(2024) 14:31
Ahmadi ﻿Language Testing in Asia
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-024-00299-9

RESEARCH

Language Testing in Asia

Open Access

Patterns of interaction in a paired speaking
test: comparing L1 and L2 interactions
Alireza Ahmadi1*   *Correspondence:arahmadi@shirazu.ac.ir
1
Department of Foreign
Languages and Linguistics,
School of Literatureand Humanities, Shiraz
University, Shiraz 7194684795,
Iran

Abstract
The shift of focus from a cognitive to social view has drawn the attention of second
language assessment researchers to delve into interactional competence as an intriguing topic in paired oral tests. To fill the gap on how interactional patterns compare
across L1 and L2 interactions this study was specifically set to explore and compare 45
paired interactions of L1 English speakers, L1 Persian speakers, and L2 English learners. While the findings indicated that the collaborative pattern was the most common
pattern in the three groups less than half of the interactions in total were collaborative. Furthermore, not all the interactional patterns were found in all the groups. The
frequency and prominence of the common patterns also varied. The findings could
be explained by cultural norms of speech (e.g., in taking turns) and interlocutor effects(e.g., dominating the conversation or adopting a passive role). The findings imply challenges for fair assessment when using paired tasks as assessment tools. Furthermore,
the findings call for rubric development and rater training programs to include description and discussion of interactional patterns to help raters improve their understanding
and rating of paired interactions.
Keywords: Interactional competence, Patterns of interaction, Paired speaking test, L1
interactions, L2 interactions, Assessment validity, Interlocutor effects, Cultural norms

Introduction
The shift from a cognitive view in language testing where language competence is considered an individual ability to a social view in which communicative language ability
is manifested in a social context through a joint attempt at co-constructing a particular discursive practice has brought about some changes to language proficiency tests.
From the time ‘interactional competence’ (IC) was introduced (Mehan, 1979, and lateron Kramsch, 1986) based on this social view, researchers have focused on tasks that canelicit IC more effectively. In line with this, paired speaking tasks have been used in somehigh-stakes and classroom assessments (e.g., Cambridge English exams). Compared tothe traditional oral interview which has been the dominant test format for a long time,
the paired oral test has a positive washback (Ducasse & Brown, 2009; Taylor, 2001), istime and cost-efficient (Ducasse & Brown, 2009), elicits a wide range of interactional
skills (Brooks, 2009; Galaczi, 2014; Nakatsuhara, 2004; Plough et al., 2018; Taylor, 2001;© The Author(s) 2024. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you
give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified
the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The
images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a
credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted bystatutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy ofthis licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Ahmadi ﻿Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:31

Vo, 2020), and is preferred by language learners (Egyud & Glover, 2001; May, 2000; Taylor, 2001).
Despite all the advantages stated for the paired oral test, concerns remain about how
to assess the co-construction of discourse in this test (see e.g., Fulcher, 2003; May, 2009,2011; van Batenburg et al., 2018; Youn & Chen, 2021) which is realized in four patternsof interaction including collaborative, parallel, asymmetric and blended (Galaczi; 2008;
Storch, 2002). These interactional patterns pose challenges for raters to assess the joint
discourse. It has been argued that asymmetric patterns are more difficult for raters torate (Galaczi, 2004; May, 2009). Also, test takers are more likely to receive higher scores
when interacting in collaborative patterns (Galaczi, 2008; Isaacs, 2013; Storch, 2002). As
such, raters have a difficult task deciding about the appropriate score for each interlocutor in paired interactions. The difficulty increases as the interactions may be influenced
by interlocutor effects (Csepes, 2009; Davis, 2009; Foot, 1999; May, 2009; Norton, 2005;
Roever & Kasper, 2018). That is, an interlocutor may unfairly influence a test taker’s
performance and make scores biased. For example, in studying the effect of interlocutor proficiency in a paired test, Davis (2009) found that lower-level test takers generated
more language (words) when interacting with a higher-level interlocutor.
The literature still suffers from a paucity of research on how the interactional patterns
are affected by various factors. Furthermore, not much is known about whether suchinteractional patterns are language and culture-specific or may similarly be found insocial interactions in both L1 and L2 contexts. There have been arguments in the literature that certain aspects of interactions could be language or culture-specific (e.g.,
Fulcher, 2003; May, 2009; Taguchi, 2014), but very few studies have been designed to
specifically investigate this issue (e.g., Isaacs, 2013). For example, Fulcher (2003) argues
that turn-taking conventions may vary from culture to culture. Similarly, May (2009,p. 21) argues that personality- and culture-related factors “might determine, or at least
contribute to” the paired interactional patterns. The raters in May’s study referred tobody language and assertiveness as important features of IC. However, these features"could be seen as aspects of culture and L1 usage. What constitutes assertiveness incommunication to the raters might be interpreted as aggressive and inappropriate communication in some cultures" (p. 21). However, not much is known about how native
speakers of different languages co-construct the discourse in their L1 interactions, or
how L1 interactions are different from L2 interactions. These are important questions
that can help define the construct of IC and determine whether IC can be conceptualized similarly across L1 and L2 interactions or depending on the language of interaction
the conceptualization should differ. Furthermore, investigating such questions can be an
important step in creating fairness in performance-based assessment by informing thedevelopment of assessment rubrics and enhancing raters’ assessment literacy. Additionally, test users are benefited as they can more effectively interpret and use the scorescoming from paired oral tests. The current study was, therefore, set to investigate L1and L2 interactional patterns. More specifically, paired interactions of L1 English speakers, L1 Persian speakers, and L2 English learners were explored. The following researchquestion was, therefore, put forward in this study:
How do the paired interactions of L1 English speakers, L1 Persian speakers and L2
English learners compare in interactional patterns?

Page 2 of 17

Ahmadi ﻿Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:31

Literature review
The last two decades have displayed IC as an intriguing topic for research in Second
Language Acquisition (e.g., Cekaite, 2007; Çimenli et al., 2022; Dings, 2014; Doehler &Berger, 2018; Masuda, 2011; Nguyen, 2018; Taguchi, 2014; Tecedor, 2016) and Second
Language Assessment (e.g., Ducasse & Brown, 2009; Galaczi, 2004, 2014; Lam, 2019;
May, 2006, 2009, 2011; Roever & Ikeda, 2022; Sato, 2012). Various factors have beenbrought to attention in the co-construction of discourse in paired and group interactions
helping improve understanding of the IC construct. The factors studied include proficiency level (Artunç & Hart, 2020; Youn, 2020), task effect (Author et al., 2016; Brooks,
2009; Vo, 2019), interlocutor effect (Davis, 2009; O’Louglin, 2002; O’Sullivan, 2002), andplanning time (Lam, 2019) among others. On the other hand, a few studies have focusedon exploring patterns of interactions that emerge in a social context under the effect ofvarious factors. These studies have specified a number of interactional patterns for IC.
Instead of focusing on micro-features of IC, such studies have explored how interactions
at a more macrolevel are patterned. As such, they have focused on individuals’ collaboration and engagement in interactions to classify different patterns of interaction. To thisend, in a longitudinal classroom-based study, Storch (2002) investigated the nature ofinteraction in an ESL class including 10 pairs of adult students. She found four patternsof dyadic interaction based on the two criteria of mutuality (engagement with the interlocutor’s contribution) and equality (degree of control over the interaction): collaborative, dominant/dominant, dominant/passive, and expert/novice.
Galaczi’s (2008) analysis of the discourse in interactions of 30 pairs of First Certificate
in English (FCE) candidates led to a similar categorization of interactional patterns. She
categorized the interactional patterns into collaborative, parallel (dominant/dominant in
Storch’s study), and asymmetric (dominant/passive and expert/novice in Storch’s study),
and added another pattern called blended (a combination of two patterns in the same
dyadic interaction). The study further provided evidence for a relationship between theinteractional patterns and IC scores in a way that higher scores were given to test takers
in collaborative patterns.
However, there is paucity of research on whether such L2 interactional patterns are
similarly found in L1 interactions of different cultures. While extensive research has
examined interactional competence in Second Language Acquisition and Assessment,
there is a notable gap in the exploration of how interactional patterns manifest in interactions of different linguistic and cultural backgrounds in both L1 and L2 contexts. In
Isaacs’s (2013) study, evidence was found for the role of linguistic or cultural backgroundin interactions. For instance, while “Mandarin speakers accounted for 27% of participants in the study, they were represented in 58% of the cases of individuals classified as
passive within the asymmetric group”. Also, speakers of Indic languages accounting for
27% of participants “were overrepresented in the asymmetric dominant group at 83%”
(p. 238). Similar findings were previously reported by Lu (2010) who found that Chinese
EFL test takers had less elaboration and were less interactive in their spoken discourse
than the Italian EFL test-takers, a finding that was explained by the taciturn culture of
the Chinese in preferring to be brief and concise in response to elders and authorities
to show respect. However, these studies are limited to L2 learners and could not provide a clear picture of how L1 and L2 interactions compare. In fact, existing studies have

Page 3 of 17

Ahmadi ﻿Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:31

Page 4 of 17

predominantly focused on L2 learners, leaving unanswered questions about the comparability of interactional patterns between L1 and L2 contexts and across different cultural and linguistic groups. To the best of the researcher’s knowledge, no study has been
conducted to investigate how native speakers of different languages co-construct discourse in their L1 interactions. Nor has been any study to explore how such interactions
are different from L2 interactions. As such, and in response to the call for cross-cultural research on interaction (e.g., Galaczi & Taylor, 2018; VO, 2020) to help define theconstruct of IC, the current study was conducted to specifically fill the gap on patternsof interaction. The study could be significant as this is the first study to explore interactional patterns in relation to the language of interaction which encompasses linguistic and cultural background. The study was specifically set to explore and compare theinteractional patterns in paired interactions of L1 English speakers, L1 Persian speakers,
and L2 English learners.

Methods
Participants

Ninety university students (27 males and 63 females) from three different language backgrounds participated in the study (Table 1). Convenient sampling was employed to selectthe participants in all the three groups; that is, the participants were selected based on
their availability and willingness to participate in the study. The first group, L1 Persian
speakers, included 30 native speakers of Persian. At the time of the study, they were
either university students or had just finished a degree at university. They had majoredin different fields and were selected from different universities in Shiraz and Tehran, twomajor cities in Iran. They were monolinguals of Persian since they had either no or a low
level knowledge of any other languages as expressed by themselves before being includedin the study. The second group, L1 English speakers, consisted of 30 native speakers ofEnglish. They were all American students who spoke English as their L1. Like the firstgroup, this group only included participants who were basically monolinguals with no ora low level knowledge of other languages. They were majoring in different fields of study
and were selected from different universities and colleges in Stillwater in Oklahoma andPrinceton in New Jersey of the USA. The third group, L2 English learners, included 30
EFL learners who were selected from different universities in Shiraz, Iran. They were
Iranian native speakers of Persian. Proficiency was not a variable of interest in this study;
however, to make sure the participants were proficient enough (intermediate and above)
to take part in paired interactions, they attended an interview with the researcher andresearch assistant. All the three groups of participants were provided with some general information about the study. They were also ensured that their data would only

Table 1 Participants’ demographic information
L1 PersianN

L1 English
PN

L2 English
P

N

P

Male

11

36.66%

620%

10

33.33%

Female19

63.33%

24

80%

20

66.66%

Ahmadi ﻿Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:31

be employed for research purposes, that they would remain anonymous, and that they
could withdraw from the study at any time.
Instruments

The literature has discussed the advantages of paired test over the traditionally dominant interviews and monologues (e.g., Brooks, 2009; Ducasse & Brown, 2009; Galaczi,
2014; Nakatsuhara, 2004; Plough et al., 2018; Taylor, 2001; Vo, 2020). A paired oral test
was used in this study to collect the data on interactional patterns. The participants had
one minute for preparation and five minutes for discussion. The participants were supposed to discuss whether physical punishment should be allowed at schools or not. The
three groups of participants sat the same oral test but interacted in different languages.
The native speakers interacted in their L1s, therefore, group I interacted in Persian andgroup II in English. The L2 learners interacted in L2; that is, English. The participantsof each group were randomly assigned to pairs. The interactions were audio-recordedwith the participants’ consent for later analysis. Unless deemed necessary, the researcher
and research assistants did not interfere with the interactions and functioned as silent
observers.
Data collection

The data were collected in two steps. First, paired interactions were collected from different contexts in line with the purpose of the study. The L1 English interactions werecollected with the help of two research assistants living in America. Second, all therecorded interactions were transcribed using conventions adapted from Atkinson and
Heritage (1984; see the Appendix). To ensure accuracy, the data were transcribed by two
different individuals and then were checked by the researcher. The L1 English and L2
English interactions were first transcribed by a BA graduate of ELT who had experiencetranscribing English interactions. The transcripts were then given to a PhD candidateof ELT to check and make corrections if necessary. After that, about 30% of the samples
were randomly selected and checked by the researcher to ensure accuracy. Very few corrections were made by the researcher which showed the accuracy of the transcriptions
by the two individuals. A similar procedure was followed for the L1 Persian interactions.
First, as an L1 Persian speaker, the same BA graduate who had transcribed English interactions transcribed the data. Then, another L1 Persian speaker with an MA degree in
Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages, checked the transcription, and finallythe researcher checked 30% of the data and made a few minor corrections.
Data analysis

The transcripts were analyzed qualitatively for interactional patterns using Galaczi’s(2008) and Storch’s (2002) typology of interactional patterns. To determine the patterns,
the transcription of each paired interaction was first read to get an overall impression of
the interaction. Then, the interaction was read again and checked against the detailed
characteristics of each interactional pattern provided in Galaczi (2008) and Storch(2002). The interlocutors’ roles were carefully studied on a turn-by-turn basis. The iterative reading and rereading of the interactions were followed in this stage. The patterns
were distinguished based on the two dimensions of mutuality and equality (Storch,

Page 5 of 17

Ahmadi ﻿Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:31

2002). To ensure the reliability of the general coding of the patterns, 33.33% of the interactions were randomly selected from the three groups (five samples from each group)and checked by a PhD candidate in ELT who was doing her PhD on IC. As she wasfamiliar with interactional patterns and relevant studies on IC, only one brief session oftraining was provided to her explaining the purpose of the analysis and the distinguishing characteristics of different patterns. She was then asked to analyze and code the 15
random samples. The intercoder agreement turned out to be 70%. Disagreements were
mostly related to the blended pattern. This was not unexpected as this pattern is “a blendof two interactional styles” (Galaczi, 2008, p.97), and in cases it proved difficult to determine whether a second style was obviously present in the interactions or not. As such, it
was decided to consider a pattern blended when there was a clear shift in interactionalroles which was maintained in several consecutive turns, otherwise the interaction waslabeled by the dominant pattern of the interaction. The problematic cases were discussed and resolved accordingly. The rest of the data was then coded by the researcher.
The following section provides a more detailed explanation of the analysis of patterns.
Exemplar excerpts are used to illustrate the patterns.

Results
Interactional patterns

Following Storch (2002) and Galaczi (2008), interactions that exhibited moderate tohigh mutuality and moderate to high engagement were considered collaborative. In suchinteractions, both interlocutors actively contributed to the task developing their own
topic (self-focused) and contributing to the development of their interlocutors’ topic(other-focused). Such interactions were highly cohesive and coherent with interlocutors
completing each other’s utterances or incorporating or repeating each other’s’ utterances
and then extending on them. Such interactions could further be characterized by short
gaps between turns, overlaps in turns, frequent acknowledgements, questions, requests
for clarification, and positive and negative feedback. The following excerpt which is partof an exchange between two L1 English speakers, a man and a woman, illustrates the collaborative pattern.
Excerpt 1

1 A: I don’t think that anyone should discipline your chi:ld except fo:r the parents. So:
it’s my personal opinion on that.
2 B: exactly
3 A: you know
4 B: why is that though?
5 A: why is that? (.) Because that’s your child.
6 B: yeah, but it’s like (.) punish your child at home, so (.) why shouldn’t (.) your childbe punished at school? (3)7 A: good point, (.) but physically?
8 B: (.) physically
9 A: no10 B: you never (.), you would never physically punish your child?

Page 6 of 17

Ahmadi ﻿Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:31

11 A: no12 B: not at all?
13 A: would I? No. [So] I wouldn’t want someone else to do it. (?) (3) Do you not agreewith me?
14 B: [really]? I mean, I, I do.
15 A: I can’t. So, that’s all I can say about it. No, I don’t agree with it.
16 B: I don’t agree with it either. But (.) I mean I came up (.) with being punished physically punished when I did something wrong, so
17 A: physically punished?
18 B: physically punished like getting a whipping, yeah.
In this interaction, both participants jointly contribute to the discourse and engage
with each other’s ideas. Their speech is characterized by features of a highly-involved
interaction (Galaczi, 2008; Tannen, 1981; Van Lier, 1996) such as short turns, rapid
speaker change, avoidance of gaps between turns, supportive interruptions (e.g., turns
14 & 17), frequent questions (turns 4, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13 & 17) and listener support in theform of agreement (turns, 2 & 16). Cohesion is created as the interlocutors repeat orincorporate each other’s ideas (e.g., turn 5), and extend on or complete each other’s ideas(e.g., turn 7). Further characteristics of this interaction which makes it collaborative isthe balanced quantity of talk between the two participants, and also balance in initiating and expanding topics (Galaczi, 2008). Both participants easily shift between theirroles as speakers and listeners. A salient feature of this interaction is the frequent use ofquestions. By raising questions interlocutors impose conversational limitations on eachother’s contribution as they have no choice but to take the floor and speak in a relevant
manner (Galaczi, 2008). In this excerpt, both interlocutors use questions to extend the
topic over several turns and shift between their conversational roles as speakers andlisteners.
Parallel (similar to Storch’s dominant-dominant) interactions were characterized by amoderate to high level of equality but a moderate to low level of mutuality. This meansthat while both interlocutors actively contributed to the task, they lacked willingness orability to fully engage with each other’s contribution (Storch, 2002). As such, they mostly
developed their own topic and rarely tended to develop the topic initiated by their interlocutors. Unlike the collaborative interactions which showed a balance in speaker andlistener roles, parallel interactions illustrated a much stronger role for the speaker thanthe listener (Galaczi, 2008). Such patterns were further characterized by limited listenersupport for example in the form of acknowledgement tokens, and rare syntactic and lexical cohesion between turns. The two excerpts below are used to illustrate the parallelinteraction. The first excerpt is part of an interaction between two female L2 English
learners.

Excerpt 2

1 A: I think mm (.) the biggest impact that physical punishment ha:s on children (.)
is fear. (.) And when you have fear you have no: confidence. (.) You have no: self-

Page 7 of 17

Ahmadi ﻿Language Testing in Asia

2

3

4

5

6

(2024) 14:31

respect. You have no: self-esteem. And this fear ruins their, mm their spirit, theirsoul (.) and they cannot be (.) successful (.) in in their future.
B: yeah, and also when the adult punish the children (.) they feel that the adult are in
the position of the power. (.) [Now] when children find the position of power, when
they are older than other children (.), they just react the same as their (.) parents,
their teachers, their, (.) their adults.
A: [Ok] exactly, that, that was what I was thinking. It’s like (.) and also: (.) revenge[is] another concept. (.) When they have the power (.) they want to get this revenge
from others, [from] their children, from their students, if, (.) and it’s (.) I think, notgood at all.
B: [yeah] and also, when we talk about punishment we (.) want the idea of (.)
lea:rning and (.) tea:ching something. Children should learn and (.) adult should
teach them something to children. But with physical punishment we don’t tea:chanything to them. (.) We just teach them how to hate, how to detest, how to havefear, how to (.) have low confidence and other things.
A: yeah, I do agree. And (.) I think physical punishment should be replaced by ignorance, [reward] and ignorance. For example, if a child (.) has done something wrong,(.) I think we should mm, ignore them (.), not pay attention to them and replace thisattention with something good or something better. [In this] way this bad behavior isforgotten. Or (.) I don’t know, it’s (.) replaced by something good.
B: [yeah] [yeah] and also, (.) I think, again I wanna say that it’s very important toteach ss- (.) to teach something when we ah punish children. (.) And if we show theconsequences of the bad acts that children did in the past (.) they understand it, o:k,
I did it, so this is the result. (.) And they, step by step, they will understand it.

Although both participants contribute equally to this interaction there are no collaborative completions, therefore, there is a low level of mutuality or engagementwith each other’s ideas. This excerpt involves six turns with as many as six different
topics (fear, ignorance, power, revenge, learning and teaching, consequences (teaching). Almost none of the topics gets extended over two turns except for some extension in turns 3 and 6. Each participant initiates and extends their own topic without
developing their interlocutor’s topic. While there exist some acknowledgment tokens(turns 2, 3, 5, & 6) they are rather superficial agreements because unlike collaborative
patterns these agreements here are followed by very little or no extension of the other’s ideas. That is, after a minimal response (e.g., yeah), the interlocutor initiates andextends a new topic ignoring what was stated in the previous turn by the other interlocutor. Such a minimal response is “just a turn-taking device, which is then often
followed by a topic shift” (Glaczi, 2008, p. 106). It creates a pro forma cohesion but
actually functions as a topical disengagement (Jefferson, 1993). Also, there are few
cohesive links between turns (Galaczi, 2008). Another salient feature of this interaction is the long turns taken by each of the interlocutors. That is, unlike the collaborative patterns which were characterized by more short turns indicative of engaged talk,here the turns are longer and therefore fewer. The interlocutors keep the floor longer
to be able to extend the topic in a turn assuming they have other topics to initiate anddevelop in other turns.

Page 8 of 17

Ahmadi ﻿Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:31

The second excerpt below like the previous interaction shows a parallel interaction
with a high level of equality and a low level of engagement; that is, both interlocutors
actively contribute to the task but have little engagement with each other’s ideas. Eachinterlocutor initiates a topic and extends it in a single turn with limited links between
the turns. However, this excerpt, happening between two L1 Persian speakers, an Iranian woman and an Iranian man, illustrates a rather specific type of parallel interaction.
The whole interaction here including 593 words is completed in five very long turns (forspace limitations, only the beginning of each turn showing the topic is presented here).
Long turns were also observed in the previous interaction from the L2 English group,
however, there the interaction with almost the same number of words (including 604
words) was extended over 15 turns. But here in this interaction, there are as few as fiveturns and the turns turn out to be roughly three times longer. The speakers do not compete for the floor at all. They patiently wait for their interlocutor to finish their turn andsignal that their turn is over so that they can start their turn. Because of this, there is noteven a single example of overlapping or interrupted turns. The other parallel interactionsin the L1 Persian group had even fewer turns.

Excerpt 3

1

A: tænbihe bædæni kolæn (.) tu mædɒres modʒɒz næbɒjæd bɒʃe. (.)be xɒtere ʔinke: (.)
tænbihe bædæni bɒʔes miʃe ke dɒneʃʔɒmuz (.) bæʔd ʔæz modæti ʔɒdæt kone (.). va
bærɒʃ ʔɒdi miʃe. …

Physical punishment should not be allowed at schools at all, because physical punishment makes the student get used to it after a while, and it becomes usual for them. …
2

B: bæ:le (.) be næzære mæn hæm tænbihe bædæni ʔæslæn xub nist. bætʃehɒ bædtær
gostɒx miʃæn. … (4)Yes, in my opinion too, physical punishment is not good at all. Children become ruder.

3

A: mæn ʔælʔɒn (.) tæGribæn (.) sijose sijotʃɒhɒr sɒle moʔælem hæstæm
dɒneʃʔɒmuzɒni ke ʔun ʔævajele xedmætæm (.) mididæm bɒ ʔælʔɒn xejli færGkærdæn. yæʔni ʔælʔɒn (.) dɒneʃʔɒmuz (.) ræftɒre moʔælem kerdɒre moʔælem robebine ʔæslæn xodeʃ (.) motævædʒeh miʃe moʔælem ʔæzæʃ tʃi mixɒd. …

I have been a teacher for almost 33, 34 years now. The students I used to see at the
beginning of my service are very different now; that is, now when a student pays attention to the teacher’s behavior, the teacher’s actions, they themselves will understandwhat the teacher wants from them. …
4

B: ʔæslæn tænbihe bædæni dʒævɒb nemide. (.) ʔægær dʒævɒb midɒd xejli ʔæzræftɒrhɒ bɒjæd tæGir mikærd tu bætʃehɒ. (.) be Gejr ʔæz ʔun hæm væGti tu
gofteguhɒje xɒnevɒdegi ʔɒdæm miʃine sohbæt mikone hætɒ bɒ pedær bærɒdær jɒxɒhær bærɒdærɒje bozorgtæri ke (.) ʔæz næslhɒje gozæʃte budæn (.) hi:tʃ kodumeʃunPage 9 of 17

Ahmadi ﻿Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:31

mm xɒtereje xu:bi tæʔrif nemikonænd. (.) hæmiʃe ʔæz ʔun dowrɒneʃun be ʔonvɒne(.) bædtærin dowrɒn jɒd mikonæn….
Physical punishment does not work at all. If it did, many children’s behaviors would
have to change. Apart from that, when in family talks you speak to the father, sister or
elder sisters and brothers from previous generations, none has a good memory. They
always remember that time as the worst time.
5

A: dɒneʃʔɒmuzɒji ke vaGeʔæn tænbihe bædæni miʃodænd sɒbe:G (.) jek (.) xɒtereje
xejli bædi dɒræn. …

Students who were really physically punished in the past, have a very bad memory.
The following excerpt illustrates the least frequent pattern in the data; asymmetricpattern. This pattern overall includes two sub-patterns: the dominant-passive patterndemonstrates moderate to low levels of both equality and mutuality and the expertnovice pattern shows moderate to low equality but moderate to high mutuality. In thefirst one, one person takes the floor and dominates the conversation and the otherinterlocutor adopts “a more passive subservient role” (Storch, 2002, p. 129). In theexpert-novice pattern, the dominant person as an expert encourages the other person
to get engaged. The following excerpt between two female L2 English learners, illustrates the expert-novice pattern. Due to space limitations, parts of the long monologues are omitted and replaced by three dots.

Excerpt 4

1 A: In my opinion, mm physical punishment should be mm should be rem- removed
from the schools er because I think mm it will have poor (.) I think it will have bad
effect and (.) on the on the children. They will be you know their mm their potential,
mm mm their potential skills may be mm may be repressed, instead of, instead ofbeing flourished. … What’s your opinion about it?
2 B: Ok, it’s very bad punishment. Physical punishment is very bad because the students are mm very mm angry and don’t like er this it. And (.) I think mm when wewant punish mm the students (.) for example mm mm their notes again and again
write notes and [mm] [yes] instead of physical punishment
3 A: [writing notes]? [instead of physical punishment]? But in my opinion it’s better totalk to these kinds of students (.) in order to understand the the main reason of not(.) not obeying mm their (.) the order of their teachers. …
4 B: yes, and mm talk to mm [their] [family] yes and mm (5) their family mm talk to
her par mm her children. And (.) if may be better than the students.
5 A: [parents]? [Their parents?] It will have better results.
6 B: yes
7 A: I have the same opinion as you. (3) and (5)8 B: and if the students improve her lessons, mm ah we mm take some (?) gifts for the,for them and (3)Page 10 of 17

Ahmadi ﻿Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:31

Page 11 of 17

9 A: you know besides physical punishment mm we have some mm some bad ressome bad effects on the kids [yes] on them, on the children. You know, they may feelashamed. They may feel shy in front of their [peers], their students, their classmatesand mm they will be repressed instead of flourish. And I [think] yeah. It will (.) it will
make them alone. … (5)10 B: [yes] [students] [and maybe depressed]
11 A: is that finished?
12 B: yes
In this excerpt, A is clearly dominating the interaction by initiating more topics anddeveloping them. Most of the topic initiation and extension is done by this speaker. She
speaks more and takes longer turns. The second speaker is passive both because of herinterlocutor’s dominating behavior and because of her own failure to take the floor. For
example, in turn 10, after having a very long turn, the dominating speaker has a longpause to give the floor to her interlocutor, but she fails to say anything, so the dominating speaker raises a question which is only answered by a minimal response ‘yes’. The
dominating speaker, however, functioning as an expert tries to involve her interlocutor
in the interaction and invites her participation by raising questions (e.g., turns 1 & 11)
and by having a long pause to let her take the turn (turns 7 & 9). In turn 7, the dominating speaker who has received a minimal response in the previous turn from her interlocutor, provides an agreement followed by a 3-second pause to let the passive speakercontinue with and elaborate on her ideas presented in turn 4. But after receiving no contribution she says ‘and’ has a long 5-second pause to encourage her passive participant tocontribute to the task, a strategy which works as the passive participants contributes inturn 8. Like a teacher she encourages her interlocutor to participate (Storch, 2002). She
is authoritative but not authoritarian (van Lier, 1996). She further tries to get engaged
with her interlocutor’s contribution by completing or extending on her ideas (turns 3 &5) and agreeing to her ideas (turn 7).
Frequency and prominence of interactional patterns

Table 2 illustrates the frequency and prominence of interactional patterns for the threegroups. As depicted, the collaborative pattern was found to be the most frequent interactional pattern in the L1 English group dominating more than half of the interactions
Table 2 Interactional patterns of different language groups
IC patterns

L1 English

L1 Persian

L2 English

F

F

F

P

P

P

Collaborative

8

53.33

6

40

5

33.33

Parallel

3

20

4

26.66

3

20

collaborative-parallel

3

20

1

6.66

4

26.66

collaborative-asymmetric

1

6.66

2

13.33

1

6.66

parallel-asymmetric

-----

-----

1

6.66

-----

-----

expert-novice

-----

-----

-----

-----

2

13.33

dominant-passive

-----

-----

1

6.66

-----

-----

15

100

15

100

15

100

Blend

Asymmetric
Total

Ahmadi ﻿Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:31(53.33%), and in the L1 Persian group dominating 40% of the interactions. In the L2 English group, the frequency of this pattern drops to only one third of the interactions andequals the frequency of the blended pattern. It is further indicated that the asymmetric pattern is the least frequent pattern of interaction in the L1 Persian and L2 English
groups with a low frequency. The L1 English interactions did not display this pattern atall. Also, more blended and asymmetric patterns were found in L2 than L1 interactions
Further analysis indicated considerable variability in the L1 Persian interactions. The
parallel and asymmetric interactions in the L1 Persian group included fewer turns andtherefore were less interactive. Actually, in two of the parallel interactions and in the
only asymmetric pattern of the L1 Persian group, there were as few as three turns (parallel patterns at most included five turns). These patterns were vividly different fromthe other L1 Persian interactions and also interactions in the L1 English and L2 English groups in terms of the number of turns. In the asymmetric pattern, the dominant
speaker initiated the interaction with a turn that lasted for four minutes. During thistime, the other interlocutor was just quietly listening and waiting for her turn, seeming
satisfied with this waiting. She did not show any sign of competing for the floor or taking the turn until the dominant speaker was done with his speech and gave her a signal
to take the turn. Then, she took the turn which lasted for 20 seconds. Finally, the first
speaker took the turn again and completed his talk. In this interaction, 80% of the discourse was created by the first speaker in one turn. The whole interaction looked like amonologue which included a 20-second turn by the second speaker. In the two parallelinteractions, each speaker initiated and presented their ideas independently and in detailin one or two turns with a very low level of mutuality or engagement.

Discussion
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether IC is displayed differently ininteractions of different language groups. To this end, paired interactions of L1 English speakers, L1 Persian speakers, and L2 English learners were compared based on
the interactional patterns. The findings indicated that the collaborative pattern was thedominant pattern in all the language groups. Less than half of the interactions in total
were collaborative, and the blended patterns also mostly included the collaborative pattern. However, differences were also found among the three groups. Not all the patterns
were found in all the groups. Similar patterns also varied in their frequency and prominence (rank-ordering of the patterns). Previous research (Galaczi, 2008; Isaacs, 2013;
Storch, 2002) has reported differences in the frequency of interactional patterns. While
Galaczi (2008) reports a frequency of 30% for each of the collaborative, parallel, andblended patterns, and 10% for the asymmetric pattern, Storch (2002) reports 50% forcollaborative, 20% for parallel, and 30% for asymmetric. Also, Isaacs (2013) reports 36%
for collaborative, 38% for parallel, and 26% for asymmetric. Since these studies are specifically conducted on L2 interactions, they have linked the findings to the proficiency
level of interlocutors with lower levels indicating more parallel or asymmetric patterns
and higher levels showing more collaborative styles of interaction. While proficiency canbe a logical reasoning for why some of the L2 interactions are not collaborative it cannot
explain why native speakers’ interactions are not collaborative. Thus, it can be argued,
based on the findings of the current study, that the linguistic and cultural background ofPage 12 of 17

Ahmadi ﻿Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:31

interlocutors can play a role in interactional patterns as many of the L1 interactions in
the two native groups were not collaborative. This finding is in line with L2 interactional
studies (Fulcher, 2003; Galaczi, 2008; Isaacs, 2013; Lu, 2010; May, 2009; Ross, 1998, 2018;
Young, 1995) which had previously argued for the effect of linguistic and cultural backgrounds on L2 interactions. Such studies, however, did not include L1 interactions to beable to specifically illuminate the effect.
Another justification for the findings of this study may come from the interlocutor
effect in pair work. It has been discussed in the literature that using paired tasks does
not necessarily lead to collaboration in L2 interactions, (Foot, 1999; Galaczi, 2008; Norton, 2005; Storch, 2002; Taylor, 2001; Teasley & Roschelle, 1993). The findings of the current study lent support to this idea by indicating that not only in L2 interactions but
also in L1 interactions, the use of paired tasks does not necessarily lead to collaboration. This may mean that interactional patterns also depend on the pairing (who you arepaired with in an interaction) (Artunç & Hart, 2020; Isaacs, 2013; Kim & McDonough2008; May, 2009). In Artunç and Hart’s (2020) study, the interlocutor effect on patternsof interaction was confirmed in L2 interactions. The most frequent patterns in highhigh pairs, low-low pairs and low-high pairs were collaborative, parallel and asymmetricrespectively. Furthermore, no collaborative pattern was found in low-low pairs.
Finally, the findings about the parallel and asymmetric patterns in the L1 Persian
group with very few turns can further highlight the complexity of the way the linguistic and cultural background and the interlocuter (pairing) effect function in tandem tocreate very specific and unique patterns of interaction. The fact that such patterns ofinteraction only appeared in the L1 Persian group can be justified by the cultural normsof speech. Longer turns may mean the speakers do not consider interrupting a partner’s turn acceptable and wait for their turns (Isaacs, 2013); in other words, they expect“to be invited to speak” (Galaczi, 2008, p.110). Furthermore, the fact that such patterns
appeared only in a fraction of the L1 Persian interactions can highlight the interlocutor(pairing) effect.

Conclusions and implications
This study explored the interactional patterns in L1 and L2 contexts. The findings provided insights into the role of linguistic and cultural background in the patterns of interaction in paired oral tests. Currently, high-stakes tests are criticized for their failure toinclude appropriate interaction-based tasks (so, the construct of IC is underrepresented
in these tests) or for their failure to consider IC-specific scoring criteria even when suchtasks are included (e.g., Malone & Montee, 2014; Roever & Dai, 2021; Roever & Ikeda,
2022; Roever & Kasper, 2018; Seedhouse & Nakatsuhara, 2018). Thus, high-stakes tests
are highly encouraged to include in their test batteries interaction-based tasks specifically targeting IC and to develop appropriate rubrics to measure IC. “In the overwhelmingly typical case where test-takers’ real-world language use involves interacting withothers, it seems clear that their ability to do so should be a core part of the information
gathered on their language ability” in language tests (Roever & Dai, 2021, p. 24). The
challenge, however, is the role of cultural norms of speech in the final product of suchinteraction-based tasks. The findings of this study indicated that cultural norms alongwith the interlocutor effect may play their role in the pattern of interaction created inPage 13 of 17

Ahmadi ﻿Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:31

paired tasks. The problem arises when we consider that the type of pattern affects thescores assigned to the interlocutors (Galaczi, 2004, 2008; Isaacs, 2013; May, 2009; Storch,
2002). This can threaten the validity of the decisions made based on such scores and may
have detrimental consequences for test takers.
The findings may have several implications. First, the literature has suggested the collaborative pattern as the most effective pattern in helping students learn a second language (Kim & McDonough, 2008; Storch, 2002). “Learners might benefit from explicit
teaching of collaborative dyadic interaction” (Galaczi, 2008, p.114). They could receive
higher scores (e.g., Davis, 2009; Galaczi, 2008; Isaacs, 2013; Storch, 2002) and scaffold
peers (Storch, 2002) when interacting in a collaborative talk. In Isaacs’s (2013) study,
interlocutors in the collaborative group had the highest satisfaction of their interaction
among all the groups. They also had the fewest problems in pronunciation and communication and favored more the idea of collaborating with their partner in the future. To
benefit from the advantages of this collaboration, paired tasks are suggested as they are
assumed to be interactive by nature. However, findings of the current study indicatedthat paired interactions of L1 and L2 are not necessarily collaborative. Therefore, teachers should know that using pair work in their classes is not enough for their students tobecome collaborative. They need to be well equipped with other strategies of making
students collaborative. Furthermore, “the question remains as to whether collaborativeinteractional patterns should be uncritically positioned as the ‘gold standard’ of communication” (May, 2009, p. 418) when many of L1 and L2 interactions are non-collaborative.
This is a question which calls for further research.
Moreover, as discussed previously, cultural norms of speech and interlocutor effects
may impact upon interactions and create specific patterns which are not at all collaborative. This can imply a big challenge for fair assessment when using paired tasks asassessment tools. How can we make sure that test takers receive fair scores when they
do not have equal opportunities to display their speaking ability in different interactional
patterns?
The last implication is related to scoring paired speaking interactions. Rater training
programs are recommended to include detailed discussions and rating of interactional
patterns with a focus on non-collaborative patterns to help raters improve their understanding and rating of paired interactions. Also, rubric developers are recommended toinclude in their rubrics descriptors of different interactional patterns to help raters with
fairer scoring of paired interactions.
The study may have some limitations. First, the findings of the study may have been
affected by the fact that demographic variables in the pairs were not controlled. Further
explorations are therefore suggested on the effect of demographic variables on interactions in pair work. Second, the findings may have been influenced by regional variations
as the sample was limited to specific locations in two countries.

Appendix
Transcription conventions[ ]overlapping utterance?rising intonation

Page 14 of 17

Ahmadi ﻿Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:31.falling intonation…omitted parts
boldfacewords pronounced with stress-abruptly ended sound: lengthening of vowel sound(.)pause shorter than 3 seconds(5)length of pause if ≥ 3 seconds(( ))nonverbal sounds (e.g., laughter)(?)incomprehensible utterance
Adapted from Atkinson & Heritage (1984)
Abbreviation
IC	Interactional Competence
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr. Faeze Safari, Leila Naghavi, and Mohadese Mehrzad for their help with data collection and all theparticipants for their volunteer participation in the study.
Authors’ contributions
The author is the sole contributor and serves as the corresponding author. He completed all aspects of this study
independently.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Availability of data and materials
The data are not publicly available, but will be provided upon reasonable request.

Declarations
Competing interests
There are no competing interests to declare.
Received: 16 March 2024 Accepted: 9 July 2024

References
Artunç, E. K., & Hart, D., O. (2020). Interactional competence in paired speaking tests: A study on proficiency-based pairings. System, 89, Article 102194. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​system.​2019.​102194
Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1984). Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge University
Press
Author et al. (2016)
Brooks, L. (2009). Interacting in pairs in a test of oral proficiency: Co-constructing a better performance. Language Testing,26(3), 341–366. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​02655​32209​104666
Cekaite, A. (2007). A child’s development of interactional competence in a Swedish L2 classroom. The Modern Language
Journal, 91(1), 45–62. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​15404​781.​2007.​00509.xÇimenli, B., Sert, O., & Jenks, C. (2022). Topic maintenance in video-mediated virtual exchanges: Rolling the ball back in L2
interactions. System, 108, Article 102834. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​system.​2022.​102834
Csepes, I. (2009). Measuring oral proficiency through paired-task performance (Language Testing and Evaluation 14). Peter
Lang GmbH, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften
Davis, L. (2009). The influence of interlocutor proficiency in a paired oral assessment. Language Testing, 26(3), 367–396.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​02655​32209​104667
Dings, A. (2014). Interactional competence and the development of alignment activity. The Modern Language Journal,
98(3), 742–756. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1540-​4781.​2014.​12120.x
Doehler, S. P., & 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. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​applin/​amw021
Ducasse, A., & Brown, A. (2009). Assessing paired orals: Rater’s orientation to interaction. Language Testing, 26(3), 423–443.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​02655​32209​104669
Egyud, G., & Glover, P. (2001). Oral testing in pairs: A secondary school perspective. ELT Journal, 55(1), 70–76. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1093/​elt/​55.1.​70
Foot, M. C. (1999). Relaxing in pairs. ELT Journal, 53(1), 36–41. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​elt/​53.1.​36
Fulcher, G. (2003). Testing second language speaking. Pearson

Page 15 of 17

Ahmadi ﻿Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:31

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. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​15434​30080​19347​02
Galaczi, E. (2014). Interactional competence across proficiency levels: How do learners manage interaction in paired
speaking tests? Applied Linguistics, 35(5), 553–574. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​applin/​amt017
Galaczi, E., & Taylor, L. (2018). Interactional competence: Conceptualizations, operationalization, and outstanding questions. Language Assessment Quarterly, 15(3), 219–236. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​15434​303.​2018.​14538​16
Galaczi, E. (2004). Peer–peer interaction in a speaking test: The case of the First Certificate in English [Unpublished doctoral
dissertation]. Columbia University
Isaacs, T. (2013). International engineering graduate students’ interactional patterns on a paired speaking test: Interlocutors’ perspectives. In K. McDonough & A. Mackey (Eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational contexts(pp. 227–245). John Benjamins.
Jefferson, G. (1993). Caveat speaker: Preliminary notes on recipient topic-shift implicature. Research on Language andSocial Interaction, 26(1), 1–30. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1207/​s1532​7973r​lsi26​01_1
Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as asecond language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 211–234. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​13621​68807​086288
Kramsch, C. (1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence. The Modern Language Journal, 70(4),366–372. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2307/​326815
Lam, D. M. K. (2019). Interactional competence with and without extended planning time in a group oral assessment.
Language Assessment Quarterly, 16(1), 1–20. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​15434​303.​2019.​16026​27
Lu, Y. (2010). Chinese EFL learners’ discoursal performance in the Cambridge ESOL FCE Speaking Test. In L. Cheng & A.
Curtis (Eds.), English language assessment and the Chinese learner (pp. 175–189). Routledge.
Malone, M. E., & Montee, M. (2014). Stakeholders’ beliefs about the TOEFL iBT test as a measure of academic language
ability. ETS Research Report No. RR-4-42. Educational Testing Service. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​ets2.​12039
Masuda, K. (2011). Acquiring interactional competence in a study abroad context: Japanese language learners’ use of theinteractional particle ne. The Modern Language Journal, 95(4), 519–540. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1540-​4781.​2011.​
01256.x
May, L. (2000). Assessment of oral proficiency in EAP programs: A case for pair interaction. Language and Communication
Review, 9(1), 13–19.
May, L. (2009). Co-constructed interaction in a paired speaking test: The rater’s perspective. Language Testing, 26(3),397–422. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​02655​32209​104668
May, L. (2011). Interactional competence in a paired speaking test: Features salient to raters. Language Assessment Quarterly, 8(2), 127–145. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​15434​303.​2011.​565845
May, L. (2006). An examination of rater orientations on a paired candidate discussion task through stimulated verbal
recall. Melbourne Papers in Language Testing, 11(1), 29–31. https://​eprin​ts.​qut.​edu.​au/​15747/1/​15747.​pdf
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Harvard University Press
Nakatsuhara, F. (2004). An investigation into conversational styles in paired speaking tests, [Unpublished master’s dissertation]. University of Essex
Nguyen, H. T. (2018). Interactional practices across settings: From classroom role-plays to workplace patient consultations. Applied Linguistics, 39(2), 213–135. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​applin/​amw007
Norton, J. (2005). The paired format in the Cambridge speaking tests. ELT Journal, 59(4), 287–296. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​
15434​303.​2013.​769549
O’Loughlin, K. (2002). The impact of gender in oral proficiency testing. Language Testing, 19(2), 169–192. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1191/​02655​32202​lt226​oa
O’Sullivan, B. (2002). Learner acquaintanceship and oral proficiency test pair-task performance. Language Testing, 19(3),277–295. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1191/​02655​32202​lt205​oaPlough, I., Banerjee, J., & Iwashita, N. (2018). Interactional competence: Genie out of the bottle. Language Testing, 35(3),427–445. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​02655​32218​772325
Roever, C., & Dai, D. W. (2021). Reconceptualizing interactional competence for language testing. In R. Salaberry & R.
Burch (Eds.), Assessing speaking in context – expanding the construct and its applications (pp. 23–49). Multilingual
Matters.
Roever, C., & Ikeda, N. (2022). What scores from monologic speaking tests can(not) tell us about interactional competence. Language Testing, 39(1), 7–29. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​02655​32221​10033​32
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. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​02655​32218​758128
Ross, S. (1998). Divergent frame interpretations in language proficiency interview interaction. In R. Young & A. He (Eds.),
Talking and testing (pp. 333–353). John Benjamins.
Ross, S. (2018). Listener response as a facet of interactional competence. Language Testing, 35(3), 357–375. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1177/​02655​32218​758125
Sato, T. (2012). The contribution of test-takers’ speech content to scores on an English oral proficiency test. Language Testing, 29(2), 223–241. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​02655​32211​421162
Seedhouse, P., & Nakatsuhara, F. (2018). The discourse of the IELTS Speaking Test: Interactional design and practice. Cambridge
University Press
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​
1467-​9922.​00179
Taguchi, N. (2014). Development of interactional competence in Japanese as a second language: Use of incomplete
sentences as interactional resources. The Modern Language Journal, 98(2), 518–535. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1540-​
4781.​2014.​12087.x
Tannen, D. (1981). New York Jewish conversational style. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 30, 133–149.
Taylor, L. (2001). The paired speaking test format: Recent studies. Research Notes, 6, 15–17.
Teasley, S., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Constructing a joint problem space: The computer as a tool for sharing knowledge. In S.
P. Lajoie & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 229–258). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Page 16 of 17

Ahmadi ﻿Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:31

Tecedor, M. (2016). Beginning learners’ development of interactional competence: Alignment activity. Foreign Language
Annals, 49(1), 23–41. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​flan.​12177
van Batenburg, E. S. L., Oostdam, R. J., van Gelderen, A. J. S., & de Jong, N. H. (2018). Measuring L2 speakers’ interactional
ability using interactive speech tasks. Language Testing, 35(1), 75–100. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​02655​32216​679452
Van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy, and authenticity. Longman.
Vo, S. (2019). Effects of task types on interactional competence in oral communication assessment (Publication No. 13858497)[Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database
Vo, S. (2020). Evaluating interactional competence in interview and paired discussion tasks: A rater cognition study. TESOLJournal, 12(2), Article e563. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​tesj.​563
Youn, S. J. (2020). Managing proposal sequences in role-play assessment: Validity evidence of interactional competence
across levels. Language Testing, 37(1), 76–106. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​02655​32219​860077
Youn, S. J., & Chen, S. (2021). Scoring processes and strategies in paired speaking assessment. In R. Salaberry & R. Burch(Eds.), Assessing speaking in context – expanding the construct and its applications (pp. 107–131). Multilingual Matters.
Young, R. (1995). Conversational styles in language proficiency interviews. Language Learning, 45(1), 3–42. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1111/j.​1467-​1770.​1995.​tb009​61.x

Publisher’s NoteSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Page 17 of 17