Although a large amount of research has been conducted in strategy use in second language acquisition and language testing fields, not much research has been conducted on detailed strategy use during an entire process of taking an academic speaking test. Given the importance of the TOEFL Internet-based Test (iBT), which includes both speaking-only and integrated speaking tasks, the need to study effective strategy use on the speaking section of the new TOEFL iBT is even more pronounced. This study aims to investigate how Taiwanese test-takers who received different scores in the simulated TOEFL iBT speaking test made use of their input-reception, preparation (pre-task planning), and speaking (within-task planning) times in different types of tasks. It also examines the construct validity of TOEFL iBT speaking test by means of strategies reported by the test-takers. Two main research questions are asked as followed:
1. For each task, do test takers who received high / mid / low scores use the approach, cognitive, communication, and metacognitive strategies differently during their input-reception time, preparation time and speaking time?
2. For each task, which individual strategies are significantly associated with the levels of performance during input-reception time, preparation time, and speaking time?
Participants in this study were 39 Taiwanese adult English-as-a-Foreign-Language (EFL) learners who were preparing for the TOEFL iBT exam during 2008-2009. They took one simulated TOEFL iBT speaking test in a one-on-one audio-recorded setting and then had a retrospective interview recalling the strategies that they used to complete the six TOEFL iBT speaking tasks. The test-takers’ performance of each task was rated by two EFL teachers based on the TOEFL iBT speaking scales with the scores ranging from 1 to 4. Based on the ratings, the participants were divided into three proficiency groups in each task. Participants’ strategy uses were coded based on the taxonomies of O’Malley and Chamot (1990) and Swain et al. (2009).
The results indicate that the test-takers used different types of strategies to cope with different types of speaking tasks. In the speaking-only tasks (referred to as the “independent” tasks by TOEFL iBT), approach strategies were used most frequently. On the other hand, in the listening-to-speak and the reading-to-listening-to-speak tasks (referred to as the “integrated” tasks by TOEFL iBT), the uses of cognitive strategies were reported more often. Some strategies are positively associated with the performance while some are negatively associated. Besides, some strategies seem to interrelate with each other, finally resulting in the difference in performance. We also found that the strategy use per se would not lead to distinctive performance; rather, it would be the interplay between the proficiency level and the strategy use that leads to the different results. Finally, the examination of strategy use within each task type helps build the argument for the construct validity of the TOEFL iBT speaking section. Overall, the results indicate that the TOEFL iBT speaking test successfully elicited the abilities it wanted to test. However, the authenticity of the speaking activities elicited by the TOEFL iBT is not high, as the test-takers approached the whole speaking section as a test rather than a real-life situations happening on campus. This lack of authenticity echoes the findings by Cohen and Upton (2006, 2007) in the TOEFL iBT reading section.
Although this study is limited by its small sample size, it adds to the literature on strategy use in speaking tests, especially strategy use in different speaking task types and during different period of the test-taking process (input reception, preparation, and actual speaking). The study demonstrates the nature of each speaking task and their construct validity. In practical terms, because we find that strategy use may facilitate or hinder test performance, it is suggested that potential TOEFL iBT test takers should be aware of their strategy use while performing the TOEFL iBT speaking tasks in order to show their language ability to the full potential.

REFERENCES
Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. The Modern Language Journal, 75, 460-472.
Anderson, N. J., Bachman, L., Perkins, K., & Cohen, A. (1991). An exploratory study into the construct validity of a reading comprehension test: triangulation of data sources. Language Testing, 8, 41-66.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language Testing in Practice. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. F., & Cohen, A.D. (Eds.). (1998). Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Bialystok, E. (1978). A theoretical model of second language learning, Language Learning, 28, 69-83.
Bialystok, E. (1981). The role of conscious strategies in second language proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 65, 24-35.
Bremner, S. (1999). Language learning strategies and language proficiency: Investigating the relationship in Hong Kong. Canadian Modern Language Review, 55, 490-514.
Bruden, J. (2001). Strategies for success: profiling the effective learner of German. Foreign Language Annals, 34, 216-225.
Butler, F. A., Eignor, D., Jones, S., McNamara, T., & Suomi, B. K. (2000). TOEFL 2000 (TOEFL Monograph Series Report No. 20). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
Canale, M. (1983). On some dimensions of language proficiency. In J. w. Oller, Jr. (Ed), Issues in language testing research (pp.333-342). Rowley, MA: Newberry.
Chang, C-S. (2009). EFL listener’s task-based strategies and their relationship with listening performance. TESL-EJ, 13.
Chen, S. (1990). A study of communication strategies in interlanguage production by Chinese EFL learners. Language Learning, 40, 155-187.
Cohen, A. D. (2006). The coming of age of research on test-taking strategies. Language Assessment Quarterly, 3, 307-331.
Cohen, A. D., & Upton, T. A. (2006). Strategies in responding to the New TOEFL reading tasks (TOEFL Monograph Series Report No. 33). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Cohen, A. D., & Upton (2007). “I want to go back to the text”: Response strategies on the reading subtest of the new TOEFL. Language Testing, 24, 209-250.
Crookes, G. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 367-383.
Cumming, A., Grant, L., Mulcahy-Ernt, P., & Powers, D. E. (2004). A teacher–verification study of speaking and writing prototype tasks for a new TOEFL. Language Testing, 21, 107-145.
