Skip to main content

The Impact of Test Mode on the Use of Communication Strategies in Paired Discussion

  • Chapter
Assessing Chinese Learners of English

Abstract

In order to meet the growing demands for oral English proficiency certification among college students in China, the National College English Testing Committee, in collaboration with an IT company, has recently developed the computer-based College English Test—Spoken English Test (CET-SET) to replace the traditional face-to-face interview format. The previous face-to-face version used the group format of testing, where two examiners interviewed three candidates at a time. The candidates undertook several tasks as a group, one of which was a discussion task requiring the three of them to participate in a five-minute discussion among themselves (see National College English Testing Committee, 1999 for a detailed description). The computer-based CET-SET adopts similar testing procedures and tasks. However, it takes an examiner-absent paired format, in which two candidates are randomly paired and work on the test tasks on their own. One of the tasks is paired discussion, where the two candidates discuss a given topic through earphones. The reason for the switch from a group format to a paired format is the difficulties that raters may encounter in discerning more than two voices in the recordings when scoring the discussion task.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J. (1984). Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachman, L. F. & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. (1993). The role of test-taker feedback in the test development process: Test takers’ reactions to a tape-mediated test of proficiency in spoken Japanese. Language Testing, 10(3), 277–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2–27). New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chalhoub-Deville, M. (2003). Second language interaction: Current perspectives and future trends. Language Testing, 20(4), 369–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dörnyei, Z. & Scott, M. L. (1997). Communication strategies in a second language: Definitions and taxonomies. Language Learning, 47(1), 173–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Færch, C. & Kasper, G. (1980). Processes and strategies in foreign language learning and communication. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 5(1), 47–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Færch, C. & Kasper, G. (1983). On identifying communication strategies in interlanguage production. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 210–238). London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulcher, G. (1993). The construction and validation of rating scales for oral tests in English as a foreign language. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Lancaster.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galaczi, E. (2008). Peer-peer interaction in a speaking test: The case of the First Certificate in English examination. Language Assessment Quarterly, 5(2), 89–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He, L. Z. & Liu, R. J. (2004). 基于语料库的大学生交际策略研究 [Corpus-based Investigation into Communication Strategies in CET-SET]. 外语研究[ Foreign Languages Research], 1, 60–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Itakura, H. (2001). Describing conversational dominance. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(12), 1859–1880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasper, G. & Kellerman, E. (1997). Communication strategies: Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiddle, T. & Kormos, J. (2011). The effect of mode of response on a semi-direct test of oral proficiency. Language Assessment Quarterly, 8(4), 342–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazaraton, A. (2002). A qualitative approach to the validation of oral language tests. Cambridge: UCLES/Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liddicoat, J. A. (2007). An introduction to conversation analysis. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, L. (2007). Interaction in a paired speaking test: The rater’s perspective. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Melbourne.

    Google Scholar 

  • National College English Testing Committee. (1999). 大学英语四、六级考试口语考试大纲及样题 [College English Test-Spoken English Test Syllabus and Sample Test Papers]. Shanghai: Shangai Foreign Language Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • North, B. (2000). The development of a common reference scale of language proficiency. New York: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Loughlin, K. (1995). Lexical density in candidate output on direct and semi-direct versions of an oral proficiency test. Language Testing, 12(2), 217–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Loughlin, K. (1997). The comparability of direct and semi-direct speaking tests: A case study. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Melbourne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 10(3), 209–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shohamy, E. (1994). The validity of direct versus semi-direct oral tests. Language Testing, 11(2), 99–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stenstrom, A. B. (1994). An introduction to spoken interaction. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarone, E. (1980). Communication strategies, foreigner talk and repair in inter-language. Language Learning, 30(2), 417–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willingham, W. W. & Cole, N. (1997). Gender and fair assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xi, X. (2010). How do we go about investigating test fairness? Language Testing, 27(2), 147–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2016 Yan Jin and Lin Zhang

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Jin, Y., Zhang, L. (2016). The Impact of Test Mode on the Use of Communication Strategies in Paired Discussion. In: Yu, G., Jin, Y. (eds) Assessing Chinese Learners of English. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137449788_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137449788_4

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-349-55397-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-44978-8

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics