设定小组议程:在任务型、口头、第二语言、小组评估中,通过指令协商义务权利

IF 1.5 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Classroom Discourse Pub Date : 2020-10-01 DOI:10.1080/19463014.2019.1651750
M. Stephenson
{"title":"设定小组议程:在任务型、口头、第二语言、小组评估中,通过指令协商义务权利","authors":"M. Stephenson","doi":"10.1080/19463014.2019.1651750","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The use of group-based, task-oriented, peer interaction formats in classroom and public L2 speaking tests has grown in recent years. However, these assessments have received comparatively little attention when compared to other formats such as the oral proficiency interview (OPI). In order to better understand the local exigencies of this group-based, peer interaction format, the current paper, using a Conversation Analytic (CA) methodology, explores the mechanisms through which consequences are brought about in such highly task-oriented, collaborative discourse. In doing so, I report on examinees’ use of directives to shape the emerging interactional agenda and so negotiate deontic rights relative to their co-participants. There is a focus, in particular, on the turn design and sequential placement of these directives and, from this, it is shown how different linguistic formats correlate to a propensity for recipients to either endorse (that is, enact) or circumvent (ignore, challenge) the interactional agenda imposed by said directive. Finally, this paper discusses some of the implications these findings have in terms of learner and assessor training.","PeriodicalId":45350,"journal":{"name":"Classroom Discourse","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Setting the group agenda: negotiating deontic rights through directives in a task-based, oral, L2, group assessment\",\"authors\":\"M. Stephenson\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/19463014.2019.1651750\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The use of group-based, task-oriented, peer interaction formats in classroom and public L2 speaking tests has grown in recent years. However, these assessments have received comparatively little attention when compared to other formats such as the oral proficiency interview (OPI). In order to better understand the local exigencies of this group-based, peer interaction format, the current paper, using a Conversation Analytic (CA) methodology, explores the mechanisms through which consequences are brought about in such highly task-oriented, collaborative discourse. In doing so, I report on examinees’ use of directives to shape the emerging interactional agenda and so negotiate deontic rights relative to their co-participants. There is a focus, in particular, on the turn design and sequential placement of these directives and, from this, it is shown how different linguistic formats correlate to a propensity for recipients to either endorse (that is, enact) or circumvent (ignore, challenge) the interactional agenda imposed by said directive. Finally, this paper discusses some of the implications these findings have in terms of learner and assessor training.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45350,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Classroom Discourse\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Classroom Discourse\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2019.1651750\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Classroom Discourse","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2019.1651750","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

近年来,以小组为基础、以任务为导向、同伴互动形式在课堂和公共场合的第二语言口语测试中得到了越来越多的应用。然而,与口头能力面试(OPI)等其他形式相比,这些评估受到的关注相对较少。为了更好地理解这种基于群体的同伴互动格式的局部紧急情况,本论文使用对话分析(CA)方法,探讨了在这种高度任务导向的协作话语中产生后果的机制。在此过程中,我报告了考生使用指令来塑造新兴的互动议程,从而与他们的共同参与者协商道义权利。特别关注这些指令的回合设计和顺序放置,并从中显示不同的语言格式如何与接受者赞同(即制定)或规避(忽视,挑战)所述指令所施加的互动议程的倾向相关联。最后,本文讨论了这些发现对学习者和评估者培训的一些启示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Setting the group agenda: negotiating deontic rights through directives in a task-based, oral, L2, group assessment
ABSTRACT The use of group-based, task-oriented, peer interaction formats in classroom and public L2 speaking tests has grown in recent years. However, these assessments have received comparatively little attention when compared to other formats such as the oral proficiency interview (OPI). In order to better understand the local exigencies of this group-based, peer interaction format, the current paper, using a Conversation Analytic (CA) methodology, explores the mechanisms through which consequences are brought about in such highly task-oriented, collaborative discourse. In doing so, I report on examinees’ use of directives to shape the emerging interactional agenda and so negotiate deontic rights relative to their co-participants. There is a focus, in particular, on the turn design and sequential placement of these directives and, from this, it is shown how different linguistic formats correlate to a propensity for recipients to either endorse (that is, enact) or circumvent (ignore, challenge) the interactional agenda imposed by said directive. Finally, this paper discusses some of the implications these findings have in terms of learner and assessor training.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Classroom Discourse
Classroom Discourse EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
14.30%
发文量
28
期刊最新文献
Examining authorial agency in elementary children’s narratives Analysing educational dialogue around shared artefacts in technology-mediated contexts: a new coding framework The embodied nature of students’ engagement and participation during a total physical response activity Collaborative character searches in L2 Chinese peer writing: sequential design and object affordances Pursuing student response through incomplete syntax, prosody, bodily- and visuo-orthographical resources in Chinese-as-a-second-language classrooms
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1