Language Testing

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.

The use of pair work in speaking assessment may encourage collaboration in the classroom and has other advantages (Saville & Hargreaves, 1999; Taylor, 2000) but from a measurement perspective, the paired oral format may be problematic because a partner may unfairly influence an examinee's performance or otherwise bias scores. In this study, the influence of interlocutor proficiency on speaking performance was examined in a group of 20 first-year students at a Chinese university. The students were divided into groups of relatively high and low English proficiency and tested once with a partner of similar proficiency and once with a partner of higher or lower proficiency. Interlocutor proficiency level had no observable effect on Rasch analysis ability measures, but lower-level examinees produced more language (words) when working with a higher-level partner. The majority of dyads produced collaborative interactions (Galaczi, 2008), unless an examinee was paired with a much lower-level partner, in which case the interaction tended to be asymmetric. Overall, these data suggest that proficiency differences among examinees need not preclude use of the paired oral test format.

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.

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.

The assessment of oral language is now quite commonly done in pairs or groups, and there is a growing body of research which investigates the related issues (e.g. May, 2007). Writing generally tends to be thought of as an individual activity, although a small number of studies have documented the advantages of collaboration in writing in the second language classroom (e.g. DiCamilla & Anton, 1997; Storch, 2005; Swain & Lapkin, 1998). Particularly in university contexts, group or pair assignments are widely used in many disciplines. In addition, collaborative writing could be used in second language classroom assessment contexts as formative assessment. However, research which compares texts produced by learners collaboratively to texts produced individually, and the implications of this for assessment practices, is rare.

This study is a first step in the investigation of using collaborative writing in second language contexts and comparing the performance of two groups of second language learners: one group worked individually, and the other group worked in pairs. When writing in pairs, each pair produced a single text. All participants completed one writing task: an argumentative essay. The performances of the individuals (N = 48) and the pairs (N = 48) were compared on detailed discourse analytic measures of fluency, complexity and accuracy. This comparison revealed that collaboration impacted positively on accuracy, but did not affect fluency and complexity. A detailed analysis of the pair transcripts recorded during the writing activity provides insights into the ways in which pairs work together, and the foci of their endeavour. The implications of these findings for in-class assessment of second language writing are discussed.