Elicited Imitation: A Test for All Learners?

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.

A closer look at a marginalized test method: Self-assessment as a measure of speaking proficiency

“…For proficiency assessment, the assessment should, Gaillard and Tremblay noted, also be “sufficiently global” so it does not assess the same construct as the L2-learning construct under investigation (p. 420). Three proficiency test formats that have been put forward as meeting such requirements for SLA research have been cloze testing (Tremblay, 2011), C-testing (Eckes & Grotjahn, 2006; Norris, 2018), and elicited imitation testing (Deygers, 2020; Erlam, 2006; Gaillard & Tremblay, 2016; Yan et al, 2016). But what these functionally measure, and the appropriateness of the assessments in measurement, have been long debated due to the abstract and nonauthentic nature of the assessments (Grothjahn et al, 2002; Kim et al, 2016; Spada et al, 2015; Winke et al, in press).…”

“…We are interested in self-assessment of second language (L2) oral proficiency at the college level because we suspect that self-assessment can be valid as an external measure of oral proficiency within second language acquisition (SLA) research studies and as a measure of oral proficiency achievement or growth for students at different curricular levels within college-level language programs. As we have found as educators, self-assessments are inexpensive when compared to standardized tests, and have test-taking processes that appear to make great intuitive sense to students, especially when compared to other assessments that have been suggested as valid for measuring proficiency within SLA research, such as cloze tests (Tremblay, 2011), C-tests (Eckes & Grotjahn, 2006; Norris, 2018), or elicited imitation tests (e.g., Deygers, 2020; Erlam, 2006; Gaillard & Tremblay, 2016; Yan et al, 2016). With this article, we seek to validate a particular L2 speaking self-assessment for measuring college-language learners’ proficiency, with the understanding that test validation means to “seek evidence for the construct meaning of the test score” (Chapelle, 2021, p. 12).…”

Second Language Implicit and Explicit Knowledge as Indicator of Language Proficiency and Predictor of Working Memory

“…Elicited imitation is a task that is adopted to gauge language learners' proficiency and their implicit knowledge of grammar (Deygers, 2020). An elicited imitation task entails test takers to replicate orally as accurately as possible a set of verbal utterances that steadily increase in length (Erlam, 2009).…”

“…As a result, the EI tasks can be perceived as a valid and reliable instrument to detect the test takers implicit language proficiency in the target language. This viewpoint has received substantial empirical and theoretical support (e.g., Deygers, 2020;Kim et al, 2016); Lei & Yan, 2022;McManus & Liu;2022;Park et al, 2020;Wu & Ortega, 2013) promoting EI as a quick and sufficient measurement of L2 learners' implicit knowledge which is an indicator of language proficiency and development of their interlanguage.…”

Gauging the impact of literacy and educational background on receptive vocabulary test scores

“…Indeed, the way in which low literates process oral language is more in line with their reading age than with their actual age (Eme et al, 2014;Kurvers, 2015). Low literacy also negatively impacts processing speed and verbal short-term memory (Deygers, 2020;Huettig, 2015;Huettig & Mishra, 2014), when controlling for educational background (Kosmidis et al, 2011).…”