WEBQUESTS: HOW DO STUDENTS APPROACH THEIR INTEGRATION IN THE FOREIGN LANGUAGE CLASSROOM?
By Ma Victoria Fernández
Universidade de Vigo
Ourense, Spain
victoria(at)uvigo(dot)es

Abstract
A good starting point for the foreign language teacher, bearing in mind the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS), based on “learning” and “student focused”, would be to think of the possibility of redesigning his teaching/learning environment so as to include, besides face-to-face sessions, the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). This pilot study assesses the attitude of 22 tertiary students towards the integration of ICT, namely WebQuests, in the English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classroom.

1. Introduction
Through the “hybrid/blended learning (B-learning)” or “blended e-learning” approach, teachers and students will combine online with face-to-face activities to reach the stated objectives. This approach does not exclude in any way the possibility of combining face-to-face practice with virtuality in the same physical space. The ideal situation is, according to our point of view, the one in which ICT teaching and teaching without ICT can be combined in the same physical space of the classroom (Hinkelman, 2004).
In those cases in which the EFL teacher has technology at his disposal, it is his personal decision (as for the time being) to integrate it or not into his teaching practice. In this article we will refer to a tertiary context in which students have access to a multimedia computer lab with Internet connection.

2. Literature review
A WebQuest can be defined as an interactive learning exercise in which students have to use several Internet resources. According to Martin (1999, p.1), WebQuests are “the most structured, accessible, and promising application of constructivist thought in the field of online education”. The model was developed in early 1995 at San Diego State University by Bernie Dodge with Tom March.
Bernie Dodge, in the WebQuest Page, defines a WebQuest as “an inquiry-oriented activity in which most or all of the information used by learners is drawn from the Web. WebQuests are designed to use learners' time well, to focus on using information rather than looking for it, and to support learners' thinking at the levels of analysis, synthesis and evaluation.” March (2003), on the other hand, defines a WebQuest as “a scaffolded learning structure that uses links to essential resources on the World Wide Web and an authentic task to motivate students' investigation of a central, open-ended question, development of individual expertise and participation in a final group process that attempts to transform newly acquired information into a more sophisticated understanding. The best WebQuests do this in a way that inspires students to see richer thematic relationships, facilitate a contribution to the real world of learning and reflect on their own metacognitive processes” (March, 2003, p.43).

To sum up, according to March (1998), the use of WebQuests:

• Increases student motivation. Students face an authentic task and work with real resources.
• Develops students´ thinking skills.
• Fosters cooperative learning (see also Brucklacher and Gimbert, 1999).

The success of a WebQuest depends on five specific rules (Dodge, 2001):

1. Find great sites
2. Orchestrate your learners and resources
3. Challenge your learners to think
4. Use the medium
5. Scaffold high expectations

Though there is a growing interest in “language quests”, WebQuests for foreign language learning, showed by different research studies which approach this specific subject (see, for example, Koenraad, 2002; Koenraad & Westhoff, 2003; Pérez-Torres, 2006); few studies explore the students´ attitudinal component (Tsai, 2006), which is so important if one wants to introduce a new pedagogical tool in the classroom.
According to Dudeney & Hockly, there are many compelling reasons for using WebQuests in the language classroom, including:

• They are an easy way for teachers to begin to incorporate the Internet into the language classroom, on both a short-term and long-term basis - no specialist technical knowledge is needed either to produce or use them. More often than not, they are group activities and as a result tend to lend themselves to communication and the sharing of knowledge - two principal goals of language teaching itself.
• They can be used simply as a linguistic tool, but can also be interdisciplinary, allowing for crossover into other departments and subject areas.
• They encourage critical thinking skills, including: comparing, classifying, inducing, deducing, analysing errors, constructing support, abstraction, analysing perspectives, etc. Learners are not able to simply regurgitate information they find, but are guided towards a transformation of that information in order to achieve a given task.
• They can be both motivating and authentic tasks and encourage learners to view the activities they are doing as something 'real' or 'useful'. This inevitably leads to more effort, greater concentration and a real interest in task achievement.

