Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 32

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Innovative assessment of aviation English in a virtual world: Windows into cognitive and metacognitive strategies

Park, Moonyoung·2018·ReCALL

Abstract

Aviation English proficiency is a core competency in the global air traffic controller profession. There is, however, growing concern about the current ineffective paper-based assessment methods and the severe lack of interactive online testing for such a critical profession, one that should be ideally assessed in an authentic task and situation (Alderson, 2010; Douglas, 2013). The tests, which lack validity and authenticity, cannot capture how knowledge of aviation English communication and strategic competence are used through valid means and, therefore, inevitably fail to predict how test takers actually perform in the target language use situations (Douglas, 2000). In the present study, the researcher examines the potential use of verbal report data produced by test takers interacting in a virtual testing environment. The research seeks to answer two specific questions: (a) What types of strategies are used in the virtual aviation English task performance? and (b) How can the assessed strategies be interpreted in relation to test takers’ performance? The analysis of the test takers’ verbal reports from stimulated recalls indicates that various cognitive, metacognitive, and communication strategies were used while performing the Virtual Interactive Tasks for Aviation English Assessment, and that there is a positive relationship between the total number of cognitive and metacognitive strategies adopted and the test scores. The findings suggest that the use of an immersive interface and simulated tasks in a virtual world could provide language learners with more authentic opportunities to perform the target tasks and promote strategic, as well as linguistic, competence.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0958344017000362

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 45

  1. 10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.020 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1177/0265532209347196 · doi:10.1177/0265532209347196
  3. 10.1017/S0267190509090138 · doi:10.1017/s0267190509090138
  4. 10.1007/s11423-012-9259-0 · DOI
  5. Sadler, 2012, Virtual worlds: An overview and pedagogical examination, Bellaterra Journal of Teaching and Learning Language and Literature, 5, 1, 10.5565/rev/jtl3.456 · doi:10.5565/rev/jtl3.456
  6. Purpura, 1999, Learner strategy use and performance on language tests: A structural equation modeling approach
  7. 10.1017/S0958344011000279 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.2104/aral0927 · doi:10.2104/aral0927
  9. Paltridge, 2015, Research methods in applied linguistics: A practical resource
  10. Alderson, 1995, Language test construction and evaluation
  11. 10.1017/CBO9780511667299.002 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1016/j.protcy.2014.02.004 · doi:10.1016/j.protcy.2014.02.004
  13. 10.1080/15391523.2010.10782553 · DOI
  14. Khalsa, 2007, CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical, 19
  15. 10.1177/026553220101800204 · doi:10.1177/026553220101800204
  16. Swier, 2014, Tasks for easily modifiable virtual environments, The JALT CALL Journal, 10, 203, 10.29140/jaltcall.v10n3.176 · DOI
  17. Chapelle, 1998, Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research, 32
  18. 10.1111/0023-8333.51997005 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Creswell, 2007, Designing and conducting mixed methods research
  20. Bachman, 1996, Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests
  21. Bachman, 2010, Language assessment in practice: Developing language assessments and justifying their use in the real world
  22. Sadler, 2011, Virtual Worlds for language learning: From theory to practice
  23. Douglas, 2013, The handbook of English for specific purposes, 367
  24. 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.07.001 · DOI
  25. 10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.046 · DOI
  26. 10.1017/S0958344016000185 · DOI
  27. 10.14742/ajet.283 · DOI
  28. 10.21236/ADA596660 · doi:10.21236/ada596660
  29. 10.2307/3586733 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Can, 2015, The use of 3D virtual learning environments in training foreign language pre-service teachers, Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 16, 114
  31. Holliday, 2007, CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues, 163
  32. Douglas, 2000, Assessing languages for specific purposes
  33. 10.1017/S0958344012000274 · DOI
  34. 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00948.x · DOI
  35. Chapelle, 2005, CALL research perspectives, 53
  36. 10.1017/CBO9780511486999 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Abdallah, 2015, Virtual task-based situated language-learning with Second Life: Developing EFL pragmatic writing and technological self-efficacy. Arab World English, Journal, 2, 150
  38. Cushing, 1994, Fatal words: Communication clashes and aircraft crashes
  39. Lai, 2011, Metacognition: A literature review: Research report
  40. Messick, 1989, Educational measurement, 13
  41. 10.1177/1469787415616730 · DOI · Paper page
  42. 10.1177/026553228500200105 · doi:10.1177/026553228500200105
  43. 10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.2p.27 · doi:10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.2p.27
  44. 10.1111/j.0883-2919.2004.00368.x · DOI
  45. Zokić, 2012, Say again, International Journal of Education and Information Technologies, 6, 363

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Park, M.
Venue
ReCALL
Published
2018-01-24
Volume
30
Issue
2
Pages
196-213
ISSN
  • 0958-3440
  • 1474-0109
Cited by
32
References
2
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.