Peer–Peer Interaction in a Speaking Test: The Case of the First Certificate in English Examination

By E. Galaczi. 2008

203 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Language and Linguistics, Literature and Literary Theory

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/46932fc5b8ee6f1a8bb2b935bd090043928c2cd3

How researchers see this paper

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

In Language and Linguistics

In Literature and Literary Theory

Citations in the corpus

Interactional Competence in a Paired Speaking Test: Features Salient to Raters (2011, methodology): “Until recently, most studies of interaction in paired speaking tests that have attempted to incorporate the rating aspect have done so by inference, in that scores awarded by raters have then been compared to the discourse elicited (Davis, 2009; Galaczi, 2004, 2008; Nakatsuhara, 2004).”
Interactional Competence across Proficiency Levels: How do Learners Manage Interaction in Paired Speaking Tests? (2014, background): “in past research on higher-ability learners (Galaczi 2008; Gan et al. 2009).”
Validity argument for assessing L2 pragmatics in interaction using mixed methods (2015, background): “CA-based research on measuring interactional competence has grown, attesting its contributions to conceptualizing and operationalizing interactional competence (e.g., Brown, 2003; Kasper & Ross, 2007; Lazaraton, 2002; May, 2009, 2011; Galaczi, 2008; Gan, 2010; Young, 2008; Young & He, 1998).”
Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms (2012, background): “…interaction in ways that compensate for the weaknesses of peer CF and that take advantage of the collaborative nature of peer interaction (for sociocultural approaches to collaborative interaction, see Donato 1994; Kowal & Swain 1994; Swain & Lapkin 1998, 2001, 2011; Storch 2001; Galaczi 2008).”
What counts as “responding”? Contingency on previous speaker contribution as a feature of interactional competence (2018, background): “parallel pattern of interaction (Galaczi, 2008), and relates to the varying extent of developing others’ topics (Galaczi, 2014).”
Raising language awareness in peer interaction: a cross-context, cross-methodology examination (2012, background): “Donato ( 1994 ), for example, sought to answer the question as to whether learners are able to provide support or guidance to each other to the extent that teachers can, revealing that learners are indeed skillful at scaffolding and routinely scaffold during classroom activities (see also Galaczi, ”
Interactional Competence: Conceptualisations, Operationalisations, and Outstanding Questions (2018, background): “As paired and group testing became more widespread, empirical attention turned to this test format and showed that, in contrast to the individual speaking test format, paired/group oral tasks result in more symmetrical interaction possibilities (Együd & Glover, 2001; Galaczi, 2008; Iwashita, 1998; K”
A multifaceted approach to investigating pre-task planning effects on paired oral test performance (2014, background): “For example, Galaczi (2008) identified three distinct global patterns for interactions in the paired discussion part of the Cambridge FCE, namely, collaborative, parallel, and asymmetric.”
The influence of interlocutor proficiency in a paired oral assessment (2009, methodology): “Discourse was analyzed using the framework reported in Galaczi (2008).”
Interacting in pairs in a test of oral proficiency: Co-constructing a better performance (2009, background): “Galaczi (2008) studied the interactional patterns of pairs of candidates in the First Certificate of English (developed by Cambridge ESOL) and among her findings, was that pairs exhibiting a collaborative orientation to the paired task had the highest median ‘Interactive Communication’ (IC) scores…”