Oral proficiency interviews as varieties of interaction

This study investigates the extent to which oral proficiency interviews (OPIs) may be described as interactional varieties, which may then be compared with interaction in university and L2 classroom settings. The three varieties are related in terms of preparing students for a next stage in an educational process. L2 classroom interaction may prepare students for examinations such as OPIs, which provide access to universities, which in turn may prepare students for the world of work.1 Therefore, it is legitimate to examine the varieties in terms of whether the interactional experiences of students align or not in the different settings. OPIs in general are intended to assess the language proficiency of non-native speakers and to predict their ability to communicate in future encounters.

[1]  Elizabeth Stokoe,et al.  Constructing Topicality in University Students' Small-group Discussion: A Conversation Analytic Approach , 2000 .

[2]  S. Ross.  Divergent Frame Interpretations in Oral Proficiency Interview Interaction , 1998 .

[3]  Will Gibson,et al.  Topicality and the structure of interactive talk in face‐to‐face seminar discussions: implications for research in distributed learning media , 2006 .

[4]  Annie Brown,et al.  Interviewer variation and the co-construction of speaking proficiency , 2003 .

[5]  Hansun Zhang Waring.  Using Explicit Positive Assessment in the Language Classroom: IRF, Feedback, and Learning Opportunities. , 2008 .

[6]  Catherine A. Doherty,et al.  Doing business: knowledges in the internationalised business lecture , 2010 .

[7]  Mantz Yorke,et al.  The first-year experience in higher education in the UK:Report on Phase 1 of a project funded by the Higher Education Academy , 2007 .

[8]  Maria Egbert,et al.  The Interactional Organisation of the IELTS Speaking Test. , 2006 .

[9]  Anne Lazaraton,et al.  A qualitative approach to the validation of oral language tests , 2002 .

[10]  Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig,et al.  Learning the Rules of Academic Talk , 1993, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[11]  Holger Limberg.  Discourse structure of academic talk in university office hour interactions , 2007 .

[12]  Rod Ellis,et al.  Task-based Language Learning and Teaching , 2003 .

[13]  Glenn Fulcher,et al.  Testing Second Language Speaking , 2003 .

[14]  Glenn Fulcher,et al.  Test architecture, test retrofit , 2009 .

[15]  Steven J. Ross,et al.  The Discourse of Accommodation in Oral Proficiency Interviews , 1992, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[16]  Belinda Crawford Camiciottoli,et al.  The language of business studies lectures , 2007 .

[17]  Carsten Roever,et al.  Language testing: The social dimension , 2006 .

[18]  E. Schegloff,et al.  The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation , 1977 .

[19]  Richard Young,et al.  Talking and Testing: Discourse Approaches to the Assessment of Oral Proficiency. Studies in Bilingualism, Volume 14. , 1998 .

[20]  John Hellermann,et al.  The Development of Practices for Action in Classroom Dyadic Interaction: Focus on Task Openings , 2007 .

[21]  P. Drew,et al.  Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. , 1994 .

[22]  Steven J. Ross,et al.  Multiple questions in oral proficiency interviews , 2007 .

[23]  Hansun Zhang Waring.  Expressing noncomprehension in a US graduate seminar , 2002 .

[24]  S. V. van Bonn,et al.  A multi-method analysis of evaluation criteria used to assess the speaking proficiency of graduate student instructors , 2010 .

[25]  Yo-an Lee.  Third turn position in teacher talk: Contingency and the work of teaching , 2007 .

[26]  R. Piazza.  The pragmatics of conducive questions in academic discourse , 2002 .

[27]  Paul Seedhouse,et al.  Locusts, snowflakes and recasts: complexity theory and spoken interaction , 2010 .

[28]  Bethan Benwell.  The Organisation of Knowledge in British University Tutorial Discourse: Issues, Pedagogic Discourse Strategies and Disciplinary Identity , 1999 .

[29]  Glenn Fulcher,et al.  Does thick description lead to smart tests? A data-based approach to rating scale construction , 1996 .

[30]  S. Levinson.  Activity types and language , 1979, Linguistics.

[31]  Helen Basturkmen.  So what happens when the tutor walks in? Some observations on interaction in a university discussion group with and without the tutor , 2003 .

[32]  Stefan Frazier,et al.  Tellings of remembrances 'Touched off' by student reports in group work in undergraduate writing classes , 2007 .

[33]  Gillian Wigglesworth,et al.  Influences on performance in task-based oral assessments , 2001 .

[34]  Hansun Zhang Waring.  Displaying Substantive Recipiency in Seminar Discussion , 2002 .

[35]  L Taylor.  REVISING THE IELTS SPEAKING TEST: RETRAINING IELTS EXAMINERS WORLDWIDE , 2001 .

[36]  Elizabeth Stokoe,et al.  Constructing discussion tasks in university tutorials: shifting dynamics and identities , 2002 .

[37]  D. Westgate,et al.  Some Characteristics of Interaction in Foreign Language Classrooms , 1985 .

[38]  Karen E. Johnson.  Understanding Communication in Second Language Classrooms , 1995 .

[39]  Irene Koshik,et al.  Designedly Incomplete Utterances: A Pedagogical Practice for Eliciting Knowledge Displays in Error Correction Sequences , 2002 .