Second Language Acquisition related to testing model in Finland, and its implications for designing future technology for innovative testing generations to come.

1. SLA RESEARCH,
READING, AND TESTING
WITH ALEX TEMPLETON

2. OVERVIEW
• Leading Questions J. Charles Alderson, Ph.D.
Lancaster University. Professor of
• Summary/Foci Linguistics and English Language
• Study Education. Center for Research in
Language Education (link)
• Methods
Ari Huhta, Lic.Ph. (Ph.D. in Pedagogy)
• Results University of Jyväskylä. Researcher in
• Limitations Language Assessment. Center for
Applied Linguistics (link)
• Implications
• Relevance Can research into the diagnostic
testing of reading in a second or
• Concerns (So what?) foreign language contribute to SLA
research? EUROSLA Yearbook 11
(2011). John Benjamins Publishing
Company. (link)

3. LEADING QUESTIONS
My Questions Article Questions
• Why is English generally • How can SLA theory
taught in Asian countries
towards performing on and language testing
tests? contribute to each
• Why are Hispanic ELL’s other?
(among many others) in
America not generally • Can research into the
taught English for tests? diagnostic testing of
• Are those tests even reading in a S/FL
congruent with what is contribute to SLA
taught internationally?
• Are those tests based on research?
SLA theory and/or practice?

4. ARTICLE SUMMARY
• Hypotheses
• In theory, SLA should:
• Offer insights into the construct of reading in S/FL
• Testing should be able to base diagnostic tests of S/FL
READING on those insights
• In practice, SLA does not clearly do this, so:
• Examine the potential synergy between SLA and FL testing
• Report on progress of 3 interrelated projects into S/FL
Reading

5. Theory
FOCUS: TESTING
To better understand
language development
in specific skill areas to:
Design Pedagogy
Develop suitable and
truly diagnostic tests;
To identify and define
constructs in SLA for
basis test design.
Testing Assessment

6. FOCUS: TESTING
•Readiness for •To place learner
Problems with given target
situation w/o
at suitable level
within a given
misuse of curriculum ref. language
curriculum
diagnostic
tests:
No Proficiency Placement
Testing Testing
individualized
feedback on
problem areas
Do not address
full range of Progress Achievement
Testing Testing
potential
Or causes of •Assess how much •Assess how much
problems in a student has a student has
learned during or learned during or
learning at the end of a at the end of a
given curriculum given curriculum
language

7. FOCUS: READING PROFICIENCY
• Is reading in a foreign
language a reading
problem or a
language problem? Motivation Age
• Authors say the Language
orthography
Cognitive
variables
evidence suggests it
as a language
Background Vocabulary
knowledge Size
problem Transfer of
• Authors claim L1-
Nature of reading Syntax
text from L1 to
the S/FL
reading-theory
ignores this

8. FOCUS: CLAIMS
• Authors claim little is
known about:
• How S/FL reading
develops
• How to identify strengths
and weaknesses
• Which abilities contribute
most to the development
of overall S/FL reading
performance
• How teachers can best
facilitate reading abilities

9. METHODOLOGY: PREPARATION
• Author’s Lit. review on SLA in reading:
• Baddeley and de Jong’s (2006) Executive Control model
(p. 34) [Cognitive-information processing]
• Alderson’s (2000) Situation Model of Reader
Interpretation (p. 35)[Cognitive-connectionism]
• Just and Carpenter’s (1992) Capacity Constrained
Reader Model (p. 36) [Cognitive-ACT]
• Stanovich’s (2000) Interactive Compensatory Model (p.
36) [Input-interaction]
• Chen and Vellutino’s (1997) Simple View of Reading (p.
36) and Carver’s (2000) Rauding Model (pp. 36-37)
[Input-Interaction]
• REFUTE Goodman’s (1967,1996) Psycholinguistic Guessing
Game (p. 37)

10. METHODOLOGY: STUDY
• Three interrelated research projects analyzing three
instruments, all on going, and all being compared to
each other:
• Project 1 Test- Reading in the language instruction in PISA
(Programme for International Student Assessment)
• Project 2 Test – Reading in L2 in the Pearson Tests of English
Academic and General
• Project 1 & 2 addressed the same research questions with the
same test item analyses methodologies
• Project 3 Test – Reading and Writing in S/FL in Finland
(DIALUKI)
• Studied reading and possible causes of reading problems in L1
and S/FL, cross-sectional and longitudinal, with three different
age groups of S/FL learners.

