Abstract
This chapter reconsiders the accepted views on interactional competence and suggests the strategy to assess it. Developed to meet practical requirements of the classroom practice and formative assessment, this strategy rests on the case study method that provides an opportunity to create an advantageous testing context which enables assessing interactional skills by looking at the techniques the students apply to accomplish the communication goal. The results of the research that involved training of master students majoring in Language Studies (Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv) and Science (National Technical University of Ukraine) allow us to conclude that the suggested strategy is an effective alternative way of assessment that assists students in transferring their skills from the classroom to real-life interaction.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Burleson, B. (2009). The nature of interpersonal communication: A message-centered approach. In C. Berger et al. (Eds.), The handbook of communication science (pp. 145–165). London: Sage Publication Inc.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1981). A theoretical framework for communicative competence. In A. S. Palmer, P. G. Groot, & S. A. Trosper (Eds.), The construct validation of tests of communicative competence (pp. 31–36). Washington, DC: TESOL.
CEFR. (2011). All scales and all skills. Available from http://ebcl.eu.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/CEFR-all-scales-and-all-skills.pdf.
Chappuis, J. (2015). Seven strategies for assessment for learning (2nd ed.). Portland: Pearson Education.
Ellis, R. (1989). Second language learning and second Language learners: Growth and diversity. TESL Canada Journal, 7(1), 74–94.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (2007). Second/Foreign language learning as a social accomplishment: Elaborations on a reconceptualized SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 91(1), 800–819.
Galaczi, E., & Taylor, L. (2018). Interactional competence: Conceptualisations, operationalisations, and outstanding questions. Language Assessment Quarterly, 15(3), 219–236.
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Hall, J. K. (1993). The role of oral practices in interaction with implications for learning another language. Applied Linguistics, 14, 145–166.
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. 370–401). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
He, L., & Dai, Y. (2006). A corpus-based investigation into the validity of the CET-SET group discussion. Language Testing, 23(3), 370–401.
Hidri, S. (2019). Static vs. dynamic assessment of students’ writing exams: A comparison of two assessment modes. International Multilingual Research Journal, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2019.1606875.
Hill, K., & Sabet, M. (2009). Dynamic speaking assessments. TESOL Quarterly, 43(3), 537–545.
Jacoby, S., & Ochs, E. (1995). Co-construction: An introduction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28, 171–183.
Johnson, M. (2001). The art of nonconversation. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Kramsch, C. (1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence. The Modern Language Journal, 70(4), 366–372.
Lam, D. M. K. (2015). Contriving authentic interaction: Task implementation and engagement in school-based speaking assessment in Hong Kong. In G. Yu & Y. Jin (Eds.), Assessing Chinese learners of English: Language constructs, consequences and conundrums (pp. 38–60). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Maliborska, V., & You, Y. (2016). Writing conferences in a second language writing classroom: Instructor and student perspectives. TESOL Journal, 7(4), 874–897.
McCarthy, M. J. (2005). Fluency and confluence: What fluent speakers do. The Language Teacher, 29(6), 26–28.
McNamara, T. F. (1997). Interaction in second language performance assessment: Whose performance? Applied Linguistics, 18(4), 446–466.
Nakatani, N. (2010). Identifying strategies that facilitate EFL learners’ oral communication: A classroom study using multiple data collection procedures. The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 116–136.
Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L. G., Clément, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (2000). Why are you learning a second language? Motivational orientations and self-determination theory. Language Learning, 50(1), 57–85.
Pekarek D. S., & Pochon-Berger, E. (2011). Developing ‘methods’ for interaction: A cross-sectional study of disagreement sequences in French L2. In J. K. Hall et al. (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development (pp. 206–243). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Pica, T. (1992). The textual outcomes of NS-NNS negotiations. In C. Kramsch & S. McConnell-Ginet (Eds.), Text and context: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on language study (pp. 198–237). Lexington, MA: Heath and Co.
Spitzberg, B., & Adams, T. (2007). CSRS, the conversational skills rating scale: An instructional assessment of interpersonal competence. Falls Church: National Communication Association.
Taylor, L. (2001). The paired speaking test format: Recent studies. University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations Research Notes, 6, 15–17.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wagner, J. (1996). Foreign language acquisition through interaction: A critical review of research on conversational adjustments. Journal of Pragmatics, 23(8), 215–235.