However, even considering WebQuests as “the most promising application of constructivist thought in the field of online education” (Martin 1999, p.1), we should not overlook, in addition to the structural and economic requirements, the specific problems linked to using resources in the target language, the necessity of guiding tools, and the need for the integration of the WebQuest into a complete lesson plan (Benz, 2000, 2001).

3. Pilot study

3.1. Rationale of the study
Nowadays it is a fact that most teachers see a challenge in shifting away from traditional pedagogical beliefs towards constructivist ones. Bearing this in mind, we thought it would be interesting to find out whether students are also reluctant to integrate ICT in their current learning practice.
This pilot study investigates the attitudes of 22 EFL students towards the integration of WebQuests in the classroom. The aim of this research is to elicit information about students´ perceptions of the use of ICT, in particular WebQuests, in the language classroom, and thus work thoroughly on those specific aspects rated as less satisfactory.

3.2. Subjects and setting
This survey, which will serve as a model for a future wider research study, was carried out with students of EFL at the Universidade de Vigo (Spain), EFL being a non-compulsory subject for them.
The participants in the study had no previous knowledge of WebQuests. They were offered the opportunity to attend a three-session (60 minutes each) workshop on the use of WebQuests for language learning. Twenty-two students attended the working seminar at the language lab.
The title of the WebQuest chosen was “Scotland is for me”, a WebQuest designed for upper-intermediate to advanced students (English) by Sánchez Mallén. Students were supposed to “discover some basic facts about Scotland”, “explore Scotland´s main cities and most wonderful places” and “analyse some of the funniest and most incredible stereotypes”. The WebQuest was included in the “English for travel” lesson plan.
Students were randomly divided into groups of three or four people each and asked to complete the above mentioned WebQuest. There was only one computer with Internet access allowed per group.

3.3. The survey instrument
To elicit answers to our main question (“How do students approach the use of WebQuests for language learning?), a 20-item anonymous survey in Spanish was administered to students during class time after completing the third WebQuest session (see appendix). They were allowed 15 minutes to answer it. This survey was partly based on the results obtained in the project WebQuests and Their Effectiveness in the Classroom (questions 1-8) and partly on the WebQuest definitions by Dodge and March.
Included in the survey are questions relating to different aspects concerned with WebQuest use, such as collaborative learning, motivation, web-based environment, thinking skills, material or achievement.

3.4. Results and discussion
Items were answered on a five-point Likert scale, with the high scores (4, 5) representing a positive response (agree, strongly agree) and the low scores (2, 1) representing a negative response (disagree, strongly disagree). The mid-point (3) represented respondents who were neutral (and who were left out). Percentages were also calculated on this basis.
The highest rated items, in a hierarchical order, were:

The lowest rated items, in a hierarchical order, were:

Basically, we could say that there is a very positive attitude towards the integration of WebQuests into the classroom. There were only two items which were answered in a negative way (items 4 and 8).
The highest rated item in this study was item number 10 (“I like to work with authentic material”). All subjects who were present in the workshop answered this question in a positive way. This fact gives us an idea of how influential the use of authentic material is on student motivation.
The answers to questions number 9 (“I would like to finish the task next class period”) and 20 (“I would like to keep on doing WebQuests”) contribute to reflect the motivational power of the use of WebQuests as a learning technique.
On the other hand, questions number 1 (“I prefer working with others than on my own”) and 6 (“Over time, the group dynamics did not seem to erode. One or two of the group members did not seem to carry the entire load”) show the willingness of the students to work effectively in a collaborative environment.
Questions number 11 (“I enjoy gathering information from the web”), 14 (“I enjoy working with search engines”) and 7 (“I prefer the web-based environment”) show that students enjoy working on the web, more so than working in the traditional classroom environment.
Finally, question number 19 (“I learn the language doing WebQuests”) confirms that students feel that they actually learn the language by doing WebQuests.
On the other hand, item number 4 (“I collaborated outside my own group to obtain information”), surprisingly enough, showed that students did not like, in general, consulting people from other groups. This might have had to do with the competitive side of the exercise, as every group wanted to present the best results themselves.
Lastly, question number 8 (“My participation increased as I worked on the assignment at home”), showed students´ preference to work in the classroom, and their (well-known) reluctance to be given homework.

