The definition and operationalization of interactional competence in speaking tests that entail co-construction of discourse is an area of language testing requiring further research. This article explores the reactions of four trained raters to paired candidates who oriented to asymmetric patterns of interaction in a discussion task. Through an analysis of candidate discourse combined with rater notes, stimulated verbal recalls, rater discussions and scores awarded for interactional effectiveness, the article examines the extent to which raters compensate or penalize candidates for their role in co-constructing asymmetric interactional patterns. The article argues that key features of the interaction are perceived by the raters as mutual achievements, and it further suggests that the awarding of shared scores for interactional competence is one way of acknowledging the inherently co-constructed nature of interaction in a paired speaking test.
Brown, A. (2000). An investigation of rater's orientation in awarding scores in the IELTS interview. In R. Tulloch (Ed.), IELTS Research Reports, 3, 49-84.
2.
Brown, A. (2003). Interviewer variation and the co-construction of speaking proficiency. Language Testing, 20(1), 1-25.
3.
Brown, A. (2004). Interviewer variability in oral proficiency interviews. PhD thesis. University of Melbourne.
4.
Brown, A., & Hill, K. (1998). Interviewer style and candidate performance in the IELTS oral interview. In S. Wood (Ed.) IELTS Research Reports, 1, 1-19.
5.
Butler, F.A., Eignor, D., Jones, S., McNamara, T. & Suomi, B.K. (2000). TOEFL 2000 Speaking Framework: A Working Paper . TOEFL Monograph No. MS-20.
6.
Chalhoub-Deville, M. (2003). Second language interaction: Current perspectives and future trends. Language Testing, 20(4), 369-383.
7.
Csepes, I. (2002). Measuring oral proficiency through paired-task performance. PhD dissertation. Eotvos Lorand University , Budapest.
8.
DiPardo, A. (1994). Stimulated recall in research on writing: An antidote to `I don't know, it was fine. In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.) Speaking about writing: Reflections on research methodology . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
Egyud, G., & Glover, P. (2001). Oral Testing in pairs: A secondary school perspective . ELT Journal, 55(1), 70-76.
Foot, M.C. (1999b). Reply to Saville and Hargreaves. ELT Journal, 53(1), 52-53.
12.
Fox, J. (2005). Biasing for the best in language testing and learning: An interview with Merrill Swain. Language Assessment Quarterly , 1(4), 235-251.
13.
Fulcher, G. (2003). Testing second language speaking. Harlow: Pearson.
14.
Galaczi, E.D. (2004). Peer-peer interaction in a paired speaking test: The case of the First Certificate in English. PhD dissertationColumbia University.
15.
He, A.W., & Young, R. (1998). Language proficiency interviews: A discourse approach . In Young, R. & He, A. W. (Eds.) Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
16.
He, L., & Dai, Y. (2006). A corpus-based investigation into the validity of the CET-SET group discussion. Language Testing. 23(3), 370-401.
17.
Ikeda, K. (1998). The paired learner interview: A preliminary investigation applying Vygotskian insights. Language, Culture and Curriculum , 11, 71-96.
18.
Iwashita, N. (1998). The validity of the paired interview in oral performance assessment. Melbourne Papers in Language Testing, 5(2), 51-65.
19.
Jacoby, S., & Ochs, E. (1995). Co-construction: An introduction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28(3), 171-183.
20.
Kramsch, C. (1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence . The Modern Language Journal, 70(iv), 366-372.
21.
Lu, Y. (2003). Test-takers' first languages and their discoursal performance in paired-format OPT. Paper presented at the 25th Language Testing Research Colloquium, Reading, United Kingdom.
22.
May, L. (2000). Assessment of oral proficiency in EAP programs: A case for pair interaction. Language and Communication Review , 9(1), 13-19.
23.
May, L. (2007). Interaction in a paired speaking test: The rater's perspective. PhD dissertationThe University of Melbourne .
24.
McNamara, T.F. (1996). Measuring second language performance. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman.
25.
McNamara, T.F. (1997). `Interaction' in second language performance assessment: Whose performance? Applied Linguistics, 18, 444-446.
26.
McNamara, T.F., & Lumley, T. (1997). The effect of interlocutor and assessment mode variables in overseas assessments of speaking skills in occupational settings . Language Testing, 14(2), 140-156.
27.
McNamara, T.F., & Roever, C. (2006). Language testing: The social dimension. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
28.
Nakatsuhara, F. (2004). An investigation into conversational styles in paired speaking tests. MA dissertationUniversity of Essex .
29.
Norton, J. (2005). The paired format in the Cambridge Speaking Tests . ELT Journal, 59(4), 287-297.
30.
Storch, N. (2001). An investigation into the nature of pair work in an ESL classroom and its effect on grammatical development. PhD dissertation . The University of Melbourne.
31.
Swain, M. (2001). Examining dialogue: Another approach to content specification and to validating inferences drawn from test scores. Language Testing, 18(3), 275-302.
32.
Taylor, L. (2001). The paired speaking test format: recent studies . Research Notes6, 15-17. Cambridge : University of Cambridge ESOL.
33.
Weir, C.J. (2005). Language Testing and Validation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
