Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
In This Section

Text & Talk

An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies

Ed. by Sarangi, Srikant

6 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.448
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.686

CiteScore 2016: 0.63

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.644
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 0.508

Online
ISSN
1860-7349
See all formats and pricing
In This Section
Volume 35, Issue 2 (Mar 2015)

Issues

Test taker-initiated repairs in an English oral proficiency exam for international teaching assistants

Stephanie Hyeri Kim
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Linguistics/TESL, California State University, Northridge, CA, USA
  • Email:
/ Innhwa Park
  • Department of Languages and Cultures, West Chester University, West Chester, PA, USA
  • Email:
Published Online: 2015-02-27 | DOI: https://doi.org/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.

Keywords: repair; repetition; reformulation; international teaching assistant; oral proficiency exam; conversation analysis

References

  • Anderson-Hsieh, Janet & Koehler Koehler. 1988. The effect of foreign accent and speaking rate on native speaker comprehension. Language Learn 38. 561–570. [Crossref]

  • Axelson, Elizabeth, & Carolyn Madden. 1994. Discourse strategies for ITAs across instructional contexts. In Carolyn Madden & Myers Cynthia (eds.), Discourse and performance of international teaching assistants, 153–187. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

  • Bailey, Kathleen M. 1984. The “foreign TA problem. In Kathleen M. Bailey, Frank Pialorsi & Jaen Zukowski/Faust (eds.), Foreign teaching assistants in US universities, 3–16. Washington, DC: National Association for Foreign Student Affairs.

  • Bell, Nathan E. 2011. Graduate enrollment and degrees: 2000 to 2010. Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools.

  • Bernhardt, Elizabeth. 1987. Training foreign teaching assistants: Cultural differences. College Teaching 35. 67–69. [Crossref]

  • Canale, Michael. 1983. From communicative competence to language pedagogy. In Jack C. Richards & Richards W. Schmidt (eds.), Language and communication, 2–28. London: Longman.

  • Canale, Michael, & Merrill Swain. 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language testing and teaching. Applied Linguistics 1(1). 1–47. [Crossref]

  • Celce-Murcia, Marianne. 2007. Rethinking the role of communicative competence in language teaching. In Eva Alcon Soler & Maria Pilar Safont Jorda (eds.), The intercultural language use and language learning, 41–58. Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Chiang, Shiao-Yun, & Han-Fu Mi. 2008. Reformulation as a strategy for managing “understanding uncertainty” in the office-hour interactions between international teaching assistants and American college students. Intercultural Education 19(3). 269–281. [Crossref]

  • Drew, Paul. 1997. Open” class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of troubles in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 28. 69–101. [Crossref]

  • Egbert, Maria. 1998. Miscommunication in language proficiency interviews of first-year German students: A comparison with natural conversation. In Richard Young & Agnes W. He (eds.), Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency, 147–169. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Egbert, Maria, Andrea Golato & Jeffery Robinson. 2009. Repairing reference. In Jack Sidnell (ed.), Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives, 104–132. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Farnsworth, Timothy. 2004. The effect of teaching skills on holistic ratings of language ability in performance tests for international teaching assistant selection. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Los Angeles MA thesis.

  • Gaskill, William. 1980. Correction in native speaker–nonnative speaker conversation. In Diane Larsen-Freeman (ed.), Discourse analysis in second language research, 125–137. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

  • Gorsuch, Greta, Colleen M. Meyers, Lucy Pickering & Dale T. Griffee. 2010. English communication for international teaching assistants. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

  • Gravois, John. 2005. Teach impediment. The Chronicle of Higher Education 51(31). A10.

  • He, Agnes W. 1998. Answering questions in LPIs: A case study. In Richard Young & Agens W. He (eds.), Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral language proficiency, 101–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Heritage, John. 1984a. Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

  • Heritage, John. 1984b. A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Heritage, John, & Marja-Leena Sorjonen. 1994. Constituting and maintaining activities across sequences: And-prefacing as a feature of question design. Language in Society 23. 1–29. [Crossref]

  • Hinofotis, Frances B. & Kathleen M. Bailey. 1980. American undergraduates’ reactions to the communication skills of foreign teaching assistants. In Janet C. Fisher, Mark A. Clarke & Jacquelyn Schachter (eds.), On TESOL ’80 – Building bridges: Research and practice in teaching English as a second language, 120–133. Washington, DC: TESOL.

  • Hosoda, Yuri. 2000. Other-repair in Japanese conversations between nonnative and native speakers. Issues in Applied Linguistics 11. 39–65.

  • Jia, Cailun, & Amy A. Bergerson. 2008. Understanding the international teaching assistant training program: A case study at a northwestern research university. International Education 37(2). 77–98.

  • Johnson, Marysia. 2001. The art of non-conversation: A reexamination of the oral proficiency interview. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.

  • Kasper, Gabriel. 1985. Repair in foreign language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7. 200–215. [Crossref]

  • Kasper, Gabriel. 2006. Beyond repair: Conversation analysis as an approach to SLA. AILA Review 19. 83–99.

  • Kasper, Gabriel & Steven Ross. 2003. Repetition as source of miscommunication in oral proficiency interviews. In Juliane House, Gabriel Kasper & Steven Ross (eds.), Misunderstanding in social life: Discourse approaches to problematic talk, 82–106. Harlow: Longman/Pearson Education.

  • Kurhila, Salla. 2006. Second language interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Liebscher, Grit & Jennifer Dailey-O’Cain. 2003. Conversational repair as a role-defining mechanism in classroom. The Modern Language Journal 87. 375–390. [Crossref]

  • Macbeth, Douglas. 2004. The relevance of repair for classroom correction. Language in Society 33. 703–736. [Crossref]

  • Marvasti, Akbar. 2005. US academic institutions and perceived effectiveness of foreign-born faculty. Journal of Economic Issues 39(1). 151–176. [Crossref]

  • McHoul, A. W. 1990. The organization of repair in classroom talk. Language in Society 19. 349–377. [Crossref]

  • Mehan, Hugh. 1979. Language lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Nakamura, Ian. 2008. Understanding how teacher and student talk with each other: An exploration of how “repair” displays the co-management of talk-in-interaction. Language Teaching Research 12(2). 265–283. [Crossref]

  • Pickering, Lucy. 2004. The structure and function of intonational paragraphs in native and nonnative speaker instructional discourse. English for Specific Purposes 23. 19–43. [Crossref]

  • Plakans, Barbara S. & Roberta G. Abraham. 1990. The testing and evaluation of international teaching assistants. In Dan Douglas (ed.), English language testing in US colleges and universities, 68–81. Washington, DC: NAFSA.

  • Robinson, Jeffrey. 2013. Epistemics, action formation, and other-initiation of repair: The case of partial questioning repeats. In Makoto Hayashi, Geoffrey Raymond & Jack Sidnell (eds.), Conversational repair and human understanding, 261–292. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Robinson, Jeffrey & Heidi Kevoe-Feldman. 2010. Using full repeats to initiate repair on others’ questions. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43(3). 232–259. [Crossref]

  • Rubin, Donald L. 1993. The other half of international teaching assistant teaching: Classroom communication workshops for international students. Innovative Higher Education 17. 183–193. [Crossref]

  • Sacks Harvey, Emanuel Schegloff & Gail. Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4). 696–735. [Crossref]

  • Savignon, Sandra J. 2007. Beyond communicative language teaching: What’s ahead? Journal of Pragmatics 39. 207–220. [Crossref]

  • Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2000. When “others” initiate repair. Applied Linguistics 21(2). 205–243. [Crossref]

  • Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Schegloff, Emanuel, Gail Jefferson & Harvey Sacks. 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53(2). 361–382. [Crossref]

  • Seedhouse, Paul & Maria Egbert. 2006. The interactional organization of the IELTS speaking test. IELTS Research Reports 6. 1–45.

  • Seo, Mi-Sook & Irene Koshik. 2010. A conversation analytic study of gestures that engender repair in ESL conversational tutoring. Journal of Pragmatics 42. 2219–2239. [Crossref]

  • Sinclair, John M. & R. Malcolm Coulthard. 1975. Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.

  • Svennevig, Jan. 2008. Trying the easiest solution first in other-initiation of repair. Journal of Pragmatics 40. 333–348. [Crossref]

  • Tyler, Andrea. 1995. The co-construction of cross-cultural miscommunication. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 17. 129–152. [Crossref]

  • Tyler, Andrea A., Ann Jefferies & Catharine E. Davies. 1988. The effect of discourse structuring devices on listener perceptions of coherence in non-native university teacher’s spoken discourse. World Englishes 7. 101–110. [Crossref]

  • Van Lier, Leo. 1988. The classroom and the language learner: Ethnography and second language classroom research. London: Longman.

  • Williams, Jessica. 1992. Planning, discourse marking, and the comprehensibility of international teaching assistants. TESOL Quarterly 26. 693–711. [Crossref]

  • Wong, Jessica. 2000. Delayed next turn repair initiation in native/nonnative speaker English conversation. Applied Linguistics 21. 244–267. [Crossref]

  • Wong, Jean & Hansun Z. Waring. 2010. Conversation analysis and second language pedagogy: A guide for ESL/EFL teachers. New York, NY: Routledge.

  • Young, Richard and Agnes W. He. 1998. Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Young, Richard & Elizabeth R. Miller. 2004. Learning as changing participation: Discourse roles in ESL writing conferences. The Modern Language Journal 88(4). 519–535. [Crossref]

About the article

Stephanie Hyeri Kim

Stephanie Hyeri Kim received her PhD in Applied Linguistics from UCLA, and is currently Assistant Professor of Linguistics/TESL at California State University, Northridge. Her research interests include situated uses of language in everyday life and institutional settings, and their applications to language teaching and learning. She has recently published in the Journal of Pragmatics, Research on Language and Social Interaction, and Discourse Processes.

Innhwa Park

Innhwa Park received her PhD in Applied Linguistics from UCLA, and is currently Assistant Professor in the Department of Languages and Cultures at West Chester University. Her teaching and research interests include writing pedagogy, educational discourse, and conversation analysis. She has recently published her research in Discourse Studies, Language and Education, and Journal of Pragmatics.


Author Contributions: Both authors contributed equally to this work.


Published Online: 2015-02-27

Published in Print: 2015-03-01



Citation Information: Text & Talk, ISSN (Online) 1860-7349, ISSN (Print) 1860-7330, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2014-0036. Export Citation

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in