4. Conclusion
As has been stated at the beginning of this paper, this is just a pilot study to gather information about the attitude of EFL students towards the integration of ICT in the classroom, and, as suggested by Martin (1999), we also consider the use of WebQuests as the most promising application of constructivist thought in the field of online education.
We view learning as a process in which students construct their own knowledge and are responsible for their own learning. The activity, inquiry-oriented, should develop students´ thinking skills and foster cooperative learning and, consequently, the role of the teacher will have to change from presenter of information or classroom authority to coach or facilitator to assist, direct, and guide the student (Miller, 2000).
The results of this pilot study corroborate other findings that students show a positive attitude towards the integration of ICT, namely WebQuests, into their classroom learning practice (see Zheng et al. 2005; Gaskill et al. 2006; Tsai, 2006). The obtained results support some of the hypotheses that follow from the theory, such as a greater interest of the students when engaged in authentic tasks and with authentic material, the importance of mutual help, a greater feeling of learning and the increase in knowledge.

5. Implications for the future
Our first objective will be to change some students´ and teachers´ perceptions on the use of technology in the classroom. Technology, which is a tool to enhance learning, can be perfectly integrated in the curriculum provided that this integration is based on best practice.
On the other hand, we should make students and teachers aware of the importance of being technologically literate, not only for educational purposes but also for their future world of work.
However, we consider that further research is needed in the area of how the use of ICT impacts on foreign language instruction and, consequently, on student achievement. There is an urgent need for both quantitative and qualitative analyses to assess the integration of different types of technology into the foreign language classroom.

References

1. Benz, P. (2000) "What is a WebQuest?"
2. Benz, P. (2001) "Webquests, a Constructivist Approach".
3. Brulacher B., Gimbert B. (1999) “Role-Playing Software and WebQuest: What’s Possible with Cooperative Learning and Computers.” Computers in the Schools, 15, 2, 37-48.
4. Dodge, B. (2001) "FOCUS: Five rules for writing a great WebQuest".
5. Gaskill, M., McNulty, A., Brooks, D. (2006) “Learning from WebQuests.” Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15, 2, 133-136.
6. Hinkelman, D.  (2004) “EML and implications for task design in blended L2 environments.”  Proceedings  of  CLaSIC.
7. Koenraad, A. L. M. (2002) “TalenQuest: WebQuests for Modern Languages.” In J. Colpaert, W. Decoo, M. Simons, S. Bueren (eds.). CALL Professionals and the Future of CALL Research, Proceedings CALL 2002 (pp. 159-168). Antwerp: University of Antwerp.
8. Koenraad, A. L. M., Westhoff, G. J. (2003) “Can you tell a LanguageQuest when you see one? Design critera for TalenQuests.” Paper presented at the 2003 Conference of the European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning: EUROCALL 2003. Limerick: University of Limerick, Ireland, 3-6 September 2003.
9. March, T. (1998) “Why WebQuests? An introduction.”
10. March, T. (2003) “The learning power of WebQuests.” Educational Leadership, 61, 4, 42-47.
11. Martin, B. (1999) “Using WebQuests for Constructivist Learning.”
12. Miller, L. (2000) “Using information technology to foster cultural knowledge and awareness: An interview with award-winning teacher Cheryl Cox.” Reading Online, 4, 5.
13. Pérez Torres, I. (2006) Diseno de WebQuests para la Ensenanza/Aprendizaje del Inglés como Lengua Extranjera: Aplicaciones en la Adquisición de Vocabulario y la Destreza Lectora. Granada: Editorial Universidad de Granada.
14. Tsai, S. (2006) “Students' Perceptions of English Learning through EFL WebQuest.” In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (pp. 1531-1536). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
15. Zheng, R., Stucky, B., McAlack, M., Menchana, M., Stoddart, S. (2005) “WebQuest learning as perceived by higher-education learners.” TechTrends, 49, 4, 41-49.

Appendix

1. I prefer working with others than on my own.
2. I was excited to search and explore new ideas/information because of the relevance of the topic.
3. I split up the tasks in order to finish on time.
4. I collaborated outside of my own group to obtain information.
5. Students that were reluctant to do research on the Internet became more involved as they watched their peers and time passed.
6. Over time, the group dynamics seemed to erode. One or two of the group members seemed to carry the entire load.* (reverse coded)
7. I prefer the web-based environment.
8. My participation increased as I worked on the assignment at home.
9. I would like to finish the task next class period.
10. I like to work with authentic material.
11. I enjoy gathering information from the web.
12. I enjoy summarising information.
13. I enjoy organising information.
14. I enjoy working with search engines.
15. I enjoy analysing information.
16. I enjoy taking decisions.
17. I enjoy comparing objects.
18. I like organising my time.
19. I learn the language doing WebQuests.
20. I would like to keep on doing WebQuests.

---

The NEPTON test: System Overview and functionality
Salomi Papadima-Sophocleous
Christopher Alexander

Intercollege (The International University of Cyprus)
papadima(dot)s(at)intercollege(dot)ac(dot)cy
alexander(dot)c(at)intercollege(dot)ac(dot)cy

Abstract
Over the past few decades, a fairly large literature examining various aspects of computer-assisted language testing (CALT) has been developed. The findings indicate that many institutions are now using new technologies for their language testing practices. There are often detailed discussions about the test development processes, the effectiveness of such tests and evaluation of their success. Less is known, however, about their particular features and how the mechanisms ‘behind the scenes’ make them work and easy to use. The purpose of this article is to give an overview of the key features and mechanisms of New English Placement Test Online (the NEPTON test).

1. The New English Placement Test Online



Figure 1 - NEPTON

NEPTON is an item-banking program that provides for item entry and storage, test creation, online testing, scoring, reporting and analysis of tests. In an earlier paper (Papadima-Sophocleous 2006) and in papers to be published in the near future (Papadima-Sophocleous in press; Alexander & Papadima-Sophocleous submitted for publication), other aspects of the NEPTON test were described such as the development and implementation of the test, the test as a blueprint, test-takers’ predispositions, attitudes and feelings towards taking the test, difficulties and constraints involved in developing the test, the hybrid nature of the test, and the cut-off scale used for the test.

1.1 The NEPTON system in general
The NEPTON system offers an English Placement Test Online and uses randomisation to select each item. This includes two types of randomised selection, one on the test level, and the other on the test content. How this works will be presented later on in this article. Some of the NEPTON advantages are that test-takers are tested in all language levels, and they can revisit their answers.

The NEPTON test measures English language proficiency in the following areas: (1) structure, which measures the ability to recognise language that is appropriate for standard written English; (2) vocabulary, which measures the ability to recognise and understand vocabulary that is appropriate to Standard English; (3) reading comprehension, which measures the ability to understand short passages similar in topic and style to everyday and academic situations used in English speaking settings; (4) writing, which measures the ability to write in English on an assigned topic. Writing is a hand-written task. According to Dunkel (1991), electronic tests should be used in conjunction with a guided oral interview and an essay. In the case of NEPTON, the oral interview was not feasible therefore the essay suggestion was followed. Students may be exempt from the test if they have scored well on other specified tests or have completed appropriate courses.

1.2 What does the NEPTON test include?
The NEPTON test is a browser-based program that allows test-takers to take the English Placement Test Online. It comes with a printed guide and an online tutorial. The guide contains information about the test. It also provides a sample full-length test, in paper form.

The online tutorial provides comprehensive information about the test, the type of test and test activities. It presents test items in a format that mimics the real online test, and includes hands on experience prior to taking the test.

1.3 The NEPTON testing system
The NEPTON testing system consists of the following applications for the construction and delivery of NEPTON test, and the reporting of test-taker performance or responses:

1. The NEPTON Generator: question and test item bank creation and storage administrator’s area;
2. The NEPTON Reporter: record keeping, scoring, reporting and data analysing administrator’s area;
3. The NEPTON Tester: The online testing area, where test-takers take the test.

1.3.1 The NEPTON test Generator

Test content
Test content is based on a ‘corpus’ or database of written language that currently contains about 1084 test items (632 questions), written specifically for the NEPTON test, collected and based on ideas suggested by theoretical books (Nunan, 1989, 1991; Heaton, 1995; Hughes, 2000; Harmer, 2001), with such sources as textbooks, course materials, and material from the Internet modified or simplified to suit the test purposes. Reading texts in the test conform to the characteristics of the language in the database. The content on the test is authentic or authentic like, and the language is consistent with that used in everyday, real social and academic settings.

Test items
The test items have been moderated, field-tested, trialled and analysed. The initial item analysis used modified classical statistics to suit the NEPTON test type. Facility value and discrimination index of each item were first worked out and then it was determined whether each item was well centred and discriminating well.

Question types
The NEPTON testing system provides four types of multiple-choice questions: sentence-based multiple-choice questions (with a blank and five multiple choices), testing structure (SB-S) and vocabulary (SB-V); text-based multiple choice dropdown questions (with four or five blanks and dropdown menus of five choices), testing structure (TB-S) and vocabulary (TB-V) in a more contextualised manner; sign supported multiple-choice questions (with a sign and three to four multiple choices), testing reading comprehension (SB-RC); and text-based multiple-choice questions (with a passage and four questions with four multiple choices each), testing reading comprehension (TB-RC) (Heaton 1995, Hughes 2000, Harmer 2001). To ensure items quality and their fit with the learning objectives of the test, a process of moderation, field test (Henning 1991), item-analysis and trial were carried out. Monitoring of item performance, and item analysis is a continuous process.

Test Item Storage
A test item bank is a collection of test items that may be easily accessed for testing purposes. Good item bank management enables efficient and effective generation of tests and efficient re-use of items. To achieve these benefits, the NEPTON test items stored in the item bank are coded (Ward and Murray-Ward, 1994) with the following codes: test item identification number, item type (skill and type of test question such as SB-S) and language level (1 to 6). The test consists of banks of questions which are stored in libraries, for example the library of Level 1 sentence-based, measuring structure items (SB-S) of 50 items (see table below). Content codes are based on the NEPTON test objectives, and are informed by the Common European Framework Reference CEFR.

Table 1 CEFR equivalents of non-elective ESOL courses

Course code	Level	Equivalent CEFR
BENG50 NEPTON level 1	Beginner	A1
BENG80 NEPTON level 2	Elementary	A2
BENG90 NEPTON level 3	Intermediate	B1
BENG100 NEPTON level 4	Upper-intermediate	B2
ENGL100 NEPTON level 5	Advanced	C1
ENGL101 NEPTON level 6	Upper-advanced	C2

NEPTON Generator - Features and Functions
NEPTON has a simple, friendly and non-text-heavy interface design. The Item Editor is the area where test items created in word processing applications can be imported using the cut and paste method. Information such as the item identification number, and the item type and level are entered.



Figure 2 - NEPTON Items Editor

There are two sections in the Item Editor: the Online Item, where items are uploaded for the Online NEPTON version, and the Pen-and-Paper Item, where items are uploaded for the pen-and-paper NEPTON version (although a pen-and-paper version of the test was prepared, practically all students prefer the NEPTON test). There is also a section where the item responses and the weight for each one are entered. The functions of add responses, test preview and print are available, as is a find-an-item function, where an item ID number can be entered and the system automatically finds it and presents it on the screen. Other functions in the Generator area include Slide Manager, User Manager, Student Manager, System set up, change password, Results, and test key. In the system set up, the cut-off points, the language levels and the questions types are entered.

NEPTON Test generation
Each test generated for each test-taker is unique and consists of thirty three questions comprising 54 test items. The NEPTON system uses a two test and a 6-slide pre-determined content paradigm for the test generation. In other words, firstly Test 1 or Test 2 is randomly chosen. Each one contains test items from all language levels, reflecting as many different types of activities, measuring structure vocabulary, reading comprehension and writing, but in a different sequence. Then, for each chosen test, its 6-slide pre-determined content paradigm is automatically followed to generate the test.

Table 2 The NEPTON slide paradigm

6 SLIDES	TEST 1	No*	TEST 2	No*
NEPTON level 1 Beginner 9 items per slide	SB-S: TB-S: SB-RC:	3 5 1	SB-V: TB-V or TB-RC: SB-RC:	4 4 1
NEPTON level 2 Elementary 9 items per slide	SB-V: TB-V / TB-RC: SB-RC:	4 4 1	SB-S: TB-S: SB-RC:	3 5 1
NEPTON level 3 Intermediate 9 items per slide	SB-S: TB-S:	4 5	SB-V: TB-V or TB-RC:	5 4
NEPTON level 4 Upper-intermediate 9 items per slide	SB-V: TB-V or TB-RC:	5 4	SB-S: TB-S:	4 5
NEPTON level 5 Advanced 9 items per slide	SB-S: TB-S:	4 5	SB-V: TB-V or TB-RC:	5 4
NEPTON level 6 upper-advanced 9 items per slide	SB-V: TB-V or TB-RC:	5 4	SB-S: TB-S:	4 5
9 items x 6 slides	54 items (33 questions)		54 items (33 questions)
*No of items per question type

NEPTON test Cut-off points
After considering different ways in determining test cut-off points, depending on such aspects as test purpose, test type, test context, and institutional considerations such as number of places available in the course, number of applicants, and availability and constraints in human and other resources suggested by various theorists (Heaton, 1995; Hughes, 2000; Alderson et al. 2003), and taking into consideration the nature of the NEPTON test, a process of iteration was undertaken to calculate six slide cut-offs. Figure 4 shows part of a series of iterations that resulted in the slide cut off point system of 5-4-4-5-4-5.



Figure 3 Results of the second Iteration using the slide averages of 5-4-4-5-4-5

1.3.2 The NEPTON Reporter
In the Results area, administrators have access to students’ results. They can also upload the mark of the hand-written component of the test and see the final score calculated and presented. In this area, administrators or instructors can also have access to students’ test history.

Results
In this area, the administrator can find specific results by determining the campus, date, and time a particular test was taken. Once this is presented on the screen, the administrator has access to the following information: the test-takers’ identity number, their first and last name, their date of birth, the date the test was taken, the points accumulated and the cut-off point reached, the levels reached in both the online and the essay components of the test, the final decision, when the test started and when it finished, and the time it took each test-taker to take the test.



Figure 4 - Results
By clicking on the Student ID number, the administrator enters the results for the Essay, and updates so that the final combined score appears in the overall results. By clicking on Details, the administrator has access to the test history of each individual test-taker.



Figure 5 Details, Result history

Scoring system
The score report shows six slide scale scores and a total scale score. Each correct answer counts equally towards the score for that section. Each level has a cut off point that was calculated and determined by the iteration process mentioned earlier. The six level cut off points are converted to a number on what is called the NEPTON test scale. Once the test-takers reach the cut off point of each level, they are automatically given a point. The total number of points determines the Language level the test-takers are placed for the electronic part of the test. The total NEPTON test score is reported on a scale that ranges from 1 to 6. Once the written essay is read and rated, its score is entered in the results area, and shown separately under the heading ‘essay score’. The score from both the electronic test section and the written essay rating are then automatically combined to calculate, determine and report the final score. Placement is announced to the student a day after taking the test by the institution administration. Test delivery options include: setting a time limit, question sequencing, user information, and feedback options. Answer files are created, password protected and saved on a mounted server volume.

1.3.3 The NEPTON Tester
So far, we have presented the way the NEPTON system works on the administrator’s side, as a Test Generator and Reporter, and what mechanisms or paradigms have been used to make everything work in these areas. In this section, we are going to give an overview of the Tester, in other words, the secure area where the test-taker enters and takes the test. The overview will be accompanied by a description of the necessary knowledge behind the way its features have been selected and made to work.

The NEPTON test can be taken on any computer with an Internet Connection at any time. However, for official placement test results, arrangements are made for such testing to be done supervised. Most students take the test, invigilated by staff, however, there were cases where students have taken the test overseas, before coming to Cyprus.

NEPTON test tutorial

On entering the NEPTON test, users first see a welcome screen. This is followed by a brief description of the NEPTON test. Users are then taken for a guided virtual tour of the different features of the NEPTON test. The test item skills and activity types are explained and the navigation features are introduced. At the end of this tour, test-takers have the opportunity to trial the test. Once they complete the test tutorial and trial, they are prompted for a user name and a password, which are given to test-takers by the invigilator on entry to the computer lab, in order to enter the secure test area and take the test.

NEPTON test Features and Functions
In the secure test area, test-takers are presented with thirty three questions, ranging from lower to higher level. Each question consists of either one or four to five test items, depending on their format. Students use the mouse to answer questions.

The designers have made an effort to make the interface clear and easy to use including the type of functions. User interactions take place within the 33 numbered buttons at the top of the screen which lead to the 33 test questions, and their multiple choice options. The only time test-takers have to scroll down is with some long texts, and these appear mainly in the last two levels. Test-takers can answer the questions in any order and they can revisit any question at any time during the test, review or change their answers. Colours depict different messages: any question number in grey indicates a question which has not yet been answered; any question number in red indicates a question which is currently seen on the screen; any question number in green indicates a question which has already been answered; any question number in yellow indicates a text-based question with more than one question items to answer, which points out that some of those questions have not been fully answered¹.

The name of each test-taker appears at the left bottom side of the screen. Next to it on the right, there is a clock indicating the time left until the completion of the test. Further on the right, there is a “Next” question button. At the right bottom side of the screen is the “Finish Test” button. Once the test-takers click on that, they exit the secure area and cannot re-enter it. The answers are electronically recorded and the results are calculated automatically. As the above description of the system indicates, the NEPTON test is neither an ordinary computer-based test nor a computer adaptive test.

Immediate feedback on scores
It is possible to give students information about their score immediately after they finish the online test. However, because the placement test also includes a hand-written component, the students are not able to know their total score until the test component is corrected by markers. This mark is uploaded in the test administration area and calculated with the online test score to come up with the total score for the test. The results are made known to the students the next day.

2. NEPTON test reliability and validity
The NEPTON test has been field-tested and trialled and many types of analysis have taken place to make sure it functions successfully, is administrated efficiently, and places students efficiently. Apart from the measurements mentioned so far, there were also mechanisms to ensure the test reliability and validity.

2.1 Ensured test reliability
Test reliability was ensured in various ways suggested by relevant literature (Weir, 1990; Hughes, 2000; Alderson et al. 2003; Bachman, 2003): The substantial test item bank; field testing on a substantial number of students, representative of the population; data analysis carried out establishing test-takers’ perceptions of the test and taking it online; item moderation; provision of online tutorial prior to taking the test for test-taker familiarity; measures to ensure test administration conditions’ uniformity and non-destructiveness.

2.2 Ensured test validity
Test validity was ensured in various ways suggested by relevant literature (Anastasi, 1982; Weir, 1990; Dunkel, 1991; Hughes, 2000; Alderson et al. 2003; Bachman, 2003): test item pool and sample size, testers’ preferences towards online testing (internal face validity); six experts comparing the test with the Test Specifications (content validity); test-takers’ and instructors’ feedback (external construct validity).

3. Conclusion
The present article aimed at giving a brief overview of the NEPTON test and its distinctive features: the Generator (which creates and stores the questions and the test item bank), the Reporter (which keeps the records, scores, reports and runs data analysis), and the Tester (which allows test-takers to take the test), and the background information needed to understand how these features work: the item-analysis paradigm, the item storage and retrieval system, the 6-slide paradigm, the cut-off paradigm, the friendly interface features and navigation, and colour-coordinated tools.

There are aims to develop a future component for the NEPTON test. The authors hope that incorporating an automatically graded online listening component will be feasible, provided that a server upgrade is undertaken to cope with large numbers of students taking the test at certain times during the year.

References

1. Alexander, C. & Papadima-Sophocleous, S. (under review). A six-point cut-off scale for an online English placement test comprising groups of progressively higher-level test items. Language Testing
2. Alderson, C., Clapham, C., & Wall, D. (2003). Language test construction and evaluation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Anastasi, A. (1982). Psychological testing (5^th ed.). New York: Macmillan.
4. ALTE. (2002). The ALTE Can Do Project. Articles and Can Do statements produced by the members of ALTE 1992-2002. Retrieved January 20, 2004 from http://www.alte.org/can_do/alte_cando.pdf
5. Bachman, L. F. (2003). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6. Brown, J. D. (1992b). Using computers in language testing. Cross Currents, 19, 92-99.
7. Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. Dunkel, P. (1991). Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Testing. New York: Newbury House.
9. Harmer J (2001). The practice of English language teaching. Harlow: Longman.
10. Heaton, J.B. (1995). Writing English language tests. Harlow: Longman.
11. Henning, G. (1991). Validating an item bank in a computer-assisted or computer-adaptive test. In P. Dunkel (Ed.), Computer-Assisted language learning and Testing: Research issues and practice (pp. 209-222). New York: Newbury House.
12. Hughes, A. (2000). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. Papadima-Sophocleous, S. (2006). Development and implementation of a work based online English placement test at college level: a case study. In J. Bardos (ed.), Hungarian Society for the Study of English (HUSSE) 7 Papers 2005, Proceedings of the seventh biennial conference. V. II. (pp. 6256-639). Veszprém: Veszprém University, the Department of English and American Studies and HUSSE.
15. Papadima-Sophocleous, S. (in press). New English Placement Test Online (NEPTON): A Blueprint. In P, Pavlou (Ed.), Research on TEFL in Cyprus. Nicosia:English Department, University of Cyprus.
16. Papadima-Sophocleous, S. (in press). Integrating Technology in English Placement Testing: The Test-Takers’ Perceptions. In S, Ioannou-Georgiou & P, Pavlou (Eds.), Learning Technologies in the Language Classroom: Research and Reflections. IATEFL, Language Learning and Technology Sig Technologies.
17. Papadima -Sophocleous, S. (in press). Difficulties and Constraints Involved in Developing a New English Placement Test Online. In Origins and Connections: Linking Theory, Research and Practice. Tenth National Conference Proceedings on Community Languages and ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) New Zealand: CLESOL.
18. Papadima-Sophocleous, S. (2008). A hybrid CBT and a CAT based New English Placement Test Online (NEPTON), CALICO Journal, 25 (2.2)
19. Weir, C.J. (1990). Communicative language testing. UK: Prentice Hall.

Note:
Special thanks to Dr. Dmitry Apraksin for the NEPTON Test system architecture / programming and maintenance of the system.

---

¹Please note that this colour system only works in an actual NEPTON test. It currently does not work in the online tutorial. However, it is hoped that the tutorial will be upgraded shortly to show this colour system effectively.