اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 20 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 360 |
| تعداد مقالات | 2,962 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 3,779,202 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 2,553,980 |
Iranian EFL Learners’ Interactional Competence in Paired Speaking Tasks: An Account of Task Type Variability | ||
| Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies | ||
| مقاله 5، دوره 8، شماره 4، دی 2021، صفحه 111-136 اصل مقاله (1.12 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: research paper | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30479/jmrels.2020.13807.1695 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Manoochehr Jafarigohar* 1؛ Afsar Rouhi2؛ Shirin Rahimi Kazerooni1 | ||
| 1Faculty Member at Payame Noor University | ||
| 2Faculty Member at University of Mohaghegh Ardabili | ||
| تاریخ دریافت: 24 مرداد 1399، تاریخ بازنگری: 01 آذر 1399، تاریخ پذیرش: 08 آذر 1399 | ||
| چکیده | ||
| The use of paired speaking tasks for the assessment of interactional competence has recently attracted the attention of many scholars in language learning research. The present study aimed at investigating whether task type has any effect on promoting language learners’ interactional competence measured by means of multi-factor qualitative coding of paired speaking tasks. The performances of 92 dyads of conveniently-selected intermediate Iranian EFL learners on four paired speaking tasks were assessed using a rubric developed based on recent models for the scoring of interactional competence. To reveal the factors contributing to interactional competence, confirmatory factor analysis was run rendering the four-factor rubric developed in the present study as a valid measure of interactional competence through paired speaking tasks. In addition, to check the effect of different task types on interactional competence, the researchers calculated ANOVA estimates. Mean difference statistics computed indicated that some significant effect with large effect size existed for task type. Post-hoc comparisons carried out made it clear that from among the four tasks (i.e., Spot-the-difference, Story-completion, Decision-making, and Free-discussion) only the Story-completion task was the source of variability in the scores of interactional competence. The findings are of significance in that they point to the centrality of task type in assessing speaking through paired tasks. The study has certain theoretical and practical implications for foreign language teaching/testing researchers and practitioners. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| Interactional Competence؛ Paired Speaking Tasks؛ Task Type | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| توانش تعاملی فراگیران ایرانی زبان انگلیسی بعنوان زبان خارجی در تکالیف گفتاری دونفره: توصیفی از تغییرپذیری نوع تکلیف | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| منوچهر جعفری گهر1؛ افسر روحی2؛ شیرین رحیمی کازرونی1 | ||
| 1عضو هیات علمی دانشگاه پیام نور | ||
| 2عضو هیات علمی دانشگاه محقق اردبیلی | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| در سالهای اخیر توجه بسیاری از دانشمندان در تحقیقات مربوط به یادگیری زبان به استفاده از تکالیف گفتاری دونفره به منظور ارزیابی توانش تعاملی معطوف شده است. تحقیق حاضر با هدف بررسی میزان تاثیر نوع تکلیف بر ارتقای توانش تعاملی فراگیران زبان و با روش کدگذاری کیفی چند عاملی در تکالیف گفتاری دونفره به انجام رسیده است. بدین منظور عملکرد 92 زوج از فراگیران ایرانی سطح متوسط زبان انگلیسی بعنوان زبان خارجی که با روش نمونه گیری آسان انتخاب شده بوده اند در چهار تکلیف گفتاری دونفره و براساس یک سیستم نامگذاری بر پایه ی مدلهای جدید نمره دهی توانش تعاملی مورد ارزیابی قرار گرفت. به منظور تبیین عوامل تاثیرگذار بر توانش تعاملی، تحلیل عاملی تاییدی انجام گرفت که منجر به شکل گیری یک سیستم نامگذاری چهارعاملی بعنوان یک مقیاس معتبر از توانش تعاملی در تکالیف گفتاری دونفره گردید. بعلاوه به منظور بررسی تاثیر انواع مختلف تکالیف بر توانش تعاملی، آنالیز واریانس نیز توسط محقیقن حاضر انجام شد. محاسبه ی آماری اختلاف میانگین ها وجود تاثیر معنادار نوع تکلیف را با اندازه اثر بزرگ نشان داد. مقایسه های تعقیبی انجام شده نشان داد که از میان چهار تکلیف (تشخیص تفاوت، تکمیل داستان، تصمیم گیری و بحث آزاد) تنها تکمیل داستان عامل تغییرپذیری در نمرات توانش تعاملی بوده است. یافته های تحقیق از لحاظ اثبات محوریت نوع تکلیف در ارزیابی مهارت گفتاری در تکالیف دونفره حائز اهمیت می باشد. تحقیق حاضر دارای پیام های تلویحی نظری و عملی برای مدرسین و محققین در حوزه ی تدریس و سنجش زبان خارجه می باشد. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| تکالیف گفتاری دو نفره, توانش تعاملی, نوع تکلیف | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Ahmadi, A., & Montasseri, Z. (2019). Interactional competence in paired vs. group oral tests. Teaching English Language, 13(1), 1–26.
Bachman, L. F. (1997). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford University Press.
Balaman, U., & Sert, O. (2017). Local contingencies in L2 tasks: A comparison of context-sensitive interactional achievements across two different task types. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 10(3), 9–27.
Barraja-Rohan, A-M. (2011). Using conversation analysis in the second language classroom to teach interactional competence. Language Teaching Research, 15, 479–507.
Berry, V. (2007). Personality differences and oral test performance. Language Testing and Evaluation (7th Vol.). Peter Lang.
Brooks, L. (2009). Interacting in pairs in a test of oral proficiency: Co-constructing a better performance. Language Testing, 26, 341–366.
Brown, A., & McNamara, T. (2004). The devil is in the detail: Researching gender issues in language assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 524–538.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276.
Cekaite, A. (2007). A child’s development of interactional competence in a Swedish L2 classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 45–62.
Chalhoub-Deville, M. (2003). Second language interaction: Current perspectives and future trends. Language Testing, 20, 369–383.
Davis, L. (2009). The influence of interlocutor proficiency in a paired oral assessment. Language Testing, 26, 367–396.
Ducasse, A., & Brown, A. (2009). Assessing paired orals: Rater’s orientation to interaction. Language Testing, 26, 423–443.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
Galaczi, E. (2008). Peer-peer interaction in a speaking test: The case of the first certificate in English examination. Language Assessment Quarterly, 5, 89–119.
Galaczi, E. D. (2014). Interactional competence across proficiency levels: How do learners manage interaction in paired speaking tests? Applied Linguistics, 35, 553–574.
Galaczi, E. D., & Taylor, L. (2018). Interactional competence: Conceptualisations, operationalisations, and outstanding questions. Language Assessment Quarterly, 15(3), 219–236.
Gan, Z. (2010). Interaction in group oral assessment: A case study of higher- and lower-scoring students. Language Testing, 27, 585–602.
Geluykens, R., & Swerts, M. (1994). Prosodic cues to discourse boundaries in experimental dialogues. Speech Communication, 15(1–2), 69–77.
Habing, B. (2003). Exploratory factor analysis. University of South Carolina-October, 15, 2003.
Hall, J. K. (1995). (Re) creating our worlds with words: a sociohistorical perspective of face-to-face interaction. Applied Linguistics, 16, 206–232.
Hall, J. K. (1999). A prosaics of interaction: The development of interactional competence in another language. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp. 137–151). Cambridge University Press.
Hall, C., & Hope, A., K. (2015). Tapping Interactional Competence with Different Task Types. World Congress of Modern Languages. Official Languages and Bilingualism Institute. University of Ottawa.
Hall, J. K., & Pekarek, D. S. (2011). L2 interactional competence and development. In J.K. Hall, J. Hellermann & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.). L2 interactional competence and development (pp. 1–18). Multilingual Matters.
He, A.W., & Young, R. (1998). Language proficiency interviews: A discourse approach. In R. Young & A.W. He (Eds.), Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency (pp. 1–4). John Benjamins.
Jin, T., Mak, B., & Zhou, P. (2012). Confidence scoring of speaking performance: How does fuzziness become exact? Language Testing, 29, 43–65.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Phychometrika, 39, 31–36.
Kasper, G. (2006). Beyond repair: Conversation analysis as an approach to SLA. AILA Review, 19, 83–99.
Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163.
Kramsch, C. (1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence. The Modern Language Journal, 70, 366–372.
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.
Lumley, T., & O’Sullivan, B. (2005). The effects of test-taker gender, audience and topic on task performance in tape-mediated assessment of speaking. Language Testing, 22, 415–437.
Martínez-Flor, A., & Usó-Juan, E. (Eds.). (2010). Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues. John Benjamins.
Masuda, K. (2011). Acquiring interactional competence in a study abroad context: Japanese language learners’ use of the interactional particle ne. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 519–540.
May, L. A. (2010). Developing speaking assessment tasks to reflect the 'social turn' in language testing. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 5, 1–30.
May, L. A. (2011). Interaction in a paired speaking test: The rater’s perspective. Peter Lang.
Nakatsuhara, F. (2006). The impact of proficiency-level on conversational styles in paired speaking tests. Research Notes, 25, 15–20.
Nakatsuhara, F. (2011). Effects of test-taker characteristics and the number of participants in group oral tests. Language Testing, 28, 483–508.
O’ Sullivan, B. (2002). Learner acquaintanceship and oral proficiency test pair-task performance. Language Testing, 19, 277–295.
Plonsky, L., & Gass, S. (2011). Quantitative research methods, study quality, and outcomes: The case of interaction research. Language Learning, 61, 325–366.
Plough, I., Banerjee, J., & Iwashita, N. (2018). Interactional competence: Genie out of the bottle. Language Testing, 35, 427–445.
Roever, C., & Kasper, G. (2018). Speaking in turns and sequences: Interactional competence as a target construct in testing speaking. Language Testing, 35(3), 331–355.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.
Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. Palgrave Macmillan.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382.
Schwartz, J. (1980). The negotiation for meaning: Repair in conversations between second language learners of English. In D. Larsen-Freeman (Ed.), Discourse analysis in second language research (pp. 138–153). Newbury House.
Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Blackwell Publishing.
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52, 119–158.
Sun, Y. (2011). The influence of the social interactional context on test performance: A sociocultural view. The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14, 194–221.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2006). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
Taguchi, N. (2017). Development of interactional competence in Japanese as a second language: Use of incomplete sentences as interactional resources. The Modern Language Journal, 98(2), 518–535.
Tarplee, C. (2010). Next turn and intersubjectivity in children’s language acquisition. In H. Gardner & M. Forrester (Eds.), Analyzing interactions in childhood: Insights from conversation analysis (pp. 3–22).Wiley-Blackwell.
Vo, S. T. (2019). Effects of task types on interactional competence in oral communication assessment. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Taylor, L., & Wigglesworth, G. (2009). Are two heads better than one? Pair work in L2 assessment contexts. Language Testing, 26, 325–339.
Tecedor Cabrero, M. (2013). Developing interactional competence through video-based computer-mediated conversations: Beginning learners of Spanish (Doctoral dissertation).
Walsh, S. (2012). Conceptualising classroom interactional competence. Novitas-ROYAL, 6, 1–14.
Wang, L. (2015). Assessing interactional competence in second language paired speaking tasks (Publication No. 3713923) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Northern Arizona]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Open.
Young, R. F. (2008). Language and interaction: An advanced resource book. Routledge.
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, (pp. 426–443). Routledge.
Young, R. F. (2019). Interactional Competence and L2 Pragmatics. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp. 93–110). Routledge. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 371 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 474 |
||