11. PROJECT 1 STUDY
• Project 1- Reading and Language Instruction in PISA
investigates reading in the language of instruction –
usually L1 (achievement)
• Asked, “what makes reading items in the PISA tests
difficult”? (p. 40)
• 1) To investigate the project in itself for validity
• 2) 10 variables as potential predictors of item or task difficulty
• 3) Survey of a test of 100 items given to experts
• 4) Participants – 4 expert evaluators ranked each test item on
a liker scale according to variables
• 5) Ratings of variables refined over a number of sessions
• 6) Ratings of variables were compared to item difficulty values
• 7) Ratings discussed, ratings of items adjusted in meetings

12. PROJECT 2 STUDY
• Project 2 Test – Reading in L2 in the Pearson Tests of
English Academic and General investigates reading
in a S/FL (proficiency)
• Like TOEFL, designed to identify those students who
are likely to be able to study successfully in English-
medium Universities
• Same research questions as Project 1
• Same methods used in Project 1
• 5 experts
• Bayesian LLTM+e analysis
• Eye-tracking equipment!

13. PROJECT 3 STUDY
• DIALUKI – Finnish means “Diagnosing reading and
writing” in a second or foreign language (p. 45)
• Can diagnostic measures of L1 reading and writing predict
difficulties in S/FL reading and writing?
• How does S/FL proficiency in reading and writing develop in
psycholinguistic and linguistic terms?
• Which features or combinations of features characterize
different CEFR (Common European Framework for Languages)
proficiency levels?
• Language Testers, applied linguists, and psychologists
• 3 phases over 2 years (2010-2012)
• Main groups were Finnish learners of English, and
immigrants learning Finnish in Finland.

14. PROJECT 3 (CONT.)
• All three [phases] aim to develop diagnostic tools and
procedures for second and foreign language reading
and writing that:
• can assess the strengths and weaknesses in learners' current
proficiency and,
• make valid predictions about the rate, quality, sequence and
ultimate level of attainment of their learning.
• Phase 1 (2010 to 2011) – to select the best predictors for
further study
• Phase 2 (2011) – examines reading training in reading-
related skills through computerized learning games (used
for treating dyslexia)
• Phase 3 (2011 to 2012) – development of literacy skills
and the relationship to diagnostic measures

15. RESULTS
SLA Researchers Test Developers
• Driven by theory and • Driven by measurement and
pedagogy that is vastly performance
evolving • Interested in assessing stable
• Need to improve designing language ability
tests with validity and • Performance across test
reliability measures task facets would benefit
• More research on variability SLA
of S/FL performance in • Diagnostics in S/FL reading
assessment measures could widen scope of SLA
• Refer to reading and research
comprehension processes in • Hope to set agenda for SLA
language testing lit. research into S/FL reading,
offering set research Q’s
and methods

16. LIMITATIONS
• Diagnosis & diagnostic testing definition?
• Small =N for Projects 1 & 2
• Regional
• Participant experts
• Research design Bias
• 1st author was principle investigator of all three projects, 2nd
author for Project 3
• Arguably, Project 3 says more about cognitive
constructs than it does about S/FL reading
constructs (p. 49)

17. LIMITATIONS
• Claim pedagogy & theory change in “week’s time”
• (Hypocrisy)
• Advocate synergy: reactive, not proactive
• “We have not incorporated specific aptitude measures into
research to date" (pg. 50).
• Respective progress in both fields, please.

18. RELEVANCE TO TEXT
• Mitchell and Myles (2004) agree that there is more empirical
evidence needed about transfer and interlanguage
development.
• Alderson and Huhta (2011) address a possible “threshold of
S/FLA proficiency found beyond reading ability transferable
from the L1 to reading in the L2, and that this varies with the
relevance of S/FL reader’s background knowledge, the nature
of the text, and so on” (p. 38).
• Alderson and Huhta (2011) are hopeful that synergies of
theory-driven testing will emerge out of their research question
(p. 49).
• Alderson and Huhta (2011) and Mitchell and Myles, all agree
about the complexity that the author’s present about
language learning, “it is very difficult to predict in SLA what
makes people learn faster and better than others, and
involves other factors and variables”, (p. 38).

19. CONCERNS (SO WHAT?)
• Researchers, test-makers, and practitioners all need to
communicate via congruent and agreeable theorem
• Communicative trends in pedagogy require communicative
testing assessment
• Tests can provide evidence for program/dept. support for you,
your students, and your colleagues
• More support provides more accessible testing materials to
launch ESL/EFL students into workforce and colleges
• Theory always connects to pedagogy, and we should always be
able to articulate it to those who will be testing our students
• Think about where you want to teach, how much will testing
guide or control your pedagogy?
• Don’t repeat the flaws of standardized testing in public American
education
• Know how to properly assess students based on supported
theory, if you don’t like the tests that are out there!

20. THANK YOU!
ANY QUESTIONS?