Interviewer variation and the co-construction of speaking proficiency

By Annie Brown. 2003

341 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Language and Linguistics, Literature and Literary Theory

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/84876067e69a0d2b0592a51091a68fb92dd55b6e

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

1. E. Galaczi
2. Lyn May
3. S. Youn
4. Carsten Roever
5. L. Taylor
6. Larry Davis
7. Daniel M. K. Lam
8. Ryo Nitta

In Literature and Literary Theory

1. E. Galaczi
2. Lyn May
3. S. Youn
4. L. Taylor
5. Larry Davis
6. Carsten Roever
7. Daniel M. K. Lam
8. Lindsay Brooks

Citations in the corpus

• The influence of interlocutor proficiency in a paired oral assessment (2009, background): “Brown (2003, 2004, 2005) observed similar behaviors among interviewers within a mock administration of the IELTS (International English Language Testing System) examination, and found such behaviors were associated with either higher or lower candidate scores.”
• Interactional Competence: Conceptualisations, Operationalisations, and Outstanding Questions (2018, methodology): “Brown (2003), in a now seminal paper, also focused on variability across interviewers in the ways they elicited test takers ’ speech, and she documented that different inter-viewing techniques could affect a test taker ’ s score.”
• A multifaceted approach to investigating pre-task planning effects on paired oral test performance (2014, background): “A number of studies over the last two decades have analyzed the discourses of various speaking test formats using CA, and this has been recognized as an invaluable methodology to describe and validate oral proficiency tests (e.g., Brown, 2003; Lazaraton, 2002).”
• 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).”
• Assessing paired orals: Raters' orientation to interaction (2009, result): “This situation has an analogy with the findings of Brown (2003) and Brown, Iwashita and McNamara (2005) that self-repair was sometimes judged negatively, as interfering with comprehensibility, and sometimes positively, as evidence of test takers’ ability to monitor and correct their own performance.”
• The effects of group members' personalities on a test taker's L2 group oral discussion test scores (2009, background): “Test administrations are potentially uniform across raters, since only the test takers are involved in the discussion – not interviewers, who have been shown to affect the validity of scores yielded from oral interviews (Ross & Berwick, 1992; Johnson & Tyler, 1998; Young & He, 1998; Brown, 2003).”
• Validity in Language Testing: The Challenge of Sam Messick's Legacy (2006, background): “…research for well over a decade now has shown in detail its exact institutional character and the way in which the skill of the interlocutor and the familiarity of the candidate with the conventions of the interview game can have a profound influence on the outcomes (Brown, 2003; Young & He, 1998).”
• AN EXAMINATION OF RATER ORIENTATIONS AND TEST-TAKER PERFORMANCE ON ENGLISH-FOR-ACADEMIC-PURPOSES SPEAKING TASKS (2005, background): “Research has also examined variational features among interviewers and their potential impact on test-taker performance (e.g., Brown, 2003; Cafarella, 1997; Ross & Berwick, 1992).”
• Speaking in turns and sequences: Interactional competence as a target construct in testing speaking (2018, background): “Some common test formats include versions of language proficiency interviews (ACTFL: Kim & Suh, 1998; Tominaga, 2013, 2017; ETS: Kasper, 2013; Kasper & Ross, 2003, 2007; Ross, 1998, 2007, 2017; IST: Brown, 2003; Lazaraton, 2002; Seedhouse, 2012, 2013; Seedhouse & Egbert, 2006; Seedhouse & Supakorn, ”
• What counts as “responding”? Contingency on previous speaker contribution as a feature of interactional competence (2018, neutral): “…write about paired/group speaking assessments almost invariably reference or contribute empirical evidence to the co-constructed nature of IC (e.g. Brooks, 2009; Brown, 2003; Galaczi, 2008; Gan, 2010; Gan, Davidson, & Hamp-Lyons, 2008; May, 2009, 2011; Nakatsuhara, 2013; Nitta & Nakatsuhara, 2014).”
• Topic Negotiation in Peer Group Oral Assessment Situations: A Conversation Analytic Approach (2009, background): “In the second language testing literature, there is a growing body of research that concentrates on aspects of the discourse and interaction in oral interview situations (Young and Milanovic 1992; Ross and Berwick 1992; McNamara 1997; Iwashita 1999; Lazaraton 2002; Brown 2003).”
• Co-constructed interaction in a paired speaking test: The rater's perspective (2009, background): “…discourse between candidate and interviewer in the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) speaking test, Brown and Hill (1998) and Brown (2003, 2004) found that raters’ perception of a candidate’s oral proficiency, and hence the scores they awarded, were affected by the choice of…”
• Interacting in pairs in a test of oral proficiency: Co-constructing a better performance (2009, background): “When the interaction is between a tester and a test-taker, studies have shown that the behaviour of the tester can and does have an effect on test-taker performance (Brown, 2003, 2005; Lumley & Brown, 1996; O’Sullivan, 2000; Ross & Berwick, 1992).”