Volume 31, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0155-0640
  • E-ISSN: 1833-7139


This article reports on a case study of negotiation that occurred in peer group oral interactions under assessment conditions. Discourse analysis was used to illustrate how participants negotiated and co-constructed the assessment format itself as well as meaning exchange sequences. Analyses of the data point to the advantage of using peer group discussion task in generating the interaction patterns representative of natural conversational situations. By concentrating on the situated dynamics and process of peer group functioning, this study also demonstrates the importance of peer learning opportunities that resulted from collaborative reasoning under assessment conditions, which have typically been ignored in the conventional testing paradigm. Implications of these findings over validity issues in oral language assessment are discussed.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Alderson, J. C.
    (2001) Assessing Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Atkinson, J. M. ; Heritage, J.
    (Eds (1984) Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bachman, L. F. ; Palmer, A. S.
    (1996) Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bannink, A.
    (2002) Negotiating the paradoxes of spontaneous talk in advanced L2 classes. In Kramsch, C. (Ed.). Language Acquisition and Language Socialization. 266–288. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Black, P.
    (2001) Formative assessment and curriculum consequences. In Scott, D. (Ed.). Curriculum and assessment.7–23. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Brouwer, C. ; Wagner, J.
    (2004) Developmental issues in second language conversation. Journal of Applied Linguistics 1, 29–47. doi: 10.1558/japl.
    https://doi.org/10.1558/japl. [Google Scholar]
  7. Brown, A.
    (2004) Discourse analysis and the oral interview: Competence or performance?In Boxer, D. ; Cohen, A. D. (Eds.). Studying speaking to inform second language learning, 253–282. NY: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Brown, G. ; Anderson, A. ; Shillcock, R. ; Yule, G.
    (1984) Teaching talk: strategies for production and assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Canale, M. ; Swain, M.
    (1980) Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1, 1–47. doi: 10.1093/applin/I.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/I.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  10. Chalhoub-Deville, M.
    (2003) Second language interaction: Current perspectives and future trends. Language Testing 20, 369–383. doi: 10.1191/0265532203lt264oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532203lt264oa [Google Scholar]
  11. Davison, C.
    (2007) Views from the chalkface: English language school-based assessment in Hong Kong. Language Assessment Quarterly 4, 37–68. doi: 10.1080/15434300701348359
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15434300701348359 [Google Scholar]
  12. Drew, P. ; Heritage, J.
    (1992) Talk at work: interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Filipi, A.
    (1994) Interaction in an Italian oral test: The role of some expansion sequence. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 11, 119–136.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Foster, P. ; Ohta, A. S.
    (2005) Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied linguistics 26, 402–430. doi: 10.1093/applin/ami014
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami014 [Google Scholar]
  15. Halliday, M. A. K.
    (1994) An introduction to functional grammar. 2nd Edn. London: Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Halliday, M. A. K. ; Hasan, R.
    (1989) Language, context and text: A social semiotic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. He, L. ; Dai, Y.
    (2006) A corpus-based investigation into the validity of the CET–SET group discussion. Language Testing 23, 370–401. doi: 10.1191/0265532206lt333oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532206lt333oa [Google Scholar]
  18. Iwashita, N.
    (1999) The validity of the paired interview format in oral performance assessment. Melboune Papers in Language Testing 8, 51–66.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Johnson, M. ; Tyler, A.
    (1998) Re-analyzing the OPI: How much does it look like natural conversation?’ In Young, R. ; He, A. (Eds.). Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency, 27–51. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sibil.14.04joh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.14.04joh [Google Scholar]
  20. Jones, E. E. ; Gerard, H. B.
    (1967) Foundations of social psychology. New York: Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Katona, L.
    (1998) Meaning negotiation in the Hungarian Oral Proficiency Examination. In Young, R. ; He, A. (Eds.). Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency, 239–267. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sibil.14.14kat
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.14.14kat [Google Scholar]
  22. Lazaraton, A.
    (2002) A qualitative approach to the validation of oral language tests. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Leung, C. ; Mohan, B.
    (2004) Teacher formative assessment and talk in classroom contexts – assessment as discourse and assessment of discourse. Language Testing 20, 335–359. doi: 10.1191/0265532204lt287oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532204lt287oa [Google Scholar]
  24. Levinson, S. C.
    (1983) Pragmatics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Long, M.
    (1985) Input and second language acquisition theory. In Gass, S. ; Madden, C. (Eds.). Input and second language acquisition, 377–393. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (1996) The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition’. In Richie, W. C. ; Bhatia, T. K. (Eds.). Handbook of second language acquisition, 413–468. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. McNamara, T.
    (1997) ‘Interaction’ in second language performance assessment: Whose performance?Applied Linguistics18: 446–466. doi: 10.1093/applin/18.4.446
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/18.4.446 [Google Scholar]
  28. McNamara, T. ; Hill, K. ; May, L.
    (2002) Discourse and assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 22, 221–242.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Mercer, N.
    (1996) The quality of talk in children’s collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning and instruction 6, 359–377. doi: 10.1016/S0959‑4752(96)00021‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(96)00021-7 [Google Scholar]
  30. Mercer, N. ; Wegerif, R.
    (1999) Is exploratory talk productive talk?In K. Littleton & P. Light (Eds.). Learning with computers: Analyzing productive interaction, 79–101. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Moder, C. ; Halleck, G.
    (1998) Framing the language proficiency interview as a speech event: Native and non-native speakers’ questions. In Young, R. ; He, A. (Eds.). Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency, 117–148. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sibil.14.09mod
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.14.09mod [Google Scholar]
  32. Mori, J.
    (2004) Pursuit of understanding: Rethinking ‘negotiation of meaning’ in view of projected action. In Gardner, R. ; Wagner, J. (Eds.). Second language conversation, 157–177. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Nakahama, Y. ; Tyler, A. ; van Lier, L.
    (2001) Negotiation of meaning in conversational and information gap activities: A comparative discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly 35, 377–405. doi: 10.2307/3588028
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3588028 [Google Scholar]
  34. Nassaji, H. ; Wells, G.
    (2000) What’s the use of “Triadic Dialogue”?: An investigation of teacher-student interaction. Applied Linguistics 21, 376–406. doi: 10.1093/applin/21.3.376
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.3.376 [Google Scholar]
  35. Naughton, D.
    (2006) Cooperative strategy training and oral interaction: Enhancing small group communication in the language classroom. The Modern Language Journal 90, 169–184. doi: 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2006.00391.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00391.x [Google Scholar]
  36. Ogden, L.
    (2000) Collaborative tasks, collaborative children: An analysis of reciprocity during peer interaction at Key Stage 1. British Educational Research Journal26 (2), 211–226. doi: 10.1080/01411920050000953
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920050000953 [Google Scholar]
  37. Pica, T.
    (1994) Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes?Language Learning44: 493–527. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1994.tb01115.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01115.x [Google Scholar]
  38. Pomerantz, A. ; Fehr, B. J.
    (1997) Conversation analysis: An approach to the study of social action and sense-making practices. In Dijk, T. V. (Ed.). Discourse as a social interaction, 64–91. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Psathas, G.
    (1995) Conversation analysis – The study of talk-in-interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781412983792
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412983792 [Google Scholar]
  40. Rea-Dickins, P.
    (2006) Currents and eddies in the discourse of assessment: A learning-focused interpretation. International Journal of Applied Linguistics16 (2), 163–188. doi: 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.2006.00112.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2006.00112.x [Google Scholar]
  41. Ross, S. ; Berwick, R.
    (1992) The discourse of accommodation in oral proficiency Interviews. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 14, 159–176. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100010809
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100010809 [Google Scholar]
  42. School-Based Assessment Consultancy Team
    School-Based Assessment Consultancy Team (2005) 2007 HKCEE English examination: Introduction to the school-based assessment component. Hong Kong: HKEAA.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Schegloff, E. A. ; Jefferson, G. ; Sacks, H.
    (1977) The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53, 361–382. doi: 10.1353/lan.1977.0041
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041 [Google Scholar]
  44. Schrimshaw, P. ; Perkins, G.
    (1997) Tinker town: Working together. In Wegerif, R. ; Schrimshaw, P. (Eds.). Computers and Talk in the Primary Classroom. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Skehan, P.
    (2002) A non-marginal role for tasks. ELT Journal 56, 289–295. doi: 10.1093/elt/56.3.289
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/56.3.289 [Google Scholar]
  46. Stansfield, C. W. ; Kenyon, D. M.
    (1992) Research on the comparability of the oral proficiency interview and the simulated oral proficiency interview. System 20, 347–364. doi: 10.1016/0346‑251X(92)90045‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(92)90045-5 [Google Scholar]
  47. Swain, M.
    (2001) Examining dialogue: Another approach to content specification and to validating inferences drawn from test scores. Language Testing18 (3), 275–302.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Tsui, Amy B. M.
    (1994) English Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Tomlinson, B.
    (2005) Testing to learn: A personal view of language testing. ELT Journal19 (1), 39–46. doi: 10.1093/elt/cci005
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci005 [Google Scholar]
  50. Tudge, J.
    (2000) Theory, method, and analysis in research on the relations between peer collaboration and cognitive development. Journal of Experimental Education 69, 98–112. doi: 10.1080/00220970009600651
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00220970009600651 [Google Scholar]
  51. Van Moere, A.
    (2006) Validity evidence in a university group oral test. Language Testing 23, 411–440. doi: 10.1191/0265532206lt336oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532206lt336oa [Google Scholar]
  52. Van Lier, L.
    (1989) Reeling, writing, drawing, stretching, and fainting in coils: Oral proficiency interviews as conversation. TESOL Quarterly 23, 489–507. doi: 10.2307/3586922
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3586922 [Google Scholar]
  53. Vygotsky, L. S.
    (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
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