Interactional Competence across Proficiency Levels: How do Learners Manage Interaction in Paired Speaking Tests?

196 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Interactional Competence: Conceptualisations, Operationalisations, and Outstanding Questions (2018, background): “…of literature also indicated that the paired/group test construct encompasses interaction management features, such as turn-taking management, topic initiation, negotiation and development, and interactive listening (Ducasse & Brown, 2009; Galaczi, 2014; May, 2009; Riggenbach, 1998; Storch, 2002).”
What counts as “responding”? Contingency on previous speaker contribution as a feature of interactional competence (2018, methodology): “…and while it did not yield immediate insights on the proficiency implications of the IC feature, this approach does prevent premature categorization of interactional phenomena (Schegloff, 1993; ten Have, 2007) or a reductionist representation of the phenomena (Galaczi, 2008, 2014; Psathas, 1995).”
Speaking in turns and sequences: Interactional competence as a target construct in testing speaking (2018, background): “Correspondingly, research on peer oral language tests has examined interlocutor effects on other participants’ performance (Davis, 2009; Galaczi, 2014; Lam, 2016; May, 2011).”
Fluency in Second Language Testing: Insights From Different Disciplines (2018, background): “For instance, Galaczi (2014) and Peltonen (2017) both show that more proficient L2 speakers have fewer pauses between turns than less proficient L2 speakers.”