Interactional competence in paired speaking tests: A study on proficiency-based pairings

Artunç, Esma Kot; Hart, Deniz Ortaçtepe

doi:10.1016/j.system.2019.102194

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A study conducted by Artunç and Hart (2019) at a Turkish state university, was aimed at exploring the degree to which using interactional resources such as taking turns or managing a task, as well as the interactional patterns of EFL learners in paired speaking tests (PSTs) once EFL examinees who had the same vs. different levels of proficiency were combined together. The findings of this study clearly suggested that interactional competence was measured best when two high-level examinees are matched together as opposed to low-high level test takers.…”

Section: Interactional Patterns Resources and Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review of Interactional Competence Assessment in the Saudi EFL Context

AlQahtani¹

2021

IJEL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interactional competence (IC) lies at the heart of the communicative skills an EFL learner is supposed to master. This paper investigates the meanings, assessment methods, and implications of IC in a second/foreign language setting and particularly in the Saudi context. The first part charts a theoretical background to the study of language from the early debate of the notions of competence and performance, through the evolution of communicative competence and the emergence of the term interactional competence. The second part of the paper outlines how IC has been described in the literature from multiple perspectives; interactional patterns, resources and strategies, IC authenticity, raters’ interpretations of IC and finally how the term was used in the Saudi context. However, it was aimed through this paper to draw an advantageous picture that provides a comprehensive understanding to how the term interactional competence has been taken up in the field of second/foreign language assessment. Needless to say, IC assessment is still an under-researched field in Saudi Arabia, and needs further efforts from the teachers, researchers and policy makers to provide thorough insights into assessing and employing interactional skills in the Saudi EFL classrooms.

show abstract

Section: Interactional Patterns Resources and Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review of Interactional Competence Assessment in the Saudi EFL Context

AlQahtani¹

2021

IJEL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Empirical studies on IC have garnered increasing scholarly interest during the past two decades, primarily directed to the following three issues—mechanism and trajectory of development of IC, testing and assessment of IC, and ways to teach and improve IC (Dai & Dave, 2023), among which the second one plays a crucial role. Most studies on this issue have explored relationship between interactional features and test scores (e.g., Galaczi, 2008), compared interactional performance of test takers at different levels of L2 proficiency (e.g., Artunç & Hart, 2020), and investigated effects of various variables on test‐takers’ interactional performance, such as task design, test‐takers’ gender, personality, and acquaintanceship (e.g., Nakatsuhara, 2013; van Moere, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Drawing upon these two dimensions, Storch (2002) was the first to identify the interactional patterns of balance or imbalance in English as a second language (ESL) written discourse. The classification framework was later modified by Galaczi (2008) and widely adopted in several recent studies (e.g., Artunç & Hart, 2020; Dao & McDonough, 2017), serving as the basis for capturing and quantifying the distinct differences in co‐constructed discourse.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prompt effects on assessment of interactional competence in a group oral test

2024

Int J App Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study serves as an attempt to validate an in‐house oral proficiency test (hereafter referred to as OPT) with a particular focus on prompt effects on assessment of interactional competence, an issue that has attracted burgeoning interest but not been adequately investigated yet. Prompts employed in the parallel versions of the group discussion task, which were supposed to be comparable, were found to differ in two dimensions, that is, topical domain and syntactic structure. The transcribed interactions from 136 sophomore test takers (34 groups) sitting in the first administration of the OPT were coded through a rigorous procedure and examined using conversation analysis. Five patterns of interaction were identified with distinct features based on two dimensions, mutuality and equality. Marked differences in distribution of patterns of interaction were detected in discourse elicited by different prompts, which should be mainly attributed to the syntactic structure of the prompts. The open‐question prompts were found more likely to elicit “conversation‐like” interaction with higher mutuality, characterized by the collaborative and unbalanced‐collaborative patterns, while the closed‐question prompts tended to elicit more “solo versus solo” interaction with lower mutuality, featured by the parallel and unbalanced‐parallel patterns. The influence of topic domain, however, was minimal. The results thereby constitute rebuttals that weaken meaningfulness and impartiality of the claim of interpretations about the construct within Bachman and Palmer's assessment use argument framework and suggest close attention from the test developers. The implications for prompt design, and development and validation of the group oral test are further provided.

show abstract

“…Paired/group discussion tasks, in which two or more test-takers discuss an assigned topic without substantial involvement of an examiner (Philp et al, 2014), are shown to be effective in assessing aspects of second language (L2) oral communication ability (OCA; e.g., Bonk & Ockey, 2003; Leaper & Brawn, 2019; Taylor, 2011), especially interactional competence (IC; e.g., Galaczi, 2014; Lam, 2018; May et al, 2020). However, the use of these tasks in large-scale assessments remains limited due to the impracticality of task administration and the potential impact of interlocutor characteristics, such as personality (e.g., Ockey, 2009), acquaintanceship (e.g., O’Sullivan, 2002), and proficiency level (e.g., Artunc & Hart, 2020), on performance. With recent technological advances, these issues can be addressed by building spoken dialog systems (SDSs), computer programs designed to interact with humans in natural spoken language, to deliver versions of paired/group discussion tasks where computers serve as conversation partners (i.e., interlocutors).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategy use in a spoken dialog system–delivered paired discussion task: A stimulated recall study

Gokturk

Chukharev‐Hudilainen

2023

Language Testing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With recent technological advances, researchers have begun to explore the potential use of spoken dialog systems (SDSs) for L2 oral communication assessment. While several studies support the feasibility of building these systems for various types of oral tasks, research on the construct validity of SDS-delivered tasks is still limited. Thus, this study examines the cognitive processes engaged by an SDS-delivered paired discussion task, focusing on strategic competence, an essential component of L2 oral communication ability. Thirty adult test-takers completed a paired discussion task with an SDS acting as an interlocutor and provided stimulated recalls about their strategy use in the task. Three trained raters independently evaluated the test-takers’ oral task responses using a holistic rating scale devised for the task. Findings revealed the use of six categories of construct-relevant strategies during task performance. While no statistically significant differences were found in the use of these categories between high- and low-ability test-takers, marked differences were observed in the use of individual strategies within the categories between the test-takers at the two levels. These findings provide insight into how test-takers at different ability levels cognitively interact with SDS-delivered paired discussion tasks and offer implications for the design and validation of such tasks.

show abstract

Interactional competence in paired speaking tests: A study on proficiency-based pairings

Cited by 8 publications

References 30 publications

A Review of Interactional Competence Assessment in the Saudi EFL Context

A Review of Interactional Competence Assessment in the Saudi EFL Context

Prompt effects on assessment of interactional competence in a group oral test

Strategy use in a spoken dialog system–delivered paired discussion task: A stimulated recall study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About