Interaction in group oral assessment: A case study of higher- and lower-scoring students

This article examines the interactional work in which two groups of secondary ESL students engaged to achieve and sustain participation in group oral assessment, which is designed to assess a student’s interactive communication skills in a school-based assessment context. The in-depth observation of the ways in which participants co-constructed talk-in-interaction led to the discovery of the particular pattern of speech exchange within each group.Within the higher-scoring group, the students engaged constructively and contingently with one another’s ideas, demonstrating a range of speech functions such as suggestions, agreement or disagreement, explanations, and challenges, which resulted in opportunities for substantive conversation and genuine communication to be engineered. Within the lower-scoring group, the resulting interactions appeared more structured, apparently as a result of the pre-set prompts that were originally set for the purpose of facilitating within-group discussion. However, a picture emerges of lower-scoring group members naturally engaging in negotiation of meaning over linguistic impasses, which turned out to serve as the stimulus to collaborative dialogue. There is also evidence of lower-scoring group members assisting each other through co-construction both to find the right linguistic forms and to express meaning. The nature of these interactions suggests that the group oral assessment format, as operationalized in this context, can authentically reflect students’ interactional skills and their moment-by-moment construction of social and linguistic identity. However, the lack of contingent development of topical talk within the lower-scoring group implies that the assessor’s good intentions in providing pre-set prompts may end up restricting students’ performance. The risk of such task/topic-related effects on the quality of student discourse and interaction warrants further research.

[1]  J. Gumperz On interactional sociolinguistic method , 1999 .

[2]  L. Vygotsky Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes: Harvard University Press , 1978 .

[3]  Robin Wooffitt,et al.  Conversation Analysis: Principles, Practices and Applications , 1998 .

[4]  Gary J. Ockey,et al.  A many-facet Rasch analysis of the second language group oral discussion task , 2003 .

[5]  A. Ohta,et al.  Negotiation for Meaning and Peer Assistance in Second Language Classrooms , 2005 .

[6]  Judit Kormos Simulating conversations in oral-proficiency assessment: a conversation analysis of role plays and non-scripted interviews in language exams , 1999 .

[7]  Barry O’Sullivan,et al.  Learner acquaintanceship and oral proficiency test pair-task performance , 2002 .

[8]  C. Davison Views From the Chalkface: English Language School-Based Assessment in Hong Kong , 2007 .

[9]  Merril Swain,et al.  Collaborative dialogue: its contribution to second language learning , 1997 .

[10]  Lyle F. Bachman,et al.  语言测试实践 = Language testing in practice , 1998 .

[11]  Micheline Chalhoub-Deville,et al.  Second language interaction: current perspectives and future trends , 2003 .

[12]  P. Have Doing conversation analysis , 2007 .

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

[14]  K. O’Loughlin,et al.  The impact of gender in oral proficiency testing , 2002 .

[15]  A. V. Moere Validity Evidence in a University Group Oral Test. , 2006 .

[16]  John Hellermann,et al.  Classroom Interactive Practices for Developing L2 Literacy: A Microethnographic Study of Two Beginning Adult Learners of English , 2006 .

[17]  George Psathas,et al.  Conversation Analysis: The Study of Talk-in-Interaction , 1994 .

[18]  Claire J. Kramsch From Language Proficiency to Interactional Competence , 1986 .

[19]  R. Young,et al.  Conversational Styles in Language Proficiency Interviews , 1995 .

[20]  Lianzhen He,et al.  A corpus-based investigation into the validity of the CET-SET group discussion , 2006 .

[21]  G. Kasper Participant Orientations in German Conversation‐for‐Learning , 2004 .

[22]  Mari Haneda,et al.  Classrooms as Communities of Practice: A Reevaluation , 2006 .

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

[24]  Gail Jefferson,et al.  Caveat Speaker: Preliminary Notes on Recipient Topic-Shift Implicature , 1993 .

[25]  Tim McNamara,et al.  ‘Interaction’ in second language performance assessment: Whose performance?1 , 1997 .

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

[27]  Michael Milanovic,et al.  Discourse Variation in Oral Proficiency Interviews , 1992, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[28]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[29]  J. Gumperz Discourse strategies: Subject index , 1982 .

[30]  Leo Van Lier,et al.  Reeling, Writhing, Drawling, Stretching, and Fainting in Coils: Oral Proficiency Interviews as Conversation , 1989 .

[31]  Merrill Swain,et al.  Examining dialogue: another approach to content specification and to validating inferences drawn from test scores , 2001 .

[32]  Lyle F. Bachman 语言测试要略 = Fundamental considerations in language testing , 1990 .

[33]  J. Norton,et al.  The paired format in the Cambridge Speaking Tests , 2005 .

[34]  Robyn Louise Spence-Brown,et al.  The eye of the beholder: authenticity in an embedded assessment task , 2001 .