The interactional nature of oral language use has led to an increase in the incorporation of
group discussion tasks. In the last couple of decades, the direct assessment of spoken
language has seen a shift in interest towards tests in which test takers interact with each other,
rather than with an interviewer. This shift reflects a transition from conceiving
of speaking ability as represented by the linguistic features of an individual‟s spoken words
to one of interactive communication. The initiative to incorporate group tasks into the study
is to help reflect the diversity existing in the daily use of language.
Group tasks have an orientation toward the social dimension of interaction in second
language oral assessment. Coining the term interactional competence, Kramsch (1986)
conceptually attributed to Vygotsky‟s (1978) sociocultural theory. He argued that “successful
interaction presupposes … the construction of a shared internal context … that is built
through the collaborative effort of the interactional partners” (p. 367).
Group oral test format is favoured due to several advantages it offers as an oral
assessment task. The first advantage is that it is relatively practical (Ockey, 2001) since more
than one test taker can be assessed at the same time, and also raters do not need specialized
training for how to conduct effective interviews. The second is that the group oral offers the
potential of positive washback for communicative language teaching purposes (Hilsdon,
1995). Since no intrusion or prompting is made by the rater, another important practical
advantage is the fact that test administrations are potentially uniform across raters, hence
securing the validity of the test. The group oral discussion task, is designed in a way that it
yields authentic discourse, since test takers are expected to have discussions similar to those
they might have in the real world.
Review of Literature:
Group oral assessment
The results of the studies carried out on the group oral assessment are contradictory. In fact,
some of them revealed that this task type can lead to valid score interpretations and some
others showed that it does not. There are several studies that seem to confirm the validity of
group oral discussion task.
Bonk and Ockey (2003) concluded that the group oral does have potential for yielding
valid score-based inferences. Fulcher (1996) showed that variance contributed by task type
was negligible, and since fit statistics on a partial credit Rasch model indicated that all three
tasks were operating on a one-dimensional scale, they were presumably tapping the same
language knowledge or skills. Arguing for the validity of oral group discussion task, Van
Moere (2006) examined scores produced on a large-scale group oral performance test showed
that they are useful for making general inferences about a candidate‟s ability of oral second
However, there are studies that shed doubt on the validity of the group discussion as a
speaking assessment task. Two studies questioned the validity of the score-based inferences
yielded from the group oral. He and Dai (2006), indicate that at least in certain contexts, the
validity of the score interpretations yielded from the group oral are suspect. In the same vein,
Shohamy et al. (1986) speculate that the group task elicited a different range of language to
one-on-one interviews, and added to their claim that a group test should be included as one
part of an oral test battery. The results of these studies may challenge the assertion that the
group discussion tends to produce natural and extended conversation, which some maintain is
appropriate for the all-round display of speaking ability in context (Van Lier, 1989).
However, one point missing in this regard is the issue of how the task is implemented. The
researchers should set the design and procedure in a way the test takers do believe in the
authenticity of the situation.
Oral assessment and linguistic features of speech samples
Another important line of research in oral assessment is the linguistic features of the speech
samples produced. The most important linguistic features of speech sample referred to in
literature are accuracy, fluency and complexity which are abbreviated as CAF. They are the
most widely used measures of oral proficiency.
Several studies have been carried out which investigate the linguistic features of the
speech sample and the scores assigned to them. Although they all investigate how CAF
measures predicts the overall speaking proficiency, each tap on different related issue with
varying variables, methods and instruments (Iwashita, 2008; Ginther, Dimova, & Yang et al.,
Iwashita (2010) nicely summarizes the studies done on linguistic features and oral
„A considerable number of studies have investigated features of oral proficiency using
various methods. The results differ, however, depending on the data type and the
methodology. That is, from studies that use data in the form of ratings and feedback on
ratings, grammatical accuracy is the principal determining factor for raters assigning a global
score, with some variation in the contribution of other factors depending on proficiency level.
On the other hand, in studies that conduct in-built analyses of learner performance,
vocabulary and fluency are the principal factors, but, depending on the level, other features
come into play‟(p.5).
Oral assessment and extra linguistic features
The two studies stated below, are among the studies which have used Content Analysis to
come to a more meaningful picture of group oral assessment task analyses revealing an in-depth understanding about the underrepresented features accounting for the scores the raters
Lazaraton and Davis (2008) examined test takers‟ discourse features to pinpoint
discourse features that could account for the scores assigned by the raters. By providing turn-by-turn interactional codings, the authors showed that paired discussion enabled test takers to
position themselves as being proficient, interactive, supportive, and assertive. The findings
showed that “language proficiency identity may be locally constructed, mediated, and
displayed by test takers in their task talk” (Lazaraton & Davis, 2008, p. 329). The findings
revealed that proficiency is fluid and changing depending on the interlocutor and the identity
resources they brings to the interaction, which indicates interlocutor influence on candidates‟
oral performance (cited in Sun, 2014).
Luk (2010) conducted a comprehensive investigation of interactional features in a
group oral assessment. The results revealed eight key discourse features reflecting test takers‟
attempt to gain a high scores to present themselves as efficient speech partner and not caring
about an authentic communication.
As evident in the these studies, using micro-analytic approaches like CA can provide an
in-depth and fine-grained description of the interactional dynamics available in paired and
groups oral tasks.
Purpose of the study:
Despite their several merits, as mentioned above, group oral tasks, as an oral assessment task
type, have not received the attention they deserve among researchers in terms of the raters
rating such tasks. Being human, raters as an important facet in oral proficiency assessment,
are inevitably subject to a wide range of factors that may reinforce or threaten the validity
and fairness of the scores they assign to a test taker. Raters are usually affected by their prior
experiences and personal backgrounds as they select, weigh, and integrate information into a
final judgment. Raters‟ performance and how they come to a decision about a specific score
has been subject of different studies. Although the literature is replete with studies which
quantitatively investigate different predetermined criteria influencing how raters rate, very
few studies have specifically investigated the raters‟ cognitions in terms of the factors they
attend to and are aware of in rating a group oral task. A strong need is felt for in depth data-driven studies to tap on the true features that raters attend to in group oral assessment. Trying
to fill this void in the literature, this study attempts to underpin factors that influence and
account for raters‟ performance in group discussion tasks. That is, in assigning scores what
factors they attend to; what features of the speech sample influence or impress them. An
ignorance of such factors may lead to a limited and limiting description of group oral task
specificities which may present a construct underrepresentation threat. This inadequacy may
be reflected in a reductionist rating scales or inefficient rater training programs. As such, the
main objective of this study is to identify the factors that may have been under represented in
the literature as actually influencing the raters that may result in inflation or deflation of
scores in a group discussion task. A qualitative approach to data collection and analysis may
serve this purpose.
So many such factors have been mentioned in literature as accounting for the scores the
raters assign to oral tasks. Linguistic features have been amongst the very first factors
attended to by researchers as factors influencing the raters in assigning scores in different oral
tasks. Hence, a complementary objective of this study is to see to what extent actually the
linguistic features of the speech samples influence the raters‟ perception of proficiency of a
learner and assigning a score accordingly. By linguistic features of the speech samples we
mean fluency, accuracy, complexity, and amount of talks which are among the factors that
are commonly mentioned in the literature as oral proficiency measures. This quantitative
phase, intends to see to what proportions, a set of predetermined linguistic features can
account for the scores assigned. There is a possibility that other features other than linguistic
ones may influence the raters. A correlation between the linguistic features and the scores
assigned can fulfil this objective. Using a mixed methods design can present a more
comprehensive picture of oral group ratings.
In line with general objectives, the following research questions specifically guide this
1- What is the relationship between the scores assigned by the experienced raters and
the linguistic features (complexity, accuracy, fluency, and amount of talk) of the speech
samples produced by language learners in group oral discussion tasks?
2- What factors do the untrained raters attend to in rating speech samples?
Design of the study
The concurrent triangulation mixed methods design is used to serve the purpose of this study
(Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). Both qualitative and quantitative data were simultaneously
collected to enable the researcher detect the factors influencing the untrained raters in group
oral assessment. This approach has the advantage of providing „well-validated and
substantiated findings‟ (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003, p.229).
This study had two different groups of participants. The first group of the participants of this
study were 16 Iranian English language learners. They were TEFL students ranging from 19
to 24. Language learners of both genders were selected based on their voluntary participation.
The second group of the participants were 32 untrained Iranian raters who were largely
English language teachers of language institutes. Generally, in Iran, language teachers do not
receive any formal training on rating. Hence, if the need for rating arises, the language
teachers resort to their own experience, background knowledge or rational judgement. The
participants were of both genders and varying teaching experience in rating and teaching. In
line with the varying years of teaching experience, the raters also varied in terms of age,
ranging from 21 to 47. Attempt was made to include teachers of similar education level,
namely bachelors, in order to avoid the contaminating effect of education level. Since the
raters had to take time listen and rate the speech samples, they were selected based on their
voluntary participations and were also paid for the ratings they did.
Listening to the audio files of the group discussion speech samples, the raters assigned each
learner a score. They were also required to provide some comments on the rating sheet,
pointing to the factors that they attended to while assigning the scores.
The researchers also had a semi-structured interview with each rater, separately, right
after the rating session had ended.
Group oral discussion task
The task implemented in this study was group discussion. The language learners were
randomly assigned to the groups of four. Separately, in each group, the participants were
supposed to have a discussion over the topic „early marriage vs. late marriage‟. This topic
was considered to be general, familiar, and at the same time interesting enough to the Iranian
students and their culture to be discussion rising. No intrusion in the discussion process was
made by the researchers and the participants themselves directed the discussions. The
discussion took about 15 minutes. The speech samples produced were audio-recorded for
Data collection and procedure:
Having collected the speech samples of the learners in the form of group discussions, the
researchers asked the untrained Iranian EFL raters to rate them. No training, rating scale or
analytical framework was presented to the raters. Listening to the audio files, the raters were
supposed to assign each language learner a score of one to six; reflecting basic, elementary,
intermediate, upper intermediate, advanced, and mastery levels delineated in the Common
European Framework for Reference (CEFR). They were also required to write some
comments delineating why they assigned such scores, and what factors they attended to. To
avoid order effect of rating, the group discussion speech samples were randomly presented to
the raters. After the rating sessions ended, the researchers interviewed the raters individually
and their responses were audio recorded. Through repeated careful listening, the researchers
transcribed the comments and the interviews. All utterances were written down including
both verbal and non-verbal ones like pauses, laughter, pause fillers, etc. Overlaps, repetitions,
and false starts were also included.
Content Analysis (CA) was used as the main analysis approach to extract and codify both
relevant common and idiosyncratic ideas in the comments and interviews, reflecting the
features that the raters attend to in rating which may account for the scores they assigned.
The linguistic feature measures of the group discussions were also estimated and for
each learner an index of fluency, accuracy, complexity and amount of talk were identified to
be correlated with the scores the learners received. Spearman rank order correlation
coefficient was administered to estimate the correlation between the scores assigned by the
raters and the linguistic features.
Analysis of linguistic features: Analysis of linguistic fluency was measured by the rate
of speech and quantity of unfilled pauses, which have been found to be significant markers of
fluency (Lennon, 1990; Riggenbach, 1991). For the “speech rate” index, all understandable
English syllables, including repeated words and false starts were counted, while non-lexical
fillers, such as “um” and “er”, were excluded. This figure was divided by the turn‟s time and
multiplied by 60 to arrive at the rate per minute (Towell et al., 1996). Unfilled pauses of one
second or more within a long turn were timed, and this figure was divided by turn time to
give a “pause proportion” index, which was a measure of breakdown in fluency (Tavakoli &
Foster, 2008). Amount of talk was also taken as another linguistic feature of the speech
sample. It was defined as the total number of words which could be "a reasonable
approximation of the amount of floor time occupied by the candidate" (Davis, 2009, p.377).
Syntactic complexity was also measured by the ratio of clauses to AS-units and the average
length of utterance, which was calculated as the number of words per AS-unit (Foster &
Tavakoli, 2009). An AS-unit is a single speaker's utterance consisting of an independent
clause, or sub-clausal unit, together with any subordination clause(s) associated with either.
(Foster, et al. 2000). Finally, the measurement of accuracy was given by the ratio of error free
clauses to total clauses. Errors of syntax, morphology and lexical choice will be counted
(Nitta & Nakatsuara, 2014).
To check inter- coder reliability, one of the group discussions was randomly selected
and coded by a second rater. Inter-coder reliability was high for all four linguistic features
(accuracy: 81, complexity 86, fluency: 78 and amount of talk: 100 for < .01).
Quantitative phase: The relationship between scores and linguistic features
To answer this question a correlation was carried out between the mean of scores assigned by
three of the most experienced raters and the linguistic features of the group discussions
produced by language learners. Due to the low sample size, Spearman Rank order correlation
As evident in table 1, rate of speech, as an index of fluency, showed a correlation
estimate of 0.878 with the scores. The amount of talk had a correlation estimate of 0.892 with
the scores. Both were statistically significant with a CI of 99% (p<0.001).
Hence, the raters had not attended to more delicate and complex features of the group
discussion task like accuracy, complexity, and quantity of unfilled pauses. This can be
justified by Kahneman's (1973) concept of divided attention, which suggested that many
factors determine how much attentional capacity be allocated to each task.
Since there were more than one individual in group discussions, the rater were less
concerned with delicate linguistic features like complexity and accuracy, dividing their
attention to four learners‟ oral performance at the same time. Hence, they attended to a fewer
number of criteria. They also attended to more easy to perceive factors like rate of speech and
amount of talk. This may suggest that the raters were not just concerned and influenced by
the linguistic features. There may have been other factors that they attended to in a group oral
task and which may account for the scores they assigned. The qualitative phase, below, sheds
some light on such factors.
Qualitative phase: Factors considered in rating by the Iranian untrained raters
Analysing the data, several emerging patterns reflecting the factors that the raters attended to
in assigning scores emerged as described below:
Linguistic features: A qualitative analysis of the data –as well- revealed an awareness
on the part of the raters about the linguistic features of the group discussion speech samples
while assigning scores. Some of the linguistic features were easier for them to attend to and
consider in rating and some other less accessible to them.
Most of the comments concerning accuracy were related to pronunciation errors.
Intonation, stress and pronunciation of individual sounds were factors that nearly all raters
Repeatedly pronounce /d/ for /ð/ or /s/ for /ɵ/
Pronunciation errors like ‘advantageous’ instead of ‘advantages’ that make problem for
Grammatical and lexical errors did receive some attention. However, compared to
pronunciation errors, they received relatively a smaller number of comments.
Good choice of words but grammar problems
Persian expressions and idioms translated into English like ‘man of living’ or ‘see the
empty side of the glass’
Wrong words use: like ‘unsatisfied’ or grammatical structures like: ‘getting marriage’ or
‘the best important’
For fluency, the rate of speech was more eye-catching and easier, as a result, receiving
more attention, as was corroborated by the quantitative phase. The quantity of unfilled pauses
was also pointed in many cases by the raters; however, mostly in extreme case. That is, where
a language learner made a lot of pauses that made his or her flow of speech unnatural.
Some other features were not readily accessible to them, hence they might not have
attended to enough. Complexity was one such case. Not all raters were caring about
complexity as long as the sentences were accurate and fluently uttered. In rare cases where
they did attend to complexity, it was reflected in a comment like:
She used beautiful sentences not just simple sentences
Interactional features: Besides the linguistic features referred to above, the raters were
influenced by the interaction features. The most repeatedly mentioned ones are presented
The degree of participation: A repeatedly mentioned factor which raters referred to as
influencing them in assigning high or low scores was participation; the extent that the
participants in the group discussion participated in the discussions. This can be taken as a
qualitative counterpart of amount of talk which were shown to be significantly correlated
with the scores assigned by the raters in the quantitative phase mentioned above.
Participation can have different representations: the ability to initiate a turn, take a turn or
hold the floor, etc. Much participation will lead to producing a longer and larger number of
turns which will help a participant presents himself as proficient, hence, receiving a higher
score by the raters. The cooperation in the discussion was usually referred to as turn–taking
by the raters' familiarity with the technical term and cooperation or participation by those
who might not be familiar with the technical term. The following excerpts were taken from
the comments provided by the raters on assigning each score and some were extracted from
the interviews they had with the researchers depicting how the raters were affected by the
participation quantity in the group discussions:
Self-confident enough to participate in the conversation
Takes a short part in discussion doesn’t show herself
She spoke very little so I reduce some points
Because she holds the floor for a long time, I assign her a high mark
Spoke more than others
He didn’t speak a lot maybe he felt shy. Maybe because he was the only man in the group.
But, I have to reduce some scores.
Sensitivity to the speakers’ role in the group discussion: The second recurrent theme in
the raters‟ interviews and the comments on scores accounting for the scores they assigned
was the fact that they did attend to the way interlocutors act in relation to each other. To put it
technically, they were sensitive to the roles the participants took:
Active vs. passive role: Whether a participant had an active role in the group task which
can be represented as listening attentively to other interlocutors, developing and commenting
on other‟s generated turns, asking questions, confirmation check, ability to maintain the floor,
challenging or convincing others etc. were deemed as positive features by the raters and
inflating the scores they assigned. On the contrary, not following the flow of conversation,
just mentioning some points, getting interrupted easily, not raising a question or defending
one‟s own opinion etc. were taken as factors that depicted a participant as passive; leading to
a reduction in the scores they received.
A point needs to be clarified here. Although not unrelated, taking a passive or active
role should not just be taken equal to participating in the conversation or not. The
participation is a much quantitatively measurable factor. However, the extent to which the
participant is passively or actively engaged in the conversation is qualitatively different from
just participating. An interlocutor can produce much language and take the floor just to –
sometimes unenthusiastically- mention his/ her own ideas and not attending to what was
mentioned or was relevant to the flow of conversation. The key is to be actively and
attentively engaged in the flow of the conversation.
Below is an excerpt from one of group discussion samples:
Maryam: Another thing I want to mention it that […] the boys and girls in our ages
emm for example we are in 19, 20,21 we are so er sensitive and we decide on […] on our
base and sometimes for example we see a boy fall in love with a girl or vice versa […] about
two or three years after that they divorce because they decide on their feeling. Sara: yes I
agree with you. Niloofar: I don’t agree with early marriage because maybe emm it has some
maybe it has some disadvantages maybe […] the individuals want their educational
education […] mmm they spend military service and they something like this. ([…]= pause)
In this excerpt, Nilooafar‟s contribution was not in line with what was previously
mentioned by other interlocutors. As if she did not see the task as a group discussion but a
series of monologues, each participant forced to say something to avoid silence. She just said
something for the sake of receiving a score and not actually responding to her interlocutors.
Such examples received comment like:
She was not answering the previous ones’ topic or continue what he was saying
Not see or think themselves as group just talk about her own idea
He seems uninterested in the conversation
He just wanted to pass his turn
Others easily interrupt him
Giving short answers
Does not try to convince others
Waiting to be asked questions
Not initiating any turn
No coherent speech just for the sake of saying something not responding to what
has been said
Talking with no enthusiasm
On the other hand, taking an active role was also pinpointed by the raters, as
represented in comments like:
Tries to discuss in spite of his bad English
Commenting on interlocutors’ speech
Listening carefully, asking questions, giving feedback, talking to everybody
Asking others to give him feedback
Corroborating the influence of an active role on the raters‟ assessment of the group
task, May (2011) identified features such as understanding interlocutor‟s message,
responding to partner, working cooperatively, and contributing to an authentic interaction as
factors that raters perceived as interlocutors‟ mutual achievement.
Supportive Vs. dominant role: The raters were also sensitive to the managing role
meaning some participants took, trying to lead the discussion and help the conversation
going. In case of any troubles, they tried to handle them. The following comments reflected
Brings a topic for others to follow
Good for group speaking/chat
Asking questions to keep the conversation going
Encouraging her partners speak
Handles the conversation
This managing role can be labelled as supportive and contrasted with the competitive
role with comments like:
She stops her friends abruptly
She was in hurry to take turns
He raised a question and he himself answered it immediately to hold the floor.
The objections she made were very direct
Defends bravely takes it like a battle of ideas
This managing role was also identified by May (2006) as a feature that raters perceived
as important in rating pair discussion tasks. Using retrospective verbal reports to analyse the
factors that raters of paired discussion tasks attended to, May (2006) concluded that the raters
did take into account the ability to manage the discussion and work together cooperatively in
assessing effectiveness which was the most interactional of the criteria.
Galaczi‟s (2014) also identified three recurring patterns underlying interactive
communication, namely topic development, listener support, and turn-taking management.
These themes were relatively in line with the interactive features that Ducasse and Brown
(2009) pointed to in their raters‟ orientation to the learners‟ construction. These patterns
included interactive listening and interactional management which were particularly salient to
raters. These two studies confirm the orientation of the raters to other factors other than
merely linguistic ones. The managing or supportive role sometime was taken negatively by
some raters labelling it as authoritative or dominant. There is a delicate differentiating line
between being dominant or just managing the conversation. Hence, raters might have
different perceptions of this and hence assign different scores accordingly.
For the first theme -participation- the raters who did pinpoint this factor were quite
uniform in terms of the scores they assigned. That is, more participation received a higher
score and less participation was assigned a lower scores. However, for the other themes – role
of the participants- different interpretations were attributed to the roles. That is, one rater
might consider a participant as dominant and reducing some score and another rater might
consider the same participant as just managing, thus, assigning a high score.
In the excerpt below, as well, as if Parisa was Azar‟s teacher, trying to correct her and
asking question to make her talk. This was taken by some raters as the supportive role Parisa
took in relation to Azar and assigning a high score to Parisa. Still, some other raters
considered this as a negative point since they expected a balanced relation in terms of a group
Azar: yes I experienced it and because in early marriage we are more […] energyful than mmm than
Parisa: the other who married late
Azar: the other who married late. And we are very.. I am more active and and we can express our
feeling to each other
Parisa: and do you don’t you have any problem like house, car or […] supplement for the life?
Azar: its depends on the man. I think the man should be educated and should be educated and can
support the […] himself and be on her foot
Parisa: be on his foot, become depen independent
However, in the excerpt below, the fact that Farhad was not caring about the
proficiency level of the other interlocutors in terms of repeatedly using complex vocabulary
that was beyond the level of his interlocutors was considered as not being supportive and
hence did not receive a high score.
Farhad: temporary wedlock is something for alleviating of, alleviation of emotions and feelings, I
think this the best solution. This is the most orthodox solution to us. What’s your opinion? Sima:
would you clarify it? I don’t understand
And the following comments were made on these piece of data by the raters:
He wanted to show off, he just tried to use difficult words and not caring that his
partner did not understand.
He just tried to use strange words.
The overall group interaction pattern: Beside the sensitivity to the role taken by each
participant individually, some of the raters also made some references to the overall
interactional pattern as a group. Whether a group discussion was symmetric or asymmetric,
which was much dependent on the quantity of participation and the roles that participants
took. For instance, commenting on a group discussion in which one of the participant uttered
less than three complete sentence or in case another participant talked too much giving others
no chance to talk, or when two of the participants address each other and not caring about the
rest, some raters referred to the asymmetry in terms of quantity of talk, represented in
This discussion was three sided.
It was like a dialogue than a group discussion
Hence, the raters did attend to the role, interactional pattern, etc. However, taking a
specific role or having a special interaction style led to either positive or negative scores.
The first recurrent theme was the extent to which the interlocutors participate in the
group discussion in terms of turn taking. All other linguistic features of accuracy, complexity,
etc. being equal, the extent to which a participant could initiate a turn or could take a turn was
deemed as a strong point and receiving high scores by the raters. This was corroborated with
the quantitative result which showed a statistically significant correlation between amount of
talk and the scores the raters assigned. The other two main recurrent themes were the roles
that interlocutors took and the overall interactional design of the group. Contrary to the first
theme which directly influenced the scores the raters assigned, these two factors might or
might not lead to a uniform and predictable influence on the scores. Different raters attributed
different interpretation or judgement to an interaction pattern or role.
The study attempted to identify the factors that untrained raters attended to in group oral
assessment .The findings of the study can be summarized as follows:
First: Quantitative phase: Only two of the linguistic features, namely the rate of speech
as an index of fluency and amount of talk, did statistically correlate with the scores.
Regarding the amount of talk, this finding is in line with Galaczi (2008). Comparing peer-peer interaction patterns with the scores the learners received, she found that, although not
among the very first features to correlate with the score assigned, amount of talk was one of
the topic development discourse features correlating more with the scores assigned by the
raters compared to lexical and syntactic cohesive links as features of cohesion between turns.
In the case of rate of speech as an indicator of proficiency as perceived by the raters, this
finding was also corroborated in studies done by De Jong, Steinel, Florijn, Schoonen and
Hulstijn (2012) arguing that articulation rate is one of the best measures of speed fluency.
Préfontaine, Kormos and Johnson (2016), as well, found that articulation rate along with the
mean length of runs which is similar to amount of talk proved to be the most influential
factors in raters‟ judgments.
Second: Qualitative phase: As revealed by CA, the raters did attend to some –not all- of
the linguistic features, but selectively. However, it turned out that in rating group discussions,
the raters attended to other -mostly interactional- features specific to group discussion task as
well. Such interactional factors included: the degree of participation, the role of the
participants as perceived by the raters and the overall interaction patterns of the discussion.
This finding supports the studies that have found that in rating paired or group tasks, the
raters attend to mostly interactional features like „working together cooperatively‟,
„turn-taking management‟ or „interactional management‟ and „interactive listening‟ (May, 2006;
Galaczi, 2014; Ducasse & Brown, 2009).
Linguistic features are usually deemed as factors that may correlate with the scores
assigned by the rater regardless of the number of interlocutors in the task applied. However,
,as evident in the quantitative phase, the case of group discussions are not limited to linguistic
features and may need a much broader scope of investigation.
This pieces of research just scratches the surface of rating group discussion as an oral
assessment task. However, grounded in the actual data, the findings can help in group oral
assessment. Two main implications of this study are rating scale development and rater
training. As a new approach to oral assessment, group discussion tasks may beg for their own
specific rating scale reflecting the idiosyncratic features of such tasks which may be missing
in other ordinary oral assessment tasks. The fact that the raters do attend to a broader set of
factors in assigning scores in group discussion tasks justifies avoiding a reductionist approach
which only a predetermined set of criteria are set in a rating scale.
The raters participating in this study were untrained. However, the fact that they did
demonstrate an awareness and sensitivity to features specific to a group task, opens a window
of opportunity to formally train them in how to rate the features related to group oral tasks
both systematically and reliably.
A larger number of raters residing in different educational contexts would have
provided a wider range of data. Education level, proficiency, and other variables of the raters
can also shed some light on the effects of rater variables on the attention to factors specific to
group discussion tasks. For the sake of convenience, this study recorded audio file of the
learners engaged in group discussions and played back to the raters to rate them. Recording
video files would have enabled the raters to attend to gestures and body language of the