Examining dialogue: another approach to content specification and to validating inferences drawn from test scores

By M. Swain. 2001

212 citations recorded by the source corpus.

In this article one aspect of the many interfaces between second language (L2) learning and L2 testing is examined. The aspect that is examined is the oral interaction - the dialogue - that occurs within small groups. Discussed from within a sociocultural theory of mind, the point is made that, in a group, performance is jointly constructed and distributed across the participants. Dialogues construct cognitive and strategic processes which in turn construct student performance, information which may be invaluable in validating inferences drawn from test scores. Furthermore, student dialogues provide opportunities for language learning, i.e., opportunities for the joint construction of knowledge. It is suggested that an examination of the content of these dialogues can provide test developers with targets for measurement. Other implications for L2 testing are also discussed.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education, Language and Linguistics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/226778620e69c675888ef1303dade2c7fa085632

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Education

In Language and Linguistics

Citations in the corpus

Understanding teachers as agents of assessment (2004, background): “A further point to be made in connection with Wigglesworth’s studies is that she engages with current research in second language acquisition (SLA), thus working at the interface between assessment and SLA (see Shohamy, 1994; Bachman and Cohen, 1998; Swain, 2001).”
Effective rating scale development for speaking tests: Performance decision trees (2011, background): “…of context and interaction in the assessment of speaking has been widely demonstrated (Kramsch, 1986; Jacoby and McNamara, 1999; Jacoby and Ochs, 1995), and the socially constructed nature of discourse has become the focus of much research (Swain, 2001; Chalhoub-Deville, 2003; Brooks, 2009).”
Interacting in pairs in a test of oral proficiency: Co-constructing a better performance (2009, background): “In any test involving oral interaction, performance is co- constructed among the participants (Chalhoub-Deville, 2003; Deville & Chalhoub-Deville, 2006; McNamara, 1997; Swain, 2001).”
SOCIOCULTURAL THEORY AND L2: State of the Art (2006, background): “…integrated several of the core concepts of the theory—in particular, the mediational function of speaking—into her well-known pushed output model of SLA ~Swain, 2000, 2001; Swain & Lapkin, 1998, 2001, 2002; Swain, Brooks, & Tocalli-Beller, 2002!+ My intent in the present article is not to review…”
Topic Negotiation in Peer Group Oral Assessment Situations: A Conversation Analytic Approach (2009, background): “Therefore, we believe that empirical studies of how students negotiate with each other in a peer group setting under assessment conditions will inform not only understanding of the discourse structure of second language learners’ peer interactions, but also the search for a more holistic and compreh”
Second language interaction: current perspectives and future trends (2003, background): “In addition to such ethno-methodological studies (e.g., Douglas and Myers, 2000), a variety of other investigations would be fruitful, e.g., dialog analyses (e.g., Swain, 2001) and verbal report inquiries (e.g., Cohen, 1988).”
Collaborative and individual output tasks and their effects on learning English phrasal verbs (2010, background): “…classroom tasks that require learners to work together and produce output collaboratively have been suggested to provide effective opportunities for peer feedback and scaffolding (Kowal & Swain, 1994, 1997; Lapkin & Swain, 2000; Swain, 2001a, 2001b, 2005; Lapkin et al., 2002; Swain et al., 2002).”
INCIDENTAL FOCUS ON FORM AND SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING (2005, methodology): “…linguistic items through the use of individualized, tailor-made tests based on the specific linguistic items that arose in the classroom discourse ~Swain, 1995, 2001!+ Individualized testing allows researchers to assess the specific linguistic items targeted in spontaneous FFEs in classroom…”
Interactional Competence: Conceptualisations, Operationalisations, and Outstanding Questions (2018, background): “Both Swain (2001) and McNamara (1997), in their thought-provoking articles, raised the need to address the contentious issue of interpreting individual out what is worrying the patient and be reassuring.”
Four perspectives on L2 pragmatic development (2001, background): “In a similar vein, Swain (2000) argues that in small group testing, ‘performance is not solo performance, but rests on a joint construction by the participating individuals’ (p. 6).”
Dynamic Assessment of Advanced Second Language Learners (2009, methodology): “For some time now, experts in L2 assessment have called attention to interaction as a powerful assessment tool (ChalhoubDeville, 2003; McNamara, 1997; Shohamy, 1992; Swain, 2001).”