Effects of presentation mode and computer familiarity on summarization of extended texts

Language Assessment Quarterly

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 119-136

  Yu, Guoxing ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77952380119     PISSN: 15434303     EISSN: 15434311     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15434300903452355     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
2. Bachman, L. F. (2000). Modern language testing at the turn of the century: Assuring that what we count counts. Language Testing, 17(1), 1-42
3. Baggaley, A. R. (1982). Deciding on the ratio of number of subjects to number of variables in factor analysis. Multivariate Experimental Clinical Research, 6, 81-85
4. Bartlett, M. S. (1954). A note on the multiplying factors for various chi square approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Series B: Methodological), 16, 296-298
5. Belcher, D., & Hirvela, A. (Eds.). (2001). Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading-writing connections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press
6. Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22(1), 1-14
7. Brown, J. D. (1997). Computers in language testing: Present research and some future directions. Language Learning and Technology, 1(1), 44-59
8. Cattell, R. B. (1952). Factor analysis: An introduction and manual for the psychologist and social scientist. New York: Harper & Brothers
9. Chalhoub-Deville, M. B., & Deville, C. (1999). Computer adaptive testing in second language contexts. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 273-299
10. Child, D. (1990). The essentials of factor analysis (2nd ed.). London: Cassell Educational Limited
11. Choi, I.-C., Kim, K. S., & Boo, J. (2003). Comparability of a paper-based language test and a computer-based language test. Language Testing, 20, 295-320
12. Cronbach, L. J., Linn, R. L., Brennan, R. L., & Haertel, E. (1995). Generalizability analysis for educational assessment. Los Angeles: UCLA's Center for the Study of Evaluation & National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing
13. Dillon, A. (1992). Reading from paper versus screens: A critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics, 35, 1297-1326
14. Douglas, D., & Hegelheimer, V. (2007). Assessing language using computer technology. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 115-132
15. Dyson, M. C., & Haselgrove, M. (2000). The effects of reading speed and reading patterns on the understanding of text read from screen. Journal of Research in Reading, 23, 210-223
16. Eignor, D., Taylor, C., Kirsch, I., & Jamieson, J. (1998). Development of a scale for assessing the level of computer familiarity of TOEFL examinees. TOEFL research report 60. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service
17. Henning, G., Anbar, M., Helm, C. E., & D'Arcy, S. J. (1993). Computer-assisted testing of reading comprehension: Comparisons among multiple-choice and open-ended scoring methods. In D. Douglas & C. Chappelle (Eds.), A new decade of language testing research (123-131). Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications
18. Hidi, S., & Anderson, V. (1986). Producing written summaries: Task demands, cognitive operations, and implications for instruction. Review of Educational Research, 56, 473-493
19. Jamieson, J. (2005). Trends in computer-based second language assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 228-242
20. Kaiser, H. (1970). A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401-415
21. Kaiser, H. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36
22. Kuckartz, U. (1998). winMAX: Scientific text analysis for the social sciences (Version 98 Pro). Berlin: VERBI Software-Consult-Research GmbH (Germany)
23. O'Sullivan, B., Weir, C. J., & Jin, Y. (2004). Does the computer make a difference? An investigation into the differences between writing on computer and on paper (Report on IELTS research project). London: University of Roehampton
24. Pedhazur, E., & Schmelkin, L. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
25. Penny, J., Johnson, R. L., & Gordon, B. (2000). The effect of rating augmentation on inter-rater reliability: An empirical study of a holistic rubric. Assessing Writing, 7, 143-164
26. Russell, M. (1999). Testing writing on computers: A follow-up study comparing performance on computer and on paper. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7(20). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n20/
27. Russell, M., & Haney, W. (1997). Testing writing on computers: An experiment comparing student performance on tests conducted via computer and via paper-and-pencil. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 5(3). Retrieved from http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v5n3.html
28. Russell, M., & Haney, W. (2000). Bridging the gap between testing and technology in schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(19). Retrieved from http://escholarship.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context= intasc
29. Sawaki, Y. (2001). Comparability of conventional and computerized tests of reading in second language. Language Learning and Technology, 5(2), 38-59
30. Shermis, M. D., & Lombard, D. (1998). Effects of computer-based test administrations on test anxiety and performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 14, 111-123
31. Stevens, J. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
32. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2003). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon
33. Taylor, C., Jamieson, J., & Eignor, D. (2000). Trends in computer use among international students. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 575-585
34. Taylor, C., Kirsch, I., Eignor, D. R., & Jamieson, J. (1999). Examining the relationship between computer familiarity and performance on computer-based language tasks. Language Learning, 49, 219-274
35. Trites, L., & McGroarty, M. (2005). Reading to learn and reading to integrate: New tasks for reading comprehension tests? Language Testing, 22, 174-210
36. van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press
37. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press
38. Young, R., Shermis, M. D., Brutten, S. R., & Perkins, K. (1996). From conventional to computer-adaptive testing of ESL reading comprehension. System, 24, 23-40
39. Yu, G. (2005). Towards a model of using summarization tasks as a measure of reading comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
40. Yu, G. (2007). Students' voices in the evaluation of their written summaries: Empowerment and democracy for test takers? Language Testing, 24, 539-572
41. Yu, G. (2008). Reading to summarize in English and Chinese: A tale of two languages? Language Testing, 25, 521-551
42. Yu, G. (2009). The shifting sands in the effects of source text summarizability on summary writing. Assessing Writing, 14, 116-137