1887
Volume 5, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2589-109X
  • E-ISSN: 2589-1103
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Interactional competence (IC) is a crucial component of teaching and assessing speaking in second/foreign languages in general. However, SLA research based on Conversation Analysis (CA) has shown that IC is a complex phenomenon, and while a qualitative approach to assessing IC is needed, it is time-consuming. At the same time, assessment in the foreign-language classroom has to be both manageable for teachers and it should provide learners with reliable and supportive feedback about their specific strengths and weaknesses. This paper offers some solutions for these issues. It will draw on previous proposals in CA to employ generic organizations of practice as a way to manage the complexity of the IC concept. Second, it will show how one of these organizations – action accomplishment – can be operationalized for assessment purposes in public-school classrooms. This includes a discussion of the CEFR Companion’s approach to ‘action’. Finally, it will present a possible rubric for action accomplishment. Our approach to assessing will be illustrated through the analysis of a sample role play with two foreign-language learners from a corpus of 14 2–4 minute role plays, recorded with beginning-to-intermediary-level learners of English as a foreign language in two German secondary schools.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ap.00016.bar
2023-02-13
2024-03-01
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Al-Gahtani, S., & Roever, C.
    (2013) ‘Hi doctor, give me handouts’: low-proficiency learners and requests. ELT Journal, 671, 413–424. 10.1093/elt/cct036
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cct036 [Google Scholar]
  2. Barth-Weingarten, D.
    (2021) Repair with English foreign language learners – multimodal practices for word searches with, and without, gaze. InM. Kupetz & F. Kern (Eds.), Prosodie und Multimodaliät – Prosody and Multimodality (pp.207–236). Winter.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Barth-Weingarten, D., & Freitag-Hild, B.
    (2021) Assessing interactional competence in secondary schools: Issues of turn-taking. InM. R. Salaberry & A. R. Burch (Eds.), Assessing speaking in context (pp.237–262). Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781788923828‑011
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788923828-011 [Google Scholar]
  4. Barth-Weingarten, D., & Reinhardt, S.
    (in prep.). Oracy in English as a foreign language: Assessing speaking skills from a conversation-analytic perspective. InJ. Reckermann & P. Siepmann Eds. Oracy in foreign language education: Perspectives from practice-oriented research.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Beach, W. A.
    (1993) Transitional regularities for ‘casual’ “Okay” usages. Journal of Pragmatics, 191, 325–352. 10.1016/0378‑2166(93)90092‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90092-4 [Google Scholar]
  6. Button, G.
    (1987) Moving out of closings. InG. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organization (pp.101–151). Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Burch, A. R., & Kley, K.
    (2020) Assessing interactional competence: The role of intersubjectivity in a paired-speaking assessment task. Papers in Language Testing and Assessment, 9(1), 25–63.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Cambridge Assessment English
    Cambridge Assessment English (2019) English first handbook for teachers. Retrieved fromhttps://www.cambridgeenglish.org/Images/CER_6168_V1_APR19_Cambridge_English_First_Handbook_WEB_v3.PDF (access: 2020-09-14).
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Canagarajah, S.
    (2014) In search of a new paradigm for teaching English as an international language. TESOL Journal, 5(4), 767–785. 10.1002/tesj.166
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.166 [Google Scholar]
  10. Carless, D.
    (2007) Learning-oriented assessment: Conceptual bases and practical implications. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(1), 57–66. 10.1080/14703290601081332
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290601081332 [Google Scholar]
  11. Clayman, S. E.
    (2013) Turn-Constructional Units and the Transition Relevance Place. InJ. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp.151–166). Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Council of Europe
    Council of Europe (2012) Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. modern languages division, Strasbourg. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved fromhttps://rm.coe.int/1680459f97
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Council of Europe
    Council of Europe (2018) Common European framework of referencing for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. companion volume with new descriptors. Retrieved fromwww.coe.int/lang-cefr
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (2009) A sequential approach to affect: the case of ‘disappointment’. InM. Haakana, M. Laakso & J. Lindström (Eds.), Talk in interaction: Comparative dimensions (pp.94–123). Finnish Literature Society (SKS).
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Barth-Weingarten, D.
    (2011) A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT 2. English translation and adaptation of Selting, Margret et al. (2009): Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion121, 1–51. Retrieved fromwww.gespraechsforschung-online.de/en/2011.html
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M.
    (2018) Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Drew, P.
    (2013) Turn design. InJ. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp.131–149). Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Fiehler, R., Barden, B., Elstermann, M., & Kraft, B.
    (2004) Eigenschaften gesprochener Sprache. Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A., & Hellermann, J.
    (2004) “Getting past no”, Sequence, action and sound production in the projection of no-initiated turns. InE. Couper-Kuhlen & C. E. Ford (Eds.), Sound patterns in interaction (pp.233–269). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.62.13for
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.62.13for [Google Scholar]
  20. Freitag-Hild, B.
    (2014) Lernaufgaben im genre-basierten Englischunterricht: Kompetenzen zum monologischen und dialogischen Sprechen entwickeln. InC. Fäcke, M. Rost-Roth & E. Thaler (Eds.), Sprachenausbildung – Sprachen bilden aus – Bildung aus Sprachen. Dokumentation zum 25. Kongress für Fremdsprachendidaktik der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Fremdsprachenforschung 2013 (pp.77–89). Schneider.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Freitag-Hild, B., & Barth-Weingarten, D.
    (2020) Interaktionale Kompetenzen im Englischunterricht beurteilen lernen: Ein Beitrag zur Professionalisierung von Studierenden in der ersten Phase der Lehrerbildung. InH. Limberg & K. Glaser (Eds.), Pragmatische Kompetenzen im schulischen Fremdsprachenunterricht (pp.393–420). Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Galaczi, E. D.
    (2014) Interactional competence across proficiency levels: How do learners manage interaction in paired speaking tests?Applied Linguistics, 35(5), 553–574. 10.1093/applin/amt017
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt017 [Google Scholar]
  23. Galaczi, Evelina D., & Taylor, L.
    (2018) Interactional competence: conceptualizations, operationalizations, and outstanding questions. Language Assessment Quarterly, 15(3), 219–236. 10.1080/15434303.2018.1453816
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2018.1453816 [Google Scholar]
  24. Gan, Z.
    (2010) Interaction in group oral assessment: A case study of higher- and lower-scoring students. Language Testing, 27(4), 585–602. 10.1177/0265532210364049
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532210364049 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gao, Y.
    (2020) Laughter as same-turn self-repair initiation in L2 oral proficiency interview. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 81, 479–494. 10.4236/jss.2020.84035
    https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2020.84035 [Google Scholar]
  26. Goodwin, C.
    (1979) The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. InG. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language. Studies in ethnomethodology (pp.97–121). Irvington.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Grabowski, K.
    (2009) Investigating the construct validity of a role-play test designed to measure grammatical and pragmatic knowledge at multiple proficiency levels. InS. J. Ross & G. Kasper (Eds.), Assessing second language pragmatics (pp.149–171). Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Green, A.
    (2012) English profile Studies 2. Language functions revisited: Theoretical and empirical bases for language construct definition across the ability range. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Hall, J. K.
    (2018) From L2 interactional competence to L2 interactional repertoires: reconceptualizing the objects of L2 learning. Classroom Discourse, 9(1), 25–39. 10.1080/19463014.2018.1433050
    https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2018.1433050 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hall, J. K., Hellerman, J., & Pekarek Doehler, S.
    (Eds.) (2011) L2 interactional competence and development. Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847694072
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847694072 [Google Scholar]
  31. Hallet, W.
    (2011) Lernen fördern: Englisch. Kompetenzorientierter Unterricht in der Sekundarstufe I. Kallmeyer in Verbindung mit Klett.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Halliday, M. A. K.
    (1985) An introduction to functional grammar. Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Hellermann, J.
    (2008) Social actions for classroom language learning. Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847690272
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847690272 [Google Scholar]
  34. (2009) Looking for evidence of language learning in practices for repair: A case study of self-initiated self-repair by an adult learner of English. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53(2), 113–132. 10.1080/00313830902757550
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830902757550 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2018) Languaging as competencing: considering language learning as enactment. Classroom Discourse, 9(1), 40–56. 10.1080/19463014.2018.1433052
    https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2018.1433052 [Google Scholar]
  36. Heritage, J.
    (2013) Turn-initial position and some of its occupants. Journal of Pragmatics, 571, 331–337. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.025
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.025 [Google Scholar]
  37. Holler, J., Kendrick, K. H., Casillas, M., & Levinson, S. C.
    (Eds.) (2016) Turn-taking in human communicative interaction. Frontiers Media. 10.3389/978‑2‑88919‑825‑2
    https://doi.org/10.3389/978-2-88919-825-2 [Google Scholar]
