This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by O’Sullivan, B. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Learner acquaintanceship and oral proficiency test pair-task performance

University of Reading, b.e.osullivan{at}reading.ac.uk

This paper explores the effect on pair-task performance of test-takers’ familiarity with their partner. O’Sullivan (2000a), like McNamara (1996), sees test performance as being affected by a number of factors, related to the test-taker, the interlocutor and the task. Evidence from the psychology literature, and anecdotal evidence from language learners and teachers, suggests that familiarity with one’s partner in an interactive task might positively affect performance, although in the only published study to date, Porter (1991a) found no evidence to support this hypothesis.

A group of 32 Japanese learners performed a series of three tasks (personal information exchange, narrative, and decision making), once with a friend, and again with a person who was not known to them. All performances were video-recorded, awarded scores by trained raters and transcribed for analysis. Results suggest evidence of an `acquaintanceship’ effect, with subjects achieving higher scores when working with a friend. However, analysis of the language suggests that there is no effect on linguistic complexity, and that there is a sex-ofinterlocutor by acquaintanceship interaction effect for accuracy.

These results appear to support findings in the literature on second language acquisition, which suggest that learners vary their language when interacting with familiar or unfamiliar speakers (Plough and Gass, 1993; Tarone and Liu, 1995), although they contradict the findings of Porter (1991a). Despite its limitations, the results of this study confirm that any test format that employs tasks requiring interaction between individuals is in need of urgent and extensive study.

Language Testing, Vol. 19, No. 3, 277-295 (2002)
DOI: 10.1191/0265532202lt205oa


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. Taylor and G. Wigglesworth Are two heads better than one? Pair work in L2 assessment contexts Language Testing, July 1, 2009; 26(3): 325 - 339. [PDF]

				L. Brooks Interacting in pairs in a test of oral proficiency: Co-constructing a better performance Language Testing, July 1, 2009; 26(3): 341 - 366. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. Davis The influence of interlocutor proficiency in a paired oral assessment Language Testing, July 1, 2009; 26(3): 367 - 396. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Macqueen and L. Harding Test review: Review of the Certificate of Proficiency in English (CPE) Speaking Test Language Testing, July 1, 2009; 26(3): 467 - 475. [PDF]

				A. Van Moere Validity evidence in a university group oral test Language Testing, October 1, 2006; 23(4): 411 - 440. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. He and Y. Dai A corpus-based investigation into the validity of the CET-SET group discussion Language Testing, July 1, 2006; 23(3): 370 - 401. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. M. Norris Interpretations, intended uses and designs in task-based language assessment Language Testing, October 1, 2002; 19(4): 337 - 346. [PDF]