Using different carrots: How incentivization affects proficiency testing outcomes
This study represents program‐level action research. A U.S. university Spanish language program had a goal for students to reach the ACTFL (2012) Intermediate Mid level after 2 years. An empirical question that resulted after regular end‐of‐year testing was whether the students were doing their best...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Foreign language annals 2019-06, Vol.52 (2), p.216-236 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 236 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 216 |
| container_title | Foreign language annals |
| container_volume | 52 |
| creator | Gass, Susan Gorp, Koen Winke, Paula |
| description | This study represents program‐level action research. A U.S. university Spanish language program had a goal for students to reach the ACTFL (2012) Intermediate Mid level after 2 years. An empirical question that resulted after regular end‐of‐year testing was whether the students were doing their best on assessments. To investigate this, 253 end‐of‐second‐year students were divided into two experimental conditions: (a) 95 students received up to 10% of their final grade based on meeting the speaking goal, and (b) 73 students received up to 5% of their grade on the same criterion. Eighty‐five students formed a control group with no grading incentive. All took ACTFL tests in speaking (the Oral Proficiency Interview‐computerized [OPIc]), listening (Listening Proficiency Test), and reading (Reading Proficiency Test). The group whose OPIc score counted for 10% performed significantly higher than other two groups. Females were more positively affected by the incentivization. Programs with language goals should consider incentivized proficiency‐based exit tests to motivate their students (Chalhoub‐Deville, 1997).
The Challenge
Routine proficiency testing offers an important way to monitor a program's learning targets and measure students’ language development. However, it is not clear how seriously students take end‐of‐course assessments. To what extent does adjusting the incentives influence students’ scores? How can students be encouraged to do their best? |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/flan.12389 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2497230549</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ1219866</ericid><sourcerecordid>2497230549</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3599-6ada04ea4ff57573079d3249ad312cfdd2f36c6ca584ce054365b09824f750023</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1LAzEQhoMoWKsX78KCN2FrPjcbb6W0VimKYMFbiNlEUtpNTdKW-utNXfFoLgOZZ54ZXgAuERyg_G7tUrUDhEktjkAPCUpLwTE8Bj0IESs5qt9OwVmMCwihwBz1wMs8uvajaJy1Jpg2FVqF4FO8K6Z-V7hW5z-3dV8qOd8WKlM6xWIdvHXamVbvi2RiOij8Jmm_MvEcnFi1jObit_bBfDJ-HU3L2fP9w2g4KzVhQpSVahSkRlFrGWecQC4agqlQDUFY26bBllS60orVVBvIKKnYOxQ1ppYzCDHpg-vOm4_53OQj5MJvQptXyqzhmOQZkambjtLBxxiMlevgVirsJYLyEJk8RCZ_IsvwVQeb4PQfOH5EGIm6qnIfdf2dW5r9PyY5mQ2fOuc3Oip4Vg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2497230549</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Using different carrots: How incentivization affects proficiency testing outcomes</title><source>Education Source</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Gass, Susan ; Gorp, Koen ; Winke, Paula</creator><creatorcontrib>Gass, Susan ; Gorp, Koen ; Winke, Paula</creatorcontrib><description>This study represents program‐level action research. A U.S. university Spanish language program had a goal for students to reach the ACTFL (2012) Intermediate Mid level after 2 years. An empirical question that resulted after regular end‐of‐year testing was whether the students were doing their best on assessments. To investigate this, 253 end‐of‐second‐year students were divided into two experimental conditions: (a) 95 students received up to 10% of their final grade based on meeting the speaking goal, and (b) 73 students received up to 5% of their grade on the same criterion. Eighty‐five students formed a control group with no grading incentive. All took ACTFL tests in speaking (the Oral Proficiency Interview‐computerized [OPIc]), listening (Listening Proficiency Test), and reading (Reading Proficiency Test). The group whose OPIc score counted for 10% performed significantly higher than other two groups. Females were more positively affected by the incentivization. Programs with language goals should consider incentivized proficiency‐based exit tests to motivate their students (Chalhoub‐Deville, 1997).