  38. Huth, T.
    (2010) Can talk be inconsequential? Social and interactional aspects of elicited second-language interaction. The Modern Language Journal, 94(4), 537–553. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2010.01092.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01092.x [Google Scholar]
  39. (2020) Interaction, language use, and second language teaching. Routledge. 10.4324/9781003017356
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003017356 [Google Scholar]
  40. (2021) Conceptualizing interactional learning targets for the second language curriculum. InS. Kunitz, N. Markee, & O. Sert (Eds.), Classroom based conversation analytic research. Theoretical and applied perspectives on pedagogy (pp.359–381). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑52193‑6_18
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52193-6_18 [Google Scholar]
  41. Huth, T., Betz, E., & Taleghani-Nikazm, C.
    (2019) Rethinking language teacher training: Steps for making talk-in-interaction research accessible to practitioners. Classroom Discourse, 10(1), 99–122. 10.1080/19463014.2019.1570529
    https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2019.1570529 [Google Scholar]
  42. Ikeda, N.
    (2017) Measuring L2 oral pragmatic abilities for use in social contexts: Development and validation of an assessment instrument for L2 pragmatics performance in university settings (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Melbourne, Australia.
  43. Kasper, G., & Ross, S. J.
    (2013) Assessing second language pragmatics: An overview and introductions. InS. J. Ross & G. Kasper (Eds.), Assessing second language pragmatics (pp.1–40). Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137003522_1
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137003522_1 [Google Scholar]
  44. Kasper, G. & Youn, S. J.
    (2017) Transforming instruction to activity: Roleplay in language assessment. Applied Linguistics Review, 9(4), 589–616. 10.1515/applirev‑2017‑0020
    https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2017-0020 [Google Scholar]
  45. Kecskes, I.
    (2019) English as a lingua franca: The pragmatic perspective. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Kley, K.
    (2019) What counts as evidence for Interactional competence? Developing rating criteria for a German classroom-based paired speaking test. InM. R. Salaberry & S. Kunitz (Eds.), Teaching and testing L2 interactional competence: Bridging theory and practice (pp.291–321). Routledge. 10.4324/9781315177021‑12
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315177021-12 [Google Scholar]
  47. Kramsch, C.
    (1986) From language proficiency to interactional competence. The Modern Language Journal, 701, 366–372. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1986.tb05291.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1986.tb05291.x [Google Scholar]
  48. 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. 10.1177/0265532218758126
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532218758126 [Google Scholar]
  49. (2019) Enhancing learning-oriented feedback for Cambridge English: First paired interactions. Research Notes, 751, 1–25. https://www.cambridgeenglish.org/Images/555679-research-notes-75.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Levinson, S.
    (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813313
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313 [Google Scholar]
  51. (2013) Action formation and ascription. InJ. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp.103–130). Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Markee, N.
    (2000) Conversation analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum. 10.4324/9781410606471
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410606471 [Google Scholar]
  53. Mondada, L.
    (2009) Emergent focused interaction in public places: a systematic analysis of the multimodal achievement of a common interactional space. Journal of Pragmatics, 411, 1977–1997. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.019
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.019 [Google Scholar]
  54. (2018) Conventions for multimodal transcription. Retrieved fromhttps://franzoesistik.philhist.unibas.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/franzoesistik/mondada_multimodal_conventions.pdf (access: 2020-03-10).
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Nakatsuhara, F., May, K., Lam, D. M. K., & Galaczi, E.
    (2016) Learning oriented feedback in the development and assessment of interactional competence. Research Notes, 701. https://www.cambridgeenglish.org/Images/517543-research-notes-70.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Pekarek Doehler, S.
    (2018) Elaborations on L2 interactional competence: the development of L2 grammar-for-interaction. Classroom Discourse, 9(1), 3–24. 10.1080/19463014.2018.1437759
    https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2018.1437759 [Google Scholar]
  57. (2019) On the nature and the development of L2 interactional competence: state of the art and implications for praxis. InM. R. Salaberry & S. Kunitz (Eds.), Teaching and testing L2 interactional competence (pp.25–59). Routledge. 10.4324/9781315177021‑2
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315177021-2 [Google Scholar]
  58. (2021a) L2 interactional competence and L2 education. InS. Kunitz, N. Markee & O. Sert (Eds.), Class-room based conversation analytic research. Theoretical and applied perspectives on pedagogy (pp.417–424). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑52193‑6_21
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52193-6_21 [Google Scholar]
  59. (2021b) How grammar grows out of social interaction: From multi-unit to single-unit question. Open Linguistics7(1), 837–864. 10.1515/opli‑2020‑0150
    https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2020-0150 [Google Scholar]
  60. Pekarek Doehler, S., & Fazel Lauzon, V.
    (2015) Documenting change across time: Longitudinal and cross-Sectional studies of CA classroom interaction. InN. Markee (Ed.), The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction (pp.409–424). Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Pekarek Doehler, S., & Pochon-Berger, E.
