The use of pair work in speaking assessment may encourage collaboration in the classroom and has other advantages (Saville & Hargreaves, 1999; Taylor, 2000) but from a measurement perspective, the paired oral format may be problematic because a partner may unfairly influence an examinee's performance or otherwise bias scores. In this study, the influence of interlocutor proficiency on speaking performance was examined in a group of 20 first-year students at a Chinese university. The students were divided into groups of relatively high and low English proficiency and tested once with a partner of similar proficiency and once with a partner of higher or lower proficiency. Interlocutor proficiency level had no observable effect on Rasch analysis ability measures, but lower-level examinees produced more language (words) when working with a higher-level partner. The majority of dyads produced collaborative interactions (Galaczi, 2008), unless an examinee was paired with a much lower-level partner, in which case the interaction tended to be asymmetric. Overall, these data suggest that proficiency differences among examinees need not preclude use of the paired oral test format.
Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1984). Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2.
Berry, V. (2007). Personality differences and oral test performance . Peter Lang: Frankfurt.
3.
Bond, T.G., & Fox, C.M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
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.
5.
Bonk, W.J., & Van Moere, A. (2004, March). L2 group oral testing: The influence of shyness/outgoingness, match of interlocutors' proficiency level, and gender on individual scores. Paper presented at the Language Testing Research Colloquium, Temecula, California.
6.
Brown, A. (2003). Interviewer variation and the co-construction of speaking proficiency. Language Testing, 20, 1-25.
7.
Brown, A. (2004). Discourse analysis and the oral interview: Competence or performance? In D. Boxer & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Studying speaking to inform second language learning (pp. 253-282). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
8.
Brown, A. (2005). Interviewer variability in language proficiency interviews. Frankfurt: Peter Lang .
9.
Brown, A., & McNamara, T. (2004). `The devil is in the detail': Researching gender issues in language assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 524-538.
10.
Cheng, L., & Qi, L. (2006). Description and Examination of the National Matriculation English Test. Language Assessment Quarterly, 3, 53-70.
11.
Crookes, G. (1990). The utterance and other basic units for second language discourse analysis. Applied Linguistics, 11, 183-199.
12.
Damon, W., & Phelps, E. (1989). Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education. International Journal of Educational Research , 58, 9-19.
13.
Egyud, G., & Glover, P. (2001). Oral testing in pairs - a secondary school perspective . ELT Journal, 55, 70-76.
14.
ffrench, A. (2003). The change process at the paper level. Paper 5, Speaking. In C. Weir & M. Milanovic (Eds.), Continuity and innovation: Revising the Cambridge proficiency in English examination 1913-2002 (pp. 367-446). Cambridge: UCLES/Cambridge University Press.
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21, 354-375.
17.
Fox, C.M., & Jones, J.A. (1998). Uses of Rasch modeling in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 30-45.
18.
Fulcher, G. (2003). Testing second language speaking. London: Pearson Longman.
19.
Galaczi, E. (2004). Peer-peer interaction in a paired speaking test: The case of the First Certificate in English. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64 (12), 4434A. (UMI No. 3117838)
20.
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.
21.
Iwashita, N. (1996). The validity of the paired interview format in oral performance assessment. Melbourne Papers in Language Testing, 5, 1-65.
22.
Johnson, M. (2001). The art of nonconversation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
23.
Katona, L. (1998). Meaning negotiation in the Hungarian oral proficiency examination of English. In R. Young & A.W. He (Eds.), Talking and testing (pp. 239-267). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
24.
Kenyon, D. (February, 1992). Introductory remarks at a symposium on development and use of rating scales in language testing. Paper presented at the Language Testing Research Colloquium, Vancouver, British Columbia.
25.
Lazaraton, A. (1996). Interlocutor support in oral proficiency interviews: The case of CASE, Language Testing, 13, 151-172.
26.
Lazaraton, A. (2002). A qualitative approach to the validation of oral language tests. Cambridge: UCLES /Cambridge University Press.
27.
Linacre, J.M. (2007a). FACETS Rasch measurement computer program [Computer software]. Retrieved October 15, 2007 from http://www.winsteps.com/ministep.htm
28.
Linacre, J.M. (2007b). A user's guide to FACETS/MINIFAC Rasch-model computer programs. Retrieved October 15, 2007 from http://www.winsteps.com/ministep.htm
29.
Long, M.H. & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design . TESOL Quarterly, 26, 27-56.
30.
McNamara, T. (1996). Measuring second language performance. London: Longman.
31.
McNamara, T. (1997). `Interaction' in second language performance assessment: Whose performance? Applied Linguistics, 16, 159-179.
32.
Nakatsuhara, F. (2004). An investigation into conversation styles in paired speaking tests. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Essex , United Kingdom.
33.
Norris, J., Brown, J.D., Hudson, T., & Yoshioka, J. (1998). Designing second language performance assessments (Technical Report #18). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
34.
O'Loughlin, K. (2001). The equivalence of direct and semi-direct speaking tests. Cambridge: UCLES/ Cambridge University Press.
35.
Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24, 492-518.
36.
O'Sullivan, B. (2002). Learner acquaintanceship and oral proficiency test pair task performance. Language Testing, 19, 277-295.
37.
Porter, D. (1991). Affective factors in language testing. In J. C. Alderson & B. North (Eds.), Language testing in the 1990s (pp. 32-40). London : Macmillan.
38.
Saville, N., & Hargreaves, P. (1999). Assessing speaking in the revised FCE. ELT Journal, 53, 42-51.
39.
Shohamy, E. (1994). The validity of direct vs. semi-direct oral tests . Language Testing, 11, 99-123.
40.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
41.
Skehan, P. (2001). Tasks and language performance assessment. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing. Harlow, UK: Longman .
42.
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52, 119-158.
43.
Tannen, D. (1981). New York Jewish conversational style. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 30, 133-149.
44.
Tarone, E. (1998). Research on interlanguage variation: Implications for language testing. In L. F. Bachman & A. D. Cohen, (Eds.), Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research (pp. 71-89). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45.
Taylor, L. (2000, August). Investigating the paired speaking test format. Cambridge ESOL Research Notes, 2.
46.
University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate. (2003a). FCE Handbook. [Brochure]. Cambridge, UK: Author.
47.
University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate. (2003b). IELTS Handbook. [Brochure]. Cambridge, UK: Author.
48.
van Lier, L. (1989). Reeling, writhing, drawling, stretching and fainting in coils: Oral proficiency interviews as conversations. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 480-508.
49.
Young, R., & Milanovic, M. (1992). Discourse variation in oral proficiency interviews . Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 403-424.
50.
Yule, G. & Macdonald, D. (1990). Resolving referential conflicts in L2 interaction: The effect of proficiency and interactive role. Language Learning , 40, 539-556.
