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. 240–272

Assessing interactional competence in secondary schools

Action accomplishment in English as a foreign language

ORCID logo | University of Potsdam
ORCID logo | University of Potsdam

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.

Keywords: assessment, interactional competence, action accomplishment, foreign-language learning, foreign-language teacher education
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The challenges of assessing IC in the FL school classroom
    • 2.1Assessing in the FL classroom
    • 2.2IC in rubrics
    • 2.3Towards an alternative rubric
  • 3.Operationalizing and assessing action accomplishment
    • 3.1Action accomplishment
      • 3.1.1Basic concepts
      • 3.1.2Previous findings on L2 AA
    • 3.2Operationalizing AA for assessment with scarce assessment resources
  • 4.Assessing EFL learners’ AA: An example
    • 4.1The L2 data
    • 4.2An example of assessing AA
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 February 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ap.00016.bar
References
Al-Gahtani, S., & Roever, C.
(2013) ‘Hi doctor, give me handouts’: low-proficiency learners and requests. ELT Journal, 67 1, 413–424. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, D.
(2021) Repair with English foreign language learners – multimodal practices for word searches with, and without, gaze. In M. Kupetz & F. Kern (Eds.), Prosodie und Multimodaliät – Prosody and Multimodality (pp. 207–236). Winter.Google Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, D., & Freitag-Hild, B.
(2021) Assessing interactional competence in secondary schools: Issues of turn-taking. In M. R. Salaberry & A. R. Burch (Eds.), Assessing speaking in context (pp. 237–262). Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, D., & Reinhardt, S.
in prep.). Oracy in English as a foreign language: Assessing speaking skills from a conversation-analytic perspective. In J. Reckermann & P. Siepmann Eds. Oracy in foreign language education: Perspectives from practice-oriented research
Beach, W. A.
(1993) Transitional regularities for ‘casual’ “Okay” usages. Journal of Pragmatics, 19 1, 325–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Button, G.
(1987) Moving out of closings. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organization (pp. 101–151). Multilingual Matters.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
Cambridge Assessment English
(2019) English first handbook for teachers. Retrieved from [URL] (access: 2020-09-14).
Canagarajah, S.
(2014) In search of a new paradigm for teaching English as an international language. TESOL Journal, 5 (4), 767–785. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carless, D.
(2007) Learning-oriented assessment: Conceptual bases and practical implications. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44 (1), 57–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clayman, S. E.
(2013) Turn-Constructional Units and the Transition Relevance Place. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 151–166). Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Council of Europe
(2012) Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. modern languages division, Strasbourg. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from [URL]
(2018) Common European framework of referencing for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. companion volume with new descriptors. Retrieved from [URL]
Couper-Kuhlen, E.
(2009) A sequential approach to affect: the case of ‘disappointment’. In M. Haakana, M. Laakso & J. Lindström (Eds.), Talk in interaction: Comparative dimensions (pp. 94–123). Finnish Literature Society (SKS).Google Scholar
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 Interaktion 12 1, 1–51. Retrieved from [URL]
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M.
(2018) Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Drew, P.
(2013) Turn design. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 131–149). Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fiehler, R., Barden, B., Elstermann, M., & Kraft, B.
(2004) Eigenschaften gesprochener Sprache. Narr.Google Scholar
Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A., & Hellermann, J.
(2004) “Getting past no”, Sequence, action and sound production in the projection of no-initiated turns. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & C. E. Ford (Eds.), Sound patterns in interaction (pp. 233–269). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freitag-Hild, B.
(2014) Lernaufgaben im genre-basierten Englischunterricht: Kompetenzen zum monologischen und dialogischen Sprechen entwickeln. In C. 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
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. In H. Limberg & K. Glaser (Eds.), Pragmatische Kompetenzen im schulischen Fremdsprachenunterricht (pp. 393–420). Lang.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 logoGoogle Scholar
Galaczi, Evelina D., & Taylor, L.
(2018) Interactional competence: conceptualizations, operationalizations, 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
Gao, Y.
(2020) Laughter as same-turn self-repair initiation in L2 oral proficiency interview. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 8 1, 479–494. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C.
(1979) The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language. Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 97–121). Irvington.Google Scholar
Grabowski, K.
(2009) Investigating the construct validity of a role-play test designed to measure grammatical and pragmatic knowledge at multiple proficiency levels. In S. J. Ross & G. Kasper (Eds.), Assessing second language pragmatics (pp. 149–171). Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
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
Hall, J. K.
(2018) From L2 interactional competence to L2 interactional repertoires: reconceptualizing the objects of L2 learning. Classroom Discourse, 9 (1), 25–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hall, J. K., Hellerman, J., & Pekarek Doehler, S.
(Eds.) (2011) L2 interactional competence and development. Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hallet, W.
(2011) Lernen fördern: Englisch. Kompetenzorientierter Unterricht in der Sekundarstufe I. Kallmeyer in Verbindung mit Klett.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K.
(1985) An introduction to functional grammar. Arnold.Google Scholar
Hellermann, J.
(2008) Social actions for classroom language learning. Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018) Languaging as competencing: considering language learning as enactment. Classroom Discourse, 9 (1), 40–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J.
(2013) Turn-initial position and some of its occupants. Journal of Pragmatics, 57 1, 331–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holler, J., Kendrick, K. H., Casillas, M., & Levinson, S. C.
(Eds.) (2016) Turn-taking in human communicative interaction. Frontiers Media. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huth, T.
