INTERACTION FEATURES IN PREDICTING COMMON EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK OF REFERENCE LEVEL
DOI: 10.23977/langta.2019.21001 | Downloads: 15 | Views: 355
Okim Kang 1, Garrett M Larson 1, Soo-Hyun Koo 2
1 Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA
2 Department of English Education, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
Corresponding AuthorOkim Kang
The study examined how interaction features could predict test takers’ English proficiency levels in high-stakes contexts. Using candidates’ interactive task responses in the Cambridge English Language Assessment (CELA), it explored salient interaction features that could distinguish across Common European Framework of References (CEFR) speaking levels (B1- C2). It further ascertained the degree of accuracy in the proficiency prediction through a canonical discriminant analysis (CDA) in which weighted contributions of the 11 interaction features were created to best predict CEFR level of each test-taker. Fifty-eight video files (i.e., 116 interactive speech samples) were coded for the categories of four interactive features: (1) co-operation, (2) coherence, (3) turn-taking, and (4) strategy use. The results suggest that the selected interaction features distinguish test-takers’ CEFR levels with over 50-60 % accuracy especially regarding interactive turn and initiation. Findings offer direct implications to ESL classrooms and provide evidence to enhance our understanding of the complex nature of interactional competence in the context of the high-stakes speaking assessment.
KEYWORDSPaired speaking Assessment, Proficiency Level, Interaction Features, Canonical Discriminant Analysis
CITE THIS PAPER
Okim Kang, Garrett M Larson and Soo-Hyun Koo, INTERACTION FEATURES IN PREDICTING COMMON EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK OF REFERENCE LEVEL. Journal of Language Testing & Assessment (2019) Vol. 2: 1-12. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.23977/langta.2019.21001.
 Kang, O., Rubin, D, & Lindemann, S. (2015). Using contact theory to improve US undergraduates' attitudes toward international teaching assistants. TESOL Quarterly, 49, 681-706.
 Hall, J. K., & Pekarek, D. S. (2011). L2 interactional competence and development. In J.K. Hall, J. Hellermann & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.). L2 interactional competence and development (pp. 1-18). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
 He, A. W., & Young, R. (1998). Language proficiency interviews: A discourse approach. Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency, 14, 1-24.
 Kramsch, C. (1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence. The Modern Language Journal, 70 (4), 366-372.
 Brooks, L. (2009). Interacting in pairs in a test of oral proficiency: Co-constructing a better performance. Language Testing, 26(3), 341-366.
 Ducasse, A. M., & Brown, A. (2009). Assessing paired orals: Raters' orientation to interaction. Language Testing, 26(3), 423-443.
 Galaczi, E. 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.
 Oksaar, E. (1990). Language contact and culture contact: Towards an integrative approach in second language acquisition research. In H. Dechert (Ed.). Current trends in European second language acquisition research (pp. 230-243). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
 Kasper, G. (2006). Beyond repair: Conversation Analysis as an approach to SLA. AILA (Association Internationale de Linguistique Appliquée) Review, 19, 83-99.
 Storch, N. (2001). An investigation into the nature of pair work in an ESL classroom and its effect on grammatical development. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Melbourne, Melbourne.
 Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52 (1), 119-158.
 Dimitrova-Galaczi, E. (2004). Peer-peer interaction in a paired speaking test: the case of the First Certificate in English (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Teachers College, Columbia University.
 Galaczi, E. D. (2013). Interactional competence across proficiency levels: How do learners manage interaction in paired speaking tests?. Applied Linguistics, 35(5), 553-574.
 May, L. (2011). Interactional competence in a paired speaking test: Features salient to raters. Language Assessment Quarterly, 8(2), 127-145
 Gan, Z. (2010). Interaction in group oral assessment: A case study of higher-and lower-scoring students. Language Testing, 27(4), 585-602.
 Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1995). Communicative competence: A pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied linguistics, 6(2), 5-35.
 Schegloff, E., A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences. In D., Tannen (Ed.) Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp.71-93). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
 Crookes, G. (1990). The utterance, and other basic units for second language discourse analysis. Applied Linguistics, 11, 189-199.
 Gnisci. A. & Bakeman. R.(2007). Sequential Accommodation of Turn Taking and Turn Length: A Study of Courtroom Interaction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26 (3), 234-259.
 Nakatani, Y. (2010). Identifying strategies that facilitate EFL Examinees’ oral communication: A classroom study using multiple data collection procedures. The Modern Language Journal, 94. 116-136.
 Plonsky, L. (2015). Advancing quantitative methods in second language research. Routledge.
 Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education.
 Brown, A., Iwashita, N., & McNamara, T. (2005). An examination of rater orientations and test-taker performance on English-for-Academic-Purposes speaking tasks. (TOEFL Monograph Series MS-29). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.