Bessie Dendrinos
TESTING AND TEACHING MEDIATION
Abstract
This paper is the result of a larger
research project on mediation, an innovative aspect of the KPG exams and a communicative activity
launched into the European foreign
language teaching and assessment project
through the Common European Framework
of Languages (2001), is
comprehensively explained in the first
part of this paper, which also discusses
what mediation involves. Given that
teachers, candidates and other
interested parties often confuse
mediation practice with translation, the
nature of the KPG mediation activities
is elucidated, examples are provided,
and mediation tasks are analysed with a
view to ascertaining purpose and
difficulty. What is expected, in terms
of mediation performance, and research
findings regarding the problems
encountered by candidates in the role of
mediators are also presented. Actually,
all the issues contained in this paper
are motivated by the concerns shared by
all those who are apprehensive about
candidates not being prepared for
mediation tasks, which are an important
part of two out of the four KPG test
papers. The reasons are many, but what
teachers themselves say is that they
don’t really know what mediation is and
how to deal with it in the classroom,
that they don’t have the right materials
with which to ‘teach’ mediation. The
wish to familiarize teachers with
mediation as an aspect of language use
worth incorporating into foreign
language programmes is the motivating
force of this paper, which views
mediation and the systematic preparation
for mediation activity as ethical
practice.
Keywords:
mediation, mediator, interlingual and
intralingual mediation, intercultural
mediation, translation, interpretation,
social practice
1. The notion and practice of mediation
Mediation is the act of extracting
meaning from visual or verbal texts in
one language, code, dialect or idiom and
relaying it in another, so as to
facilitate communication. That is,
mediation, which has also been defined
at length elsewhere (Dendrinos
2007a,2007b[1]
and 2006), entails providing information
from a source text that an interested
party has no access to, or explaining a
message contained in a text (verbal or
visual) to someone who does not
understand it.
As users of language(s) and informed
about cultural and social practices, we
are all potentially mediators.
When we assume the role of mediator, it
is so as to participate in a
communicative event, acting as a
go-between, an intermediary whose
job is to help someone understand the
message delivered. We intervene to help
the flow of interaction and facilitate
the exchange. The need usually arises
when two or more parties interacting are
experiencing a communication breakdown
or when there is some type of
communication gap between them. The
mediator intercedes as a meaning
negotiator, undertaking the task of
reconciliation, settlement or
compromise of meanings.
When we perform as mediators, we become
meaning-making agents; that is, we
create meaning for someone else, who is
unable to understand what is going on,
to comprehend a text, whether this is in
a
language
s/he knows well or it is in a
foreign language. We create and
interpret meanings through speech or
writing for our interlocutor(s), with
whom we may or may not share linguistic,
cultural and/or social experiences.
From the above, it becomes obvious that
we mediate when there is need to make
accessible information that a friend, a
colleague, a family member, etc. does
not grasp; it originates from the need
to have
something
clarified, to interpret or reinterpret a
message, to sum up what a text says for
one or more persons, for an audience,
for a group of readers, etc.
Interpreting a word, phrase
or
a whole
text as part of the act of mediation
should not be confused with the job of
the professional interpreter – at least
not if one thinks along KPG lines. The
KPG definition of mediation does not
coincide with the definition provided in
the Common European Framework of
Languages (henceforth CEFR), where
mediation is viewed as synonymous
with
translation
and with
interpretation. There is a rather
sharp distinction between written
mediation in the writing test paper of
the KPG exam (Module 2) and professional
translation of functional, technical or
literary texts. Moreover, there is a
very pronounced distinction between
simultaneous interpretation (at
conferences, business meetings, etc.),
consecutive interpretation (during
speeches, guided
tours)
and other
similar practices on the one hand, and
KPG oral mediation on the other. The
latter concurs with what the CEFR
describes as informal interpretation in
social and transactional situations for
friends, family, clients –
interpretation of signs, menus, notices,
etc. However, mediation is not limited
to interpretation. It may serve a series
of other communicative purposes, such as
reporting, explaining, directing,
elaborating or providing gist, defining,
instructing, and much more.
Usually, when people in real life
mediate – and this is true of KPG
mediation
too – they may resort to
certain translation and interpretation
techniques, but their job is not
to produce a text or speech
equivalent in meaning and similar in
form as when translation and
interpretation are at work. The very
purpose of translation and
interpretation is the production of
configurations which are as close as
possible to the original, i.e. to the
source text. The task of translators and
interpreters is to establish
corresponding meanings between source
and target text, with perfect respect
for the source text – the what
and the how it articulates its
meanings.
Mediators, unlike translators and
interpreters, have the
prerogative
of producing their own text; a text
which may not be equivalent in terms of
form, while it may be loosely connected
in terms of the meanings articulated.
Mediators
bring into the end product their own
‘voice,’ often expressing their take on
an issue. They select which meanings or
messages to extract from a source text
and then decide how to convey them.
Their choice in real life is necessarily
dependent on why the mediator is
interfering, which means that the
outcome of mediation (particularly where
form is concerned) is task specific and
addressor specific. The outcomes of
translation and interpretation on the
other hand are usually text specific,
though the audience for whom the text is
intended is always taken into account.
Put differently, the translator’s and
interpreter’s ‘loyalties’ lie with the
source text, whereas mediators’
loyalties lie first and foremost with
the interlocutor.
Finally, translators and interpreters
have
no ‘right’ to change the discourse,
genre or register of their text; it is
to be the same as the source text. For
example, say that someone undertakes the
job of translating a theatrical play.
What s/he must do is to produce a play
in another language, not a summary or a
review of that play! A mediation task on
the other hand may involve just that. An
advanced level KPG test paper could
include a short one-act play in the
candidates’ L1[2]
and the mediation task could be to have
candidates use L2 to speak on the
meaning of the play (oral mediation
task) or to have them write a review of
that play (written mediation task).
Mediators have the right to
change the discourse, genre or register
of their text, and having the
prerogative to do so is not an issue
because it is an inherent component of
their role as mediators. Imagine that
you are a medical student and you visit
the doctor with your father, who has
been taken ill. Upon leaving the
doctor’s
office, your father asks you to tell him
what the doctor’s diagnosis was because
he didn’t understand a word of what she
said – not because what she said was in
a foreign language, but because she used
medical discourse. So, your father puts
you in the role of mediator, and this
isn’t always easy not only because you
have to think of how to turn medical
discourse into plain language, but
because you also have to interpret the
communication breakdown between doctor
and patient, which may be quite complex.
No matter what, though, your job is to
select those bits of the doctor’s
message that you think are crucial and
say them in a way that the patient (your
father) can understand. If there is
serious illness involved, you may have
to modify or play down what the doctor
said, or you may even consciously decide
to conceal some information so as not to
scare him.
The case discussed above
is
an instance
of intralinguistic
mediation. It does not involve relaying
information from one language to another
but in the same language. In
other words the doctor spoke, say, Greek
and you report the doctor’s diagnosis to
your father also in Greek. Some teachers
would say that this is an act of
transforming direct to reported speech.
But, obviously, this is more than a
(grammatical) transformation exercise,
because what the mediator has to do here
is to select salient information
provided in medical discourse used
perhaps to account for the symptoms and
conveyed in formal register (possibly to
report, instruct, warn, etc.), and to
relay all or part of this to the patient
in simple, everyday, informal language.
Another example
of intralinguistic
real-life mediation is when, say, you
tell your friends Joshua and Laura a
joke in English. While you’re expecting
both of them to laugh, Laura bursts out
in loud laughter but Joshua just smiles
and looks confused. Laura explains
what’s funny about the joke, using
English which is the common language
between the three of you. The act she’s
performing is intralinguistic mediation.
She’s mediating in the same
language, as you did when you went with
your father to the doctor earlier.
Though such tasks are not labelled as
mediation, KPG does use
intralinguistic mediation tasks,
involving only the target language,
i.e., the language tested.
For example, the first activity of the
C1 writing test paper asks the candidate
to extract information from one text in
English and to compose a script using
the information extracted. In many
instances the text to be produced is to
be of a different genre and register
than the source text, as for example
where candidates are asked to read a
webpage which provides information
regarding ‘Education for sustainable
development’ and are asked to write a
review, recommending the webpage to
website visitors (Appendix 1).
Unlike intralinguistic,
interlinguistic mediation
involves two (or more) languages. A real
life example is when you’re watching CNN
and your mother who doesn’t understand
English happens to see a scene which
surprises her. Impressed by it, she asks
you what’s going on. You’ve been
listening to the news and you report to
her in Greek the gist of what’s
happened. It is this type of
interlinguistic (oral) mediation task
that we see in the KPG speaking test,
with
one significant difference: candidates
are asked to mediate only from Greek to
English and never the other way around.
The same is true of written mediation,
whereby candidates are asked to use
information in a written text in Greek
to compose one in English which may be
of a similar or of a totally different
text type, register and style, while the
two texts may have totally different
genre (that is, text type and
communicative purpose). For example, a
writing mediation task could originate
from two Greek ads about houses that a
teacher could easily locate on the
internet. The mediation task that could
be assigned is:
Read the two ads about houses for rent
on the island of Kalymnos, where your
friend Amelia wants to spend one month
in the summer with her family. Write an
email to her to inform her about what’s
available and to recommend one of the
two to her.
We can use the doctor-patient example
provided above to explain further
interlinguistic mediation – the only
kind
of mediation that the KPG actually
labels as mediation. If the cause
of the communication gap between doctor
and patient was language – i.e., that
the interlocutors spoke different
languages (say, the doctor spoke English
only and the patient Greek) – you, as
mediator, would be called upon to relay
salient points of the doctor’s message
in English to the patient in Greek. Or
vice-versa, if the language spoken by
the doctor was Greek and the patient
spoke English only. This latter type of
communicative situation resembles the
context set up for the KPG mediation
tasks in the speaking test. For example,
the November 2005 speaking test paper
contained a magazine page with short
numbered texts about fun activities for
children. One of the related tasks was:
Help your friends who have two children
(aged 10 and 12). They are in Greece for
the summer. Give them advice about
activities that their children would
enjoy. Read texts 2 and 3 and explain
why their children would enjoy these
particular activities.
Obviously, mediation is both a spoken
and written activity in our everyday
life. Therefore, both spoken and written
mediation are tested in KPG, where
candidates produce an oral or a written
text in
L2
for the speaking and the writing test,
respectively, based on one or several
source texts, in L1. The Greek source
texts from which candidates are asked to
extract information are always written
and often complemented with visuals (a
graph, a map, a sketch, a photo).
What has just been
explained
in the
above example concerns the linguistic
mediator. However, increasingly
important is the function of the
cultural mediator[3]
– a role that entails explaining the
social meaning of specific cultural
practices or traditions, filling in
information gaps about social issues,
customs and values, or accounting for
the operation of social institutions,
etc. We conventionally do these things
for listeners or readers who do not
share the same cultural experiences with
us. In other words, we intervene not
because our interlocutor lacks the
linguistic resources but rather the
cultural awareness required; s/he does
not have insight into the cultural
reality in question, or rather what we
call ‘intercultural awareness’ – insight
into one’s own and the foreign culture.
The person in the role of cultural
mediator does have it and is
therefore able to explain things to
someone who lacks it. Think, for
example, of a situation where a group of
Greek friends are talking politics; they
are rather loud, they often interrupt
one another and all talk at the same
time. An English friend, watching, asks
you why these people are fighting. Your
friend’s question puts you in the
position of cultural mediator so that
you explain that they are not actually
fighting; they’re just expressing their
views in a passionate manner.
Actually, the KPG
exams
do assess target
cultural awareness, but indirectly and
not in isolation from language. For
example, in the May 2007 English exam of
B2 level, Activity 7 of the reading test
(Module 1) is an
acrostic quiz. Candidates are asked to
read what people are saying in COLUMN B,
to guess what their job is, and fill in
the gaps in COLUMN A. To fill in item
No. 69 below with the word ACTOR, the
candidate must have quite a bit of
cultural knowledge to pick up the cues
and infer that the person speaking is an
actor.
|
COLUMN A |
COLUMN B |
69. |
_ _ _ |
O |
_ |
...I auditioned for the part but had no hopes. So, I was stunned and
scared. I’d not done Shakespeare
before and never thought I’d be
the one chosen to do Antony!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Furthermore, in order to successfully
complete the mediation tasks of the
speaking and the writing tests of B
level and C level
exams, candidates are
required to have developed not only (socio)linguistic
awareness, but also (inter)cultural
awareness. An example documenting this
is
the B2 level speaking test of the April
2005 exam in English, which contains a
task where candidates are asked to look
at various photos (Appendix 2) and
explain what the purpose of each
ceremony is, and what usually happens on
such occasions. Also, candidates need to
have developed cultural and
intercultural awareness in order to
respond to tasks such as the ones below,
which are from a speaking test activity
of the C1 level exam in English.
Tell us what you think people mean with
the saying “Don’t put all your eggs in
one basket,” and if you think that this
is always true.
There is an English saying which goes:
“Absence makes the heart grow fonder.”
There’s also a Greek saying which is the
exact opposite: “ÌÜôéá
ðïõ
äå
âëÝðïíôáé,
ãñÞãïñá
ëçóìïíéïýíôáé”.
Which one would you agree with and why?
Finally, comprehension tasks in the KPG
exams often include cultural information
aiming at a backwash effect for the
development of intercultural awareness.
For example, the May 2007 B1 level exam
in English contains the activity below.
Fill in the gaps in items 46-50 with ONE
word so that each rule makes sense.
![](issue1_1f_files/eikona1.jpg)
2. What KPG mediation involves
What is labelled as mediation in the KPG
exams involves verbal activity intended
to bridge the gap between a source text
in L1 and a target text in L2. The
mediation tasks in the writing tests of
the B1 and B2 level exams require that
the candidate selectively extract
information, ideas and specific
meanings, and then produce a script
which has the same thematic concerns but
often is to be articulated in different
discourse, genre, register and/or style.
The
B1 level Horoscope mediation task
(Appendix 3) is a good example.
In
doing this task, though the thematic
concern of the source and target texts
is similar, successful completion
necessitates production of different
discourse, genre, register and style.
That is, whereas the source text
is a horoscope, the text that the
candidate is asked to produce is an
e-mail.
Also, whereas the source text makes
use of public, impersonal
discourse and semi-formal language, the
target text requires use of more
private, personal discourse and informal
language.
It becomes obvious that mediation is no
easy
job
– neither linguistically nor
cognitively. Mediators have to make
complicated decisions about the
information to be extracted from the
source text, the content of the message
to be delivered and the form of the text
to be created, so that it is appropriate
for the communicative event and useful
for the other participant(s). On the
other hand, mediation tasks usually
demand degrees of literacy in both
languages as well as various types of
competences and skills. In other words,
depending on what the task actually is,
demands may be any one or more of the
following (Table 1):
1. |
Sociocultural awareness,
which includes lifeworld
knowledge, knowledge of how two
languages operate at the level
of discourse and genre, as well
as rules of text and sentence
grammar and of the grammar of
visual design. |
2. |
Literacies,
i.e. school literacy, social
literacy and practical
literacy. |
3. |
Competencies,
i.e. linguistic competence,
sociolinguistic competence,
discourse competence and
strategic competence. |
4. |
Cognitive skills
to read between the lines,
select pertinent information,
retain and recall information
for use in a new context,
combine prior knowledge and
experience with new information,
combine information from a
variety of source texts, solve a
problem, a mystery, a query,
predict, guess, foresee, infer,
make a hypothesis, come to a
conclusion. |
5. |
Social skills
to recognize the interlocutor’s
communicative needs and be able
to facilitate the process of
communication, negotiate
information by adjusting
effectiveness, efficiency and
relevance to the context of
situation. |
Table 1.
What mediation entails
|
As already pointed out, the goal of
mediation is to facilitate interaction
during a communicative event, to fill in
a
communication
gap or resolve some sort of
communication breakdown. The goal
itself sounds uncomplicated, but the
process is rather challenging, as Table
2 below shows.
1. |
Developing an understanding of
the problem, the information
gap, etc., by resorting to
one’s socio-cultural knowledge
and experiences. |
2. |
Considering the interlocutors’
needs and determining in advance
what type of intervention is
required. |
3. |
Listening to or reading the
source text with the purpose of
locating the pieces of
information, or the message
which must be relayed. |
4. |
Deciding what to relay from the
L1 text into the L2, decisions
which are not only
content-related but also
language-related.[4] |
5. |
Drawing upon the gist of the
source text to frame the new
text and/or recalling bits of
information. |
6. |
Planning the organization of the
output. |
7. |
Entering a meaning-making
process as the target text is
being articulated. |
8. |
Negotiating meaning with the
(real or imagined) interlocutor.
|
Table 2. The process of
mediation |
All the steps that the
mediation
process entails are demanding, but step
7 is perhaps the most crucial of all, at
least from a linguistic point of view.
3. The use of L1 and mediation in the
KPG exams
It has been made clear that the writing
and speaking test papers of the KPG
exams in all languages test candidates’
oral and written mediation performance
from the B1 level exam onwards. In the A
level
exams, mediation is not tested, though
there is consistent use of the L1 in the
reading and listening test papers. The
use of L1 at this level functions as a
facilitator to understanding the L2, as
will be shown below.
3.1. The use of L1 in the A level
exam
3.1.1.
Reading comprehension
The texts that candidates have to read
are always in L2, whereas the rubrics
are consistently in both languages, as
in the example in Appendix 4. The
reading comprehension items which
accompany the text (mostly
objective-type items like multiple
choice, multiple matching, True or
False, etc.)
are
commonly in L2, with two exceptions:
There are two activities whose items are
articulated in L1. The function of L1 in
this case is to help candidates
demonstrate their understanding of
content and the semantic/pragmatic
meaning of parts of the text or of
single utterances. The discussion that
follows and the examples provided below
illustrate these points.
Knowing that foreign language readers
understand much more than that which
they are able to produce – partly
because
they lack the ‘vocabulary’ in the target
language to express themselves – L1 is
used to pose rather sophisticated
questions (Appendix 4). The Step 1 task,
originating from a text in English but
with reading comprehension items in
Greek, aims to test the reader’s
understanding of the purpose and gist of
the text. Such items would be too
difficult for the A level reader to
understand if they were posed in English
rather than Greek. The second step aims
to test language awareness, and L1 is
used to pose questions about the
pragmatic meaning of utterances in the
text. Of course, this task also tests
candidates’ ability to establish
semantic equivalence between utterances
in L1 and L2, which is cognitively quite
a demanding job.
3.1.2. Listening comprehension
Texts that KPG candidates
listen to are always in the
target language. The rubrics in Module
3, i.e. the listening comprehension test
paper, are consistently in both the L2
and L1, like in Module 1. The listening
comprehension items which accompany the
text (mostly objective-type, such as
multiple choice or True-False) are in
L2. There is only one activity in the
listening test where L1 is used for a
similar purpose as in the reading
comprehension test: to help candidates
state what they have understood without
having to use L2 at a level of
competence they have not yet developed.
For example, they listen to three
recorded phone messages and they are
asked to respond to True and False items
with regard to the purpose of each phone
message. The choices are in Greek.
4. Testing mediation in the B and C
level exams
The CEFR does not provide a list of
benchmarked illustrative descriptors for
each level of language competence for
mediation, as it does for other areas of
language use. It is our long-term goal
at the RCeL, on the basis
of a
large-scale research project which has
already started, to provide a detailed
account of mediation performance at each
one of the levels where mediation is
tested in the KPG exams. In the
meantime, this paper explains, based on
published KPG specifications and task
description, what the expectations for
mediation task completion in the KPG
exams are
-
in the two test papers that assess
mediation, and
-
at macro levels of proficiency where
mediation is assessed, i.e. at B level
(Autonomous user), which includes
micro-levels B1 and B2, and at C level
(Proficient User).
4.1.
Mediation in the writing test
Mediation tasks in the writing test
originate from text(s) found in printed
or website sources on issues that are
relevant to the average Greek
candidates’ cultural experiences and
literacy.
Tasks are designed to
encourage
the use
of the text as a source of
information rather than as a
meaningful entity in one language to be
rendered as a whole into another
language, as in the case of a
translation task. Tasks in the B1, B2
and C1 level writing test increasingly
require that candidates make reference
to specific points raised in the Greek
text as well as add additional
information which stems from their world
knowledge and experiences regarding the
issue in question.
The assessment criteria for writing
performance at each level, based on an
L1 source text, are the same as the
criteria for
writing
performance for tasks with cues or a
source text in L2. To help the script
rater assess candidates’ mediation
performance, expectations for mediation
task completion are articulated, though
there is a need to standardize these
expectations more for each micro-level,
across languages.
4.1.1.
B1
level writing task completion
expectations
According to the KPG
published
specifications, candidates are expected
to
compose in the target language a script
of about 100 words which:
The Greek texts in
the
B1 level test papers are very often from
popular magazines and touch on topics
such as health and diet, exercise and
daily routines, travel and sports, work
and school, human relations. In other
words, they are on topics that do not
require the use of specialized
vocabulary. Writing mediation tasks stem
from either several brief texts on one
topic, appearing on a single page
usually elaborately designed, or from a
single text in sections, also richly
illustrated. Extended narratives, news
articles or reports are altogether
avoided.
As writing mediation tasks (WMT) from
different
exam administrations show[5],
the script to be produced is
consistently of a genre that candidates
are very familiar with – an e-mail
message – to give advice, warn, inform,
explain, describe, etc.:
WMT 01: The task of the May 2007 exam
administration is based on several brief
texts regarding myths and facts about
nutrition from a Greek magazine.
Candidates are asked to write an e-mail,
giving their friend tips about healthy
eating.
WMT 02: The task of the November 2007 is
based on two horoscopes which are
divided into sections about love and
career, and which also contain a piece
of advice. Candidates are asked to write
an e-mail to a friend, Ursula, to warn
her about spending too much money and to
tell her that, based on what the
horoscope says, her husband might get
the job he’s been waiting for.
WMT 03: The task of the May 2009
administration is based on a single text
about the Mediterranean diet, divided
into sections and complemented with a
visual, which labels the foods in
English to help candidates with
vocabulary. Candidates are asked to
write an e-mail to their friend Scott,
explaining what the Mediterranean diet
is all about.
The cognitive demands in all of
these
tasks are related but different, and the
linguistic requirements vary. In all
three instances, candidates must select
pertinent information from the source
text and use it to convey a message in
L2.
In the case of WMT
01, candidates have
to use the information provided in L1
statement form to give their friend tips
in English about healthy eating. These
tips may be expressed in the form of
suggestions (‘You should … ,’ ‘It’s a
good idea to … ,’ etc.), in the form of
commands (‘Do this … ,’ ‘Avoid that … ,’
etc.) or as factual statements, either
in impersonal or personal forms (‘We
should drink lots of water,’ or ‘People
should not drink …,’ ‘We should not
drink water or soft drinks with our
food,’ or ‘People should not drink … ,’
etc.).
Relevant-to-the-task selection of
information is required in WMT 02. But
whereas in WMT 01 candidates have to
read each short text very carefully and
decide which tip they will use and how
they will express it, in WMT 02 the
required information is in specific
parts of the text, each of which has a
heading. So, candidates skim though and
focus each time on the relevant part,
interpret the message contained in
accordance with what the task asks them
to do, and use the information to a)
warn in the one part of their script,
and b) make a prediction in the other.
In the case of the third example, WMT
03, candidates are required to combine
bits of information from
the
whole text in order to explain what the
Mediterranean diet (described verbally
and visually in the source text) is.
4.1.2. B2 level writing task completion
expectations
According to
published specifications, candidates are
expected to compose a socially
meaningful text in the target language –
a script of 130-150 words which:
-
conveys the main idea of a text in
Greek, or
-
makes a summary of the Greek text, or
-
relays messages contained in the Greek
text
Systematic task description at this
level shows that the L1 texts in the B2
level test papers are on more
sophisticated topics than those at B1
level, such as those from which tasks WMT 04-06 originated.[6]
They are also from a wider variety of
sources, such as promotion leaflets,
newspapers, magazines, books and
websites. Both the source text and the
target text are of a wider variety of
genres. That is, while at B1 level the
source texts are frequently short,
popular magazine texts on everyday
topics and candidates are asked to write
personal messages drawing information
from the source texts, at B2 level there
is a wider range of text types, such as
a graph (November 2003), a tourist guide
(June 2004), a webpage (November 2004),
a newspaper article with a figures table
(April 2005), and a website event
announcement (November 2005). The text
types to be produced are quite diverse
also, as one can see in the examples
provided below.
WMT 04: The task of the May 2006
administration is based on a Greek book
announcement containing factual
information about the novel (title and
author, ISBN, cost, publishing house,
etc.) with the story line of the novel
articulated as a narrative. Candidates
are asked to write a book announcement
for the publisher’s English book
catalogue.[7]
WMT 05: The task of the May 2008
administration is based on four movie
briefs, of the type that one finds in
the film section of a newspaper or
magazine. Candidates are asked to write
a text for the WHAT’S ON guide appearing
in English, recommending two films for
children and two for teenagers.
WMT 06: The task of the May 2009
administration is based on a webpage of
the Greek Ornithological Society,
promoting a volunteer project on the
island of Syros. Candidates are asked to
write an e-mail to their friend Martin,
with whom they have decided to spend
part of their summer vacation doing
volunteer work. Using information from
the website, they are to try and
convince Martin that it’s a good idea
for the two of them to take part in this
project. They are not totally free to
choose any bits of information; rather,
it is suggested that they stress those
aspects of the project which make it
particularly ideal for them, i.e the
location, the flexible dates, the cost,
and the type of work they will be doing.
4.1.3.
C1
level writing task completion
expectations
According to the published
specifications, C1 level candidates are
expected to be able to use their
knowledge and the communicative
competencies they have developed as
users of Greek and the target language,
in order to act as mediators in the
educational, professional or public
sphere. More specifically, candidates
are expected to compose a 200-word
script in the target language in order
to:
-
convey the main idea or supporting
details of a Greek text, or
-
summarize a Greek text, or
-
interpret in the target language the
meaning or meanings of one or more
messages in Greek.
