Assessing paired orals: Raters' orientation to interaction

Ana María Ducasse · Annie Brown

202 citations0/0 files storedLanguage Testing

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning Student Assessment and Feedback Second Language Learning and Teaching

Abstract

Speaking tasks involving peer-to-peer candidate interaction are increasingly being incorporated into language proficiency assessments, in both large-scale international testing contexts, and in smaller-scale, for example course-related, ones. This growth in the popularity and use of paired and group orals has stimulated research, particularly into the types of discourse produced and the possible impact of candidate background factors on performance. However, despite the fact that the strongest argument for the validity of peer-to-peer assessment lies in the claim that such tasks allow for the assessment of a broader range of interactional skills than the more traditional interview-format tests do, there is surprisingly little research into the judgments that are made of such performances. The fact that raters, and rating criteria, are in a crucial mediating position between output and outcomes, warrants investigation into how raters construe the interaction in these tasks. Such investigations have the potential to inform the development of interaction-based rating scales and ensure that validity claims are moved beyond the content level to the construct level. This paper reports the findings of a verbal protocol study of teacher-raters viewing the paired test discourse of 17 beginner dyads in a university-based Spanish as a foreign language course. The findings indicate that the raters identified three interaction parameters: non-verbal interpersonal communication, interactive listening, and interactional management. The findings have implications for our understanding of the construct of effective interaction in paired candidate speaking tests, and for the development of appropriate rating scales.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 202 citations exist upstream.

References

1986Input in Second Language Acquisition 1996Validity and washback in language testing 1994The Research Manual: Design and Statistics for Applied Linguistics 2014Testing Second Language Speaking 2001When Listeners Talk 1986From Language Proficiency to Interactional Competence 1995Co-Construction: An Introduction 2001When Listeners Talk: Response Tokens and Listener Stance

Cited by

2011Interactional Competence in a Paired Speaking Test: Features Salient to Raters 2018What counts as “responding”? Contingency on previous speaker contribution as a feature of interactional competence 2020Aspects of Fluency Across Assessed Levels of Speaking Proficiency 2014Coming to terms with innovative high-stakes assessment practice: Teachers’ viewpoints on assessment reform 2015Rater variation in the assessment of speech acts 2020Human versus Computer Partner in the Paired Oral Discussion Test

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.