To what extent do special-purpose criteria for assessing spoken interaction recontextualize in the assessment setting what counts as communicative competence in professional settings? Current work in discourse analysis brings a critical perspective to bear on the primarily linguistic orientation of traditional assessment procedures. We examine this issue by discussing two contrasting projects. An Australian study of immigrant health professionals found a mismatch between successful performance on a test of occupation-specific English-language communicative ability and clinical supervisors' perceptions of the adequacy of their supervisees' English communication skills. To investigate this discrepancy, tape-recordings of performances from prior test administrations were re-rated by ESL raters and the native-speaking clinical supervisors involved. Expected differences between both groups' ratings were not found; the test was apparently not getting at those aspects of communicative competence which concerned the supervisors. An American project, involving ethnographic and discourse analytic methods, documented routine practices through which members of a university physics research group are socialized into field-specific discourse practices. It was found that native and non-native English-speaking members routinely prepared for upcoming conferences by simulating performances of their presentations which were then evaluated by the group. Analysis revealed the wide range of details oriented to by the physicists as they discussed the performances. Locating comparable assessment activities in other professional settings may cast light on criteria in these settings relevant to the assessment of special-purpose spoken interaction. This information may be used to critique existing test criteria and may possibly also be used as the basis for establishing more relevant ones. © 1999 The American University. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
Author Keywords
Index Keywords