(2010) Can talk be inconsequential? Social and interactional aspects of elicited second-language interaction. The Modern Language Journal, 94 (4), 537–553. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020) Interaction, language use, and second language teaching. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021) Conceptualizing interactional learning targets for the second language curriculum. In S. Kunitz, N. Markee, & O. Sert (Eds.), Classroom based conversation analytic research. Theoretical and applied perspectives on pedagogy (pp. 359–381). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle 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 doctoral dissertation). The University of Melbourne, Australia.
Kasper, G., & Ross, S. J.
(2013) Assessing second language pragmatics: An overview and introductions. In S. J. Ross & G. Kasper (Eds.), Assessing second language pragmatics (pp. 1–40). Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kasper, G. & Youn, S. J.
(2017) Transforming instruction to activity: Roleplay in language assessment. Applied Linguistics Review, 9 (4), 589–616. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I.
(2019) English as a lingua franca: The pragmatic perspective. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kley, K.
(2019) What counts as evidence for Interactional competence? Developing rating criteria for a German classroom-based paired speaking test. In M. R. Salaberry & S. Kunitz (Eds.), Teaching and testing L2 interactional competence: Bridging theory and practice (pp. 291–321). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kramsch, C.
(1986) From language proficiency to interactional competence. The Modern Language Journal, 70 1, 366–372. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019) Enhancing learning-oriented feedback for Cambridge English: First paired interactions. Research Notes, 75 1, 1–25. [URL]
Levinson, S.
(1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) Action formation and ascription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 103–130). Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Markee, N.
(2000) Conversation analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L.
(2009) Emergent focused interaction in public places: a systematic analysis of the multimodal achievement of a common interactional space. Journal of Pragmatics, 41 1, 1977–1997. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018) Conventions for multimodal transcription. Retrieved from [URL] (access: 2020-03-10).
Nakatsuhara, F., May, K., Lam, D. M. K., & Galaczi, E.
(2016) Learning oriented feedback in the development and assessment of interactional competence. Research Notes, 70 1. [URL]
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: state of the art and implications for praxis. In M. R. Salaberry & S. Kunitz (Eds.), Teaching and testing L2 interactional competence (pp. 25–59). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021a) L2 interactional competence and L2 education. In S. Kunitz, N. Markee & O. Sert (Eds.), Class-room based conversation analytic research. Theoretical and applied perspectives on pedagogy (pp. 417–424). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021b) How grammar grows out of social interaction: From multi-unit to single-unit question. Open Linguistics 7 (1), 837–864. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S., & Fazel Lauzon, V.
(2015) Documenting change across time: Longitudinal and cross-Sectional studies of CA classroom interaction. In N. Markee (Ed.), The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction (pp. 409–424). Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S., & Pochon-Berger, E.
(2011) Developing ‘methods’ for interaction: a cross-Sectional study of disagreement sequences in French L2. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellerman, & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development (pp. 206–243). Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015) The development of L2 interactional competence: Evidence from turn-taking organization, sequence organization, repair organization and preference organization. In T. Cadierno & S. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (233–268). De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plough, I.
(2018) Revisiting the speaking construct: The question of interactional competence. Language Testing, 35 (3), 325–329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A., & Heritage, J.
(2013) Preference. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 210–228). Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Reinhardt, S.
in preparation). Assessing interactional competence: Identifying Candidate Criterial Features for the Evaluation of L2 Repair Skills (PhD thesis). Universitätsverlag Potsdam.
Robinson, J. D.
(2018) Overall structural organization. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 257–280). Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Roever, C.
(2018, May). Assessing interactional competence: features, scoring, and practicality. In CLIC conference “Assessing speaking on context – new trends”. Rice.Google Scholar
Roever, C., & Dai, D. W.
(2021) Reconceptualizing interactional competence for language testing. In M. R. Salaberry & A. R. Burch (Eds.), Assessing speaking in context: Expanding the construct and its applications (pp. 23–49). Multilingual Matters. 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
Rossano, F.
(2013) Gaze in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 308–329). Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G.
(1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50 1, 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salaberry, M. R., & Burch, A. R.
(Eds.) (2021) Assessing speaking in context: Expanding the construct and its applications. Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Salaberry, M. R., & Kunitz, S.
(Eds.) (2019) Introduction. In M. R. Salaberry & S. Kunitz (Eds.), Teaching and testing L2 interactional competence: Bridging theory and practice (pp. 1–22). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.
(2007) Sequence Organization in interaction. A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T.
(Eds.) (2013) The handbook of conversation analysis. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stivers, T.
(2013) Sequence organization. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 191–209). Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Streeck, J.
(2009) Gesturecraft. The manu-facture of meaning. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vogt, K. & Quetz, J.
(2018) Assessment im Englischunterricht. Kompetenzorientiert beurteilen und bewerten. Helbling.Google Scholar
Walters, F. S.
(2021) Some considerations regarding validation in CA-informed oral testing for the L2 classroom. In S. Kunitz, N. Markee, & O. Sert (Eds.), Classroom based conversation analytic research. Theoretical and applied perspectives on pedagogy (pp. 383–404). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waring, H. Z.
(2019) Developing interactional competence with limited linguistic resources. In M. R. Salaberry & S. Kunitz (Eds.), Teaching and testing L2 interactional competence: Bridging theory and practice (pp. 215–227). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wong, J., & Waring, H. Z.
(2010) Conversation analysis and second language pedagogy. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Youn, S. J.
(2020) Managing proposal sequences in role-play assessment: Validity evidence of interactional competence across levels. Language Testing, 37 (1), 76–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 from [URL]
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar