A Microanalytic Perspective on Discourse, Proficiency, and Identity in Paired Oral Assessment

Lazaraton, Anne; Davis, Lloyd M.

doi:10.1080/15434300802457513

Cited by 38 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The rating of interactive performances is complicated by the co-constructed nature of interaction, which makes it difficult to extract the contribution of one participant (the test taker) from the larger interaction (McNamara, 1997), so (4) interlocutor variations may affect test taker ratings. This has been shown in the context of oral proficiency interviews (Brown, 2003(Brown, , 2005 as well as paired learner-learner interactions (Brooks, 2009;Davis, 2009;Lazaraton & Davis, 2008). Future research on role plays as assessment tools in second language pragmatics will need to investigate how a degree of standardization between interlocutors can be achieved to ensure comparability and reliability without compromising the emergent and situated nature of talk, and how rating guides can be designed to focus on the test taker's performance while still taking the effect on the interlocutor into account.…”

Section: Assessment Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 90%

Testing of second language pragmatics: Past and future

Roever

2011

Language Testing

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Testing of second language pragmatic competence is an underexplored but growing area of second language assessment. Tests have focused on assessing learners' sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic abilities but the speech act framework informing most current productive testing instruments in interlanguage pragmatics has been criticized for under-representing the construct. In particular, the assessment of learners' ability to produce extended monologic and dialogic discourse is a missing component in existing assessments. This paper reviews existing tests and argues for a discursive reorientation of pragmatics tests. Suggestions for tasks and scoring approaches to assess discursive abilities while maintaining practicality are provided, and the problematicity of native speaker benchmarking is discussed.

show abstract

Section: Assessment Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 90%

Testing of second language pragmatics: Past and future

Roever

2011

Language Testing

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As has been demonstrated by He and Young ( 1998 ) and Young ( 2002 ), what people say and understand in real communications with other people is coconstructed by virtue of the interactive nature of such communications (see also Berry, 2007 ;Fulcher, 2003 ;Lazaraton & Davis, 2008 ;McNamara, 1997 ;O'Sullivan, 2008 ). The question of whether to assess speaking profi ciency (in terms of functional adequacy) with computer-administered tasks or in settings of more natural interaction between people physically present always forms an obstacle for researchers (see Iwashita et al, 2008 ).…”

Section: Motivation For the Current Studymentioning

confidence: 98%

Facets of Speaking Proficiency

Jong

Steinel

Florijn

et al. 2012

Stud Second Lang Acquis

184

158

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the componential structure of second-language (L2) speaking profi ciency. Participants-181 L2 and 54 native speakers of Dutch-performed eight speaking tasks and six tasks tapping nine linguistic skills. Performance in the speaking tasks was rated on functional adequacy by a panel of judges and formed the dependent variable in subsequent analyses (structural equation modeling). The following independent variables were assessed separately: linguistic knowledge in two tests (vocabulary and grammar); linguistic processing skills (four reaction time measures obtained in three tasks: picture naming, delayed picture naming, and sentence building); and pronunciation skills (speech sounds, word stress, and intonation). All linguistic skills, with the exception of two articulation measures in the delayed picture naming task, were signifi cantly and substantially related to functional adequacy of speaking, explaining 76% of the variance. This provides substantial evidence for a componential view of L2 speaking profi ciency that consists of languageknowledge and language-processing components. The componential structure of speaking profi ciency was almost identical for the 40% of participants at the lower and the 40% of participants at the higher end of the functional adequacy distribution ( n = 73 each), which does not support Higgs and Clifford's ( 1982 ) relative contribution model, predicting that, although L2 learners become more profi cient over time, the relative weight of component skills may change.Adult native (L1) speakers differ with respect to communicative success when they speak. Some speak slowly, others fast; some articulate poorly, others well; the speech of some is characterized by a high incidence of short utterances, false starts, and self corrections, and the speech of others is characterized by long and fl awless utterances (Levelt, 1989 ). Such differences are also likely to show up in the speech of second language (L2) speakers. Compared to L1 speakers, however, L2 speakers encounter more problems in fi nding the right words, in giving their utterances the correct morphosyntactic form, and in articulating their utterances correctly and fl uently (Kormos, 2006 ;Poulisse, 1999 ). This study aims to explore the componential structure of speaking profi ciency of L2 learners at intermediate and advanced levels of L2 proficiency. In other words, this study is concerned with a fundamental issue, which has to be addressed prior to any practical matters, such as the assessment of L2 learners' profi ciency (Schoonen, 2011 ). Previous research on the components of L2 speaking profi ciency and the rationale of the current study is presented in the next two sections. Previous Research Investigating Components of L2 Speaking Profi ciencyThere have been several studies that aimed to unravel the componential structure of L2 speaking profi ciency. Two general approaches can broadly be distinguished, labeled here as the subjective-subjective and the subjective-objective approach. In the subjective...

show abstract

“…Wigglesworth (2001: 206) points out the need to ensure that learners obtain similar input across similar tasks. A number of studies have also been undertaken (Brooks 2009;Davies 2009;Lazaraton & Davies 2008;May 2009) of the interaction produced in paired format testing. These revealed some similarities and some differences (e.g.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

What kind of interaction receives high and low ratings in Oral Proficiency Interviews?

Seedhouse

2012

English Profile Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on a Conversation Analysis (CA) of a corpus of Oral Proficiency Interviews (OPI), the study asks what kind of interaction receives high and low ratings in OPIs. The discussion focuses on issues of interactional organisation, considering turn-taking, sequence, repair and topic development in relation to candidate scores. The study presents findings of two funded studies of the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) Speaking Test (IST), which is one part of IELTS, a major international English proficiency test.The article explains how interaction in the IST is organised in interactional terms and how this organisation generates opportunities to differentiate high-and low-scoring interaction. The study then lists the interactional characteristics of high-scoring and low-scoring tests, based on an inductive search through the database and analysis of the micro-interaction. Extracts are presented to support characterisations. Differences in score correlate to the following interactional differences in Parts 1 and 3 of the IST: ability to answer the question, engage with and develop a topic coherently, amount of trouble and repair, lexical choice, and identity construction. In Part 2 of the IST, length of turn may also be related to score.

show abstract

A Microanalytic Perspective on Discourse, Proficiency, and Identity in Paired Oral Assessment

Cited by 38 publications

References 17 publications

Testing of second language pragmatics: Past and future

Testing of second language pragmatics: Past and future

Facets of Speaking Proficiency

What kind of interaction receives high and low ratings in Oral Proficiency Interviews?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About