Spoken Interaction and Production - Report Example

SPOKEN INTERACTION AND PRODUCTION Teaching and testing of spoken production usually have the aim of overall languageproficiency. Since human beings, in most cases develop speech before writing skills, it follows that interpersonal functions of the language do form a basis for linguistic innovation and interaction at all levels. Ideally, a sound system of the course, including the testing elements should be designed to consist of several tests of different kinds, concerning structure and extent or levels of complexity. Bearing in mind that voice and speech are an expression of self into the world, speech should be viewed, as an integral part of grammar and vocabulary. It also serves as an essential part of culture and social interaction. This second characteristic is what gives rise to the need of graciousness or etiquette as a primary norm of language. Mutually, spoken and written forms of communication are necessarily dependent upon this norm. Effective teaching and testing of Spoken production and interaction does several things concerning the aspects above. It has to assess speech sufficiently in different linguistic areas, examine pronunciation, grammar, a range of vocabulary, and use of suitable functional language. Competence of vocabulary suited for specific purposes or occasion, lucidity, and fluency of language are benchmarks that must be satisfactorily addressed. It has extensively to discuss the relevance and adequacy of the content. It should map out possible barriers for students, like lack of confidence. In this sense, it has to help in challenging the subjects to reach a stage at which they can express themselves with ease while being more useful for whatever they are trying to put across in words. Often there are hindrances in the form of inadequate preparation time, interest in the topic, and personal or cultural differences. This paper on the subject matter has attempted to collect, as it were from various scholarly and authoritative sources. This aspect in itself is significant to the output; in as far as scientific, verifiable methods of teaching and testing language are concerned. Several authors have proposed that a conscious systematic study. This, they suggest if applied by earners in grasping the details of interaction with specific discursive practices may benefit development. However that is still debatable, as there is not enough empirical evidence for the claim. With the dynamics mentioned above of successful, effective and practical classroom situations in mind, there arises the need to embrace an approach to teaching and testing that entails the following elements. Regular Practice. Like every other learning discipline, perfecting language production requires practice. Teachers should allocate proper time for the students to learn and get to exercise correct usage of language. The time allowed should be ample to allow each learner enough sufficient space to get acquainted with different aspects of language output. There is also need to consider the fact such activities may need to be done on regularly while at the same time providing an avenue for self- or peer correction Oral Tests This interactional design of a test may be weighed against with discursive practices outside the classroom in which the learner wishes to take part. If the arrangement of resources in the two environments is similar, then a case can be made to support the generalization of results for an individual. In that case, the testee can redeploy resources used in one practice to another. There exist numerous methods for testing speaking, which can be divided according to the type of interaction that takes place during the test. According to Underhill, the various methods are grouped into four basic possible interactions that take place during an oral test, namely: a)      The testee getting time to speaks to an interviewer who is also the assessor b)      The testee speaking to an independent interlocutor c)      A testee speaking to fellow testee d)     A testee speaking to a group of other testees The key terminologies interviewer, interlocutor, and assessor are further explained, (Underhill p.7). Instead of the word testee, he employs the term “learner” with the aim of implying that we are not merely dealing with an object of testing. For the same purpose, the terms “learner”, and “student” have been used interchangeably with the term, “testee.” In this sense, an interviewer talks to a learner in an oral test. The interviewer controls to a greater or a lesser extent the direction and topic of the conversation. He may get involved but not talk too much. An interviewer may also assume the assessor’s responsibility. In some oral tests, the interlocutor will be the person whose responsibility is to help the learner to speak. However, he is not required to assess the learner. His job is to talk with a student in an oral test, with the specific aim of encouraging the student to display, to the assessor, his verbal fluency in the best way possible. It is imperative to note here that an interlocutor serves a different role from the assessor. It is possible for the fill the function of interlocutor by a person known to the learner, his teacher for instance. On the other hand, an assessor’s job, on the other hand, is to listen while the a student speaks during an oral examination and makes an evaluation on what he hears. The assessor is assisted by pre-defined guidelines such as rating scales, which give great help in making these judgments. Eventually, the decision is a subjective one, which is to say that it is a human decision made on the basis of judgment, intuition, and experience. Having more than one assessor usually means a more reliable analysis. The functions of the interlocutor and the assessor may be shared. This is the most frequently used and most cost-effective arrangement. However, it is not easy for one person to concentrate on assessing successfully while trying to pay attention to what the learner is saying and being caught up in serious communication with him all at the same time. This dual role is particularly wearisome, and regular rest breaks are indispensable. (Underhill, 27) Interaction Between Learner To Learner As noted, the testee can speak to the interviewer, who also serves the role of the assessor, or he may speak to an independent interlocutor. For the learner, the important thing is whether the person who communicates directly with the learner pays enough attention to what the he is saying. The learner should be briefed beforehand on what the roles of the interlocutor and assessor, will be during the test. The assessor typically takes notes to remember the learners mistakes. It is also important to inform the learner ahead of time about the notes being taken. It is also is important to let the