This study, framed within sociocultural theory, examines the interaction of adult ESL test-takers in two tests of oral proficiency: one in which they interacted with an examiner (the individual format) and one in which they interacted with another student (the paired format). The data for the eight pairs in this study were drawn from a larger study comparing the two test formats in the context of high-stakes exit testing from an Academic Preparation Program at a large Canadian university. All of the test-takers participated in both test formats involving a discussion with comparable speaking prompts. The findings from the quantitative analyses show that overall the test-takers performed better in the paired format in that their scores were on average higher than when they interacted with an examiner. Qualitative analysis of the test-takers' speaking indicates that the differences in performance in the two test formats were more marked than the scores suggest. When test-takers interacted with other students in the paired test, the interaction was much more complex and revealed the co-construction of a more linguistically demanding performance than did the interaction between examiners and students. The paired testing format resulted in more interaction, negotiation of meaning, consideration of the interlocutor and more complex output. Among the implications for test theory and practice is the need to account for the joint construction of performance in a speaking test in both construct definitions and rating scales.
Bachman, L.F. (2004). Statistical analyses for language assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2.
Berkoff, N.A. (1985). Testing oral proficiency: A new approach. In Y. P. Lee, A. Fok, R. Lord, & G. Low (Eds.), New directions in language testing (pp. 93-99). London: Pergamon Press.
3.
Berry, V. (1997). Ethical considerations when assessing oral proficiency in pairs. In A. Huhta, V. Kohonen, L. Kurki-Suonio , & S. Luoma (Eds.), Current developments and alternatives in language assessment (pp. 107-123). Jyväskylä: Universities of Tampere and Jyväskylä.
4.
Berry, V. (2000). An investigation into how individual differences in personality affect the complexity of language test tasks. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, King's College, University of London.
5.
Berry, V. (2007). Personality differences and oral test performance . Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
6.
Bonk, W.J., & Ockey, G.J. (2003). A many-facet Rasch analysis of the second language group oral discussion task. Language Testing, 20, 89-110.
7.
Bonk, W.J., & Van Moere, A. (2002, December). L2 group oral testing: The influence of shyness/extrovertedness and the proficiency levels of other group members on individuals' ratings. Paper presented at the AILA Congress, Singapore.
8.
Brooks (in preparation).Oral proficiency testing: To interact in pairs or not? Dissertation in preparation .
9.
Brown, A. (2003). Interviewer variation and the co-construction of speaking proficiency. Language Testing, 20, 1-25.
10.
Brown, A. (2005). Interviewer variability in oral proficiency interviews . Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
11.
Canagarajah, S. (2006). Changing communicative needs, revised assessment objectives: Testing English as an international language. Language Assessment Quarterly, 3, 229-242.
12.
Chalhoub-Deville, M. (2003). Second language interaction: Current perspectives and future trends. Language Testing, 20, 369-383.
13.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York : Academic Press.
14.
Deville, C., & Chalhoub-Deville, M. (2006). Old and new thoughts on test score variability: Implications for reliability and validity. In M. Chalhoub-Deville, C. A. Chapelle, & P. Duff (Eds.), Inference and generalizability in applied linguistics: Multiple perspectives (pp. 9-25). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
15.
Együd, G., & Glover, P. (2001). Oral testing in pairs - a secondary school perspective . ELT Journal, 55, 70-76.
16.
Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
Folland, D., & Robertson, D. (1976). Towards objectivity in group oral testing. English Language Teaching Journal, 30, 156-167.
Fulcher, G. (1996). Testing tasks: Issues in task design and the group oral. Language Testing, 13, 23-51.
20.
Fulcher, G. (2003). Testing second language speaking. London: Pearson.
21.
Galaczi, E.D. (2008). Peer-peer interaction in a speaking test: The case of the First Certificate in English Examination. Language Assessment Quarterly, 5, 89-119.
22.
He, A.W., & Young, R. (1998). Language proficiency interviews: A discourse approach . In R. Young & A. W. He (Eds.), Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency (pp. 1-24). Amsterdam : John Benjamins.
23.
He, L., & Dai, Y. (2006). A corpus-based investigation into the validity of the CET-SET group discussion. Language Testing, 23, 370-401.
24.
