Testing L2 Talk: A Review of Empirical Studies on Second-Language Oral Proficiency Testing <s> PAIRED TESTS <s> 1. Preface (by Celce-Murcia, Marianne) 2. Language Proficiency Interviews: A Discourse Approach (by He, Agnes Weiyun) 3. 1. Language Proficiency Interviews and Conversation 4. Re-analyzing the OPI: How Much Does It Look Like Natural Conversation? (by Johnson, Marysia) 5. Evaluating Learner Interactional Skills: Conversation at the Micro Level (by Riggenbach, Heidi) 6. What Happens When There's No One to Talk to? Spanish Foreign Language Discourse in Simulated Oral Proficiency Interviews (by Koike, Dale A.) 7. 2. Turns and Sequences in Language Proficiency Interviews 8. Answering Questions in LPIs: A Case Study (by He, Agnes Weiyun) 9. Framing the Language Proficiency Interview as a Speech Event: Native and Non-Native Speaker's Questions (by Moder, Carol Lynn) 10. Miscommunication in Language Proficiency Interviews of First-Year German Students: A Comparison with Natural Conversation (by Egbert, Maria M.) 11. Knowledge and Communication in Language Proficiency Interviews 12. Knowledge Structures in Oral Proficiency Interviews for International Teaching Assistants (by Mohan, Bernard A.) 13. The Use of Communication Strategies in Language Proficiency Interviews (by Yoshida-Morise, Yumiko) 14. Meaning Negociation in the Hungarian Oral Proficiency Examination of English (by Katona, Lucy) 15. 3. Language Proficiency Interviews as Cross-Cultural Encounters 16. Maintaining American Face in the Korean Oral Exam: Reflections on the Power of cross-Cultural Context (by Davies, Catherine Evans) 17. Confirmation Sequences as Intercational Resources in Korean Language Proficiency Interviews (by Kim, Kyu-hyun) 18. Divergent Frame Interpretations in Oral Proficiency Interview Interaction (by Ross, Steven) 19. "Let Them Eat Cake!" or how to Avoid Losing Your Head in Cross-Cultural Conversations (by Young, Richard) 20. Index of Names 21. Index of Topics <s> BIB001 </s> Testing L2 Talk: A Review of Empirical Studies on Second-Language Oral Proficiency Testing <s> PAIRED TESTS <s> This article ::: reports on a study that investigated the effect of different amounts of planning time on the ::: speech performance of L2 speakers. Subjects were 4 groups of learners of German (31 in ::: total) performing 2 tasks each. The tasks varied in the degree of structure they contained and ::: the familiarity of information they tapped. The control group had no planning time available; ::: the 3 experimental groups had 1, 5, and 10 minutes of planning time, respectively, before they ::: started speaking. Results show fluency and lexical density of speech increase as a function of ::: planning time. Accuracy of speech improved with only 1 minute planning but did not increase ::: with more planning time. Complexity of speech was significantly higher for the 10-minute ::: planning condition only. No significant differences were found for the effect of planning on ::: the different tasks. This study employed various general and specific constructs for measuring ::: fluency, complexity, and accuracy of speech. The interrelationships and qualities of these ::: measures are also investigated and discussed. <s> BIB002 </s> Testing L2 Talk: A Review of Empirical Studies on Second-Language Oral Proficiency Testing <s> PAIRED TESTS <s> Abstract The present study, building upon Pica, Holliday, Lewis and Morgenthaler’s 1989 (Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11(1), 63–90.) study on modified output, examines the impact of learner proficiency in learner–learner interaction, particularly on opportunities for modified output through interactional moves. Data were collected from learners of Japanese using two different types of tasks. Subjects were divided into three groups (Low–Low, High–High and High–Low groups). The results showed that mixed level dyads provided more interactional moves than same level dyads, but the frequent occurrence of interactional moves did not lead to the greatest amount of modified output. The findings have implications for interactional moves and learners’ modified output, and represent an extension of the research on learners’ output to another foreign language, Japanese. <s> BIB003 </s> Testing L2 Talk: A Review of Empirical Studies on Second-Language Oral Proficiency Testing <s> PAIRED TESTS <s> FACETS many-facet Rasch analysis software (Linacre, 1998a) was utilized to look at two consecutive administrations of a large-scale (more than 1000 examinees) second language oral assessment in the form of a peer group discussion task with Japanese English-major university students. Facets modeled in the analysis were examinee, prompt, rater, and five rating category ‘items.’ Unidimensionality was shown to be strong in both datasets, and approaches to interpreting fit values for the facets modeled in the analysis were discussed. Examinee ability was the most substantial facet, followed by rater severity, and item. The prompt facet was negligible in magnitude. Rater differences in terms of severity were generally large, but this characteristic was not stable over time for individuals; returning raters tended to move toward greater severity and consistency, while new raters showed much more inconsistency. Analysis of the scales showed general validity in gradations of scale steps, though raters had some dif... <s> BIB004 </s> Testing L2 Talk: A Review of Empirical Studies on Second-Language Oral Proficiency Testing <s> PAIRED TESTS <s> This article presents three strategies for teaching students who are taking the IELTS speaking test. The first strategy is aimed at improving confidence and uses a variety of self-help materials from the field of popular psychology. The second encourages students to think critically and invokes a range of academic perspectives. The third strategy invites a close inspection and utilization of the marking criteria published in the IELTS handbook. These strategies were applied to a small group of students who sat the test in September 2005 and their scores are presented and analysed. There is some evidence