    (2011) Developing ‘methods’ for interaction: a cross-Sectional study of disagreement sequences in French L2. InJ. K. Hall, J. Hellerman, & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development (pp.206–243). Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847694072‑010
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847694072-010 [Google Scholar]
  62. (2015) The development of L2 interactional competence: Evidence from turn-taking organization, sequence organization, repair organization and preference organization. InT. Cadierno & S. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (233–268). De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110378528‑012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110378528-012 [Google Scholar]
  63. Plough, I.
    (2018) Revisiting the speaking construct: The question of interactional competence. Language Testing, 35(3), 325–329. 10.1177/0265532218772322
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532218772322 [Google Scholar]
  64. Pomerantz, A., & Heritage, J.
    (2013) Preference. InJ. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp.210–228). Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Reinhardt, S.
    (in preparation). Assessing interactional competence: Identifying Candidate Criterial Features for the Evaluation of L2 Repair Skills (PhD thesis). Universitätsverlag Potsdam.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Robinson, J. D.
    (2018) Overall structural organization. InJ. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp.257–280). Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Roever, C.
    (2018, May). Assessing interactional competence: features, scoring, and practicality. InCLIC conference “Assessing speaking on context – new trends”. Rice.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Roever, C., & Dai, D. W.
    (2021) Reconceptualizing interactional competence for language testing. InM. R. Salaberry & A. R. Burch (Eds.), Assessing speaking in context: Expanding the construct and its applications (pp.23–49). Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781788923828‑003
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788923828-003 [Google Scholar]
  69. 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. 10.1177/0265532218758128
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532218758128 [Google Scholar]
  70. Rossano, F.
    (2013) Gaze in conversation. InJ. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp.308–329). Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G.
    (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 501, 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  72. Salaberry, M. R., & Burch, A. R.
    (Eds.) (2021) Assessing speaking in context: Expanding the construct and its applications. Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Salaberry, M. R., & Kunitz, S.
    (Eds.) (2019) Introduction. InM. R. Salaberry & S. Kunitz (Eds.), Teaching and testing L2 interactional competence: Bridging theory and practice (pp.1–22). Routledge. 10.4324/9781315177021‑1
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315177021-1 [Google Scholar]
  74. Schegloff, E. A.
    (2007) Sequence Organization in interaction. A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  75. Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T.
    (Eds.) (2013) The handbook of conversation analysis. Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Stivers, T.
    (2013) Sequence organization. InJ. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp.191–209). Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Streeck, J.
    (2009) Gesturecraft. The manu-facture of meaning. John Benjamins. 10.1075/gs.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/gs.2 [Google Scholar]
  78. Vogt, K. & Quetz, J.
    (2018) Assessment im Englischunterricht. Kompetenzorientiert beurteilen und bewerten. Helbling.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Walters, F. S.
    (2021) Some considerations regarding validation in CA-informed oral testing for the L2 classroom. InS. Kunitz, N. Markee, & O. Sert (Eds.), Classroom based conversation analytic research. Theoretical and applied perspectives on pedagogy (pp.383–404). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑52193‑6_19
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52193-6_19 [Google Scholar]
  80. Waring, H. Z.
    (2019) Developing interactional competence with limited linguistic resources. InM. R. Salaberry & S. Kunitz (Eds.), Teaching and testing L2 interactional competence: Bridging theory and practice (pp.215–227). Routledge. 10.4324/9781315177021‑9
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315177021-9 [Google Scholar]
  81. Wong, J., & Waring, H. Z.
    (2010) Conversation analysis and second language pedagogy. Routledge. 10.4324/9780203852347
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203852347 [Google Scholar]
  82. Youn, S. J.
    (2020) Managing proposal sequences in role-play assessment: Validity evidence of interactional competence across levels. Language Testing, 37(1), 76–106. 10.1177/0265532219860077
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532219860077 [Google Scholar]
  83. Youn, S. J., & Burch, A. R.
    (Eds.) (2020) Where Conversation Analysis meets Language Assessment. Papers in language testing and assessment, 9(1), 95–127. Retrieved fromwww.altaanz.org/papers-in-language-testing-and-assessment-plta.html
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Young, R. F., & Miller, E. R.
    (2004) Learning as changing participation: discourse roles in ESL writing conferences. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 519–535. 10.1111/j.0026‑7902.2004.t01‑16‑.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.t01-16-.x [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ap.00016.bar
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ap.00016.bar
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error