The Challenge
Routine proficiency testing offers an important way to monitor a program's learning targets and measure students’ language development. However, it is not clear how seriously students take end‐of‐course assessments. To what extent does adjusting the incentives influence students’ scores? How can students be encouraged to do their best?</description><identifier>ISSN: 0015-718X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1944-9720</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/flan.12389</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Alexandria: Wiley-Blackwell</publisher><subject>ACTFL proficiency levels ; Action Research ; College Second Language Programs ; Computer Assisted Testing ; Control Groups ; Course Content ; Exit Examinations ; gender ; Gender Differences ; Grades (Scholastic) ; Incentives ; Language Proficiency ; Language Tests ; motivation ; Oral Language ; proficiency‐based teaching ; Rating Scales ; Reading Tests ; Scores ; Second Language Instruction ; Second Language Learning ; Spanish ; Standardized Tests ; Student Motivation ; Undergraduate Students</subject><ispartof>Foreign language annals, 2019-06, Vol.52 (2), p.216-236</ispartof><rights>2019 American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages</rights><rights>Copyright American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages Summer 2019</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3599-6ada04ea4ff57573079d3249ad312cfdd2f36c6ca584ce054365b09824f750023</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3599-6ada04ea4ff57573079d3249ad312cfdd2f36c6ca584ce054365b09824f750023</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-5222-3319 ; 0000-0002-8169-650X ; 0000-0002-2033-3852</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fflan.12389$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fflan.12389$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ1219866$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gass, Susan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gorp, Koen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Winke, Paula</creatorcontrib><title>Using different carrots: How incentivization affects proficiency testing outcomes</title><title>Foreign language annals</title><description>This study represents program‐level action research. A U.S. university Spanish language program had a goal for students to reach the ACTFL (2012) Intermediate Mid level after 2 years. An empirical question that resulted after regular end‐of‐year testing was whether the students were doing their best on assessments. To investigate this, 253 end‐of‐second‐year students were divided into two experimental conditions: (a) 95 students received up to 10% of their final grade based on meeting the speaking goal, and (b) 73 students received up to 5% of their grade on the same criterion. Eighty‐five students formed a control group with no grading incentive. All took ACTFL tests in speaking (the Oral Proficiency Interview‐computerized [OPIc]), listening (Listening Proficiency Test), and reading (Reading Proficiency Test). The group whose OPIc score counted for 10% performed significantly higher than other two groups. Females were more positively affected by the incentivization. Programs with language goals should consider incentivized proficiency‐based exit tests to motivate their students (Chalhoub‐Deville, 1997).
The Challenge
Routine proficiency testing offers an important way to monitor a program's learning targets and measure students’ language development. However, it is not clear how seriously students take end‐of‐course assessments. To what extent does adjusting the incentives influence students’ scores? How can students be encouraged to do their best?</description><subject>ACTFL proficiency levels</subject><subject>Action Research</subject><subject>College Second Language Programs</subject><subject>Computer Assisted Testing</subject><subject>Control Groups</subject><subject>Course Content</subject><subject>Exit Examinations</subject><subject>gender</subject><subject>Gender Differences</subject><subject>Grades (Scholastic)</subject><subject>Incentives</subject><subject>Language Proficiency</subject><subject>Language Tests</subject><subject>motivation</subject><subject>Oral Language</subject><subject>proficiency‐based teaching</subject><subject>Rating Scales</subject><subject>Reading Tests</subject><subject>Scores</subject><subject>Second Language Instruction</subject><subject>Second Language Learning</subject><subject>Spanish</subject><subject>Standardized Tests</subject><subject>Student Motivation</subject><subject>Undergraduate Students</subject><issn>0015-718X</issn><issn>1944-9720</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1LAzEQhoMoWKsX78KCN2FrPjcbb6W0VimKYMFbiNlEUtpNTdKW-utNXfFoLgOZZ54ZXgAuERyg_G7tUrUDhEktjkAPCUpLwTE8Bj0IESs5qt9OwVmMCwihwBz1wMs8uvajaJy1Jpg2FVqF4FO8K6Z-V7hW5z-3dV8qOd8WKlM6xWIdvHXamVbvi2RiOij8Jmm_MvEcnFi1jObit_bBfDJ-HU3L2fP9w2g4KzVhQpSVahSkRlFrGWecQC4agqlQDUFY26bBllS60orVVBvIKKnYOxQ1ppYzCDHpg-vOm4_53OQj5MJvQptXyqzhmOQZkambjtLBxxiMlevgVirsJYLyEJk8RCZ_IsvwVQeb4PQfOH5EGIm6qnIfdf2dW5r9PyY5mQ2fOuc3Oip4Vg</recordid><startdate>20190601</startdate><enddate>20190601</enddate><creator>Gass, Susan</creator><creator>Gorp, Koen</creator><creator>Winke, Paula</creator><general>Wiley-Blackwell</general><general>American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7T9</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AIMQZ</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>CPGLG</scope><scope>CRLPW</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>LIQON</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PHGZM</scope><scope>PHGZT</scope><scope>PKEHL</scope><scope>PMKZF</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PRQQA</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5222-3319</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8169-650X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2033-3852</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20190601</creationdate><title>Using different carrots: How incentivization affects proficiency testing outcomes</title><author>Gass, Susan ; Gorp, Koen ; Winke, Paula</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3599-6ada04ea4ff57573079d3249ad312cfdd2f36c6ca584ce054365b09824f750023</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>ACTFL proficiency levels</topic><topic>Action Research</topic><topic>College Second Language Programs</topic><topic>Computer Assisted Testing</topic><topic>Control Groups</topic><topic>Course Content</topic><topic>Exit Examinations</topic><topic>gender</topic><topic>Gender Differences</topic><topic>Grades (Scholastic)</topic><topic>Incentives</topic><topic>Language Proficiency</topic><topic>Language Tests</topic><topic>motivation</topic><topic>Oral Language</topic><topic>proficiency‐based teaching</topic><topic>Rating Scales</topic><topic>Reading Tests</topic><topic>Scores</topic><topic>Second Language Instruction</topic><topic>Second Language Learning</topic><topic>Spanish</topic><topic>Standardized Tests</topic><topic>Student Motivation</topic><topic>Undergraduate Students</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gass, Susan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gorp, Koen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Winke, Paula</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest One Literature</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>Linguistics Collection</collection><collection>Linguistics Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest One Literature - U.S. Customers Only</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest Digital Collections</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Foreign language annals</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gass, Susan</au><au>Gorp, Koen</au><au>Winke, Paula</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ1219866</ericid><atitle>Using different carrots: How incentivization affects proficiency testing outcomes</atitle><jtitle>Foreign language annals</jtitle><date>2019-06-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>52</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>216</spage><epage>236</epage><pages>216-236</pages><issn>0015-718X</issn><eissn>1944-9720</eissn><abstract>This study represents program‐level action research. A U.S. university Spanish language program had a goal for students to reach the ACTFL (2012) Intermediate Mid level after 2 years. An empirical question that resulted after regular end‐of‐year testing was whether the students were doing their best on assessments. To investigate this, 253 end‐of‐second‐year students were divided into two experimental conditions: (a) 95 students received up to 10% of their final grade based on meeting the speaking goal, and (b) 73 students received up to 5% of their grade on the same criterion. Eighty‐five students formed a control group with no grading incentive. All took ACTFL tests in speaking (the Oral Proficiency Interview‐computerized [OPIc]), listening (Listening Proficiency Test), and reading (Reading Proficiency Test). The group whose OPIc score counted for 10% performed significantly higher than other two groups. Females were more positively affected by the incentivization. Programs with language goals should consider incentivized proficiency‐based exit tests to motivate their students (Chalhoub‐Deville, 1997).
The Challenge
Routine proficiency testing offers an important way to monitor a program's learning targets and measure students’ language development. However, it is not clear how seriously students take end‐of‐course assessments. To what extent does adjusting the incentives influence students’ scores? How can students be encouraged to do their best?</abstract><cop>Alexandria</cop><pub>Wiley-Blackwell</pub><doi>10.1111/flan.12389</doi><tpages>21</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5222-3319</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8169-650X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2033-3852</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0015-718X |
| ispartof | Foreign language annals, 2019-06, Vol.52 (2), p.216-236 |
| issn | 0015-718X 1944-9720 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2497230549 |
| source | Education Source; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | ACTFL proficiency levels Action Research College Second Language Programs Computer Assisted Testing Control Groups Course Content Exit Examinations gender Gender Differences Grades (Scholastic) Incentives Language Proficiency Language Tests motivation Oral Language proficiency‐based teaching Rating Scales Reading Tests Scores Second Language Instruction Second Language Learning Spanish Standardized Tests Student Motivation Undergraduate Students |
| title | Using different carrots: How incentivization affects proficiency testing outcomes |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-19T02%3A59%3A26IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Using%20different%20carrots:%20How%20incentivization%20affects%20proficiency%20testing%20outcomes&rft.jtitle=Foreign%20language%20annals&rft.au=Gass,%20Susan&rft.date=2019-06-01&rft.volume=52&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=216&rft.epage=236&rft.pages=216-236&rft.issn=0015-718X&rft.eissn=1944-9720&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/flan.12389&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2497230549%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2497230549&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ1219866&rfr_iscdi=true |