Recent research in second language acquisition suggests that a number of speed, breakdown, repair, and composite measures reliably assess fluency and predict proficiency. However, there is little research evidence to indicate which measures best characterize fluency at each assessed level of proficiency and which can consistently distinguish one level from the next. This study investigated fluency in 32 speakers’ performing 4 tasks of the British Council's Aptis Speaking Test, which were awarded 4 different levels of proficiency (Common European Framework of Reference for Language levels A2–C1). Using PRAAT, the performances were analyzed for various aspects of utterance fluency across different levels of proficiency. The results suggest that speed and composite measures consistently distinguish fluency from the lowest to upper‐intermediate levels (A2–B2), and many breakdown measures differentiate between the lowest level (A2) and the rest of the proficiency groups, with a few differentiating between lower (A2, B1) and higher levels (B2, C1). The varied use of repair measures at different levels suggests that a more complex process is at play. The findings imply that a detailed micro‐analysis of fluency offers a more reliable understanding of the construct and its relationship with assessment of proficiency.

This study explores the nature of co-constructed interaction in group oral tests by examining whether a test-taker's own and his or her group members' extraversion levels and oral proficiency levels have different influences on conversational styles between two group sizes: groups of three and groups of four. Data were collected from 269 Japanese upper-secondary school students, who took group oral tests either in groups of three or four. All sessions were video-taped and transcribed following Conversation Analysis (CA) conventions. The data were quantitatively analysed in terms of goal-orientation, interactional contingency and quantitative dominance. Then, CA methodology was used to interpret and elaborate the statistical results. The findings have implications for our understanding of the group oral test construct and for appropriate choices of group size in group oral testing.

Despite the growing popularity of paired format speaking assessments, the effects of pre-task planning time on performance in these formats are not yet well understood. For example, some studies have revealed the benefits of planning but others have not. Using a multifaceted approach including analysis to extend the process of performance, the aim of this paper is to investigate the effect of pre-task planning in a paired format. Data were collected from 32 students who carried out two decision-making tasks in pairs, under planned and unplanned conditions. The study used analyses of rating scores, discourse analytic measures, and conversation analysis (CA) of test-taker discourse to gain insight into co-constructing processes. A post-test questionnaire was also administered to understand the participants' perceptions toward planned and unplanned interactions. The results from rating scores and discourse analytic measures revealed that planning had limited effect on performance, and analysis of the questionnaires did not indicate clear differences between the two conditions. CA, however, identified the possibility of a contrastive mode of discourse under the two planning conditions, raising concerns that planning might actually deprive test-takers of the chance to demonstrate their abilities to interact collaboratively.

Metadiscourse markers refer to aspects of text organisation or indicate a writer's stance towards the text's content or towards the reader (Hyland, 2004:109). The CEFR (Council of Europe, 2001) indicates that one of the key areas of development anticipated between levels B2 and C1 is an increasing variety of discourse markers and growing acknowledgement of the intended audience by learners. This study represents the first large-scale project of the metadiscourse of general second language learner writing, through the analysis of 281 metadiscourse markers in 13 categories, from 900 exam scripts at CEFR B2-C2 levels. The study employed the online text analysis tool Text Inspector (Bax, 2012), in conjunction with human analysts. The findings revealed that higher level writers used fewer metadiscourse markers than lower level writers, but used a significantly wider range of 8 of the 13 classes of markers. The study also demonstrated the crucial importance of analysing not only the behaviour of whole classes of metadiscourse items but also the individual items themselves. The findings are of potential interest to those involved in the development of assessment scales at different levels of the CEFR, or to teachers interested in aiding the development of learners. Highlights • Advanced L2 writers use fewer metadiscourse markers than intermediate writers • Advanced L2 writers can express text organisation without explicit markers • Higher-level writers use a greater range of metadiscourse markers • Higher-level writers abandon simple markers in favour of other makers

No abstract