ABOUT/CONTACT SEMINAR SLAA （Second Language Acquisition & Assessment Research Group）  FOR STUDENTS  TEASY  LINK

---

8.5 Student Survey Responses – Interact

n  Total of 119 students participated in the open-ended survey of 2013 (Table 8.2).

n  The students’ comments, as well as the teachers interview data, revealed a wide range of perspective on interact.

n  That is, they referred to differential interpretation of spontaneous and unrehearsed, the use of appropriate grammar, and task variables.

n  Additionally, interlocuter variables and washback were considered.

8.5.1 Spontaneity and Grammar

n  Most students reported an emphasis on interaction that had to be unrehearsed and spontaneous based on their knowledge. They had to choose a topic and then make up a conversation on the spot, so they were not allowed to script scenarios and had to speak spontaneously.

n  In context where “spontaneous and unrehearsed” appeared to be interpreted quite literally, several students comment suggested that this aspect of assessment contributed to negative impact.

n  Some student said that it was difficult to have a spontaneous conversation using high level vocabulary and phrases. Consequently, it made the students uncomfortable and very nervous.

n  In order to enhance the positive impact on Interact, some students proposed that they need to have a level of prior preparation such as being given a topic beforehand and making a rough draft. A level of pre-planning can make the students avoid the situation where they have nothing to say about the given topic.

8.5.2 Types of Tasks

n  The nature and what students were being asked to talk about were important issues for a number of students.

n  Several students commented that they found the tasks they engaged in contributed to the sense of unnaturalness or lack of authenticity for their real-life situations.

n  Some student commented that they found interact difficult when the subject did not interest them, and they did not have a lot to comment about the subject.

n  The lack of perceived authenticity in some topics led to less positive interaction with the task, and the task was made challenging to complete.

n  Interact could be improved by involving more natural topics that have more interest for young people and talking about things more relatable to their lives.

Peer-to-Peer Interaction

n  The students perceived value and importance of peer-to-peer interaction. According to their comments, peer-to-peer interaction was seen as a distinct advantage of the assessment, and interact was less intimidating than converse, leading to feeling less nervous or more confident.

n  However, there was a potential limitation to the effectiveness of peer-to-peer interaction. When peers could prepare beforehand there was less need to be concerned about dealing with unpredictable things that teachers may say. By contrast, some students suggested that if partners had not practiced at all, the unpredictability could be a problem. There was a risk that interlocuter variables might become unfairly influential.

Working for Washback

n  Teachers’ perspective on how successful realization of interact depended on the students’ experiences of spontaneous and unrehearsed interactions throughout their learning programs. A number of students reiterated this cumulative effect for assessments.

n  For example, some student commented that when they first did interact assessment, it was very scary because they didn’t know what to be expected, but after a few times, it was a lot better.

n  Several comments went beyond the assessments and suggested the benefit of exposing students to more opportunities to speak and interact in classrooms.

Conclusion

n  As regards the students’ perspectives on interact in comparison with converse, two key findings arose from the quantitative data.

n  First, students rated converse and interact essentially the same on all measurement aspects of the test usefulness construct.

n  Second, students’ opinions were divided over the efficacy of converse and interact, which means students who rated converse or interact highly in different respects would be students who rated them correspondently poorly.

n  From the qualitative data, the open-ended comments shed light on the diversity of perceptions of interact. For example, several students, on the one hand, commented that they enjoyed the interact standard because it gave them a chance to use what they were learning in real situation. On the other hand, there were students who reported that they did not enjoy the assessment and found it difficult, hard, very stressful.

Discussion question

This chapter revealed that the students wanted to have a level of preparation time before they took the interact assessment. What should (not) students do as preparation of interact assessment? What kind of preparation do (not) teachers permit them for preparation?