Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36818077›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023

From self-regulated learning to computer-delivered integrated speaking testing: Does monitoring always monitor?

Weiwei Zhang, Aaron Wilson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Weiwei ZhangSchool of Foreign Languages and International Education, Quzhou University, Quzhou, China.
Aaron WilsonSchool of Curriculum and Pedagogy, Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the salience of monitoring in self-regulated learning (SRL) and foreign and/or second language (L2) speech production in non-testing conditions, little is known about the metacognitive construct in testing contexts and its effects on learner performance. Given the reciprocal effects between L2 testing and L2 learning, a research effort in monitoring working in speaking tests, in particular computer-delivered integrated speaking tests, a testing format that has been advocated as an internal part of L2 classroom instruction and represents the future direction of L2 testing, is warranted. This study, therefore, serves as such an effort through investigating the use of monitoring by 95 Chinese English as foreign language (EFL) learners on a self-reported questionnaire after they performed three computer-delivered integrated speaking test tasks. Descriptive analysis followed by Hierarchical Linear Modelling (HLM) testing reveals that monitoring was used in a high-frequency manner, but it exerted no substantial effects on learner performance. Primarily, the results are expected to provide pedagogical implications for SRL: while fostering self-regulating learners, especially self-monitoring L2 speakers, it is necessary for L2 teachers to purposefully reduplicate testing conditions in their classroom instructions for helping the self-regulating learners be equally self-regulating test-takers. Moreover, the results are hoped to offer some insights into L2 testing through the perspective of self-monitoring, one proposed component of strategic competence, a construct that has been extensively acknowledged to reflect the essence of L2 testing.

Indexed as

computer-delivered integrated speaking testingL2 learnersself-monitoringself-regulated learningspeech production

Identifiers

PMID36818077
PMCPMC9928721

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.