Demystifying the Role of Paired Task and Test-Taker Speaking Ability in Assessing Co-Constructed Discourse in Paired Oral Assessment
الموضوعات : نشریه زبان و ترجمه
Masoumeh Nouri
1
,
Abbas Bayat
2
,
Peyman Rajabi
3
1 - Department of English Language, Malayer Branch, Islamic Azad University, Malayer, Iran
2 - Department of English Language, Malayer Branch, Islamic Azad University, Malayer, Iran
3 - Department of English Language, Malayer Branch, Islamic Azad University, Malayer, Iran
الکلمات المفتاحية: Co-Constructed Discourse, Paired Oral Assessment, Paired Task, Test-Taker Speaking Ability,
ملخص المقالة :
The present study was an attempt to demystify the role of paired task and test-taker speaking ability in assessing co-constructed discourse in paired oral assessment across Iranian EFL paired examinees with different ability combinations. To accomplish this aim, non-experimental qualitative research was devised in which 36 participants were purposely recruited from three distinct speaking competence levels; namely, upper-intermediate (High-Level), lower intermediate (Mid-Level), and elementary (Low-Level), with 12 learners in each. Participants with similar and different proficiency levels were randomly assigned to six different paired group combinations and were given a discussion task as a paired-test speaking task in which they were asked to discuss the topic of the conversation and attempt to develop the co-constructed discourse. The voices of each couple discussing the assigned topic were then record-ed. Following the transcription of the examinees' performances, the researcher analyzed the learners' conversations using Young's model of interactional competence, which deals with the speakers' ability to organize interactions in terms of turn-taking, break-down repair, and mutual understanding using ver-bal communication in relation to the situational context. The findings demonstrated that low-ability partners employed gestures and postures in turn-taking, as well as a lot of breakdown repairs while fail-ing in mutual comprehension, particularly in talks with more skilled interlocutors. Mid-ability pairs struggled to provide an adequate response in the second position to demonstrate understanding of an interlocutor's comment or statement but could advance the communication in terms of mutual under-standing and moderate success in proper breakdown repairs in their own similar and balanced pairs. However, they lost confidence in taking turns and relied heavily on fixes when conversing with more experienced interlocutors. Similarly, low-ability paired persons seldom tropicalized portions of other speakers' contributions in their own talk. High-ability speakers were more likely to demonstrate prior talk knowledge through contingent answers. These findings revealed that task direction and progress might have an impact on interactional behavior and how understanding is expressed. Additionally, the findings have some implications for teaching, learning, and testing L2 speaking through paired-test tasks for the purpose of improving EFL learners' speaking skills sub-skills.
Abdallah, M., & Mansour, M. (2015). Virtual task-based situated language-learning with second life: Developing EFL pragmatic writing and technological self-efficacy. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ), 2, 150.
Ahmadi, A., & Montasseri, Z. (2019). Interactional competence in paired vs. group oral tests. Teaching English Language, 13(1), 1-26.
Albino, G. (2017). Improving speaking fluen-cy in a task-based language teaching approach: The case of EFL learners at PUNIV-Cazenga. Sage open, 7(2), 1-11.
Antón, M., & Pendexter, T. (2021). Discourse approaches to second language reflec-tions in portfolio assessment: An activi-ty theory account of learner agency. In L. Czerwionka, R. Showstack, & J. Liskin-Gasparro (Eds.), Contexts of co-constructed discourse (pp. 163-182). Routledge.
Artunç, E. K., & Hart, D. O. (2020). Interac-tional competence in paired speaking tests: A study on proficiency-based pair-ings. System, 89, 102194.
Arundale, R. B. (2021). Toward pragmatics of relating in conversational interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 179, 19-25.
Asaei, S. M., & Rahimi, R. (2021). Appropria-tion-based syllabus and speaking ability: Evidence from Iranian EFL context. Bi-annual Journal of Education Experienc-es, 4(1), 1-20.
Atkinson, D., Churchill, E., Nishino, T., & Okada, H. (2007). Alignment and inter-action in a socio-cognitive approach to second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 91(2), 169-188.
Bashir, M., Azeem, M., & Dogar, A. H. (2011). Factors affecting students’ Eng-lish-speaking skills. British journal of arts and social sciences, 2(1), 34-50.
Bin-Hady, W. R. (2020). Teaching speaking skills to EFL college students through a task-based approach: problems and im-provement. British Journal of English Linguistics, 8(2), 113-130.
Blackwell, S. E. (2021). Epistemic causality in Spanish narratives as evidence of knowledge frames. In L. Czerwionka, R. Showstack, & J. Liskin-Gasparro (Eds.), (pp. 136-159). Routledge.
.Brooks, L. (2009). Interacting in pairs in a test of oral proficiency: Co-constructing a better performance. Language Testing, 26(3), 342-366.
Burch, A. R., & Kley, K. (2020). Assessing interactional competence: The role of inter-subjectivity in a paired-speaking assessment task. Papers in Language Testing and Assessment, 9(1), 25-63.
Cekaite, A. (2007). A child's development of interactional development in a Swedish L2 classroom. Modern Language Jour-nal, 91(1), 45-62.