that the strategies were effective in raising scores on the speaking component. <s> BIB005 </s> Testing L2 Talk: A Review of Empirical Studies on Second-Language Oral Proficiency Testing <s> PAIRED TESTS <s> The increasing popularity of paired format in oral testing has engendered legitimate scrutiny of its reliability and validity as compared with the more traditional interviewer–interviewee arrangement. Although characteristics such as the gender, cultural/L1 background, and language proficiency of one's interlocutor likely affects the discourse produced with a partner, the question remains whether this interlocutor effect influences scores on the test. In this article, the construct interlocutor effect is further examined. Initially, transcript data from two large-scale speaking tests were analyzed by working backward from testtaker scores to locate discourse features to support those scores; identity formulations, such as “proficient” and “competent,” as constructed in and through the discourse test takers produce, emerged as a salient feature of the talk. Specifically, we posit that a test taker brings a language proficiency identity to a test task, and this identity is constructed, mediated, and display... <s> BIB006 </s> Testing L2 Talk: A Review of Empirical Studies on Second-Language Oral Proficiency Testing <s> PAIRED TESTS <s> In this book the author builds a comprehensive framework for the assessment of young language learners in both foreign language and second language learning situations. She begins by considering why we need a special book on young learner assessment, and describes the nature of young learner language learning. The assessment approach is task-based and is centred around tasks and techniques suitable for young learners, with particular emphasis on classroom assessment. Oral language assessment, and reading and writing assessment are addressed in separate chapters, as is the large-scale testing of young learners. Underpinned by sound theory, the book is full of practical guidelines, and draws on examples of assessment contexts, issues and practices from around the world. Assessing Young Language Learners was winner of the Kenneth W Mildenberger Prize in 2006. <s> BIB007 </s> Testing L2 Talk: A Review of Empirical Studies on Second-Language Oral Proficiency Testing <s> PAIRED TESTS <s> 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 investi gation 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. <s> BIB008 </s> Testing L2 Talk: A Review of Empirical Studies on Second-Language Oral Proficiency Testing <s> PAIRED TESTS <s> The study described in this article investigated the relationship between three variables in the IELTS oral module—planning, proficiency, and task—and was designed to enhance our understanding of how or whether these variables interact. The study aimed to determine whether differences in performance resulted from 1 or 2 min of planning time. It also aimed to identify the most effective strategies used by candidates in their planning. Ninety candidates, in two groups—intermediate and advanced—each undertook three tasks with either 1 or 2 min planning time or none. All tasks were rated by two raters, and the transcripts of the speech samples subjected to a discourse analysis. Neither the analysis of the scores nor the discourse analysis revealed any significant differences in performance according to the amount of planning time provided. Although this suggests that planning time does not positively advantage candidates, we argue that 1 min of pretask planning should be considered as an option in the test de... <s> BIB009 </s> Testing L2 Talk: A Review of Empirical Studies on Second-Language Oral Proficiency Testing <s> PAIRED TESTS <s> The pressing need for English oral communication skills in multifarious contexts today is compelling impetus behind the large number of studies done on oral proficiency interviewing. Moreover, given the recently articulated concerns with the fairness and social dimension of such interviews, parallel concerns have been raised as to how most fairly to assess the oral communication skills of examinees, and what factors contribute to more skilled performance. This article sketches theory and practice on two rather competing formats of oral proficiency interviewing: face-to-face and paired. In the first place, it reviews the related literature on the alleged disadvantages of the individual format. Then, the pros and cons of the paired format are enumerated. It is discussed that the paired format has indeed met some of the criticisms leveled at individual oral proficiency interviewing. However, exploitation of the paired format as an undisputable alternative to the face-to-face format begs the question. <s> BIB010 </s> Testing L2 Talk: A Review of Empirical Studies on Second-Language Oral Proficiency Testing <s> PAIRED TESTS <s> The present study takes as an empirical point of departure the nature of interaction in second language speaking tests. We examine the relationship between ratings of students' performance in an oral proficiency test and the social practice of conducting 'test talk'. Using conversation analysis, our focal point is how students in peer- driven test interactions manage trouble related to the task-at-hand. Given that students were assessed not only on their linguistic skills, but also on their interactional ability and treatment of topics assigned, our emphasis on task management stems from a hypothesis that orientation to the test task is intimately connected to overall test outcome. We demonstrate that different types of task-related trouble (TRT) reveal diverse understandings of the test task and that 'doing-being a successful task manager' is connected to a moderate orientation to the task and test format. Students displaying such task management strategies were also assessed as highly proficient, whereas other task management strategies identified in our study correlated with low scores and grades. However, the relationship between subskill ratings and task management was not always clear-cut. We argue that the diverging understandings of the test task that learners display become part of how they are assessed and that certain task management strategies are rated less favorably than others. Our study holds promise for the fine-tuning of oral proficiency subskill ratings and raises questions as to the framing of test tasks, since this appears to have implications for student performance and evaluation. <s> BIB011 </s> Testing L2 Talk: A Review of Empirical Studies on Second-Language Oral Proficiency Testing <s> PAIRED TESTS <s> The article investigates the behaviour of interviewers during the oral proficiency interview within the framework of the national examination in the English language in Estonia from the gender perspective. The research investigates whether noticeable differences can be traced in the behavioural patterns of male and female interviewers that could lead to placing the candidates in a disadvantaged position, not allowing them to display their language proficiency to the full. The study involves nine female and nine male interviewers whose interview language is subjected to content analysis. The results show an overall attempt to follow the scripted interview format envisaged for this examination, but alterations to the script prevail with both gender groups. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5128/ERYa9.14 <s> BIB012 </s> Testing L2 Talk: A Review of Empirical Studies on Second-Language Oral Proficiency Testing <s> PAIRED TESTS <s> 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 of the process of speaking 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 quest... <s> BIB013 </s> Testing L2 Talk: A Review of Empirical Studies on Second-Language Oral Proficiency Testing <s> PAIRED TESTS <s> Paired speaking tasks are now commonly used in both pedagogic and assessment contexts, as they elicit a wide range of interactional skills. The current study aims to offer an investigation of the interaction co-constructed by learners at different proficiency levels who are engaged in a paired speaking test, and to provide insights into the conceptualization of interactional competence and key distinguishing interactional features across levels. The findings suggest that our understanding of interactional competence both in the classroom and as a construct underlying tests and assessment scales needs to broaden to include not just interactional features such as topic development organization, but also listener support strategies and turn-taking management. A more comprehensive understanding of interactional competence has the potential to complement available descriptions of interactional skills in assessment scales of speaking and aid learners and teachers in communicative classrooms. <s> BIB014
In contrast to OPIs, there are paired/dyadic L2 speaking tests, which have grown increasingly popular BIB013 . Presumably, paired tests better resemble natural conversation BIB008 . A study by Brooks (2009: 341) compared the two test formats, OPI and paired, and found that the latter resulted not only in higher OP scores for the test-takers but also in 'more interaction, negotiation of meaning, consideration of the interlocutor and more complex output'. In a similar (but theoretical) comparison, BIB010 concludes that paired testing might indeed be more beneficial than traditional OPIs but calls for more empirical research on the topic. Whatever the case, paired tests are clearly problematic from an assessment perspective since the spoken output is a joint product BIB001 by two test-takers later assessed individually  BIB011 . Moreover, the role of the interlocutor is crucial since s/he is likely to inf luence both scoressometimes positively, sometimes negatively  BIB014 BIB003 ) -and interaction BIB006 . There are also questions as regards possible effects of pre-task planning on performance; whereas a previous study shows a positive relationship between planning time and OP scoring BIB002 ), a more recent one reveals limited effects of planning on output and also that planning may strip test-takers of the opportunity to demonstrate their interactional abilities BIB013 ; see also BIB009 . Regardless of test format, type of preparation affects test results   BIB005 , and it appears that gender also may play a role in oral testing  BIB007 BIB012 . GROUP TESTS Based on the results from our searches, studies on paired or group tests are much less common than studies on tests involving one test-taker. As regards group tests, generally three or four candidates participate, and the examiner remains silent. Tasks and prompts vary, but the point is to elicit group interaction (and it happens that the examiner is supposed to participate as well,  . A frequently used group test of L2 English OP was developed in Japan BIB004 : candidates are given a short written prompt about a general topic and after 1 min of preparation, they begin a discussion that should last approximately 10 min BIB004  . In other tests, topic cards (see, e.g., Sandlund & Sundqvist 2013) or pictures (see, e.g., Hasselgren 2000) are used to elicit discussion. Among other things, recent studies on L2 group tests have treated topic negotiation, turn-taking practices, and more, which is developed further below. Empirical studies of discourse and social interaction in L2 OP tests [2004] [2005] [2006] [2007] [2008] [2009] [2010] [2011] [2012] [2013] [2014] In this section, empirical studies of discourse and social interaction in L2 oral proficiency tests published in 2004-2014 are discussed. Given the variety in analytical approaches and mixed-methods setups in studies that involved authentic face-to-face discourse data, a separation of studies identifying as 'discourse analytic' and 'social interactional' respectively was not possible to make, since many of the studies reviewed combined different methodological approaches or were rather brief in their descriptions of analytical procedures. Therefore, the review below utilizes the different test setups as an organizing principle and, as a consequence, addresses both discourse-oriented methods and conversation analytic studies.