Background and Foundational Research for the Revision of the TEPS

Jun, Heesung; Kwon, Heokseung; Song, Mi-Jeong; Park, Chanho; Lee, Youngmi; Lee, Yong-Won

doi:10.30961/lr.2019.55.S.17

Lang. Res. 55(S):17-36

pISSN: 0254-4474, eISSN: 2586-7113

DOI: https://doi.org/10.30961/lr.2019.55.S.17

Linguistics

TEPS의 개정 배경과 기초연구

전희성¹^,^†, 권혁승¹, 송미정¹, 박찬호², 이영미¹, 이용원¹

Background and Foundational Research for the Revision of the TEPS

Heesung Jun¹^,^†, Heokseung Kwon¹, Mi-Jeong Song¹, Chanho Park², Youngmi Lee¹, Yong-Won Lee¹

Author Information & Copyright ▼

¹서울대학교

²계명대학교

¹Seoul National University

²Keimyung University

^†Corresponding Author : hsjun@snu.ac.kr

^* 본 논문은 개정 TEPS 연구보고서(Kwon et al., 2018)의 한 장을 수정⋅보완한 논문임을 밝힘.

ⓒ Copyright 2018 Language Education Institute, Seoul National University. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Published Online: Nov 01, 2019

ABSTRACT

Since the first administration of the TEPS in 1999, there have been many important changes in the field of language teaching and assessment. The emergence of new information and communication technology has drastically changed the ways we communicate. This has made it necessary to re-conceptualize the construct of English language proficiency. To respond to such needs and to TEPS test takers’ feedback that had accumulated for more than 15 years, a series of research projects was undertaken to revise the TEPS during the years of 2016-2018. Major changes included a reduction in the number of items and testing time and the addition of new item types (e.g., testlets) and more authentic passage formats (e.g., e-mails, instant messages, online newspaper articles). This paper introduces the background to how the decision to revise the TEPS came to be made and describes the rationale behind the revision of the TEPS test blueprint and specification.

Keywords: revised TEPS; test revision; needs analysis; theoretical justification

References

Ackerman, P. L., & Kanfer, R. (2009). Test length and cognitive fatigue: An empirical examination of effects on performance and test-taker reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15(2), 163-181 .

Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press .

Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. (2010). Language assessment in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press .

Bell, R., & Lumsden, J. (1980). Test length and validity. Applied Psychological Measurement 4.2, 165-170 .

Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (1988). Vocabulary and language teaching. Essex: Longman .

Chapelle, C. A., Enright, M. K., & Jamieson, J. M. (Eds.) (2008). Building a validity argument for the Test of English as a Foreign LanguageTM. New York: Routledge .

Choi, I.-C. (1997). Essential test method facets of a general English proficiency test and their validity as perceived by test-takers. Language Research, 33(4), 773-799 .

Choi, I.-C. (1999) Test fairness and validity of the TEPS. Language Research, 35(4), 571-603 .

Choi, I.-C. (2008). Review of new TEPS development (Research Report No. 52). Seoul: SNU Language Education Institute .

10.

Choi, I.-C., Son, C. Y., & Ahn, J. (2008). Development of table of specifications for the new TEPS (Research Report No. 55). Seoul: SNU Language Education Institute .

11.

Choi, M. S. (2011). Analysis of the factors affecting passage dependency of multiple-choice English reading comprehension tests (Unpublished master's thesis). Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Republic of Korea .

12.

Davis, J., & Ferdous, A. (2005). Using item difficulty and item position to measure test fatigue. Retrieved from http://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/AERA2005Test_Fatigue11_0.pdf .

13.

GMAC. (2017). Select Section Order & Removal of Test Center Profile Update. Frequently Asked Questions around the 2017 GMAT Release. Retried from https://www.gmac.com/frequently-asked-questions/gmat-select-section-order.aspx .

14.

Hambleton, R. K., & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: Principles and applications. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff .

15.

Jun, Y. C., Ryu, D.-S., Park, Y. J., Lee, Y., Shin, S.-H., Jun, H. . . . Byun, J. (2014). Research for the development of TEPS 2.0 (Research Report No. 77). Seoul: SNU Language Education Institute .

16.

Kane, M. T. (1992). An argument-based approach to validity. Psychological Bulletin, 112(3), 527-535 .

17.

Kane, M. T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 1-73 .

18.

KELTA. (2018). A study on the compatibility and score conversion between the revised TEPS and other certified language proficiency tests. Seoul: KELTA .

19.