Çiftçi, H., & Vásquez, C. (2020). Co-constructed oppositional stance and face-work in an office hour interaction. Journal of Politeness Research, 16(2), 193-216.
Csépes, I. (2009). Measuring oral proficiency through paired-task performance. Frank-furt/Main, Germany: Peter Lang.
Desta, M. A. (2019). An investigation of chal-lenges teachers faces in teaching speak-ing skill in large classes‟ context: sec-ondary school EFL teachers in focus. International Journal of English Lan-guage Education, 7(2), 66-81.
Dingemanse, M., & Enfield, N. J. (2015). Oth-er-initiated repair across languages: to-wards a typology of conversational structures. Open Linguistics, 1(1), 96-118.
Dings, A. (2014). Interactional competence and the development of alignment activ-ity. The Modern Language Journal, 98(3), 742-756.
Ebadijalal, M., & Yousofi, N. (2021). The im-pact of mobile-assisted peer feedback on EFL learners’ speaking performance and anxiety: does language make a dif-ference? The Language Learning Jour-nal, 1(2), 1-19.
Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language
36 Demystifying the Role of Paired Task and Test-Taker Speaking …
acquisition. Studies in second language acquisition, 28(4), 575-600.
Firth, A. (2009). Doing not being a foreign language learner: English as a lingua franca in the workplace and (some) im-plications for SLA. IRAL, 47(1), 127-156.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (2007). Second/foreign language learning as a social accom-plishment: Elaborations on a conceptu-alized SLA. Modern Language Journal, 91(s1), 800-819.
Galaczi, E. D. (2013). Interactional compe-tence across proficiency levels: How do learners manage interaction in paired speaking tests? Applied linguistics, 35(5), 553-574.
Galaczi, E., & Taylor, L. (2018). Interactional competence: Conceptualisations, operationalizations, and outstanding questions. Language Assessment Quar-terly, 15(3), 219-236.
Govindasamy, M., & Shah, P. M. (2020). Stu-dents’ perceptions of collaborative speaking tasks in ESL classrooms. Crea-tive Education, 11(11), 2280-2292.
Hall, J. K., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2011). De-veloping ‘methods’ for interaction: A cross-sectional study of disagreement sequences in French L2. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development (pp. 206-243). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
He, A. W., & Young, R. (1998). Language proficiency interviews: A discourse ap-proach. In R. Young & A. W. He (Eds.), Talking and Testing: Discourse ap-proaches to the assessment of oral profi-ciency (pp. 1-24). Amsterdam, Nether-lands: John Benjamins.
Hellermann, J. (2008). Social actions for class-room language learning. Clevedon, Eng-land: Multilingual Matters.
Hodge, D. C., Baxter Magolda, M. B., & Haynes, C. A. (2009). Engaged learn-ing: Enabling self-authorship and ef-fective practice. Liberal Education, 95(4), 16-23.
Ishida, M. (2009). Development of interac-tional competence: Changes in the use of ne in L2 Japanese during study abroad. In H. Nguyen & G. Kasper (Eds.), Talk-in-interaction: Multilingual perspectives (pp. 351–385). Honolulu, HI: National Foreign Language Re-source Center, University of Hawai'i at Manoa.
Jaiyote, S. (2015). The relationship between test-takers’ L1, their listening proficiency, and performance on paired speaking tests. ARAGs Research Reports Online, 2.
Johnson, M. (2000). Interaction in the oral proficiency interview: Problems of vali-dation. Pragmatics, 10(2), 215-231.
Kecskes, I. (2019). English as a lingua franca: The pragmatic perspective. Cambridge University Press.
Kecskes, I., Sanders, R. E., & Pomerantz, A. (2018). The basic interactional compe-tence of language learners. Journal of Pragmatics, 124, 88-105.
Kim, Y., & Crepaldi, Y. T. (2021). Co-constructed storytelling as a site for so-cialization in parent-child interaction: A case from a Malay-English bilingual family in Singapore. Journal of Prag-matics, 172, 167-180.
Kley, K. (2015). Interactional competence in paired speaking tests: Role of paired task and test-taker speaking ability in co-constructed discourse. Doctoral Disserta-tion, The University of Iowa, The USA.
Kley, K. (2021). Intersubjectivity in Co-constructed test discourse: What is the role of L2 speaking ability? In L. Czerwionka, R. Showstack, & J. Liskin-Gasparro (Eds.), Contexts of co-constructed discourse (pp. 183-208). Routledge.
Koike, D. A. (1989). Pragmatic competence and adult L2 acquisition: Speech acts in interlanguage. The Modern Language Journal, 73(3), 279-289.
Koike, D. A., & Pearson, L. (2005). The effect of instruction and feedback in the de-velopment of pragmatic competence. System, 33(3), 481-501.
Journal of language and translation, Volume 13, Number 2, 2023 37
Kramsch, C. (1986). From language proficien-cy to interactional competence. The modern language journal, 70(4), 366-372.
Kreuz, J., & Luginbühl, M. (2020). From flat propositions to deep co-constructed and modalized argumentations: Oral argu-mentative skills among elementary school children from grades 2 to 6. Re-search on Children and Social Interac-tion, 4(1), 93-114.
