Discourse functions in a dialogic speaking test task

and Cecilia Varcasia
  • Corresponding author
  • Free University of Bolzano-Bozen, Bolzano, Italy
  • Email
  • Further information
  • Cecilia Varcasia currently teaches language teaching methodology at the Free University of Bolzano and language acquisition at the University of Cagliari. Her research interests lie in language testing, especially of speaking, and conversation analysis, cross-cultural pragmatics and multilingual communication.
  • Search for other articles:
  • degruyter.comGoogle Scholar

Abstract

This paper explores, through the use of the observation checklist and Conversation Analysis (CA), the discourse functions elicited by the dialogic task of the Free University of Bolzano (IT) speaking test. It aims to contribute to content validation, which has been claimed to be especially relevant in paired speaking tests, where interaction is co-constructed by participants. Lazaraton has argued that the investigation of the process of the assessment of speaking competences represents, for todays’ research, a question of almost the same importance as outcome scores. The paper investigates the predictions of the construct through the actual elicitation of functions in the task performance of the test. Results are analysed qualitatively with respect to informational, interactional, and management-of-interaction functions. Some quantitative analysis was also conducted to determine the relative frequency of each function. Outcomes were found to be in line with previous research in the proportion of use of the three different types of functions, informational, interactional and management of interaction. The paper finally discusses the advantages and disadvantages of exploring test content through the lenses of observation checklists and CA, the first providing a general framework in which discourse functions can be outlined, and the second providing a more fine-tuned view of the data and of the complexity of exploitation of each function.

  • Bachman, Lyle F. 1990. Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Bachman, Lyle F. & Adrian Palmer. 1981. The construct validation of the FSI oral interview. Language Learning 31(1). 67–86.

  • Berry, Vivien. 2007. Personality differences and oral test performance. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

  • Brooks, Lindsay. 2003. Converting an observation checklist for use with the IELTS speaking test. Cambridge ESOL Research Notes 11. 277–303.

  • Brooks, Lindsay. 2009. Interacting in pairs in a test of oral proficiency: Co-constructing a better performance. Language Testing 26(3). 341–366.

  • Brown, Annie. 2003. Interviewer variation and the co-construction of speaking proficiency. Language Testing 20(1). 277–303.

  • Brown, Annie. 2005. Interviewer variability in oral proficiency interviews. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

  • Bygate, Martin. 1988. Speaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Davies, Andrew. 1977. The construction of language tests. In J. P. B. Allen & Alan Davies (eds.), Testing and experimental methods. The Edinburgh course in applied linguistics, vol. 4, 38–194. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Davis, Larry. 2009. The influence of interlocutor proficiency in a paired oral assessment. Language Testing 26(3). 367–396.

  • Ffrench, Angela. 2003. The change process at the paper level. Paper 5, Speaking. In Cyril Weir & Michael Milanovic (eds.), Continuity and innovation: Revising the Cambridge Proficiency in English examination 1913–2002, 367–471. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Galaczi, Ewelina D. 2004. Peer-to-peer interaction in a paired speaking test: The case of the first certificate of English. New York: Columbia University Ph.D. thesis.

  • Galaczi, Ewelina D. 2008. Peer-peer interaction in a speaking test: The case of the First Certificate in English examination. Language Assessment Quarterly 5(2). 89–119.

  • Henning, Grant. 1987. A guide to language testing. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.

  • Iwashita, Noriko. 1996. The validity of the paired interview format in oral performance assessment. Melbourne Papers in Language Testing 5(2). 51–66.

  • Lazaraton, Anne. 2002. A qualitative approach to the validation of oral language tests. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Lazaraton, Anne. 2014. Spoken discourse. In Anthony J. Kunnan (ed.), The companion to language assessment, 1375–1389. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.

  • Lazaraton, Anne & Larry Davis. 2008. A microanalytic perspective on discourse proficiency and identity in paired oral assessment. Language Assessment Quarterly 5(4). 313–335.

  • Luoma, Suomi. 2004. Assessing speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • May, Lynn. 2009. Co-constructed interaction in a paired speaking test: The rater’s perspective. Language Testing 26(3). 397–421.

  • Messick, Samuel. 1989. Validity. In Robert L. Linn (ed.), Educational measurement, 3rd edn. New York: Macmillan.

  • Nakatsuhara, Fumiyo. 2006. The impact of proficiency level on conversational styles in paired speaking tests. Cambridge-ESOL Research Notes 25. 15–20.

  • Nakatsuhara, Fumiyo. 2011. Effects of test-taker characteristics and the number of participants in group oral tests. Language Testing 28(4). 483–508.

  • Nakatsuhara, Fumiyo. 2013. The Co-construction of conversation in group oral tests. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

  • Nitta, Ryo & Fumiyo Nakatsuhara. 2014. A multifaceted approach to investigating pre-task planning effects on paired oral test performance. Language Testing 31(2). 147–175.

  • O’Sullivan, Barry. 2002. Learner acquaintanceship and oral proficiency test pair-task performance. Language Testing 19(3). 277–295.

  • O’Sullivan, Barry, Cyril Weir & Nick Saville. 2002. Using observation checklists to validate speaking-tests tasks. Language Testing 19(1). 33–56.

  • Ross, Steven & R. Berwick. 1992. The discourse of accommodation in oral proficiency interviews. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 14(2). 159–176.

  • Sacks, Harvey, Emmanuel Schegloff & Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4). 697–735.

  • Schegloff, Emmanuel, Gail Jefferson & Harvey Sacks. 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53(2). 361–382.

  • Taylor, Linda. 2001. The paired speaking test format: Recent studies. Cambridge ESOL Research Notes 6. 15–17.

  • Taylor, Linda. 2011. Examining speaking: Research and practice in assessing second language speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Weir, Cyril J. 1993. Understanding and developing language tests. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.

  • Weir, Cyril J. 2005. Language testing and validation: An evidence-based approach. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

  • Wong, Jean & Hansun Z. Waring. 2010. Conversation analysis and second language pedagogy: A guide for ESL/EFL teachers. New York: Routledge.

  • Young, Richard & Michael Milanovich. 1992. Discourse variation in oral proficiency interviews. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 14(4). 403–424.

Purchase article
Get instant unlimited access to the article.
$42.00
Price including VAT
Log in
Already have access? Please log in.


Journal + Issues

Language Learning in Higher Education, the journal of the European Confederation of Language Centres in Higher Education, deals with the most relevant aspects of language acquisition at university. It publishes contributions presenting the outcomes of research on language teaching, blended learning and autonomous learning, and language assessment, as well as aspects of professional development, quality assurance and university language policy.

Search