Dreyer, C., & Oxford, R. (1996). Learning strategies and other predictors of ESL proficiency among Afrikaans speakers in South Africa. In R. L. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning strategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 61-74). Manoa, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Educational Testing Service (2005). Helping Your Students Communicate with Confidence. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Educational Testing Service. (2007). TOEFL iBT tips. How to prepare for the TOEFL iBT. Available at http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/TOEFL/pdf/TOEFL_Tips.pdf.
Educational Testing Service. (2010). Test iBT™ Test framework and test development (TOEFL iBT™ Research Insight Series Vol. 1). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Elder, C., & Iwashita, N. (2005). Planning for test performance: Does it make a difference? In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 219-238). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Elder, C., Iwashita, N., & McNamara, T. (2002). Estimating the difficulty of oral proficiency tasks: what does the test-taker have to offer? Language Testing, 19, 347-368.
Ellis, R. (1987). Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 1-20.
Ellis, R. (Ed.) (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task-based performance. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 3-34). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ehrman, M. E., & Oxford, B. L. (1995). Cognition plus: correlates of language learning success. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 67-89.
Foong, K. P., & Goh, C. M. (1997). Chinese ESL students’ learning strategies : A look at frequency, proficiency, and gender. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2, 21-27.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299-324.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1999). The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3, 215-247.
Fulcher, G. (2003). Testing second language speaking. London: Longman/Pearson Education.
Green, J. M., & Oxford, R. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 261-297.
Huang, X., & Van Naerssen, M. (1987). Learning strategies for oral communication. Applied Linguistics, 8, 287-306.
Jamieson, J., Jones, S., Kirsch, I., Mosenthal, P., & Taylor, C. (2000). TOEFL 2000 framework: A working paper (TOEFL Monograph Series MS-16). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Kawauchi, C. (2005). The effects of strategic planning on the oral narratives of learners with low and high intermediate L2 proficiency. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 143-164). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Malabonga, V., Kenyon, D. M., & Carpenter. H. (2005). Self-assessment, preparation and response time on a computerized oral proficiency test. Language Testing, 22, 59-92.
Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 52-83.
Nisbet, D. L., Tindall, E. R., & Arroyo, A. A. (2005). Language learning strategies and English proficiency of Chinese university students. Foreign Language Annals, 38, 100-107.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Kűpper, L., & Russo, R. P. (1985a). Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students. Language Learning, 35, 21–46.
O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Russo, R. P., & Kűpper, L. (1985b). Learning strategy applications with students of English as a second language, TESOL Quarterly, 19, 557-584.
Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 109-148.
Ortega, L. (2005). What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to form during pre-task planning. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second
language (pp. 77-109). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York: Newburry House.
Oxford, R. L., & Burry-Stock, J. A. (1995). Assessing the use of language learning strategies worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL), System, 23, 1-23.
Oxford, R. L., & Ehrman, M. E. (1995). Adults’ language learning strategies in an intensive foreign language program in the United States. System, 23, 359-386.
Palmer, A. S. (1981). Measurements of reliability and validity of two picture-description tests of oral communication. In Palmer, A. S., Groot, P. J. M., & Trosper, G.S. (Eds.), The construct validation of tests of communicative
competence. Washington, DC: TESOL.
Park, G. (1997). Language Learning Strategies and English Proficiency in Korean University Students, Foreign Language Annals, 30, 211–221.
Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at the relationship of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use to EFL reading achievement test performance. Language Testing, 20, 26-56.
Phillips, D. (2005). Longman preparation course for the TOEFL test: iBT. New York:
Pearson Education.
Purpura, J. E. (1997). An analysis of the Relationships between test takers’ cognitive and metacognitive strategy use and second language test performance. Language Testing, 47, 289-325.
Purpura, J. E. (1998). Investigating the effects of strategy use and second language test performance with high- and low-ability test takers: a structural equation modeling approach. Language Testing, 15, 333-379.
Purpura, J. E. (1999). Learner strategy use and performance on language tests: A structural equation modeling approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner” can teach us. TESOL quarterly, 9, 41-51.
Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences
on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185-211.
Song, X. (2005). Language learner strategy use and English proficiency on the Michigan English Language Assessment Battery. Spaan Fellow Working Papers in Second or Foreign Language Assessment, 3, 1-26.
Song, X., & Cheng, L. (2006). Language learner strategy use and test performance of Chinese learners of English. Language Assessment Quarterly, 3, 243-266.
Swain, M., Huang, L., Barkaoui, K., Brooks, L., & Lapkin, S. (2009). The Speaking section of the TOEFL iBT™ (SSTiBT): Test-takers’ reported strategic behaviors (TOEFL iBT™ Report No. iBT-10). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Tavakoli, P., & Skehan, P. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure, and performance
testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language (pp. 239-273). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Wigglesworth, G. (1997). An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse. Language Testing, 14, 85-106.
Wigglesworth, G. (2001). Influences on performance in task-based oral assessments. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P. and Swain, M. (Eds), Researching pedagogical tasks: second language learning, Teaching and Testing. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, 186-209.
Wharton, G. (2000). Language learning strategy use of bilingual foreign language learners in Singapore, Language Learning, 50, 203–243.
Yoshida-Morise, Y. (1998). The use of communication strategies in language proficiency interviews. In Young, R., & He, A. W. (Eds.), Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency (pp. 205-238). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task and on-lone planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24, 1-27.
Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2005). The effects of careful with-in task planning on oral and written task performance. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 167-192). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Xi, X. (2005). Do visual chunks and planning impact performance on the graph description task in the SPEAK exam? Language Testing, 22, 463-508.