Show Less

Interaction in Paired Oral Proficiency Assessment in Spanish

Rater and Candidate Input into Evidence Based Scale Development and Construct Definition


Ana Maria Ducasse

Defining the construct of interaction for paired assessment purposes has been difficult, despite the evolution of our view of language to include the social perspective of co-construction, and the fact that such discourse is increasingly taught and assessed. In this volume three sequenced studies define interaction in paired oral assessment through the verbal protocols of learners of Spanish and their assessors. Assessors then scale performances from videoed test performance data resulting in the development of an evidence based rating process which includes non-verbal interpersonal communication, interactive listening and interactional management.


See more price optionsHide price options
Show Summary Details
Restricted access



Appendix 1 Trial task rating criteria (before devising rating scale for interaction) Criteria for rating communicative interaction Mark out of 20: one criteria per section . Comprehension: understands the question and generally answers logically. 1) It is necessary to repeat slowly and to expand on and clarify what is being asked 2) The question can be repeated slower without rephrasing. 3) Understands well but appears to pay too much attention in order to comprehend 4) Replies immediately and the conversation continues 5) The question is understood effortlessly in a relaxed manner and as naturally as some- one who understands everything Communication: response to requests; complexity of structures and questions 1) Very few questions (i.e. ¿Y tú?), many errors (i.e. un-conjugated verbs) or they do not understand each other 2) The questions are basic with various errors, short responses searching for words; it is an effort to respond. 3) The questions are correct but not very varied. Responses are unconnected utterances even though an effort is made to combine phrases making a first step towards a natural oral text. 4) Different types of questions asked. Answers well, joining utterances. 5) Wide range of questions and responses, there is fluency and ease of expression with high text cohesions Vocabulary: A variety of vocabulary showing levels of agreement 1) Minimal communication, difficult to rate 2) Very Basic, repeats in order to try to communicate. Articles are missing as are preposi- tions, no agreement of number or gender. 3) Adequate vocabulary but erratic agreement. 4)...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.

Do you have any questions? Contact us.

Or login to access all content.