring of items using speech recognition and we intend to continue to perfect this technology.  We also intend to expand the test into other languages, such as French and Spanish.

Literature Review: Just a taste of what I'm working on.

            Elicited imitation (EI) has been used for decades as a means of examining the development of oral language skills in various contexts including normal native language development (Ervin-Tripp, 1964; Menyuk, 1963; Keller-Cohen, 1981) abnormal language development (Menyuk, 1964; Berry, 1976; Lahey, Launer, and Schiff-Myers, 1983) and second language development (Naiman, 1974; Hamayan, Saegert, and Larudee, 1977). In recent years there has been a resurgence of interest in its use in the examination of oral language skills in second language learners (Vinther 2002; Chaudron, Prior, and Kozok, 2005; Erlam 2006, Jessop, Suzuki, & Tomita, 2007). For a fairly comprehensive view of this literature see, Gallimore and Tharp (1981), Lust, Chien, and Flynn (1987), Bley-Vroman and Chaudron (1994), and Vinther (2002).

            An examination of the literature on elicited imitation suggests that interest in its use centers around two major investigative efforts, 1) psycholinguistic research into the nature of language competence itself (see, for example, Ellis, 2006 and Erlam, 2006), and 2) research into the possibility of finding an indirect and efficient way to estimate the overall oral language proficiency of second language learners (see Radloff, 1992 and Chaudron, et al 2005). While these two purposes have much in common, it seems to us from the available literature that they may make quite different demands on the design and administration of EI items.  If one is to investigate the nature of interlanguage, certain conditions for the elicitation of responses must be met which assure that, on the one hand, the task taps into the implicit linguistic knowledge of the speaker (Ellis, 2005), and, on the other, that the responses are minimally affected by rote memory (Erlam, 2006). It may be critical, for example, to include specific target structures in the EI stimulus sentences. It may be important, as Erlam (2006) claims, to focus the participant’s attention on meaning with each stimulus sentence, to delay the imitation of stimuli in order to reduce the chances of rote repetition, and to assure that stimulus sentences are repeated under time pressure to simulate conditions of unplanned speech and reduce the likelihood of the examinee’s focusing on the form of the sentence. It may also be crucial to show that the ability of subjects to produce particular forms using the elicitation procedure corresponds to their ability to produce these forms in spontaneous speech.

Show me the Money!

Additional Funding Agency's:
Rocky Mountain Power Foundation
Ford Foundation
Radio Shack Foundation
Office of Special Education Programs

Numero Dos: Passion

Passion . . . Yikes. I hate the word as I hate Hell and all Montagues.
TJ mentioned in class that he was kept awake at night thinking about issues in education. I sleep very well and am rarely awake later than 10:30p.m. Does that mean that I do not have passion for issues in education? I've been hearing the word passion being thrown around in all of my classses. I've done some self-reflecting and have come up with some ideas about what I am passionate about and how that passion manifests itself.

Passion:
1. Protect the abused, manipulated, maginalized, neglected, weird, and hated.
2. Arm them with new ways of thinking and doing, empowering them to be independent, sucessful, and happy.
3. Teach others to notice, protect, and arm those within their sphere of influence.

In research I have manifest this passion by
1. Interviewing gang members in and out of prision.
2. Teaching mothers and teachers how to communicate with their child who does not speak.
3. Teaching English to non-native English speakers.

I am not sure what my reserach question will be. I've had too many good questions to sort through. I've been a student for such a long time that I have learned how to jump through hoops really well. I've been a consumer. Now that I need to produce I am afraid that I may choose a wrong question, a question that is too big or small, or a question that no one cares about. I trust that my passion will soon focus and that I may be useful and helpful.

Blog Numero Uno

This is my first time Blogging. Wish me luck.