Interacting in pairs in a test of oral proficiency: Co-constructing a better performance

This study, framed within sociocultural theory, examines the interaction of adult ESL test-takers in two tests of oral proficiency: one in which they interacted with an examiner (the individual format) and one in which they interacted with another student (the paired format). The data for the eight pairs in this study were drawn from a larger study comparing the two test formats in the context of high-stakes exit testing from an Academic Preparation Program at a large Canadian university. All of the test-takers participated in both test formats involving a discussion with comparable speaking prompts. The findings from the quantitative analyses show that overall the test-takers performed better in the paired format in that their scores were on average higher than when they interacted with an examiner. Qualitative analysis of the test-takers' speaking indicates that the differences in performance in the two test formats were more marked than the scores suggest. When test-takers interacted with other students in the paired test, the interaction was much more complex and revealed the co-construction of a more linguistically demanding performance than did the interaction between examiners and students. The paired testing format resulted in more interaction, negotiation of meaning, consideration of the interlocutor and more complex output. Among the implications for test theory and practice is the need to account for the joint construction of performance in a speaking test in both construct definitions and rating scales.

[1]  Dorry M. Kenyon,et al.  Research on the comparability of the oral proficiency interview and the simulated oral proficiency interview , 1992 .

[2]  Glenn Fulcher,et al.  Testing tasks: issues in task design and the group oral , 1996 .

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

[4]  Suresh Canagarajah,et al.  Changing Communicative Needs, Revised Assessment Objectives: Testing English as an International Language , 2006 .

[5]  Cyril J. Weir,et al.  Language Testing and Validation , 2005 .

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

[7]  Anne Lazaraton,et al.  Interlocutor support in oral proficiency interviews: the case of CASE , 1996 .

[8]  L Taylor,et al.  THE PAIRED SPEAKING TEST FORMAT: RECENT STUDIES , 2001 .

[9]  J. Wertsch.  Vygotsky and the Social Formation of Mind , 1985 .

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

[11]  Jeff Connor-Linton,et al.  TALKING AND TESTING: DISCOURSE APPROACHES TO THE ASSESSMENT OF ORAL PROFICIENCY.Richard Young and Agnes Weiyun He (Eds.). Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1998. Pp. x + 395. NLG 138 cloth. , 2000, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

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

[13]  Barry O'Sullivan,et al.  Exploring Gender and Oral Proficiency Interview Performance. , 2000 .

[14]  Annie Brown,et al.  Interviewer Variability in Oral Proficiency Interviews , 2005 .

[15]  S. Ross.  Accommodative questions in oral proficiency interviews , 1992 .

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

[17]  Andy Field,et al.  Discovering statistics using SPSS, 2nd ed. , 2005 .

[18]  D. Laplane.  Thought and language. , 1992, Behavioural neurology.

[19]  K. O’Loughlin,et al.  The Equivalence of Direct and Semi-Direct Speaking Tests , 2001 .

[20]  Elana Shohamy,et al.  From Testing Research to Educational Policy: Introducing a New Comprehensive Test of Oral Proficiency. , 1986 .

[21]  Vivien Berry.  Personality Differences and Oral Test Performance , 2007 .

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

[23]  T. Lumley,et al.  Specific-purpose language performance tests : task and interaction , 1996 .

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

[25]  Lyn May.  An examination of rater orientations on a paired candidate discussion task through stimulated verbal recall , 2006 .

[26]  Michael C. Foot.  Relaxing in pairs , 1999 .

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

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

[29]  M. Cole,et al.  Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. L. S. Vygotsky. , 1978 .

[30]  E. E. Jones,et al.  Foundations of Social Psychology , 1967 .

[31]  W. Frawley.  Mind as Action , 1998, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

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

[33]  C. Weir.  Language Testing and Validation: An Evidence-Based Approach , 2004 .

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

[35]  Théa Reves.  THE GROUP‐ORAL EXAMINATION: A FIELD EXPERIMENT , 1981 .

[36]  Evelina D. Galaczi,et al.  Peer–Peer Interaction in a Speaking Test: The Case of the First Certificate in English Examination , 2008 .

[37]  Lyle F. Bachman.  Statistical analyses for language assessment , 2004 .

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

[39]  J. Wertsch.  Voices of the Mind: A Sociocultural Approach to Mediated Action , 1992 .

[40]  Elana Shohamy,et al.  The validity of direct versus semi- direct oral tests , 1994 .

[41]  P. Lachenbruch.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) , 1989 .

[42]  Marysia Johnson.  The Art of Non-conversation , 2008 .

[43]  Dave Robertson,et al.  Towards Objectivity in Group Oral Testing , 1976 .

[44]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

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

[46]  P. Glover,et al.  Readers respond. Oral testing in pairs - secondary school perspective , 2001 .

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