Difference between revisions of "KimPark2015"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Author(s)=Stephanie Hyeri Kim; Innhwa Park | |Author(s)=Stephanie Hyeri Kim; Innhwa Park | ||
|Title=Test taker-initiated repairs in an English oral proficiency exam for international teaching assistants | |Title=Test taker-initiated repairs in an English oral proficiency exam for international teaching assistants | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Repair; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Repair; |
|Key=KimPark2015 | |Key=KimPark2015 | ||
|Year=2015 | |Year=2015 | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
|URL=http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/text.2015.35.issue-2/text-2014-0036/text-2014-0036.xml?format=INT | |URL=http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/text.2015.35.issue-2/text-2014-0036/text-2014-0036.xml?format=INT | ||
|DOI=10.1515/text-2014-0036 | |DOI=10.1515/text-2014-0036 | ||
| + | |Abstract=This paper is a conversation-analytic examination of video-recorded interactions between questioners and test takers during an English oral proficiency exam for international teaching assistants (ITAs). We focus on the test takers’ repair strategies identified in our data, and describe how distinct repair strategies influence the repair solution in the next turn. The test takers’ open-class repair initiator (e.g., “sorry?”) is likely to be treated as a hearing problem, and thus is responded to with the questioners’ repetition of the question. In contrast, the test takers’ targeted repair initiator (e.g., “what do you mean by x?”) is likely to be treated as an understanding problem, and thus is responded to with the questioners’ reformulation of the question. This reformulation generally helps the test takers successfully respond to the question despite the initial understanding problem. The findings have implications for teaching oral communication skills to ITAs, repair strategies in particular. They also contribute to improving performance-based oral proficiency exam by introducing different sequential trajectories that emerge from problems in hearing or understanding. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 08:07, 15 December 2019
| KimPark2015 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | KimPark2015 |
| Author(s) | Stephanie Hyeri Kim, Innhwa Park |
| Title | Test taker-initiated repairs in an English oral proficiency exam for international teaching assistants |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Repair |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2015 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Text & Talk |
| Volume | 35 |
| Number | 2 |
| Pages | 237–262 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1515/text-2014-0036 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This paper is a conversation-analytic examination of video-recorded interactions between questioners and test takers during an English oral proficiency exam for international teaching assistants (ITAs). We focus on the test takers’ repair strategies identified in our data, and describe how distinct repair strategies influence the repair solution in the next turn. The test takers’ open-class repair initiator (e.g., “sorry?”) is likely to be treated as a hearing problem, and thus is responded to with the questioners’ repetition of the question. In contrast, the test takers’ targeted repair initiator (e.g., “what do you mean by x?”) is likely to be treated as an understanding problem, and thus is responded to with the questioners’ reformulation of the question. This reformulation generally helps the test takers successfully respond to the question despite the initial understanding problem. The findings have implications for teaching oral communication skills to ITAs, repair strategies in particular. They also contribute to improving performance-based oral proficiency exam by introducing different sequential trajectories that emerge from problems in hearing or understanding.
Notes
