Interactional Competence with and without Extended Planning Time in a Group Oral Assessment

References

• Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–20. doi:10.1093/applin/1.1.1
   Google Scholar
• Council of Europe. (2017). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment – companion volume with new descriptors. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989
   Google Scholar
• Ducasse, A., & Brown, A. (2009). Assessing paired orals: Rater’s orientation to interaction. Language Testing, 26(3), 423–443. doi:10.1177/0265532209104669
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 474–509. doi:10.1093/applin/amp042
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fok, W. K. (2012). HKCEE English Language school-based assessment: Its implementation at the frontline. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Durham University.
   Google Scholar
• 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. doi:10.1080/15434300801934702
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galaczi, E. D. (2014). Interactional competence across proficiency levels: How do learners manage interaction in paired speaking tests? Applied Linguistics, 35(5), 553–574. doi:10.1093/applin/amt017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galaczi, E. D., & Taylor, L. (2018). Interactional competence: Conceptualisations, operationalisations, and outstanding questions. Language Assessment Quarterly, 15(3), 219–236. doi:10.1080/15434303.2018.1453816
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gan, Z. (2010). Interaction in group oral assessment: A case study of higher- and lower-scoring students. Language Testing, 27(4), 585–602. doi:10.1177/0265532210364049
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, J. K., & Pekarek Doehler, 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.
   Google Scholar
• Hamp-Lyons, L. (2015). Implementing a learning-oriented approach within english language assessment in Hong Kong schools: Practices, issues and complexities. In G. Yu & Y. Jin (Eds.), Assessing Chinese learners of English: Language constructs, consequences and conundrums (pp. 17–37). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority. (2014). 2016 Hong Kong Diploma of secondary education examination english language: School-based assessment teachers’ handbook. Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR: Author. Retrieved from http://www.hkeaa.edu.hk/doclibrary/sba/hkdse/sbahandbook-2016-elang-aug14.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Iwashita, N., McNamara, T., & Elder, C. (2001). Can we predict task difficulty in an oral proficiency test? Exploring the potential of an information-processing approach to task design. Language Learning, 51(3), 401–436. doi:10.1111/lang.2001.51.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Kramsch, C. (1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence. The Modern Language Journal, 70(4), 366–372. doi:10.1111/modl.1986.70.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lam, D M. K. (2018). What counts as ‘responding’? Contingency on previous speaker contribution as a feature of interactional competence. Language Testing, 35(3), 377–401.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lam, D. M. K. (2015a). Assessing interactional competence: The case of school-based speaking assessment in hong kong (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Edinburgh, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Lam, D. M. K. (2015b). Contriving authentic interaction: Task implementation and engagement in school-based speaking assessment in Hong Kong. In G. Yu & Y. Jin (Eds.), Assessing chinese learners of english: Language constructs, consequences and conundrums (pp. 38–60). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Liddicoat, A. J. (2011). An introduction to conversation analysis (2nd ed.). London, UK: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Luk, J. (2010). Talking to score: Impression management in L2 oral assessment and the co-construction of a test discourse genre. Language Assessment Quarterly, 7(1), 25–53. doi:10.1080/15434300903473997
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• May, L. (2011). Interactional competence in a paired speaking test: Features salient to raters. Language Assessment Quarterly, 8(2), 127–145. doi:10.1080/15434303.2011.565845
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nitta, R., & Nakatsuhara, F. (2014). A multifaceted approach to investigating pre-task planning effects on paired oral test performance. Language Testing, 31(2), 147–175. doi:10.1177/0265532213514401
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orr, M. (2002). The FCE Speaking test: Using rater reports to help interpret test scores. System, 30(2), 143–154. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00002-7
   Google Scholar
• Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis: The study of talk in interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Roever, C., & Kasper, G. (2018). Speaking in turns and sequences: Interactional competence as a target construct in testing speaking. Language Testing, 35(3), 331–355. doi:10.1177/0265532218758128
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ross, S. J. (2012). Claims, evidence, and inference in performance assessment. In G. Fulcher & F. Davidson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language testing (pp. 223–234). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Confirming allusions: Towards an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology, 102(1), 161–216. doi:10.1086/230911
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spence-Brown, R. (2001). The eye of the beholder: Authenticity in an embedded assessment task. Language Testing, 18(4), 463–481. doi:10.1177/026553220101800408
   Google Scholar
• Storch, N. (2008). Metatalk in a pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language development. Language Awareness, 17(2), 95–114. doi:10.1080/09658410802146644
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 371–391. doi:10.1093/applin/16.3.371
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tavakoli, P., & Skehan, P. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 239–273). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. London, UK: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Wigglesworth, G. (1997). An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse. Language Testing, 14(1), 101–122. doi:10.1177/026553229701400105
   Google Scholar
• Wigglesworth, G., & Elder, C. (2010). An investigation of the effectiveness and validity of planning time in speaking test tasks. Language Assessment Quarterly, 7(1), 1–24. doi:10.1080/15434300903031779
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xi, X. (2005). Do visual chunks and planning impact performance on the graph description task in the SPEAK exam? Language Testing, 22(4), 463–508. doi:10.1191/0265532205lt305oa
   Google Scholar