1 |
Don't turn a deaf ear: a case for assessing interactive listening
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
2 |
Towards new avenues for the IELTS Speaking Test: insights from examiners’ voices
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
3 |
The effects of extended planning time on candidates’ performance, processes and strategy use in the lecture listening-into-speaking tasks of the TOEFL iBT Test
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
4 |
Learning oriented feedback in the development and assessment of interactional competence
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
5 |
The IELTS Speaking Test: what can we learn from examiner voices?
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
6 |
Academic speaking: does the construct exist, and if so, how do we test it?
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
7 |
Development of empirically driven checklists for learners’ interactional competence
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
8 |
Developing tools for learning oriented assessment of interactional competence: bridging theory and practice
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
9 |
Interactional competence with and without extended planning time in a group oral assessment
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
10 |
What counts as ‘responding’? Contingency on previous speaker contribution as a feature of interactional competence
|
|
|
|
Abstract:
The ability to interact with others has gained recognition as part of the L2 speaking construct in the assessment literature and in high- and low-stakes speaking assessments. This paper first presents a review of the literature on interactional competence (IC) in L2 learning and assessment. It then discusses a particular feature – producing responses contingent on previous speaker contribution – that emerged as a de facto construct feature of IC oriented to by both candidates and examiners within the school-based group speaking assessment in the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education (HKDSE) English Language Examination. Previous studies have, similarly, argued for the importance of ‘responding to’ or linking one’s own talk to previous speakers’ contributions as a way of demonstrating comprehension of co-participants’ talk. However, what counts as such a response has yet to be explored systematically. This paper presents a conversation analytic study of the candidate discourse in the assessed group interactions, identifying three conversational actions through which student-candidates construct contingent responses to co-participants. The thick description about the nature of contingent responses lays the groundwork for further empirical investigations on the relevance of this IC feature and its proficiency implications.
|
|
Keyword:
language testing; peer interactions; Q330 English as a second language; speaking
|
|
URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10547/622709 https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532218758126
|
|
BASE
|
|
Hide details
|
|
|
|