learner know that the assessor will consider the weaknesses, and note the strengths of the learner’s speech as well. This means that not all notes the assessor is taking highlight mistakes in the learner’s output. Another option for oral testing is the learner talking to another learner or a group of learners. Then we speak about learner/learner interaction. The idea is that two learners talk together to carry out a set task, while the assessor listens without intervening. The assessor then can concentrate on the presentation of the learner, since he does not have to be anxious anymore about keeping the conversation going, or eliciting the language. There are several advantages to this type of interaction. First and foremost, the learners may feel they are talking to someone whose language level is approximately the same. Secondly, they get the impression that they are talking to someone whose interests are very similar to their own. Moreover, lastly, the approach eliminates the fear that learners may have concerning the probable interests of the interlocutor and assessor. This can help in making the communication more fluent, natural and authentic. Practically, it helps most learners speak more freely with more enthusiasm. Authors dealing with testing oral interaction recommend that some care ought to be taken when pairing the learners concerning personality traits and interests and especially their language level. So the suggested technique is to put together learners of the same or very similar level of proficiency. Methods of Testing Production Conversation And Discussion Underhill notes that this is the most natural thing in the world. The communication is very natural, when two people discuss a subject matter of mutual interest. However, it also the hardest thing to happen in the framework of language testing. For this to occur, both parties will need to be relaxed, confident and willing to contribute on their own to the discussion. Importantly, this same aspect may make the conversation dominant while rendering the real intention of testing secondary. Within such an environment, it is possible to achieve the highest degree of authenticity in the discussion. In this scenario, the learners have the initiative in bringing up a new topic, working through the motions of theme development, and coming to a reasonable conclusion. The directions taken by the conversation are the product of the interaction among the people concerned in the process of negotiation. In the practical sense, success depends very much on the ability of the interviewer to create conducive atmosphere. Here, the important question is the personality of the interviewer, in addition to the three-way relationship between learners to the learner, and learner to the interviewer or the other way round. Underhill says, in conversation that is authentic communication, a test suddenly becomes a human encounter, sort of a meeting of three people. In most cases, only learners with a reasonably high level of proficiency are prepared enough, linguistically to feel at ease. Supplementary Activities for Testing Spoken Interaction This can include various activities that assist, especially the teacher and learner in decision-making, and exploring different types of input. Simple tasks can be devised, for example, to involve taking information from selected documents and arriving at a conclusion or consensus about certain issues after discussion. Role playing is another useful technique for testing spoken interaction. If used well, this can reduce the artificial classroom atmosphere and provide a motivation for speaking. While choosing the situations and roles, it is essential to put in mind the needs and interests of the students. A likely problem in role-playing is that there is a likelihood of learners being reluct to participate. This may arise because some students may object to acting out or pretending to be someone else, or acting to be in an imaginary situation. This present difficulties for some students to simulate scenarios, especially if the student is assigned an unpleasant role, without allowing him the option of choosing what he may want to act out. In such cases, role playing on complicated simulations may only work well with highly motivated or advanced learners.The success of this type of depends very much on the atmosphere in the class, and other dynamics of the relationships among group members. If the group is supportive, there are much higher prospects of success with this approach. Among less advanced or less motivated learners, for that matter, it is preferable to use more controlled role-plays. This requires the students to be told at least in general terms what they should say or if they have a model conversation. Evaluation Most teachers agree that evaluating or marking spoken language or even spoken interaction is a real pain. Within the communicative technique, oral communication is vital, and we should be able to test it. If we decide to test spoken interaction, and production, we should have in mind the importance of validity. We should thus design a test that will measure spoken interaction. A method which will involve the participants in meaningful and authentic spoken communication with other contributors. It means to devise a subjective test and to make it consistent such that it can repeatedly generate a reliable outcome. There are two probable techniques of marking productive skills, namely: global and analytic marking. Analytic marking means the assessor should have a set of categories and standardized criteria for giving distinct scores.The most commonly used criterion for evaluating spoken interaction include accuracy of grammar, the range of vocabulary employed, articulation, fluency style, and breadth of the content as conveyed by the learner. Underhill  also recommend his performance criteria. This includes the length of the speech, complexity of language, flexibility of the student in adapting to changes of theme, the accuracy of language, and the tempo of speech delivery. He also sites independence, suitability of the language used, repetition (how frequently does the question or stimulus occur), and vacillation (indicating the learner’s hesitation). Objective assessment is possible with the analytical criteria of appraisal. This gives the assessor the advantage of choice on whether the measures are analogous to the objectives or goals of the testing. While marking by impression, the assessor awards a score based on the learner’s overall performance without examining any special features. It is especially useful for categories that are very difficult to measure but crucial for successful communication like fluency, authenticity, naturalness of speech, etc. Choice Of Language However, using language cannot be reduced to simply applying a set of standardized formulations and rules. If that were the case, teaching language would be comparatively clear-cut — and extremely uninteresting. Luckily, languages are more intricate than that, and the challenge lies in establishing what rules would be relevant for a particular situation or making out the best possible use of language for that occasion or need. Social factors may largely determine the linguistic choice, but it also derives its power from these. Thus, in teaching and testing spoken interaction and production, there is a need to emphasize to the learners that there is always bound to be another way of saying or putting things across. One cardinal rule in this respect is that rarely, is a language used to express only propositional information. In most cases, it follows that the meaning of what we say corresponds to how we say it. More so, how we say things also gives clues on how we place ourselves in comparison to particular groups in society, and the target audience. In the ordinary usage of language, people, often do more than merely trying to get other people to comprehend the thoughts and feelings that are being expressed. There is always an implied meaning or statement on the relationship between the two - speaker and the addressee or audience. In subtle ways, both parties try to associate their relationship or identify themselves as part of a social grouping, and they try to create the kind of speech or occasion being addressed. (Fasold, 19) There are numerous types of interactions and relationships to which language applies, and the availability of recognized ‘norms’ or ‘rules’ allows for the chances of utilization. The relationship the between the form of an expression and its circumstances is captured by Hymes (1971:15). In his familiar aphorism, he notes,“there are rules of use without which grammar would be ineffective.” Most teachers are well aware that we must find a place for the ‘rules of use’ in teaching and testing. This is noted by Thomas (1983: 96-97), people will willingly absolve us for our grammatical errors, but we risk being identified as just plain discourteous if we express ourselves inappropriately. Unfortunately, this is easier said than done. Owing to complexity, extent and subtlety of such rules, it is not usually that straightforward pin-down the rules. That partly explains why a great deal of research in linguistics in the past has tried to focus on this aspect. Analysis and Investigation Of Spoken Interaction There is plenty of evidence for a relationship between spoken interaction and investigation. One of the best ways to developing and appreciating interaction and production is by improving our awareness of the communication taking place around us. This is not quite as straightforward as it seems, but we can begin by reflecting on aspects of our interactional experience. We may, for example, try to tune into the interaction around us, with the aim only listening. Investigation in this regard is useful in order to understand areas of language use, which are particularly relevant to our circumstances. The disadvantage of study in linguistics by such intuitive methods is that it lacks direct use to objective language use. Preston observes, “Curriculum experts, textbook authors, methodologists, and teachers, native speakers or not, have little rationalization in making unconfirmed judgments about genuine incidence of language in context” (1989:3) On the other hand, the advantage is that through investigation extends beyond this elementary level. It forms an indispensable tool for the development of effective teaching and testing, which helps uncover new areas of interest, informing our work and enriching our understanding. The process of research, if undertaken with proper commitment, is also a process of personal growth. Contextual Considerations The circumstances of an interaction comprise the social, political, institutional, and historical conditions that extend beyond the horizon of a single interaction. There is clear evidence connection between any statement and the conditions under which it is conveyed. The challenge here is that there are no universally accepted perception of the context. The theory of context is interpreted differently by scholars and thus there is a diversity of meanings, though, in short, most solars agree on the of the social situations that are applicable to the production or the reception of a conversation. (Van Dijk, 1997: 19) Van Dijk’s definition will do as well as any, except that it is far too generic to as a practical starting point for defining contextual considerations. It is necessary to consider other definitions of contextual investigation context and linguistic choices. A more useful, albeit brief discussion of the concept of ‘context’ is offered by Schiffrin (1994: 365-378), but we cannot hope ever to reach a conclusive description. The concept of context must continue throughout a subject for exploration. We can determine whether particular choices are appropriate or not by identifying the applicable rules of use. CONCLUSION In conclusion, it is evident that testing spoken interaction and production in any given language involves much more analysis of the architecture of language. Testing practices and methodical comparisons with practice beyond the classroom and examination situations should be measured. This does not negate the function of generalized test performance. It does mean, on the other hand, that teachers, testers, and linguists need to do much more concerning the factors we have highlighted. All processes from teaching to testing should elucidate circumstances, give due consideration to the structural design of language and practices under which learners perform. As Anastasi (1986) stressed, "When selecting or developing tests and when interpreting scores, consider the context. The importance of nonverbal aspects of Spoken production and interaction should be considered. The pragmatics of interaction like relationships between the preferred or selected forms of communication and the social framework in which they are used should be treated as fundamental. BIBLIOGRAPHY Anastasi, Anne. Individual Differences. New York: Wiley, 1965. Print. Bachman, L. F. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dijk, Teun A. Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London: Academic Press, 1985. Print. Fasold, Ralph W. The Sociolinguistics of Society. Oxford, England: B. Blackwell, 1984. Print. Hughes, A. 1989. Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hymes, Dell H. Language in Culture and Society: A Reader in Linguistics and Anthropology. Schiffrin, Deborah. Approaches to Discourse. Oxford, UK: B. Blackwell, 1994. Print. Underhill, N. 1987.Testing Spoken Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Weir, C.J. 1990. Communicative Language Testing. Prentice Hall International. Read More