There is now an increasing number of international teaching
assistants (ITAs) supporting undergraduate courses in U.S. colleges.
Although this has contributed to the diversity and globalization of
education, some ITAs not yet equipped with adequate language proficiency
to engage in instructional activity at the college level have raised
some concerns (Anderson-Hsieh & Koehler, 1988; Williams, 1992)
and led many institutions to implement policies that require prospective
ITAs to have a minimum score on tests such as the Test of Spoken
English. Some institutions have also developed their own oral
proficiency exams to measure ITAs’ performance in contexts that resemble
actual teaching tasks. The University of California Los Angeles
developed its own exam in 2004, the Test of Oral Proficiency (TOP;
Farnsworth, 2004), which has successfully been administered during the
past decade.
As part of a larger project that examines qualitatively whether
the exam tasks elicit the target language that test takers (TTs) would
use in their teaching, here we identify and show one aspect of TTs’
rhetorical organization: the ways in which TTs resume their presentation
after an interpolated question-answer (Q-A) sequence initiated by
student questioners. In particular, we examine (1) different ways in
which TTs transition from the Q-A sequence to their main presentation
and (2) whether such different ways systematically correspond to the
TTs’ proficiency levels. Among a variety of strategies used by different
levels of TTs, we found one particularly effective resumption strategy
used by the TTs who passed the exam (and thus were exempted from taking
an ESL class): referring to the previous topic and foreshadowing the
upcoming topic. In this article, we provide an example of and discuss
the resumption strategy used by high-proficient TTs.
Data and Method
Data: Test of Oral Proficiency (TOP)
The recorded data are drawn from the TOP, developed by UCLA’s
Office of Instructional Development to test the oral English ability of
international students who plan to teach at the university. The test
assesses whether their English proficiency is sufficient for conducting
normal teaching assistant duties. The whole exam consists of three
tasks. The second task, from which the data used for our study are
drawn, is a syllabus presentation, a task TAs typically perform on the
first day of class. During the exam, in addition to the TT and two
raters (trained graduate students), two questioners (trained
undergraduate students) are present, acting as students in the classroom
and asking questions about the content of the presentation. The TT’s
performance is scored according to four categories (pronunciation,
vocabulary/grammar, rhetorical organization, and question handling).
Those who receive a non-passing score are not permitted to work as a TA
and are asked to retake the exam. These test-takers may choose to, but
are not required to, take an ESL course designed for ITAs to retake the
exam. On the other hand, those with a marginal passing score are
required to take an ESL course designed for ITAs before or while they
work as a TA.
Method
We had access to 182 video-recorded tests conducted between
2008 and 2010, which included 37 failing TTs, 27 marginally passing TTs,
and 118 passing TTs. We then transcribed and analyzed the second task
of each test using conversation analytic methods (Sacks, Schegloff,
& Jefferson, 1974). The data contained a total of 145 target
resumption sequences, which were categorized into the four types of
transitions in Table 1. These transition types are not mutually
exclusive. That is, TTs may use different transition types in
combination.

click on image to enlarge
Results and Analysis
For the analysis of resumption strategies used by different
groups of TTs, each strategy was coded, counted, and categorized in
terms of TT groups as well as resumption strategies. Then the percentage
of the use of each resumption strategy was calculated within each TT
group. The results show that both low-proficient and high-proficient TTs
most frequently resort to simple word-level transitions (Type A),
followed by the projection of the upcoming topic (Type B). The most
salient difference among different groups of TTs was the use of Type C:
While TTs with a failing score deployed Type C strategy only 3.7%
(n = 1) of the time, TTs with a marginal pass did so
6.5% (n = 2) of the time, and TTs with a passing
score 14.9% (n = 13). In addition to a simple
one-word or phrase resumption (Types A and B), high-proficient TTs use a
sophisticated resumption strategy (Type C), which enables them to refer
back to the previous topic while simultaneously indicating the upcoming
topic.
Below we provide one example of Type C resumption strategy used
by high-proficient TTs. As the TT provides the guidelines for a term
paper, he presents three stages of the assignment: topic approval,
progress report, and paper submission. Upon his summative statement
about the first stage, So: then you have a topic. chosen. (line 8),Q asks a follow-up question, requesting further
clarification on whom to meet with for topic approval (lines
10–11).

click on image to enlarge
In his response to the question, the TT provides not only
clarification, but also relevant additional information regarding the
professor’s office hours (lines 12–14). After responding to another
follow-up question about his own office hours (lines 16–17), the TT
resumes the sequence that was halted in line 9 (line 19). In addition to
the conjunction a::nd, the TT uses the prepositional
phrase after you choose topic, recycling words from
his prior turn (in line 8). He then moves on to state the second stage
of the term paper assignment, which is writing the progress report. By
using the prepositional phrase, the TT refers back to the prior sequence
while indicating a move to the next stage. In other words, he makes a
seamless transition from the interpolated Q-A sequences back to the
halted presentation.
Conclusion
Analyzing qualitatively the language elicited by the task, our
preliminary study reveals one interesting resumption strategy deployed
by high-proficient TTs after an interpolated Q-A sequence: referring
back to the previous topic while indicating the upcoming topic. Although
both low-proficient and high-proficient TTs frequently resorted to
simple word-level transitions (Type A) followed by indications of the
upcoming topic (Type B), Type C was deployed significantly more
frequently among high-proficient TTs. The implications for these
preliminary findings are twofold. Most broadly, identifying a variety of
ways of making transitions at different sequential environments is a
first step in learning a wide repertoire of rhetorical organizational
skills used by prospective ITAs. Second, the study suggests the
usefulness of qualitative analysis of performance-based oral proficiency
exams. The qualitative analysis of the TTs’ language shows how the test
elicits the language needed for the tasks TAs use to perform in the
classroom. The test task and the procedure (i.e., simulated, with
student questions) elicit the language needed not only to organize their
discourse while presenting, but also to maintain the flow of their
presentations while successfully responding to student
questions.
Note
The authors contributed equally to this work. We are grateful
to the UCLA Office of Instructional Development for allowing us to use
the data.
References
Anderson-Hsieh, J., & Koehler. K. (1988). The effect of
foreign accent and speaking rate on native speaker comprehension. Language Learning, 38, 561–570.
Farnsworth, T. (2004). The effect of teaching skills
on holistic ratings of language ability in performance tests for
international teaching assistant selection (Unpublished
master’s thesis). University of California, Los Angeles.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A
simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for
conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.
Williams, J. (1992). Planning, discourse marking, and the
comprehensibility of international teaching assistants. TESOL
Quarterly, 26, 693–711.
Hye Ri Stephanie Kim (PhD, UCLA) is a lecturer in the Writing
Programs at UCLA. Her research interests include conversation analysis
and its applications to language learning and teaching. She has
published her papers in Research on Language and Social
Interaction and Journal of
Pragmatics.
Innhwa Park (PhD, UCLA) is an assistant professor in the
Department of Languages and Cultures at West Chester University. Her
teaching and research interests include writing pedagogy, educational
discourse, and conversation analysis. She has published her research in Discourse Studies and Journal of
Pragmatics.
|