Task analysis reveals that there are
certain differences between the B2 and
C1 level source texts used for
mediation
activity, such as length and
sophistication of text. While a variety
of genres are to be produced, as in B2
level mediation, C1 level production
requires:
-
an impersonal text articulating public
discourse, or
-
a text type which coincides with the
source text, or
-
more specialized vocabulary (motivated
by the source text) and formal register
(instigated by the task).
Actually, at C1 level, the mediation
task obliges
candidates
to stick more closely to the source text
and relay specific pieces of information
rather than select those items they can
write about in the target language.
Below are some examples:
WMT 08: The task of the November 2006
administration is based on the website
of the
SOS Villages Greece, and candidates are
asked to produce a report for an
international organization which funds
important social projects.[8]
The purpose of the report is to promote
the work being done in Greece and to
stress its social usefulness so that
they get the funding they need.
WMT 09: The task here (Nov 2007) is
based on a newspaper article,
translated from English into Greek,
originally published in the Evening
Chronicle. This article, which also
contains two pie charts, presents the
results of a survey on tourist services
in Greece and specifically the
percentage of tourists who believe that
services in Greece are good, mediocre or
bad and the percentages who believe that
it is better, worse or the same as other
EU countries. Candidates are asked to
read the charts and the article and
write a letter to the newspaper editor
to a) express doubt that this is what
people really think of Greece, b) point
out that the article does not reveal how
the survey was conducted and by whom,
and c) present their own evaluation of
tourist services in Greece.
WMT 10: The task of the November 2008
administration is based on the review
(in Greek) of a book which
originally had
been written in Swedish and recently translated into English. Candidates
are asked to use the information from
the book review and write a book
presentation for the catalogue of the
publishing house they supposedly work
for.
The genres to be produced in all the
examples above are obviously more
demanding linguistically than those of
B1 and B2 level: Twice candidates are
asked to produce a report, and a third
time a letter to the editor of a
newspaper. But even when they are asked
to produce a text of a similar type as
that produced at B1 or B2 level, such as
an e-mail, at C1 level the communicative
purpose is quite different (Appendix 6).
4.2. Mediation in the KPG Speaking
Test
Mediation tasks in the
speaking
test
require that information be extracted
from the texts, which are chosen
carefully to suit the average Greek
candidate in terms of age and literacy.
However, there is consideration given to
the fact that there are both younger and
older candidates taking part in the KPG
exams[9];
as a result, texts are chosen and tasks
are developed in a way that some are
more conducive to the adult candidates’
cultural experiences and literacies, and
others to those of younger candidates.
Most importantly, however, the source
texts are selected with a view to being
a rich source of information which
stimulates talk.
For those readers
who
are not familiar
with the KPG examination battery, it
should be mentioned that the speaking
test (Module 4 of the exams in all
languages and levels) involves the use
of a Candidate Booklet and an Examiner
Pack. The Candidate Booklet is an
illustrated publication in full colour,
and each titled page or page section,
which contains texts on a single theme,
is designed up to look like a page out
of a magazine, a brochure, a website,
etc. (Appendices 7a and 7b). For each
text/theme, several tasks are developed
and they are included in the Examiner
Pack, which is not available to the
candidates. The examiner may choose
which task to assign to which candidate
(for the B level test), or to which pair
of candidates (for the C level test).
For the KPG speaking test, two examiners
and two candidates are present in the
exam room. One of
the two examiners assumes the role of
Interlocutor and assigns the tasks to
candidates orally. For the B1 and B2
speaking tests, different tasks are
assigned to each candidate, who is asked
to address either only the
examiner-interlocutor or everyone in the
room. For the C1 level speaking test,
the two candidates in the room are
assigned the same task and are asked to
interact with one another and exchange
information from a Greek source text.
4.2.1. B1 and
B2 level speaking task completion
expectations
According to
the
published specifications, B level
candidates are expected to use the
target language to:
-
relay selected information from L1
texts, or
-
express the gist of L1 texts, or
-
talk about an issue discussed in an L1
text.
Task description indicates that the
source texts are on issues of everyday
concern, such as health and diet, the
environment and saving energy, travel
and holiday, entertainment, home safety,
work and education, public holidays and
celebrations, means of transport.
The B level mediation test requires
one-sided talk, which means that the
source text must provide
enough
information/ideas to allow each
candidate in the room to speak in the
target language for about 2½ -3 minutes,
performing the task assigned.
Analysis of B1 and B2 level
speaking
mediation tasks (SMT) reveals that each
task, which is linked to a single
page/theme/text, commonly points the
candidate to a different part/section of
the text. Each task has a different
communicative purpose, a different
addressee, and it often concerns a
different person, while it may also set
up a different situational context.
Consider, for example, the two out of
the four B1 level tasks for a page
entitled Fruit in children’s diet
from the speaking test of the November
2007 exam in English.
SMT 01: Imagine I am your Belgian
friend and my 14-year-old son never eats
fruit. Read the text and give me some
advice on what I should do to change his
mind.
SMT 02: Imagine I am your Swedish
friend and my children do not like
eating fresh fruit. Read the text and
suggest ways to add fruit to their diet.
It is interesting to note that the
person to be addressed in both tasks is
the examiner in the role of a friend,
and
that the situational context is more
or less the same. However, the language
function to be performed in each case is
somewhat different; that is, in SMT 01
the candidate is to give advice about
what to do, and in SMT 02 to suggest
ways of doing something differently.
Also, each task concerns different
parties and undertakings, which means
that the attention of the candidate is
directed to a different part of the
text; in SMT 01 the candidate is to find
information useful for getting a
teenager to change his mind about eating
fruit, while in SMT 02 the candidate is
to find information useful for a parent
interested in adding fruit to his/her
child’s diet.
Now consider
two more B1 level tasks
from a different page of the Candidate
Booklet, entitled Sea and safety,
from the same oral mediation test as
above.
SMT 03: Your Austrian friend and her
family are going to spend their summer
holidays on a Greek island. Read the
text and tell her what she should be
extra careful about when she takes her
kids to the beach.
SMT 04: You are the leader of an
international camp for young children.
Read the text and give advice to the
young children on how to swim safely.
The person(s) whom the candidates are to
address in both tasks SMT 03 and SMT 04
is not the examiner
or
other people in
the exam room, but a third party they
are to imagine that they are speaking to
– their foreign friend, who is a parent.
The same is true of SMT 04. Again,
candidates are not asked to address the
examiner but a third party, this time, a
group of children. There are, of course,
expectations that the candidates’ talk
will be appropriate for this situational
context, which is different from that in
SMT 03.
Though the B1 level and the B2 level
tasks have much in common, there are
certain differences, which
mainly
have
to do with the topic of the source text
and the type of discourse to be
produced. At B2 level, it is often
semi-formal, impersonal, or requires the
use of some specialized vocabulary. For
example, see below the B2 level
mediation tasks linked to a page
entitled Recycling electrical goods,
from the English exam of the same period
as the B1 tasks above. It is not only
the topic that calls for a more
specialized vocabulary in the source
text, but also each task that originates
from this text. The discourse and
register the candidate is expected to
use when performing SMT 05 is quite
different from that used for SMT 01-04
because the situational context requires
the use of impersonal language, as in
the case of SMT 06, where the candidate
is asked to give advice to a friend not
on a personal matter that has to do with
human behaviour, relations, etc., but on
acting in an environmentally friendly
way.
SMT 05: Imagine you have been asked to
present in English a new recycling
programme for electrical goods. Using
information from Text 1, tell us what
points you will include in your
presentation.
SMT 06: Imagine your German friend
Ingrid wants to get rid of her old
computer. Using information from Text 2,
give her some advice on how to recycle
it.
The situational context is similar in
the B2 level examples below, included
here to explain the differences – even
though
they are subtle – with B1 level
mediation. All four tasks are from the
same test (November 2007 speaking test)
as tasks 05 and 06, and require the
production of some specialized
vocabulary because of the topic. SMT 07
and 08 are associated with the Greek
text on a page entitled Archery,
and SMT 09 and 10 from a source text on
a page entitled A successful job
interview. In addition, the
communicative act to be performed in
each case is somewhat impersonal,
requiring a semi-formal style of talk,
i.e. to tell someone about the benefits
of something (SMT 07), to tell others
what points will be included in a talk
about archery (SMT 08), to give someone
advice on a successful job interview (SMT
09), and to tell others what advice
would be offered to young people looking
for a job (SMT 10).
SMT 07: Imagine your Dutch friend
Marcel wants to take up a new hobby.
Read the text about archery and inform
him about the benefits of the sport and
the necessary equipment.
SMT 08: Imagine you are responsible
for the local sports centre. You’re
going to give a talk in English about
archery, a new sport to be offered at
the centre. Using information from the
text, tell us what points you will
include in your talk.
SMT 09: Imagine your Portuguese friend
Paolo is very anxious because he has got
an important job interview next week.
Read tips 1-4 and give him some advice
on how to be successful at his
interview.
SMT 10:
Imagine you’re going to give a talk in
English to young people who have just
started looking for a job. Read tips 1-4
and tell us what pieces of advice for a
successful job interview you will
include in your talk.
4.2.2.
C1
level speaking task completion
expectations
The main difference between the B level
and the C level oral mediation tasks is
that the latter involve interaction and
not merely one-sided talk. This means
that candidates are required to initiate
and sustain a conversation for about 10
minutes, and during that time to provide
their interlocutor with information and
converse with her/him in order to reach
a decision, resolve a problem, arrive at
a conclusion, etc., all of which demands
negotiation of meanings, ideas and
factual information.
The C1 level
Candidate
Booklet is, in
fact, organized in a way that is
suitable for this interactive mediation
activity: the first half of the Booklet
contains texts for Candidate A, and the
second half texts for Candidate B. Texts
A and B contain different chunks of
information, but they are both on
exactly the same issue and usually from
the same source, as the examples in
Appendices 7a and 7b, with texts giving
rise to tasks SMT 11 and 12. Each
candidate is instructed to look at
her/his own text, on a different page,
but the mediation task they are both
assigned is one such as the following:
SMT 11: Imagine that you and your
partner are planning a trip for the
Christmas and New Year holidays.
Exchange information from your texts and
decide about the most interesting New
Year’s celebration. This decision will
also help you decide which country you
might visit.
Alternatively, with another couple
of
candidates, the task originating from
these texts is:
SMT 12: Exchange information from your
texts with your partner and together
decide on the two most unusual customs
to write about for the special Christmas
issue of your school/local
newspaper/magazine.
This C1 activity, with two
different
speaking mediation tasks, involves
candidates in interaction and
negotiation for which they must have the
competences and skills presented earlier
(Table 1), so they can go through
processes also presented earlier (Table
2). The ultimate goal in each instance,
where candidates must consider different
circumstances, is for them to reach a
common decision.
Similarly, tasks SMT
13
and SMT 14 below
ask candidates to make a common
decision. The texts upon which the tasks
are based are on the issue of Anger
control. Each candidate is
instructed to look at her/his own
page/text and to:
SMT 13: Exchange information from your
texts and together decide on the two
most important things people should
avoid doing when they are angry and on
the two most effective ways to deal with
anger.
Or, alternatively, with another set of
candidates:
SMT 14: Exchange information from your
texts and together decide what pieces of
advice you would give to a newlywed
couple who have just had their first
argument.
Likewise, in other
C1
speaking mediation tasks, candidates are
most commonly called upon to make a
common decision, i.e.:
SMT 15: Read brief book reviews and
exchange information with your partner.
Then together a) decide which two are
the most likely to become best sellers,
or b)which four books you should buy
for your local/ school library.
SMT 16: Read pop magazine article tips
which might help you when shopping, and
with your partner decide a) which two
tips are the easiest to follow, or b)
which two tips are mainly addressed to
women and which to men.
SMT 17: Exchange information from your
texts, and with your partner decide
about a) the two most suitable dogs for
a family with children, or b) the two
most suitable dogs for a woman living on
her own.
5.
Mediation task difficulty
It is clear from the examples and
earlier discussion that both lifeworld
and test mediation tasks are
challenging. In the KPG exams, mediation
entails comprehension in L1 and
production in L2 and, as many studies
have argued,[10]
language and code switching is demanding
in any case, but it is even more so when
it means encoding the message in the
foreign language. Yet, language or code
switching is not the only challenge that
mediation poses.
The preceding sections of this paper
have shown that mediation tasks are also
cognitively demanding. This makes it
essential for activity and task
developers to become increasingly aware
of what is involved in each instance of
mediation, so they can control the
cognitive load and linguistic demands of
each activity,[11]
according to the level of language
proficiency that is tested, as well as
according to the age and literacy of the
candidates to whom the exams are
addressed.
The statement about consideration of the
above variables (level, age and
literacy) having been
made,
I must also add that the three are not
necessarily dependent upon one another.
There is no direct correlation, for
example, between proficiency level and
cognitive load, which means that there
may be a more cognitively demanding
mediation task for lower proficiency
level candidates and vice-versa.
However, cognitive load is contingent
upon age and literacy, and this may be
linked to higher level testing.
There are
also
strong indications in the
preceding sections that the demands and
the linguistic requirements of each
instance of mediation are both task
specific and source text specific.
This is why when a mediation activity at
each level of KPG testing were presented
earlier, the type of texts used as
sources of information and the types of
tasks set were discussed on the basis of
test level. However, these are important
considerations which need to be
explicitly stated and further clarified
– perhaps with examples.
Let us begin with an example about
task specific difficulty and ask
you, the reader, to consider two
different
tasks
on the same topic, which
is also a variable that has to do with
activity complexity. The activity topic
is Illegal immigration, and the
two tasks with varying degree of
difficulty are the
following:
A. Task 01 asks candidates to
gather information about the issue from
a variety of source texts and to present
the pros and cons of the social
inclusion of immigrants.
B.
Task 02 asks candidates to
read an editorial about illegal
immigration and say what they think the
author’s opinion about the social
integration of immigrants is.
Undoubtedly, the cognitive load of Task
01 is greater than that of Task 02. Both
the cognitive load and the linguistic
demands, on the other hand, are very
much dependent on the source texts – how
many there are for Task 1, what
discourse they articulate (e.g. media or
social science discourse), and how the
source texts of Task 1 in particular are
organized.
To illustrate further how mediation
requirements are strongly related to the
source text – i.e. they are
source
text specific – we should turn
attention back to one of the mediation
tasks discussed earlier, WMT 01. The
language of the text on which this task
is based is too difficult for B1 level
candidates to translate. Therefore, if
they want to be able to respond to the
task at hand, they need to understand
the information conveyed in L1,
interpret it in relation to what is
asked of them, and use their
interpretation to give tips about a
healthy diet to their friend in an
e-mail message. Below are two of the
Greek texts and sample responses to the
task from candidates:
Ïé ðïíïêÝöáëïé ó÷åôßæïíôáé ìå ôçí
áöõäÜôùóç ôïõ ïñãáíéóìïý
ÁëÞèåéá. Ç
áöõäÜôùóç (dehydration)
åðçñåÜæåé áñíçôéêÜ ôéò ðíåõìáôéêÝò
ìáò ëåéôïõñãßåò. Óõìðôþìáôá Þðéáò
áöõäÜôùóçò åßíáé, åêôüò áðü ôïí
ðïíïêÝöáëï, ç æÜëç, ç êüðùóç êáé ç
äõóêïëßá óõãêÝíôñùóçò. Áîßæåé íá
óçìåéùèåß üôé ï åãêÝöáëïò
áðïôåëåßôáé êáôÜ 80-85% áðü íåñü.
Translation into English
True: Dehydration
affects our cognitive operations
negatively. The symptoms of
dehydration are – besides headaches
– dizziness, fatigue and inability
to concentrate. It is worth noting
that 80-85 % of our brain is made of
water.
Candidates’ responses
1.
You must drink a lot of water. It’s good for you and you
don’t get headaches
2. Drink a lot of water every day not to have headaches and
feel tired.
3.
Did you know that our head is 80-85% water? Drink lots of
water. You should not get dehydrated.
ÐñÝðåé íá ðßíïõìå õãñÜ ìå ôï öáãçôü
Ìýèïò: Ç êáôáíÜëùóç õãñþí ìå ôï öáãçôü
ðñïêáëåß áñáßùóç ôùí õãñþí ôïõ
óôïìÜ÷ïõ, þóôå íá êáèõóôåñåß ç ðÝøç
ôçò ôñïöÞò êáé íá ìç ãßíåôáé åðáñêÞò
áðïññüöçóç ôùí èñåðôéêþí ïõóéþí ôçò.
Êáëü åßíáé íá ôá áðïöåýãïõìå êáé ãéá
45 ëåðôÜ ìåôÜ ôï öáãçôü.
Translation into English
Mistaken:
Consumption of liquids when we eat
causes tapering of stomach liquids
so that digestion is delayed and the
nutritious substances of our food
are not absorbed. We should avoid
drinking liquids for 45 minutes
after our meal.
Candidates’ responses
1. You shouldn’t believe all that you hear. Some people say
that it’s bad to drink water and stuff
with our food. That’s not true.
2.
It’s a lie that we should not drink liquids during and for
a long time after we eat.
3.
You should drink water or other things with your food. It
helps you to digest better.
What
we
can see in the
above
responses is that candidates were able
to function as competent mediators and,
by using specific communication
strategies, they were perfectly able to
deal with the task at hand. In fact,
this seems to be the case with mediation
performance in the exams of all levels
in English. Descriptive statistical
analysis we have been carrying out at
the RCeL shows that, despite EFL
teachers’ worries about mediation tasks
being ‘too difficult,’ there is no
statistically significant deviation in
the scores that KPG candidates’ are
assigned for the two activities. What is
even more interesting as we look at the
results of our analysis is that
sometimes candidates’ scores in the
mediation task (Activity 2) is higher
than in the writing task (Activity 1).
6.
Mediation
performance
Mediation
has a crucial role in today’s world of
multicultural contexts that increasingly
demand cultural and linguistic
negotiation for successful participation
in the communication process, ‘producing
oral or written texts in which forms and
words are manipulated to extend further
understanding across cultures’ (Valero-Garcés
2009). This is the main reason that I
have decided to concentrate on this
important topic. In addition, I also
feel the need to give the mediation
component of the KPG exams the attention
it deserves. Therefore, I am publishing
on the subject (Dendrinos and
Stathopoulou, 2010, Dendrinos 2006),
working with postgraduate students (Stathopoulou
2008),[12]
(Stathopoulou 2009, Voidakos 2007),[13]
and with PhDs researching oral and
written mediation (Stathopoulou, 2013a).
Furthermore, I am directing a number of
large-scale projects under way at the
RCeL, which progressively provide a more
accurate account of mediation
performance and performance
expectations. The work carried out in
this fascinating area permits us to talk
about mediation in an informed way and
to identify the problem areas to be
dealt with when teaching or coaching for
mediation practices.
6.1 Written mediation performance
The major data bank we have developed at
the RCeL, with its corpus of thousands
of KPG candidate scripts classified
according to the mark they have received
by trained script raters, has opened the
possibility to conduct systematic
research on the written mediation
performance of candidates.
Stathopoulou
(2013a), having recently
completed her PhD thesis on the topic
gives us insights into what mediation
entails and what types of written
mediation strategies lead to the
achievement of a given communicative
purpose. Drawing data from the KPG Task
Repository and the KPG English Corpus,
she examined KPG test tasks and
candidates’ scripts in order to create a
levelled mediation task typology and an
Inventory of Written Mediation
Strategies, which may provide the basis
for the creation of mediation-specific
levelled descriptors (see also
Stathopoulou 2013b). These will in turn
make reliable assessment of the
mediation performance.
One
of
the MA studies
(Voidakos 2007),
which set out to
describe B2 and C1 level mediation
performance by means of analyzing 283
scripts produced by KPG candidates, has
provided insights which suggest that
candidates’ have the following common
problems[14]
in written mediation performance:
-
They tend to include as much information
as possible from the source text, rather
than selecting only
relevant-to-the-context pieces of
information. This test-taking strategy
does not favour candidates, not only
because they are penalized when their
scripts are longer than they are
supposed to be, but also because they
are more likely to end up with more
instances of inaccurate or inappropriate
English language use.
-
They pay close attention to producing in
L2 structures and forms which correspond
to L1, as they believe that this is what
is expected of them.
-
They tend to pay little attention to the
discourse, genre, register and style of
the text to be produced, which may be of
a different text type than the source
text. Instead, they tend to produce the
same text type and this results in
inappropriate language use, since the
language features of a text are dictated
by its genre.
In the aforementioned
study, Voidakos
finds that there are indications that C1
level candidates perform slightly better
in mediation tasks than B2 candidates.
To qualify this claim, I should say that
what she means is that C1 candidates
seem to make more frequent and effective
use of the necessary mediation
test-taking strategies.
This claim
raised
a noteworthy question, for which there
was no conclusive evidence in the study:
Are more proficient L2 users better
mediators? My guess at that point was
that this is true only when there are
other factors at play too, such as age
(and therefore the cognitive capacity
which develops with age), literacy level
in both the source and the target
language, and task-specific skills.
This
assumption
was an issue of concern
in a later study, along with another
hypothesis, born out of our ongoing
examination of candidates’ mediation
scripts. The hypothesis was that
mediation performance is contingent not
only on candidate, but also on task
variables. In other words, mediation
performance may be ‘better’ or ‘worse’
depending on who is doing it
(her/his age, literacy, knowledge,
skills, etc. in both languages) but also
depending what s/he has to do.
Aspects of
what
I had come to suspect
have now been investigated by Stathopoulou (2009).[15]
Her study, exclusively on B2 level
written mediation performance, was
carried out with a view to supporting
the claim that when mediating, the
source text necessarily regulates the
target text, and the visible traces may
vary from weak to strong, depending on a
series of factors. A total of 240 B2
level scripts were analyzed for the
purposes of the study, which ultimately
offers interesting results and
conclusions about KPG mediation
performance.
As in the
case
of the previous study,
the scripts analyzed for this
dissertation had also been randomly
selected from the RCeL script corpus:
half of the selected scripts were from
the ‘fully satisfactory’ category, and
the other half from the ‘moderately
satisfactory.’ The two categories of
scripts were compared, showing that
fully satisfactory scripts were less
regulated by the source text than the
moderately satisfactory, and that the
hybrid formations in fully satisfactory
scripts are perfectly ‘acceptable’ in
English; that is, as Stathopoulou puts
it, they contain ‘fairly successful code
meshing structures that create no
problem of intelligibility to the
reader.’ Other interesting findings in
her study are the following:
-
Hybrid formations on the borderline of
being acceptable in English, in both
fully or moderately satisfactory
scripts, constitute violations on the
level of pragmatics rather than the
level of semantics or formal grammar.
-
The scripts
contain a number of strongly
regulated constructions which are
unsuccessful in relaying the message(s)
of the source text.
-
In moderately satisfactory scripts,
one notes a tendency towards
word-for-word translation of
complete sentences, whereas in fully
satisfactory scripts, this tendency
is on the lexical rather than the
sentence level. Moreover, moderately
satisfactory
scripts
more frequently than fully
satisfactory scripts transfer
language elements from one language
to the other without adjusting them
so that they are appropriate for the
linguistic and social context. Thus,
they violate English word order
restrictions, make inappropriate use
of prepositions and other words, as
well as language structures, such as
modality.
-
Fully satisfactory scripts are not
as strongly regulated since the
source text information is
paraphrased, and when they do
contain hybrid formations, these are
considered
acceptable
in English; that is, successful code
meshing language items.
-
Finally, in moderately satisfactory
scripts, information seems to have been
selected on the basis of what
information was easily transferable from
one language to the other, rather than
on the basis of what information was
relevant to the communicative demands of
the task. Stathopoulou observes that
‘any ideas that candidates were unable
to relay, probably due to limited
linguistic resources, were omitted.’
6.2 Speaking mediation performance
Greek privacy protection laws do not
allow us to record the KPG speaking test
on DVD; therefore, we have no access to
digital information, on the basis of
which we can study oral mediation
performance.
However, we do have valuable information
from the feedback forms that our
examiners complete after every exam
administration, while we also have the
detailed accounts of candidates’
performance from trained observers,
whose job is to assess the speaking test
tasks, the procedure, and the examiners.
Analysis of this data is under way, and
it will soon be published. Presently, I
include below some of the remarks that
have been recorded:
-
Younger and linguistically less
competent C1 candidates make serious
attempts to translate the source
text rather than to
relay
selected information.
-
B1 and B2 level candidates who are
obviously
unprepared to take on the role of
mediator seem to feel awkward and
less confident about what it is they
are to do.
-
There are instances when B1 and B2
level candidates refrain from making
any use of information in the source
text.
They
simply speak on the theme of the L1
text. When their oral English is
good, examiners are divided as to
what to do since they have been
given no thorough instructions on
how to deal with this matter.
-
In C1 level oral mediation, when
candidates
are required to interact and
exchange information from their
source texts in order to reach a
common decision, they sometimes do
so by using only a few points from
the text, and then draw from their
own experiences.
-
Both candidates and teachers preparing
them need to familiarize themselves
further with the nature of
mediation
activities. KPG examiners also need more
training on this new aspect of
assessment.
7.
Training
for mediation
If it is indeed
true
that mediation
tasks are very difficult, the first
question that comes to mind is whether
it is fair – i.e. if it is ethical
– to test it. In asking this question,
it is only right to reveal that
the
inclusion of mediation in the test
papers of the KPG exams has not been
without reaction in the Greek language
teaching scene – though, admittedly,
those that have been positioned most
strongly against it are L1 English
speakers who have found jobs teaching
English in Greece. These people, many of
whom have not been trained to teach a
foreign language or to teach at all, and
who are nevertheless highly regarded
simply because they are native speakers
(NSs) of the language they are teaching,
benefit from the exclusion of the
learners’ mother tongue from the
classroom, from the teaching materials,
and so on.[16]
There are also a number of Greek EFL
teachers who react as strongly, unaware
of what this reaction of theirs
conceals. However, the largest
percentage of Greek EFL teachers are not
negative; they are sceptical because
candidates are not really prepared to
perform as mediators since it is not
part of the mainstream TEFL materials or
practices. And, of course, it is only
natural that teachers worry about an
element in a suite of national exams
that is not legitimated by the
established international exams trade.
If it were, it might more easily have
been considered a valid test element and
its inclusion would immediately seem
more logical and justified. As things
now stand, the legitimisation of
mediation in the exams is through its
endorsement via the CEFR.
The
reason
that mediation and, in
general, the use of L1 is absent from TEFL textbooks and other materials
produced by the international or
multinational publishing industry is
profit. If it were to localise textbooks
and other materials, companies would not
make as big a profit as they do now when
they make one product for international
use. And, if something is not in the
textbook, it is not legitimate
curricular knowledge – especially for
those who ‘teach to the book’ –which is
true of the largest percent of foreign
language teachers in Greece and
elsewhere (cf. Dendrinos 1992). Hence,
the omission of mediation practice from
foreign language textbooks is a basic
factor for its prohibition from the
foreign language programme. All this
means, of course, that foreign language
learners are not systematically
trained for their role as mediators,
though they frequently practice
mediation in their daily lives.
This
reality
provokes us to amend the
question above: Is it fair not to help
foreign users learn to communicate in a
way that is valuable in their daily
lives, just because the dominant foreign
language paradigm triggered by economic
and symbolic profit does not promote it?
The answer is No. It is not fair
or ethical to refrain from training
learners to exploit language in ways
which will be of practical use to them.
But, how
does one do that? Greek EFL
teachers, who are increasingly turning
attention to mediation, tell us that
they don’t know what materials to use in
order to ‘teach’ mediation – a problem
which is easily solved since nowadays
there are all sorts
of authentic materials suitable for
classroom mediation practice available
on the internet. The more complicated
question has to do with ways of teaching
mediation. The most common EFL teacher
question is: ‘What is it exactly that we
should teach?’ ‘Do we teach,’ they
wonder, ‘aiming at the development of
all the knowledge and skills mediation
seems to require?’
The
response
to this question is that this would not
be possible; what is possible and quite
feasible is the creation of conditions
so that learners can progressively
resort
to the language awareness they have
developed in both languages, to their
socio-cultural knowledge and
experiences, to their communication
skills, and to their cognitive
capacities in communicative contexts
that require mediation.
Learners
could
be gradually trained to
deal with both languages in ways that
will help the mediation cause:[17]
-
Start training at lower levels with
the types of tasks that are used in
the A level reading and listening
comprehension tests of the KPG
exams.
-
Introduce comprehension in L2 and
production in L1 rather than the
other way around during first stages
of mediation training.
-
Progressively introduce practice on
comparing articulations of socially
purposeful meanings in the two
languages so that learners become
increasingly aware that similar
meanings are verbalized with
different forms and structures in
the two languages.[18]
-
Progressively, introduce practice
whereby learners are asked:
-
to
express in
their
own words bits of information
contained first in L2 and then in L1
texts
-
to relay in their own words
spoken and
written messages
-
to express in one language the
gist of a
text in the other language
-
to select information suitable
to a
context of situation from a text in one
language and to relay it in the other
-
to progressively conduct controlled,
guided and free writing/ speaking
practice in one language, using as cues
texts in the other.
All the techniques above, it seems to
me, would be easily employable by any
foreign language teacher who, of course,
is proficient in both the learners’
mother tongue and the target language.
My experience also tells me that the
great majority of educated-for-their-job
teachers
can
also be quite resourceful
and use the aforementioned teaching
techniques plus many more if they are
interested enough in the object of
knowledge. And this brings us to the
issue of teacher interest, or the
interest of the curriculum designer or
the planner of the foreign language
programme that teachers follow. Reasons
for teachers’ ambiguity or even
reluctance to train for mediation have
already been mentioned. What has not
been openly stated is that there is a
very definite backwash effect by the
inclusion of mediation in the KPG, as it
always happens with high stakes exams
(cf. Tsangari 2006, Shohamy 2001), and
interest in it is persistently growing
in Greece. But, then one might rightly
wonder: Does the end justify the means?
Is it just to test this aspect of
language use if it is unjust to the
candidates for whom the exams are
intended?
The
question
immediately above was at
the heart of our investigation during
the planning and the piloting phases of
the KPG exams. Our early findings were
not discouraging; quite the contrary, in
fact. Though it became evident in our
initial stages of research related to
mediation that candidates who were in
some way prepared or just coached for
this aspect of the exam did better than
those who had never before seen or
practised doing a mediation task in the
class context, still the differences of
scores they received in other types of
L2 production were not significant
enough to warrant a great deal of
apprehension.[19]
For
those
of us working for the KPG, the
inclusion of mediation in these high
stakes exams has raised several crucial
questions which have instigated
organized research, now being carried
out at the RCeL. The ten most common
questions that have been articulated
during the five years that we have been
developing the exams are the following,
in random order:
-
What exactly does mediation
involve?
-
When people mediate, what is it
exactly that they do?
-
When the aim is assessing one’s
ability to mediate, what exactly do you
measure, and what criteria of assessment
do you use?
-
What are the demands and
expectations for mediation performance
at different levels of proficiency?
-
What types of materials should be
used to train learners and to coach
candidates for mediation?
-
Which types of tasks should be
used in a foreign language programme to
serve which goals?
-
What types of tasks should be
used in tests so as to be able to
discern the different levels of
proficiency?
-
What are the main problems that
candidates encounter when mediating and
how do these problems surface in their
talk and scripts?
-
Which are the evaluation criteria
for mediation performance at different
levels of proficiency?
-
What can be done to prepare
candidates to take the role of mediator
successfully in a test situation?
The
various
questions immediately above,
some of which have been addressed
directly or indirectly in this paper,
are all linked with concerns about the
‘teachability’ of mediation. Data from
related research being carried out will
yield helpful information and be
presented in other papers. One of these
papers, by Maria Stathopoulou, is
included in this issue of Directions
and presents findings from one of the
larger scale projects investigating
suitable test-taking strategies for the
KPG exams. Stathopoulou (ibid) focuses
on written mediation strategies, and her
paper provides evidence that mediation
test-taking strategies are indeed
‘teachable’ and that training for
mediation performance leads to positive
results.
In
conclusion,
it is important to stress that with
training and coaching, foreign language
learners and exam candidates are bound
to have better results, as with all
types of other language practices. With
mediation, it is even more important to
coach candidates so that they learn to
use skills they have developed together
with test-taking strategies in order to
do something they have never before had
a chance to do as part of their language
training, since mediation is usually not
‘taught’ or tested in foreign language
classes.
The
reasons
for the exclusion of
mediation in mainstream foreign language
programmes have been discussed in this
paper. It has been maintained that,
despite the launching of mediation
through the CEFR, mediation training did
not find fertile ground in the
international business of language
teaching and testing, mainly on account
of the conventional monolingual ideology
on which it is based and reproduced
because of economic interests.[20]
Therefore, foreign language teachers in
Greece and elsewhere who have adopted
the dominant paradigm of foreign
language teaching and learning are still
largely unfamiliar with the concept and
techniques conducive to mediation.
Hopefully, this paper will be a step
forward to thinking about this
significant topic, which is immersed in
the cultural politics of teaching and
testing.
References
Dendrinos, B. (1988). Using the L1 in
the classroom. Views on EFL Teaching
and Learning.
Athens:
The University of Athens Publications.
Dendrinos,
B.
(1992). The EFL Textbook and
Ideology. Athens: N.C. Grivas
Publications.
Dendrinos, B.
(1995).
Foreign language learning and the
development of sociolonguistic skills to
express translatable experiences.
Actes du Collogue International
Enseignement des Langues et
Comprehension Europeene
(pp. 55-64). Athens: University of Athens & Association pour le Rayonnement
des Langues Europeenes.
Dendrinos, B.
(1999). The Conflictual
Subjectivity of the EFLPpractitioner. In
A.F. Christidis (Ed.), 'Strong’ and
'Weak’ Languages in the European Union:
Aspects of Hegemony. Vol. 2.
Thessaloniki: Centre for the Greek
Language, pp. 711-727.
Dendrinos, B. (2001). Linguoracism in
European Foreign Language Education
Discourse. In M. Reisigl & R. Wodak
(Eds.), The Semiotics of Racism:
Approaches in Critical Discourse
Analysis (pp. 177-198). Vienna:
Passagen Verlag.
Dendrinos, B. (2001).
Plenary talk at the International
Conference on Non-native speaking
teachers in foreign language teaching,
organised by the University of Lleida in
Catalunya, Spain. Title of plenary
address: The pedagogic discourse of
ELT and the discursive construction of
the NNS’ professional value.
Dendrinos, B.
(2003).
The Hegemony of English
(in collaboration with Dïnaldï Macedo &
Panagiota Gounari). Boulder, Colorado:
Paradigm Publishers.
Dendrinos, B.
(2004).
Multilingual literacy in the EU:
Alternative discourse in foreign
language education programmes, In B.
Dendrinos and B. Mitsikopoulou (Eds.),
Policies of Linguistic Pluralism and
the Teaching of Languages in Europe
(pp. 60-70). Athens: Metehmio
publications and University of Athens.
Dendrinos, B.
(2006).
Mediation in communication, language
teaching and testing. Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 22,
9-35.
Dendrinos, B.
(2007a). Mediating
between cultures and languages.
Plenary talk at the TESOL Greece Annual
Convention, Athens, March 2007.
Dendrinos, B.
(2007b). Mediation
practices and foreign language literacy.
Plenary talk at the Greek Applied
Linguistics Association Conference.
Thessaloniki, December 2007.
Dendrinos, B.
(2008). Los discursos que
moldean la subjectividad periferica del
docente de ingles como lengua extrangera.
In Educación y Pedagogía, Vol. XX
(pp. 65-76) May-August, 2008 (Journal of
the University of Antioquia, Colombia.
Dendrinos,
B.
& Stathopoulou, M. (2010). Mediation
activities: Cross-Language Communication
Performance. ELT News, 249(12):
http://rcel.enl.uoa.gr/kpg/kpgcorner_may2010.htm
Heredia,
R. R., & Altarriba, J. (2001).
Bilingual language mixing: Why do
bilinguals code-switch? Current
Directions in Psychological Science,
10(5), 164-168.
Shohamy,
E. (2001). The Power of
Tests: A Critical Perspective of the
Uses of Language Tests. London:
Longman.
Stathopoulou, M. (2008). Performing
written mediation: Strategies employed
by KPG B1 level candidates.
Unpublished paper submitted for credit
in the Language Learning Theories course
in the Applied Linguistics MA Programme,
Faculty of English Studies, University
of Athens.
Stathopoulou, M. (2009). Written
mediation in the KPG exams: Source text
regulation resulting in hybrid
formations.
Unpublished dissertation submitted for
the MA degree in the Applied Linguistics
Postgraduate Programme, Faculty of
English Studies,
University of Athens.
Stathopoulou, Maria. (2013a). Task
dependent interlinguistic mediation
performance as translanguaging practice:
The use to KPG data for an empirically
based study. (Doctoral thesis).
Faculty of English Language and
Literature,
National and Kapodistrian
University of Athens.
Stathopoulou, M.
(2013b).
Investigating Mediation as
Translanguaging Practice in a Testing
Context: Towards the Development of
Levelled Mediation Descriptors. In the
Proceedings of the International
Conference Language Testing in
Europe: Time for a New Framework?
University of Antwerp, Belgium, May
2013.
Tay, M. W.
J. (1989). Code-switching and
code-mixing as a communicative strategy
in multilingual discourse.
World Englishes, 8(3), 407-417.
Tsangari, K.
(2006). Investigating
the washback effect of a high stakes EFL
exam in the Greek context: Participants’
perceptions, material design and
classroom applications.
Unpublished dissertation
submitted for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy, Lancaster
University.
Valero-Garcés,
C. (2009). Mediation
as translation or translation as
mediation? Widening the
translator's role in a new multicultural
society. Retrieved from
http://www.babelport.com/articles/32,
19 August 2009.
Voidakos,
I. (2007). What mediators
do: Analysing KPG candidates’ actual
performance in written mediation tasks.
Unpublished dissertation
submitted for the MA degree in
the Applied Linguistics Postgraduate
Programme, Faculty of English Studies,
University of Athens.
Wang, L. (2003). Switching to first
language among writers with differing
second-language
proficiency. Journal
of Second Language Writing, 12,
347–375.
Williams, S., & Hammarberg, B. (1998).
Language switches in L3 Production:
Implications
for a polyglot speaking
model. Applied Linguistics, 19(3),
295-333.
Woodall, B. R. (2002). Language
switching: using the first language
while writing in a
second language.
Journal of Second Language Writing,
11, 7-28.
Endnotes
[1]
The 2007a and
2007b publications refer to
plenary talks dealing with
mediation as follows:
2007a: This talk
problematized the notion of
mediation as defined in the CEFR
and viewed it in the larger
context of inter- and
intra-cultural communication.
Moreover, it linked the practice
of mediation with practices of
L1 use in programmes of foreign
language teaching, learning and
assessment. Being concerned with
the EFL user’s role as mediator
in the European and particularly
in the Greek communicative
reality, the talk took a close
look at the linguistic and
metalinguistic skills –
including cognitive and social
skills – required for successful
mediation and presented the
audience with ideas, different
types of activities, appropriate
for the development and
assessment of such skills in
foreign language teaching and
learning situations.
2007b: This talk
began by referring to the
socially important role of the
intra- and interlinguistic
mediator and proceeded to
explore how this role is
inscribed in English language
teaching programmes and in the
KPG exams. Crucially, the talk
provided a definition of the
concept of mediation which is
informed by and in turn informs
the design of the English KPG
exams, and proposed that
successful mediation requires
different types of knowledge and
awareness, literacies and
competences. Finally, it
presented the results of
in-depth mediation task analysis
as well as findings from
candidate script analyses.
[2]
Greek may not be
the L1 – that is, the first
language of all KPG candidates –
since in today’s multilingual
society there are many people
living, studying and working in
Greece whose mother tongue is a
language other than Greek.
However, in this paper, when I
speak of the candidates’ L1, I
am referring to Greek.
[3]
The
intra-linguistic mediator always
functions as an intercultural
mediator as well, and so does
the inter-linguistic mediator,
considering that language and
culture are inseparable. Note
that intercultural mediation is
a concept increasingly discussed
in the literature about
translation (cf. Valero-Garcés,
2009).
[4]
The successful
mediator does not choose
information only on the basis of
what s/he thinks is relevant to
the situation, but also
information that s/he can relay
in the target language.
[6]
The same is true
of WMT 07 discussed in note 7
below.
[7]
Another B2 level writing
activity which contains a
comparable source text and asks
for a similar genre to be
produced is from the May 2007
administration (WMT 07).
However, upon close examination
(see Appendix 5), the demands
are different because the task
of the May 2007 activity
requires that candidates skim
through a complex source text
advertising three children’s
book that are part of a series.
The text is a page of a book
catalogue that contains five
divergent sections: The first is
a brief description of the book
series, the next three explain
what each of the three books is
about, and the last provides
information about the author.
Candidates are asked to write a
text promoting the book series
at a Greek book exhibition
abroad.
[8]
A mediation activity of the May
2009 exam also asks for a report
but the communicative purpose in
this case is different.
Candidates imagine that they
work for the Greek Tourist
Organization, and their
department has received a
request from the tourist
organization of another country
for information about the very
successful ‘Blue Flag’ programme.
They are required to use the
source text provided (a website
with information about this
programme), and write a report
explaining how Greece has
managed to achieve Blue Flag
status for many of its beaches.
[9]
The age range in the November
2004 B2 exam in English was 12
to 74!
[10]
As Heredia & Altarribas (2001)
argue, language switching
“follows functional and
grammatical principles and is a
complex, rule-governed
phenomenon. See also Tay, 1989;
Woodall, 2002; Williams &
Hammarberg, 1998; Wang 2003.
[11]
In speaking of an activity, I am
referring to both the source
text and the task which
originates from it.
[12]
In her paper,
Stathopoulou (2008) explores the
strategies employed by the KPG
candidates while performing the
two tasks of the writing test.
Taking as a starting point that
strategies used are task
specific, the paper focuses on
the mediation task, which
involves relaying information
from the Greek text in order to
compose a socially meaningful
text in the target language and
through the analysis of data
(candidate scripts) arrives at
the following findings:
Candidates make use of specific
strategies not observed in other
types of tasks, such as
paraphrasing of information,
summarizing, adding information
not included in the text and
using words and phrases
functioning as semantic
equivalents to the corresponding
words and phrases of the source
text. Moreover, direct transfer
of L1 lexical items and
word-for-word translation of
some lexical items were also
identified as common techniques.
[13]
All dissertations
were carried out at the Faculty
of English Language and
Literature, University of
Athens, under my supervision.
[14]
The ‘common problems’ described
presently are based on my
interpretation of Voidakos’
findings.
[16]
The issue of the
NS vs. the NNS foreign language
teacher has been discussed
elsewhere. It is one of the main
concerns in two papers (Dendrinos,
2001; 2008).
[17]
How to use the mother tongue for
teaching and learning a foreign
language within a communicative
context was an issue that has
concerned me since the late
1980s (Dendrinos 1988).
[18]
I have discussed this issue
extensively elsewhere (Dendrinos,
1995).
[19]
During the first
pilot administrations of the
writing tests (Module 2) B2 and
later C1 level candidates, we
compared candidates’ scores by
trained script raters on the
writing task based on English
cues (Activity 1) and the
written mediation task (Activity
2).
[20]
For the argument that the
exclusion of
mediation in TEFL is strongly
associated with the prohibition
of the L1 from the foreign
language classroom see Dendrinos,
2001, 2003 and 2004.
Appendix 1
Appendix
2
Appendix
3
Appendix
4
Appendix
5
Appendix
6
Appendix
7