Co-constructed interaction in a paired speaking test: The rater's perspective

By Lyn May. 2009

140 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Language and Linguistics, Literature and Literary Theory

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b062c732bff81a915c3fe3e04418833bb9e600fa

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. Daniel M. K. Lam
2. S. Youn
3. Lyn May
4. L. Taylor
5. E. Galaczi
6. F. Scott Davidson
7. J. Kemp
8. Glenn Fulcher

In Literature and Literary Theory

1. Daniel M. K. Lam
2. S. Youn
3. Lyn May
4. L. Taylor
5. Glenn Fulcher
6. E. Galaczi
7. F. Scott Davidson
8. J. Kemp

Citations in the corpus

• 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).”
• Interactional Competence across Proficiency Levels: How do Learners Manage Interaction in Paired Speaking Tests? (2014, background): “There is now also a growing area of research that has adopted a Conversation Analysis (CA) approach to the investigation of paired and group speaking tests and has provided useful insights about the co-construction of interaction between test takers (Lazaraton 2002; Galaczi 2008; Gan et al. 2009; Ga”
• Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy (2009, unknown): “May, 2007).”
• 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): “In a rater study by May (2009), the co-constructed nature of interactional performance was attested by the same candidate receiving a Band 2 and a Band 4 (out of six) score by the same rater when the candidate was paired with different partners, resulting in different patterns of interaction.”
• Interactional Competence in a Paired Speaking Test: Features Salient to Raters (2011, background): “Concerns remain, however, about the impact of one candidate on another’s performance, both in terms of the patterns of interaction that each pair co-constructs during the speaking test and the separability of each candidate’s contribution (May, 2009).”
• Effective rating scale development for speaking tests: Performance decision trees (2011, result): “Similar findings have been made in investigations into rater perceptions of the quality of interaction in language testing, especially with regard to non-verbal behaviour and eye contact (May, 2007).”