Lam, D. M. (2018). What counts as “respond-ing”? Contingency on previous speaker contribution as a feature of interactional competence. Language Testing, 35(3), 377-401.
Lialikhova, D. (2019). “We can do it togeth-er!”-But can they? How Norwegian ninth-graders co-constructed content and language knowledge through peer interaction in CLIL. Linguistics and Ed-ucation, 54, 100764.
Lindahl, K. (2018). Tasks for teaching speak-ing to beginners. In J. Liontas & M. DelliCarpini (Eds.), The TESOL ency-clopedia of English language teaching (1-6). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.
Ma, W. (2021). What the analytic versus holis-tic scoring of international teaching as-sistants can reveal: Lexical grammar matters. Language Testing, 26, 51-61. https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322211040020
May, L. A. (2009). Co-constructed interaction in a paired speaking test: The rater’s perspective. Language Testing, 26(3), 397–421.
McNamara, T., & Roever, C. (2006). Psycho-metric approaches to fairness: Bias and DIF. Language learning, 56(2), 81-128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2006.00381.x
Mori, J., & Hasegawa, A. (2009). Doing being a foreign language learner in a class-room: Embodiment of cognitive states as social events. IRAL, 47(1), 65–94.
Nakatsuhara, F. (2010). Interactional compe-tence measured in group oral tests: how do test-taker characteristics, task types, and group sizes affect co-constructed discourse in groups? Paper delivered in Symposium of exploring interactional competence in paired and group speak-ing tests. The University of Bedford-shire. Retrieved August 5, 2021 from https://uobrep.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10547/623717/nakatsuhara_ltrc2010.pdf?sequence=2
Ockey, G. J., Koyama, D., Setoguchi, E., & Sun, A. (2015). The extent to which TOEFL iBT speaking scores are associ-ated with performance on oral language tasks and oral ability components for Japanese university students. Language Testing, 32(1), 39-62.
Ounis, A. (2017). The assessment of speaking skills at the tertiary level. International Journal of English Linguistics, 7(4), 95-112.
Rabab’ah, G., & Rumman, R. A. (2015). Hedging in Political Discourse: Evi-dence from the Speeches of King Ab-dullah II of Jordan. Prague Journal of English Studies, 4(1), 157-185.
Rahimi, M., & Sobhani, A. (2015). Teachers' different types of feedback on Iranian EFL learners' speaking errors and their impact on the students' uptake of the correct forms. Research Papers in Lan-guage Teaching and Learning, 6(1), 121-133.
Rahimi, M., & Zhang, L. J. (2015). Exploring non-native English-speaking teachers' cognitions about corrective feedback in teaching English oral communication. System, 55, 111-122.
Roever, C., & Kasper, G. (2018). Speaking in turns and sequences: Interactional compe-tence as a target construct in testing speak-ing. Language Testing, 35(3), 331-355.
Salman, H. S., & Betti, M. J. (2020). Polite-ness and face-threatening acts in Iraqi EFL learners’ conversations. Glossa, 3(8), 221-233.
Taylor, L. (2001). The paired speaking test format: Recent studies. University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations Re-search Notes, 6, 15–17.
Toro, V., Camacho-Minuche, G., Pinza-Tapia, E., & Paredes, F. (2019). The
38 Demystifying the Role of Paired Task and Test-Taker Speaking …
use of the communicative language teaching approach to improve stu-dents’ oral skills. English Language Teaching, 12(1), 111-118.
Van Moere, A. (2013). Paired and group oral assessment. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1-4). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9781405198431.
Youn, S. J. (2020). Managing proposal se-quences in role-play assessment: Validi-ty evidence of interactional competence across levels. Language Testing, 37(1), 76-106.
Young, R. F. (2000). Interactional Compe-tence: Challenges for validity. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for applied lin-guistics (Vancouver, BC, Canada, March 2000). ERIC: ED 444 361FL.
Young, R. F. (2011). Interactional competence in language learning, teaching, and test-ing. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, Vol. 2 (pp. 426-443). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Young, R. F. (2013). Learning to talk the talk and walk the walk: Interactional compe-tence in academic spoken English. Iberica, 25, 13-38.
Young, R. F. (2014). “Don’t know much about history” and it’s not a wonderful world. In A. Bangerter (Ed.), Keynote speech at the conference on interactional com-petencies and institutional practices (pp. 1-5). Publications of Université de Neu-châtel, Switzerland.
Young, R. F. (2019). Interactional competence and L2 pragmatics. In The Routledge handbook of second language acquisi-tion and pragmatics (pp. 93-110). Routledge.
Young, R. F., & Milanovic, M. (1992). Dis-course variation in oral proficiency interviews. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14(4), 403-424.
Young, R. F., & Miller, E. (2004). Learning as changing participation: Discourse roles in ESL writing conferences. Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 519–535.
Zakian, M. (2021). The effect of recast on the speaking accuracy and willingness to communicate (WTC) of Iranian EFL learners across gender. International Journal of English Language &Translation Studies, 9(1). 75-80.
