The influence of interlocutor proficiency in a paired oral assessment

By Larry Davis. 2009

116 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Education, Language and Linguistics, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/efc7924906de6f429906873748e1b9ac716938bc

How researchers see this paper

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

In Education

1. G. Kasper
2. Carsten Roever
3. S. Youn
4. Lyn May
5. L. Harding

In Language and Linguistics

1. S. Youn
2. Carsten Roever
3. G. Kasper
4. Lyn May
5. Daniel M. K. Lam
6. Naoko Taguchi
7. Numa Markee
8. J. C. Félix-Brasdefer

In Social Psychology

1. S. Youn
2. G. Kasper
3. Carsten Roever
4. Lyn May
5. Daniel M. K. Lam

Citations in the corpus

• 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).”
• Validity argument for assessing L2 pragmatics in interaction using mixed methods (2015, background): “Yet, considering the co-constructed nature of interactional competence (McNamara, 1997), remaining research issues include investigating potential interlocutor effects (e.g., Davis, 2009; May, 2011) and rater variations (e.g., Barkaoui, 2010) in assessing interaction-involved pragmatic performances.”
• Interactional Competence: Conceptualisations, Operationalisations, and Outstanding Questions (2018, unknown): “…test takers ’ performance, such as: test takers ’ acquaintanceship and gender (Chambers, Galaczi, & Gilbert, 2012; O ’ Sullivan, 2002), personality (Berry, 1993; Ockey, 2009), extroversion (Nakatsuhara, 2013), talkativeness (van Moere & Kobayashi, 2004), and language proficiency (Davis, 2009).”
• Interactional Competence in a Paired Speaking Test: Features Salient to Raters (2011, methodology): “To explore interaction in paired speaking tests Conversation Analysis (CA) has been effectively utilized to establish interactional patterns that candidates co-construct (Davis, 2009; Galaczi, 2004, 2008, 2010; Lazaraton & Davis, 2008; Nakatsuhara, 2004). In a CA of the paired segment of 30 Cambridg”