Cover not available
Article published In:
Describing and assessing interactional competence in a second language: Special issue of the journal of Applied Pragmatics 5:2 (2023)
Edited by Emma Betz, Taiane Malabarba and Dagmar Barth-Weingarten
[Applied Pragmatics 5:2] 2023
► pp. 208–233

Assessing interactional competence

Exploring ratability challenges

ORCID logo | University of Glasgow
ORCID logo | Cambridge University Press and Assessment
ORCID logo | CRELLA, University of Bedfordshire
ORCID logo | Queensland University of Technology

This paper is positioned at the interface of second/foreign language (L2) assessment and Conversation Analysis-Second Language Acquisition (CA-SLA). It explores challenges of ratability in assessing interactional competence (IC) from three dimensions: an overview of the conceptual and terminological convergence/divergence in the CA-SLA and L2 assessment literature, a micro-analytic Conversation Analysis of test-taker interactions, and the operationalisation of IC construct features in rating scales across assessment contexts. It draws insights from these dimensions into a discussion of the nature of the IC construct and the challenges of IC ratability, and concludes with suggestions on ways in which insights from CA research can contribute to addressing these issues.

Keywords: interactional competence, language assessment, conversation analysis, test-taker interactions, rating scales
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.IC in CA-SLA and L2 assessment: A synthesis of terminological orientations
  • 3.A microanalytic approach to IC in test-taker interactions
  • 4.IC constructs featured in speaking assessment scales
    • 4.1Overall trends
    • 4.2Cambridge C1 Advanced Speaking test
    • 4.3Spanish 1 Final Oral test
  • 5.Discussion: The nature of the IC construct and ratability challenges
    • 5.1Interactional competence: Shared or individual?
    • 5.2Interactional competence: Meaning-making through diverse semiotic systems
    • 5.3Interactional competence: High- vs. low-inference features
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 February 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ap.00014.lam
References
Auer, P., & Zima, E.
(2021) On word searches, gaze, and co-participation. Gesprächsforschung, 22 1, 390–425.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S.
(1996) Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bull, G., & Anstey, M.
(2010) Evolving pedagogies: Reading and writing in a multimodal world. Education Services Australia.Google Scholar
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
Council of Europe
(2001) Common european framework of references for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, L. & Papageorgiou, S.
(2021) Complementary strengths? Evaluation of a hybrid human-machine scoring approach for a test of oral academic English. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 28 (4), 437–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ducasse, A. M.
(2010) Interaction in paired oral proficiency assessment in Spanish. Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Fulcher, G.
(1993) The construction and validation of rating scales for oral tests in English as a foreign language [unpublished PhD thesis]. Lancaster University.
(2010) Practical Language Testing. Hodder Education.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 logoGoogle Scholar
(2014) Interactional competence across proficiency levels: How do learners manage interaction in paired speaking tests?. Applied Linguistics, 35 (5), 553–574. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galaczi, E. D., & Taylor, L.
(2018) Interactional competence: Conceptualisations, operationalisations, and outstanding questions. Language Assessment Quarterly, 15 (3), 219–236. DOI logoGoogle 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 logoGoogle Scholar
Gan, Z., Davison, C., & Hamp-Lyons, L.
(2009) Topic negotiation in peer group oral assessment situations: A conversation analytic approach. Applied Linguistics, 30 (3), 315–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C.
(2013) The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 46 (1), 8–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) Co-operative action. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hall, J. K.
(2018) From L2 interactional competence to L2 interactional repertoires: Reconceptualising the objects of L2 learning. Classroom Discourse, 9 (1), 25–39. DOI logoGoogle 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). Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hırçın Çoban, M., & Sert, O.
(2020) Resolving interactional troubles and maintaining progressivity in paired speaking assessment in an EFL context. Papers in Language Testing and Assessment, 9 (1), 64–94.Google Scholar
Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R.
(1999) Conversation analysis: Principles, practices and applications. Polity Press.Google Scholar
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 PhD thesis]. University of Melbourne.
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). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, S. & Parra, I.
(2003) Multiple layers of meaning in an oral proficiency test: The complementary roles of nonverbal, paralinguistic, and verbal behaviors in assessment decisions. The Modern Language Journal, 87 (1), 90–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kasper, G.
(2006) Beyond repair: Conversation analysis as an approach to SLA. AILA Review, 19 1, 83–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lam, D. M. K.
(2021) Don’t turn a deaf ear: A case for assessing interactive listening. Applied Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lazaraton, A.
(2002) A qualitative approach to the validation of oral language tests. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A.
(1999) Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21 (4), 557–587. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Markee, N.
(2008) Toward a learning behavior tracking methodology for CA-for-SLA. Applied Linguistics, 29 (3), 404–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
May, L.
(2011) Interactional competence in a paired speaking test: Features salient to raters. Language Assessment Quarterly, 8 (2), 127–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNamara, T. F., & Roever, C.
(2006) Language testing: The social dimension. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Nakatsuhara, F.
(2013) The co-construction of conversation in group oral tests. Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nakatsuhara, F., May, L., Lam, D., & Galaczi, E. D.
(2018) Learning-oriented feedback in the development and assessment of interactional competence. Research Notes, 70 1, 1–68.Google Scholar
Nguyen, H. T.
(2019) Deepening roots and broadening horizons in interactional competence research and praxis. In M. R. Salaberry & S. Kunitz (Eds.), Teaching and testing L2 interactional competence (pp. 397–412). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ockey, G. J., & Chukharev-Hudilainen, E.
(2021) Human versus computer partner in the paired oral discussion test. Applied Linguistics [Advance articles], 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S.
(2018) Elaborations on L2 interactional competence: The development of L2 grammar-for-interaction. Classroom Discourse, 9 (1), 3–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019) On the nature and the development of L2 interactional competence. In M. R. Salaberry & S. Kunitz (Eds.), Teaching and testing L2 interactional competence (pp. 25–59). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S., & Berger, E.
(2018) L2 interactional competence as increased ability for context-sensitive conduct: A longitudinal study of story-openings. Applied Linguistics, 39 (4), 555–578. DOI logoGoogle 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 logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H.
(1987) On the preference for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In G. Button & J. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organization (pp. 54–69). Multilingual Matters.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.
(2007) Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seedhouse, P., & Satar, M.
(2021) The Rashomon effect: which features of a speaker’s talk do listeners notice? Classroom Discourse. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svennevig, J.
(1999) Getting acquainted in conversation: A study of initial interactions. John Benjamins.Google Scholar
UCLES
(2019) C1 advanced: Handbook for teachers. Retrieved from: [URL]
Upshur, J. A., & Turner, C. E.
(1995) Constructing rating scales for second language tests. ELT Journal, 49 (1), 3–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Moere, A.
(2012) A psycholinguistic approach to oral language assessment. Language Testing, 29 (3), 325–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waring, H. Z.
(2018) Teaching L2 interactional competence: Problems and possibilities. Classroom Discourse, 9 (1), 57–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019) Developing interactional competence with limited linguistic resources. In M. R. Salaberry & S. Kunitz (Eds.), Teaching and testing L2 interactional competence (pp. 215–227). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xu, J.
(2014) Displaying status of recipiency through reactive tokens in Mandarin task-oriented interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 74 1, 33–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Youn, S. J.
(2015) Validity argument for assessing L2 pragmatics in interaction using mixed methods. Language Testing, 32 (2), 199–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Youn, S. J., & Burch, A. R.
(2020) Where Conversation Analysis meets Language Assessment: Toward expanding epistemologies and validity evidence. Papers in Language Testing and Assessment, 9(1), iii–xvii.Google Scholar
Young, R. F.
(2008) Language and interaction: An advanced resource book. Routledge.Google Scholar