Multiple Layers of Meaning in an Oral Proficiency Test: The Complementary Roles of Nonverbal, Paralinguistic, and Verbal Behaviors in Assessment Decisions

Abstract

This study investigated the influence of nonverbal behavior in the context of interactive talk during the assessment of an oral proficiency interview test. The participants were 4 Spanishspeaking and 4 Chinese-speaking international teaching assistants (ITAs). Microanalysis of videotaped tests indicated that interviewees who employed nonverbal behavior considered appropriate by North American evaluators and who negotiated a degree of control over the interview process were able to compensate for perceived weaker linguistic proficiency. Active nonverbal behavior as listeners and turn-takers, together with appropriate paralinguistic features in their talk in interaction, created for the raters an impression of the test taker's interactional competence. This interplay of behaviors ensured high scores for ITAs perceived to be linguistically proficient and low passing scores for those rated as linguistically weaker. The successful test takers in this study were able to modify the power dynamic and to reduce the interview asymmetry. Those participants who framed the interview as a discussion or conversation among peers were more successful than those who framed it as an examination. Implications for oral proficiency testing and ESL instruction are discussed.

Gestures and some key issues in the study of language development

“…However, no studies have systematically examined native perception of 'foreign gesture', nor its potential interactional consequences. Although a number of studies show that learners' gesture production affect assessments positively such that learners are deemed more proficient if they gesture than if 16 they do not (Gullberg, 1998;Jenkins & Parra, 2003;Jungheim, 2001;McCafferty, 2002), no studies so far have directly tested for effects of 'foreign gesture'.…”

An Investigation of Communication Patterns and Strategies between International Teaching Assistants and Undergraduate Students in University-level Science Labs

“…The results of Jenkins and Parra's (2003) investigation identify areas in which non-verbal behaviors or skills increased the non-native speakers' overall communicative effectiveness: active listening, turn-taking behavior, and involvement strategies. Attentive listening behaviors included frequent eye contact, facial expressions such as smiling, movements closer to a speaker, vocalizations (e.g., backchannels), and nodding.…”

“…Researchers have also analyzed interactions of prospective international teaching assistants in English proficiency interviews (Jenkins & Parra, 2003).…”

“…Similarly, the American undergraduate used a communication style typical of an America student, which the non-native speaking teaching assistant did not recognize, and as a result, the teaching assistant responded in ways that limited the success of the interaction. For communication patterns examining non-verbal communication of international teaching assistants, the most informative work is that of Jenkins and Parra (2003). While their research does not look at classroom interactions per se, they do examine the communicative patterns of international teaching assistants participating in an English oral proficiency interview.…”

“…Research on international teaching assistant communication has examined the speaking and discourse patterns of international teaching assistants from many perspectives. Much research (Field, 2005;Hahn, 2004, Leather, 1999Munro & Derwing, 2005, Pickering 2001Riggenbach, 2000) has examined the mechanics of producing spoken English (consonant and vowel production, stress patterns, More contextualized research of international teaching assistant communication patterns (Jenkins & Parra, 2003;Tyler, 1995;Williams, 1992) has expanded the scope of international teaching assistant communication research to include discourse-level phenomena. Methodologically, these investigations focus primarily on how the speech patterns of non-native speaking and native speaking teaching assistants differ in terms of communication patterns and strategies in classrooms or classroom-simulated environments.…”