In the second language testing literature, there is a growing body of research that concentrates on aspects of the discourse and interaction in oral interview situations. For example, Moder and Halleck (1998) investigated the use of questions by an interviewer and interviewees in oral proficiency interviews, and found that the interviewer overwhelmingly used information-seeking questions for the purpose of nominating a topic and eliciting a response from the interviewees. Moder and Halleck (1998: 143) argue that 'the limited use of information-seeking questions on the part of the interviewees is a clear indication that they understand and accept that their role as participants is not to seek information or nominate topics', and that MBT Shoes On Sale( feature demonstrates that OPIs provide little opportunity for test Nike TN candidates to show their ability to obtain and keep the conversational floor.
Young (1995a) and Johnson (2000) also argue that in practice OPI candidates are allowed few opportunities for negotiation. Katona's (1998) study of the types of meaning negotiation between Hungarian interviewers and interviewees during English OPIs revealed that when the interlocutor was known to the candidate the various negotiation sequences/exchanges represented a more natural interaction, while attempts to engage in negotiation discourse with an unfamiliar interlocutor resulted in a more formal, artificial interaction. Therefore, we believe that empirical studies of how students negotiate with each other in a peer group setting under assessment conditions will inform not only understanding of the discourse structure of second language learners' peer Nike Free Run interactions, but also the search for MBT Chapa( more holistic and comprehensive communicative format for assessment that could serve as an alternative to traditional speaking test formats.
The majority of the above OPI-related studies have involved test candidates interacting with their TN Pas Cher assessors who are usually speakers of the target language. In these assessor-candidate interactions, the assessor is held to be endowed with power and to have responsibility for structuring the conversation so that it develops along the lines designated by that person (Fisher 1997). In a similar vein, research concerned with teacher-student interactions demonstrates that speech events in the teacher-controlled classroom have often been characterized as consisting of a teacher initiation, student(s) response and teacher feedback sequence (Sinclair and Coulthard 1975; Mehan 1979; Markee 2000; Nassaji and Wells 2000). Most often, it is the teacher who is doing most of the talking and certainly most of the questioning. The interaction is thus actually controlled and directed by the teacher as he or she nominates topics, allocates turns, monitors the direction of talk, and structures the discussion.
It has been argued in the literature that peer student interactions are quantitatively and qualitatively different from both the assessor-candidate and teacher-student interactions discussed above. In particular, studies in educational psychology and second language acquisition have shown that opportunities for substantive conversation are greater in small peer groups than in teacher-controlled class discussions. In peer groups, interaction tends to be associated with sense making, meaning negotiating, or joint problem-solving activities, and no designated member of the group is responsible for the control and direction of interaction: instead, all students have the responsibility for managing talk and determining the direction of the discussion (Mercer 1996; Gillies 2006). For example, Adams (2004) found that learner-learner interactions are particularly effective at promoting the emergence of higher-level syntactic forms. Tsui (2001) also observes that such learner-learner interactions have the potential to enable students to engage in genuine communication, and will eventually help them to develop discourse competence rather than only linguistic competence at the sentence level. Most importantly, Fisher (1997: 39) points out that the very essence of a peer group precludes generalized status differences: freed from the limited type of question-answer series. In an educational setting, it also becomes the responsibility of the group to move the discussion forward, but to do so in ways compatible with the educational requirements of the task. Thus, peer group classroom talk is like everyday talk in that it is collaboratively managed, but like institutional talk in its institutional aim (Fisher 1997: 39).
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire