Skip to main content
×
×
Home

What kind of interaction receives high and low ratings in Oral Proficiency Interviews?

  • Paul Seedhouse (a1)
Abstract
Abstract

Based on a Conversation Analysis (CA) of a corpus of Oral Proficiency Interviews (OPI), the study asks what kind of interaction receives high and low ratings in OPIs. The discussion focuses on issues of interactional organisation, considering turn-taking, sequence, repair and topic development in relation to candidate scores. The study presents findings of two funded studies of the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) Speaking Test (IST), which is one part of IELTS, a major international English proficiency test.

The article explains how interaction in the IST is organised in interactional terms and how this organisation generates opportunities to differentiate high- and low-scoring interaction. The study then lists the interactional characteristics of high-scoring and low-scoring tests, based on an inductive search through the database and analysis of the micro-interaction. Extracts are presented to support characterisations. Differences in score correlate to the following interactional differences in Parts 1 and 3 of the IST: ability to answer the question, engage with and develop a topic coherently, amount of trouble and repair, lexical choice, and identity construction. In Part 2 of the IST, length of turn may also be related to score.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      What kind of interaction receives high and low ratings in Oral Proficiency Interviews?
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      What kind of interaction receives high and low ratings in Oral Proficiency Interviews?
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      What kind of interaction receives high and low ratings in Oral Proficiency Interviews?
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
References
Hide All

note: The following publications are not referenced as they are not publicly available:

Instructions to IELTS Examiners.

IELTS Examiner Training Material, 2001.

Examiner script, January 2003.

Atkinson J. & Heritage J. (eds.) 1984. Structures of social action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brooks L. 2009. Interacting in pairs in a test of oral proficiency: Co-constructing a better performance. Language Testing 26, 341366.
Brown A. 2003. Interviewer variation and the co-construction of speaking proficiency. Language Testing 20.1, 125.
Brown A. 2006. Candidate discourse in the revised IELTS Speaking Test. IELTS Research Reports 6, 7189.
Davidson F. & Fulcher G. 2007. The Common European Framework of Reference and the design of language tests: A matter of effect. Language Teaching 40, 231241.
Davies L. 2009. The influence of interlocutor proficiency in a paired oral assessment. Language Testing 26, 367396.
Douglas D. 1994. Quantity and quality in speaking test performance. Language Testing 11, 125144.
Drew P. & Heritage J. (eds.) 1992. Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
English Profile 2011. Introducing the CEFR for English. http://www.englishprofile.org/images/pdf/theenglishprofilebooklet.pdf (accessed 20/11/2011).
Fulcher G. 1996. Does thick description lead to smart tests? A data-based approach to rating scale construction. Language Testing 13, 208238.
Fulcher G. 2003. Testing second language speaking. Harlow: Pearson.
He A. 1998. Answering questions in language proficiency interviews: A case study. In Young R. & He A. (eds.), Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 101115.
Heritage J. 1984. Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Jakerman V. & McDowell C. 2001. IELTS Practice Tests Plus 1. Harlow: Pearson Longman.
Kasper G. & Ross S. 2001. ‘Is drinking a hobby, I wonder’: Other-initiated repair in language proficiency interviews. Paper presented at AAAL meeting, St. Louis, Missouri.
Kasper G. & Ross S. 2003. Repetition as a source of miscommunication in oral proficiency interviews. In House J., Kasper G. & Ross S. (eds.), Misunderstanding in social life. Discourse approaches to problematic talk. Harlow: Longman/Pearson Education, 82106.
Lazaraton A. 1998. An analysis of differences in linguistic features of candidates at different levels of the IELTS Speaking Test. Report prepared for the EFL Division, University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate, Cambridge.
Lazaraton A. 2002. A qualitative approach to the validation of oral language tests. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lazaraton A. & Davies L. 2008. A microanalytic perspective on discourse, proficiency, and identity in paired oral assessment. Language Assessment Quarterly 5, 313335.
May L. 2009. Co-constructed interaction in a paired speaking test: The rater's perspective. Language Testing 26, 397421.
McCarthy M. J. & Carter R. A. 2002. ‘This, that and the other’: Multiword clusters in spoken English as visible patterns of interaction. Teanga 21, 3052.
McNamara T. & Roever C. 2006. Language testing: The social dimension. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Milanovic M. 2009 Cambridge ESOL and the CEFR. Research Notes 37, 25.
O'Sullivan B. & Lu Y. 2006. The impact on candidate language of examiner deviation from a set interlocutor frame in the IELTS Speaking Test. IELTS Joint Funded research report. http://www.ielts.org/pdf/Vol6_Report4.pdf (accessed 27/03/2012).
Seedhouse P. 2004. The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A Conversation Analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Seedhouse P. & Egbert M. 2006. The interactional organisation of the IELTS Speaking Test. IELTS Research Reports 6, 161206.
Seedhouse P. & Harris A. 2011. Topic development in the IELTS Speaking Test. IELTS Research Reports 12, 69124.
Taylor L. 2000. Issues in speaking assessment research. Research Notes 1, 89.
Taylor L. 2001. Revising the IELTS Speaking Test: Retraining IELTS examiners worldwide. Research Notes 6, 911.
Taylor L. 2004a. Issues of test comparability. Research Notes 15, 25.
Taylor L. 2004b. IELTS, Cambridge ESOL examinations and the Common European Framework. Research Notes 18, 23.
Walsh S. & O'Keeffe A. 2007. Applying CA to a modes analysis of higher education spoken academic discourse. In Bowles H. & Seedhouse P. (eds.), Conversation Analysis and Languages for Specific Purposes. Bern: Peter Lang, 101140.
Weir C. J. 2005. Limitations of the Common European Framework for developing comparable examinations and tests. Language Testing 22, 281300.
Wigglesworth G. 2001. Influences on performance in task-based oral assessments. In Bygate M., Skehan P. & Swain M. (eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing. Harlow: Pearson, 186209.
Young R. F. & He A. (eds.) 1998. Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

English Profile Journal
  • ISSN: -
  • EISSN: 2041-5362
  • URL: /core/journals/english-profile-journal
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 20
Total number of PDF views: 223 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 181 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 19th January 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.