Kim, J. Y. (2016a). Reliability and test length (internal document). Seoul: TEPS Center, Language Education Institute, Seoul National University .

20.

Kim, J. Y. (2016b). Test length and score scale (internal document). Seoul: TEPS Center, Language Education Institute, Seoul National University .

21.

Kim, J. Y., & Jun, H. (2017). An investigation of local item dependence in testlets and its causes in a large-scale English proficiency test. Journal of Educational Evaluation, 30(4), 837-858 .

22.

Kim, M.-W., Jeong, S., Kim, J.-W., Lee, Y.-W., Lee, Y., Shin, S.-H. . . . Lee, G. (2012) .

23.

Basic research for a complete revision of the regular TEPS (Research Report No. 73). Seoul: SNU Language Education Institute .

24.

Kwon, H., Lee, Y.-W., Lee, Y., Park, Y.-J., Kim, J., Jun, H. . . . Park, H. (2018) .

25.

Development and validation of a pilot test form for the revised TEPS (Research Report No. 80). Seoul: SNU Language Education Institute .

26.

Lee, B., Kim, C., Park, Y. J., So, Y.-S., Lee, Y., & Jun, H. (2016). Verification of preparation for New TEPS (Research Report No. 79). Seoul: SNU Language Education Institute .

27.

Lee, B., Lee, Y.-J., & Jun, H. (2016a). Evidence supporting a validity argument for an English listening comprehension test: Two prototyping studies. The Mirae Journal of English Language and Literature, 21(4), 311-342 .

28.

Lee, B., Lee, Y.-J., & Jun, H. (2016b). The validity of the new item types of the listening section of an English proficiency test. Secondary English Education, 9(4), 141-165 .

29.

Lee, B., Park, Y. J., So, Y.-S., Lee, Y.-J., Kim, C., Jun, H. . . . Yeom, S. (2015). The development of New TEPS (Research Report No. 78). Seoul: SNU Language Education Institute .

30.

Lee, Y.-W., Anderson, P., Son, C. Y., Bong, J. S., Ahn, J., Park, M. K. . . . Ahn, H. (2009). Research on the production, administration, and analysis of an i-TEPS pilot test and preparation for test operationalization (Research Report No. 57). Seoul: SNU Language Education Institute .

31.

Lee, Y.-W., Kim, S., & Moon, Y. (2008). A preliminary psychometric investigation into optimal scenarios of section structure restructuring for New TEPS (Research Report No. 49). Seoul: SNU Language Education Institute .

32.

Lee, Y., Lee, J., Kim, J., Lee, C., & Lee, H. (2008). Branding and marketing strategies for the TEPS (internal document). Seoul: TEPS Council, Seoul National University Foundation .

33.

Lewis, M. (1993). The Lexical Approach: The state of ELT and a way forward. Hove, UK: Language Teaching Publications .

34.

Lord, R. G. (1985). An information processing approach to social perceptions, leadership and behavioral measurement in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 87-128 .

35.

Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Oxford: Information Age Publishing .

36.

Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp.13-104). New York, NY: American Council on Education and Macmillan .

37.

Multicampus. (2017a). Analysis of the New TEPS and feedback (internal document). Seoul: Multicampus Co. Ltd .

38.

Multicampus. (2017b). Feedback from sales representatives on the previous TEPS (internal document). Seoul: Multicampus Co. Ltd .

39.

Muncie, J. (2002). Finding a place for grammar in EFL composition classes. ELT Journal, 56(2), 180-186 .

40.

Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers .

41.

Nation, I. S. P. (2011). Vocabulary research into practice. Language Teaching, 44(4), 529-539 .

42.

Oller, J. W. Jr. (1995). Review of content and construct validation of a criterion-referenced English proficiency test. English Teaching, 50(3), 161-168 .

43.

Ryu, D.-S., Park, Y.-Y., Kwon, H.-S., Song, M.-J., Min, E.-K., Ahn, J. . . . Jin, D. (2006a). Reforming TEPS (Research Repot No. 45). Seoul: SNU Language Education Institute .

44.

Song, M.-J., Park, Y.-Y., Shin, S.-K., & Jin, D. (2007). Research for the development of a new TEPS (Research Report No. 48). Seoul: SNU Language Education Institute .

45.

TEPS Council. (2012). External feedback on the format and difficulty of the TEPS (internal document). Seoul: TEPS Council, Seoul National University Foundation .

46.

Yi, Y.-S. (2013b). On the optimal text length of reading comprehension tests. The Jungang Journal of English Language and Literature, 55(4) 505-530 .