DIALOGIC INTERACTIVE SPEAKING SKILLS ASSESSMENT IN THE EXPERIENTIAL TEACHING OF TECHNICAL ENGLISH TO TERTIARY SCHOOL STUDENTS

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.156228

Keywords:

collaborative dialogue, dialogic interaction, assessment of speaking skills, experiential teachingdialogue, experiential teaching

Abstract

The article discusses the outcomes of the research on dialogic interactive skills assessment in teaching Technical English to tertiary school students. The authors propose to implement dialogic collaborative interaction as both the medium of instruction and an alternative assessment tool. Theoretically, the study relies on the assumption that Technical English speaking skills acquisition is carried out through different types of communicative interaction and collaborative dialogic interaction in particular. The procedure proposed for speaking skills assessment has been primarily targeted at sustaining oral collaborative interaction along with assessing students’ communicative competence. The research represented relies on the experimental teaching English speaking skills to the 1st year Bachelor’s students (n=84) at Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute. The assessment criteria include conformity of utterances to the topic; speaking tempo; relative grammatical, lexical and phonetic accuracy; cohesion and coherence; compliance with the stylistic and etiquette conventions of English; diversity of grammatical and lexical devices for reaching mutual understanding between the dialogue participants; the interlocutor’s speaking initialisation; reaching consensus; and background knowledge deduction. The results of the research confirm that the assessment procedure introduced contributes to boosting oral production if the techniques of supporting collaborative dialogic interaction are applied by the interlocutors. Collaborative dialogue positively affects the development of students’ communicative competence and acquisition of such skills as perceiving, understanding and decoding the content of oral texts, identifying the communicative purpose of interlocutor’s utterances through analysing verbal and non-verbal means; defining the style and genre of utterances and aligning them with stylistic registers in English.

 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Olesia Liubashenko, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv

Olesia Liubashenko is a Ph D (Teaching and learning strategies), Dr.Sc (Education), Full Professor in the Institute of Philology, National Taras Shevchenko University of Kyiv at the Department of Teaching Methodology of Ukrainian and Foreign Languages and Literatures. She is the expert in learning and teaching strategies and the author of 90 articles in national and international scholarly journals.   Her research interests include language learning strategies and their links to workplace discourse.

Zoia Kornieva, National Technical University of Ukraine “Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute”

Dr. Sci, Department of Theory, Practice and Translation of the English Language

References

  1. Ammar, A. & Hassan, R. (2017). Talking It Through: Collaborative Dialogue and Second Language Learning. Language Learning, 68, 1, 46-82. DOI:10.1111/lang.12254.
    |
  2. Arnó-Macià, E. (2014). Information Technology and Languages for Specific Purposes in the EHEA: Options and Challenges for the Knowledge Society. In E.Bárcena, T.Read, & J.Arús, (Eds.), Languages for Specific Purposes in the Digital Era. Educational Linguistics. Vol 19 (pp. 3-26). Cham, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London: Springer International Publishing. DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-02222-2_1
  3. Banathy, B. & Jenlink, P. (2005). Dialogue as a Means of Collective Communication. NY: Springer.
  4. Beattie, G. & Ellis, A. (2017). The Psychology of Language and Communication. NY: Routledge.
  5. Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. London: Continuum.
  6. Brooks, L. (2009). Interacting in pairs in a test of oral proficiency: Co-constructing a better performance. Language testing, 26 (3), 341-366. DOI:10.1177/0265532209104666
    |
  7. Caspersen, D. (2015). Changing the Conversation: The 17 Principles of Conflict Resolution. NY: Penguin.
  8. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Structured overview of all CEFR scales. (2001). Council of Europe. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/168045b15e
  9. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. NY: Collier.
  10. Dobao, F. A. (2012). Collaborative Dialogue in Learner–Learner and Learner–Native Speaker Interaction. Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 229-256. DOI:10.1093/applin/ams002
    |
  11. Flecha, R. (2000). Sharing Words. Theory and Practice of Dialogic Learning. Lanham: Rowman&Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
  12. Freire, P. (2005). Education for Critical Consciousness. NY: Continuum.
  13. International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) (2013). Retrieved January 16, 2018, from https://ec.europa.eu/education/international-standard-classification-of-education-isced_en
  14. Jenks, C. (2012). Analysis of dialogue. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of applied linguistics: Analysis of discourse and interaction. Malden, MA: Willey-Blackwell. DOI:10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0019
  15. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  16. Lantolf, J. (2000). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  17. Liubashenko, O. & Yashenkova, O. (2015). Models of communicative interactions as a subject of workplace discourse investigation and instruction. In W. Giordano (Ed.), Discourse, Communication and the Enterprise VIII – DICOEN VIII Pre-conference Proceedings (pp.110-112). Naples: DISES.
  18. Long, M. (2014). Second language acquisition and task‐based language teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley‐Blackwell.
  19. Price, M., Handley K., & O’Donovan, B. (2013). Assessment feedback: An Agenda for Change. In S.Merry, M.Price, & D.Carless (Eds.), Reconceptualising Feedback in Higher Education: Developing dialogue with students (pp. 41-54). NY: Routledge.
  20. Swain, M. (2000). The Output Hypothesis and beyond: Mediating Acquisition through Collaborative Dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  21. Swain, M., & Watanabe, Y. (2012). Languaging: Collaborative dialogue as a source of second language learning. In C.A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 3218-3225). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0664
  22. Tarnopolsky, O., Kornieva, Z., Avsiukevich, Y., Zhevaga, V., & Degtiariova, Y. (2016). Professional Basics. A Textbook of English for 1st Year Students Majoring in Technology and Economics. Student’s Book and Workbook. Vinnytsa: Nova Knyga Publ.
  23. Weigand, E. (Ed.) (2017). The Routledge Handbook of Language and Dialogue. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group: NY&London.
  24. Zeng, G. & Takatsuka, S. (2009). Text-Based Peer-Peer Collaborative Dialogue in a Computer-Mediated Learning Environment in the EFL Context. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 37(3), 434-446. DOI:10.1016/j.system.2009.01.003
    |

Downloads

Published

2019-10-30

How to Cite

Liubashenko, O., & Kornieva, Z. (2019). DIALOGIC INTERACTIVE SPEAKING SKILLS ASSESSMENT IN THE EXPERIENTIAL TEACHING OF TECHNICAL ENGLISH TO TERTIARY SCHOOL STUDENTS. Advanced Education, 6(13), 18–25. https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.156228

Issue

2019: Issue 13

Section

ARTICLES

License

Copyright (c) 2019 Olesia Liubashenko, Zoia Kornieva

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

    1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

    1. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

  1. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).