Is the devil you know better? Testwiseness and eliciting evidence of interactional competence in familiar versus unfamiliar triadic speaking tasks

IF 0.1 Q4 LINGUISTICS
Nichola Glasson
{"title":"Is the devil you know better? Testwiseness and eliciting evidence of interactional competence in familiar versus unfamiliar triadic speaking tasks","authors":"Nichola Glasson","doi":"10.58379/ttfe6660","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research has proven the impact testwiseness and test preparation can have on speaking test discourse (Lam, 2015; Luk, 2010; Hüttner, 2014). The question is perhaps not whether assessment leads to contrived interaction but how interactions may differ between a more familiar task (face-to-face Cambridge B2 First Speaking) and an entirely new online task. This conversation analytic case study of a group of three in two different tasks (one face-to-face, one online) sought to explore how testwiseness is implicated in candidate talk and to explicate differences in what a more familiar and a completely new task elicited. The analytic focus was on the conversational object “I agree” but includes reference to non-verbal behaviours, turn-taking practices and the relationship between agreement and topic shift. The findings indicate a contrast in terms of closure and progressivity – that is, an observable difference in the closure of topics and the forward movement of conversation – across the two tasks. The data illustrates how the same candidates performed very differently in two tasks in the space of 40 minutes. In so doing, it raises questions about broadening the potential assessments have to target interactional competence.","PeriodicalId":29650,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Language Assessment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Language Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.58379/ttfe6660","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Research has proven the impact testwiseness and test preparation can have on speaking test discourse (Lam, 2015; Luk, 2010; Hüttner, 2014). The question is perhaps not whether assessment leads to contrived interaction but how interactions may differ between a more familiar task (face-to-face Cambridge B2 First Speaking) and an entirely new online task. This conversation analytic case study of a group of three in two different tasks (one face-to-face, one online) sought to explore how testwiseness is implicated in candidate talk and to explicate differences in what a more familiar and a completely new task elicited. The analytic focus was on the conversational object “I agree” but includes reference to non-verbal behaviours, turn-taking practices and the relationship between agreement and topic shift. The findings indicate a contrast in terms of closure and progressivity – that is, an observable difference in the closure of topics and the forward movement of conversation – across the two tasks. The data illustrates how the same candidates performed very differently in two tasks in the space of 40 minutes. In so doing, it raises questions about broadening the potential assessments have to target interactional competence.
你更了解魔鬼吗?熟悉与不熟悉三合一口语任务中互动能力的测试性和引出性证据
研究已经证明了测试性和考试准备对口语测试语篇的影响(Lam, 2015;陆,2010;Huttner, 2014)。问题可能不在于评估是否会导致人为的互动,而在于一个更熟悉的任务(面对面的剑桥B2口语)和一个全新的在线任务之间的互动有何不同。这个对话分析案例研究的对象是一组三人,他们参加了两项不同的任务(一项是面对面的,另一项是在线的),旨在探索测试性是如何影响候选人的谈话的,并解释一个更熟悉的任务和一个全新的任务所引发的差异。分析的重点是对话对象“我同意”,但也包括对非语言行为、轮流实践以及同意与话题转移之间关系的参考。研究结果表明,两项任务在结束性和进步性方面存在差异——也就是说,在话题结束和对话向前推进方面存在可观察到的差异。这些数据说明了同一位候选人在40分钟内完成两项任务时的表现有多么不同。在这样做的过程中,它提出了关于扩大潜在评估必须以相互作用能力为目标的问题。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信