The interactional consequences of asking for opinions about literature in Dutch oral exams

IF 1.6 2区 文学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Eline Wagelaar , Wyke Stommel , Jeroen Dera
{"title":"The interactional consequences of asking for opinions about literature in Dutch oral exams","authors":"Eline Wagelaar ,&nbsp;Wyke Stommel ,&nbsp;Jeroen Dera","doi":"10.1016/j.linged.2025.101445","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study examines the interactional consequences of opinion-seeking questions in Dutch oral exams. In classroom interactions, presenting an opinion, a personal view on a topic, has been found to be produced with caution by students. Teachers do not evaluate the opinion but invite the student to elaborate, making room for, and acknowledging the student’s epistemic right to an opinion. This may be different in oral exams, because student responses to questions may be (treated as) ‘insufficient’ and thus have implications for the overall assessment. However, how teachers treat student opinions in oral exams, whether opinions are evaluated on the interactional level and how student opinions are followed up by teachers, have not yet been examined. Our data consist of 27 recordings of Dutch oral exams which we analyzed sequentially using conversation analysis. Based on 21 instances of opinion-seeking questions, we found that these questions serve as a stepping-stone for asking known-information questions (KIQs). Second, we found that opinion-seeking questions may serve as KIQs, regardless of their packaging as opinion elicitations. Despite the fact that an opinion lies in the student’s epistemic domain, teachers position themselves as having epistemic primacy, and students orient to being assessed. Although opinion-seeking questions may serve to organize the interaction around a particular book or effectively reassure students in a stressful situation by ascribing them epistemic rights to articulate an opinion, their use in and for oral exams is entirely different from opinions in classroom interaction and not straightforward.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47468,"journal":{"name":"Linguistics and Education","volume":"88 ","pages":"Article 101445"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Linguistics and Education","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0898589825000622","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study examines the interactional consequences of opinion-seeking questions in Dutch oral exams. In classroom interactions, presenting an opinion, a personal view on a topic, has been found to be produced with caution by students. Teachers do not evaluate the opinion but invite the student to elaborate, making room for, and acknowledging the student’s epistemic right to an opinion. This may be different in oral exams, because student responses to questions may be (treated as) ‘insufficient’ and thus have implications for the overall assessment. However, how teachers treat student opinions in oral exams, whether opinions are evaluated on the interactional level and how student opinions are followed up by teachers, have not yet been examined. Our data consist of 27 recordings of Dutch oral exams which we analyzed sequentially using conversation analysis. Based on 21 instances of opinion-seeking questions, we found that these questions serve as a stepping-stone for asking known-information questions (KIQs). Second, we found that opinion-seeking questions may serve as KIQs, regardless of their packaging as opinion elicitations. Despite the fact that an opinion lies in the student’s epistemic domain, teachers position themselves as having epistemic primacy, and students orient to being assessed. Although opinion-seeking questions may serve to organize the interaction around a particular book or effectively reassure students in a stressful situation by ascribing them epistemic rights to articulate an opinion, their use in and for oral exams is entirely different from opinions in classroom interaction and not straightforward.
荷兰语口语考试中征求文学意见的互动后果
本研究考察了荷兰语口语考试中征求意见问题的互动后果。在课堂互动中,学生们被发现要谨慎地提出自己的观点,对一个话题发表个人观点。教师不会评价学生的观点,而是邀请学生详细阐述,为学生的观点留出空间,并承认学生的认识权。这在口试中可能会有所不同,因为学生对问题的回答可能会被(视为)“不充分”,从而影响整体评估。然而,教师在口试中如何对待学生的意见,是否在互动层面上评价学生的意见,以及教师如何跟进学生的意见,这些都尚未得到检验。我们的数据包括27段荷兰语口语考试录音,我们使用会话分析对其进行了顺序分析。基于21个征求意见问题的实例,我们发现这些问题可以作为询问已知信息问题(KIQs)的踏脚石。其次,我们发现寻求意见的问题可以作为kiq,而不管它们被包装为征求意见。尽管观点存在于学生的认知领域,但教师将自己定位为具有认知首要性,而学生则倾向于被评估。尽管寻求意见的问题可能有助于组织围绕某本书的互动,或者通过赋予学生表达观点的认知权利,有效地让学生在紧张的情况下放心,但它们在口试中的使用与课堂互动中的观点完全不同,而且并不直截了当。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
12.50%
发文量
87
期刊介绍: Linguistics and Education encourages submissions that apply theory and method from all areas of linguistics to the study of education. Areas of linguistic study include, but are not limited to: text/corpus linguistics, sociolinguistics, functional grammar, discourse analysis, critical discourse analysis, conversational analysis, linguistic anthropology/ethnography, language acquisition, language socialization, narrative studies, gesture/ sign /visual forms of communication, cognitive linguistics, literacy studies, language policy, and language ideology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信