Hilsdon, J. (1991). The group oral exam: Advantages and limitations . In J. C. Alderson & B. North (Eds.), Language testing in the 1990s (pp. 189-197). London: Macmillan .
25.
Iwashita, N. (1996). The validity of the paired interview format in oral performance assessment. Melbourne Papers in Language Testing, 5(2), 51-66.
26.
Johnson, M. (2001). The art of non-conversation: A re-examination of the validity of the oral proficiency interview. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
27.
Jones, E.E., & Gerard, H.B. (1967). Foundations of social psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
28.
Lazaraton, A. (1996). Interlocutor support in oral proficiency interviews: The case of CASE. Language Testing, 13, 151-172.
29.
Lazaraton, A. (2002). A qualitative approach to the validation of oral language tests. Cambridge: UCLES /Cambridge University Press.
30.
Lumley, T., & Brown, A. (1996). Specific purpose language performance tests: Task and interaction. In G. Wigglesworth & C. Elder (Eds.), The language testing cycle: From inception to washback. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, Series S (13), 105-136.
31.
Luoma, S. (2004). Assessing speaking. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
32.
May, L. (2006). An examination of rater orientations on a paired candidate discussion task through stimulated verbal recall. Melbourne Papers in Language Testing, 1, 29-51.
33.
McNamara, T.F. (1997). `Interaction in second language performance assessment: Whose performance? Applied Linguistics, 18, 446-466.
34.
Morton, J., Wigglesworth, G., & Williams, D. (1997). Approaches to the evaluation of interviewer behaviour in oral tests. In G. Brindley & G. Wigglesworth (Eds.), access: Issues in language test design and delivery (pp. 175-195). Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research, Macquarie University .
35.
Norton, J. (2005). The paired format in the Cambridge speaking tests . ELT Journal, 59, 287-297.
36.
O'Loughlin, K. (2001). The equivalence of direct and semi-direct speaking tests. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37.
O'Sullivan, B. (2000). Exploring gender and oral proficiency interview performance. System, 28, 373-386.
38.
O'Sullivan, B. (2002). Learner acquaintanceship and oral proficiency test pair-task performance. Language Testing, 19, 277-295.
39.
Reves, T. (1982). The group-oral examination: A field experiment . World Language English, 1, 259-262.
40.
Rommetveit, R. (1985). Language acquisition as increasing linguistic structuring of experience and symbolic behaviour control. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 183-204). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41.
Rommetveit, R. (1992). Outlines of a dialogically based social-cognitive approach to human cognition and communication. In A. H. Wold (Ed.), The dialogical alternative: Towards a theory of language and mind. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
42.
Ross, S. (1992). Accommodative questions in oral proficiency interviews . Language Testing, 9, 173-186.
43.
Ross, S., & Berwick, R. (1992). The discourse of accommodation in oral proficiency interviews. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 159-176.
44.
Shohamy, E. (1994). The validity of direct versus semi-direct oral tests. Language Testing, 11, 99-123.
45.
Shohamy, E., Reves, T., & Bejarano, Y. (1986). Introducing a new comprehensive test of oral proficiency . English Language Teaching Journal, 40, 212-220.
46.
Stansfield, C.W., & Kenyon, D.M. (1992). Research on the comparability of the oral proficiency interview and the simulated oral proficiency interview. System , 20, 347-364.
47.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
48.
Swain, M. (2001). Examining dialogue: Another approach to content specifications and to validating inferences drawn from test scores. Language Testing, 18, 275-302.
49.
Taylor, L. (2000). Investigating the paired speaking test format . University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations Research Notes , 2, 14-15.
50.
Taylor, L. (2001). The paired speaking test format: Recent studies . University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations Research Notes , 6, 15-17.
51.
van Lier, L. (1989). Reeling, writhing, drawling, stretching, and fainting in coils: Oral proficiency interviews as conversation. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 489-508.
52.
Van Moere, A. (2006). Validity evidence in a university group oral test . Language Testing, 23, 411-440.
53.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
54.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
55.
Weir, C.J. (2005). Language testing and validation: An evidence-based approach. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
56.
Wertsch, J.V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
57.
Wertsch, J.V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
58.
Wertsch, J.V. (1998). Mind as action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
59.
Young, R., & Milanovic, M. (1992). Discourse variation is oral proficiency interviews . Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 403-424.
