Exploring Collaborative Fluency in CEFR-Aligned ESL Group Oral Discussions

This study examines how ESL learners engage in group oral discussions, with particular attention to their ability to pick up, build on, and extend their peers’ ideas during collaborative speaking tasks. Drawing on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), especially descriptors at the B2–C1 levels, communicative competence is conceptualised not merely as individual fluency but as the ability to sustain interaction through elaboration, responsiveness, and discourse management. The study was conducted in a Malaysian tertiary institution and involved thirty ESL learners across five groups participating in assessed group oral discussions. The interactions were audio-visually recorded, transcribed, and analysed thematically to explore how learners responded to peer input and co-constructed meaning through talk. Findings indicate that higher-proficiency learners (upper B2–C1) demonstrated a greater capacity to develop the discussion based on their peers’ contributions. These learners employed interactional strategies such as clarification, elaboration, reformulation, and topical linkage, which align closely with CEFR indicators of sustained interaction. In contrast, B1-level learners tended to initiate topics or provide shorter, self-contained responses and often relied on peer support to maintain the flow of interaction. The study highlights the pedagogical value of incorporating CEFR-aligned interactional objectives into group oral assessments and underscores the importance of training learners to extend turns and respond meaningfully to others as part of real-world communicative competence.

Interactional competence, CEFR

1. Al-Buraiki, S. A. (2025). Peer collaborative dialogues: Perceptions and attitudes of EFL students and teachers. World Journal of English Language, 16(2), 180. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v16n2p180 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Alomari, N. M. (2023). Action research in ESL: Enhancing English oral proficiency in an asynchronous speech course. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 15(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1501.01 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Batenburg, E. S. L. van, Oostdam, R., van Gelderen, A. J. S., & de Jong, N. H. (2016). Measuring L2 speakers’ interactional ability using interactive speech tasks. Language Testing, 35(1), 75–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532216679452 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Chen, J., Li, L., Shen, Y., & Li, H. (2022). The influence of partners’ L2 proficiency on test-takers’ performance in paired oral assessment. English Language Teaching, 15(9), 69–82. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v15n9p69 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Council of Europe. (2020). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume. Council of Europe Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Crosthwaite, P., & Raquel, M. R. (2019). Validating an L2 academic group oral assessment: Insights from a spoken learner corpus. Language Assessment Quarterly, 16(1), 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2019.1572149 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Dao, P., & McDonough, K. (2017). The effect of task role on Vietnamese EFL learners’ collaboration in mixed proficiency dyads. System, 65, 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.12.012 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Dobao, A. F., & Blum, A. (2013). Collaborative writing in pairs and small groups: Learners’ attitudes and perceptions. System, 41(2), 365–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.02.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Fan, J., & Yan, X. (2020). Assessing speaking proficiency: A narrative review of speaking assessment research within the argument-based validation framework. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 330. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00330 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Galaczi, E. D. (2013). 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Galaczi, E., & Taylor, L. (2018). Interactional competence: Conceptualisations, operationalisations, and outstanding questions. Language Assessment Quarterly, 15(3), 219–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2018.1453816 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Gan, Z. (2008). Examining negotiation in peer group oral assessment. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 31(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.31.1.01gan [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Gan, Z. (2010). Interaction in group oral assessment: A case study of higher- and lower-scoring students. Language Testing, 27(4), 585–602. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532210364049 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Gao, R., Chen, M.-B., Frermann, L., & Lau, J. H. (2025). Moderation matters: Measuring conversational moderation impact in English as a Second Language group discussion. . https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.18341 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Gao, R., Roever, C., & Lau, J. H. (2024). Interaction matters: An evaluation framework for interactive dialogue assessment on English second language conversations. . https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.06479 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Haan, K.-W., Riedl, C., & Woolley, A. W. (2021). Discovering where we excel: How inclusive turn-taking in conversation improves team performance. Proceedings of the ACM, Article 278. https://doi.org/10.1145/3461615.3485417 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. He, A. W., & Young, R. F. (1998). Language proficiency interviews: A discourse approach. In R. F. Young & A. W. He (Eds.), Talking and testing (pp. 1–24). John Benjamins. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Jia, J., &Stapa, M. (2024). The use of English interaction strategies in cooperative learning: A case study of four Chinese college students’ spoken discourse. Journal of Nusantara Studies (JONUS), 9(1), 25–52. https://doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol9iss1pp25-52 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Kaharuddin, Arafah, B., Ahmad, D., Nurfitri, R. Y., Taqdir, T., Mardiana, M., & Rasyid, M. N. A. (2025). Effect of interactive and collaborative strategies on Indonesian EFL learners’ oral English proficiency improvement. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 16(5), 1628–1640. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1605.20 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Kashinathan, S., & Aziz, A. A. (2021). ESL learners’ challenges in speaking English in Malaysian classroom. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarped/v10-i2/10355 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Krishnasamy, H. N. (2016). Investigating interactional competence using video recordings in ESL classrooms to enhance communication. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1761, 020056. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4960896 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Kuyyogsuy, S. (2019). Patterns of interaction on peer feedback: Pair dynamics in developing students’ writing skills. International Journal of Higher Education, 8(3), 191–199. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v8n3p191 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Lam, D. M. K. (2018). What counts as “responding”? Contingency on previous speaker contribution as a feature of interactional competence. Language Testing, 35(3), 377–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532218758126 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Lin, T.-Y., Yang, C.-C., & Huang, B.-R. (2023). Going beyond language learning: A microlearning instructional design to promote EFL learners’ collaboration competency. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 18(12), 224–234. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v18i12.38443 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Manoïlov, P. (2017). Peer spoken interactions in ESL classrooms: A didactic and linguistic analysis of the development of learners’ interactional competence [Doctoral dissertation, Université Sorbonne Nouvelle – Paris 3]. HAL Archives. https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01723907 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. May, L., Nakatsuhara, F., Lam, D. M. K., &Galaczi, E. D. (2019). Developing tools for learning-oriented assessment of interactional competence: Bridging theory and practice. Language Testing, 37(2), 165–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532219879044 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Mukhrib, A. (2020). Do Saudi learners of English recognize the benefits of consciousness-raising tasks and communicative tasks? English Language Teaching, 13(6), 172–182. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v13n6p172 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Ngah, E., Radzuan, N. R., & Fauzi, W. J. (2025). The practices of Malaysian early childhood educators using English language with young learners. In Comprehensive insights into language education: A compilation from ICoLLT 2024 (pp. 317–392). Universiti Malaysia Pahang Press (UMPSA Press). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Peltonen, P. (2018). L2 fluency in spoken interaction: A case study on the use of other-repetitions and collaborative completions. AFinLA-e: SoveltavanKielitieteenTutkimuksia, 10, 118–136. https://doi.org/10.30660/afinla.73130 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Pladevall-Ballester, E. (2021). Pair dynamics and language-related episodes in child EFL task-based peer interaction. Language Teaching for Young Learners, 3(2), 189–215. https://doi.org/10.1075/ltyl.20007.pla [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Sato, M., & Ballinger, S. (2016). Peer interaction and second language learning. In Language learning and language teaching (Vol. 45). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.45 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Yalçın-Çolakoğlu, Ö., & Selcuk, M. K. (2019). Assessing individual and group oral exams: Scoring criteria and rater interaction. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 10(1), 147–154. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v10n1p147 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Yenkimaleki, M., & van Heuven, V. J. (2023). Effect of pedagogic intervention in enhancing speech fluency by EFL students: A longitudinal study. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688231205017 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Young, R. F. (2011). Interactional competence in language learning, teaching, and testing. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 426–443). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study