Walsh, S. (2012). Conceptualising classroom interactional competence. Research on Youth and Language, 6(1), 1–14.
Young, R. (2011) Interactional competence in language learning, teaching, and testing. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research of second language teaching and learning (pp. 436–448). Abingdon: Routledge.
Young, R. (2013). Learning to talk the talk and walk the walk: Interactional competence in academic spoken English. Ibérica, 25, 15–38.
Young, R., & Miller, E. (2004). Learning as changing participation: Discourse roles in ESL writing conferences. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 519–535.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendices
Appendix 1: Targeting of Learning English
Orientation (according to questionnaire items) | Frequency | Total | Percent | Total % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Interactional | KNU 101 | KPI 153 | 254 | KNU 88.6 | KPI 93.3 | 91.4 |
Educational | KNU 81 | KPI 113 | 194 | KNU 71.1 | KPI 68.9 | 69.8 |
Instrumental | KNU 73 | KPI 142 | 215 | KNU 64.0 | KPI 85.6 | 77.3 |
Appendix 2: Case Study 1
Title | Interaction in the process of L2 learning (KNU) |
|---|---|
Description | Discussing the changes in the curricular with the school headmaster and colleagues |
Preconditions | The existing curriculum has been analysed, the changes have been introduced |
Primary actor | A teacher of English in high specialist school |
Additional actors | The school headmaster, a colleague, who is against introducing changes to the curriculum |
Trigger | The school administration and some colleagues do not support any changes in the curriculum of English |
Special requirement (Tasks) | Using 3 types of communicative interaction: Face-to-face communication; Voice Calling or Video Calling; Instant messaging |
Extension | A teacher needs to gain support of parents |
Main success scenario | You need to define the flow of the process that starts when a use case is started. The flow needs to detail how the communication will flow, who the information will be displayed to, what they need to do |
Post conditions | The teacher got approval of the curriculum changes after a long discussion process |
Alternative | Document alternate flow and exceptions to the main success scenario |
Appendix 3: Case Study 2
Title | Interaction in the process of L2 learning |
|---|---|
Description | Successful registration of authorship and receiving the patent of invention |
Preconditions | An application for patent is written; the description of the invention is presented |
Primary actor | A Sociology and Law student of Polytechnical University who helps his group-mate (client) to register the invention patent |
Additional actors | Patent attorney, inventor-friend and colleague who failed to receive a patent |
Trigger | Ukrainian Intellectual Property Institute (Ukrpatent) rejected the patent registration |
Special requirements (Tasks) | Using 3 types of communicative interaction: Face-to-face communication; Voice Calling or Video Calling; Instant messaging |
Extension | The patent should be registered within 10Â days |
Main success scenario | You need to define the flow of the process that starts when a use case is started. The flow needs to detail how the communication will flow, who the information will be displayed to, what they need to do |
Post conditions | The inventor (client) receives the patent in time, although he is not satisfied with law literacy provided by the University |
Alternative | Document alternate flow and exceptions to the main success scenario |
Appendix 4: Teachers’ Feedback
Answer the following questions | |
|---|---|
1. | Do you tend to assess students’ interactional skills during formative assessment? |
2. | Has the case study method influenced the strategy of interactional skills assessment? If yes, in what way? |
3. | What difficulties do you come across while assessing the interactional skills? |
4. | What criteria do you usually rely on when assessing the interactional competence? |
5. | How do you ensure the assessment reliability? |
Appendix 5: Student’s Feedback
| Â | Provide feedback on | Â | Frequency |
|---|---|---|---|
1. | Motivation for case study learning | Negative | 22 |
Positive | 58 | ||
2. | Assessment of interpersonal communication skills | Negative | 11 |
Positive | 69 | ||
3. | Assessment of interaction skills | Negative | 26 |
Positive | 54 | ||
4. | Assessment of co-participation skills | Negative | 6 |
Positive | 74 |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Liubashenko, O., Kavytska, T. (2020). Strategy to Assess L2 Interactional Competence of University Students: Ukrainian Context. In: Hidri, S. (eds) Changing Language Assessment. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42269-1_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42269-1_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-42268-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-42269-1
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)