Developing a pragmatics test for Chinese EFL learners

Abstract

Pragmatic proficiency has been incorporated in the EFL teaching and testing syllabi in China, but the corresponding tests still focus on linguistic competence. The gap between the teaching and testing is mainly due to the lack of generally accepted measures of communicative abilities such as pragmatic competence. This study developed a multiple-choice discourse completion test (MDCT) to assess the pragmatic knowledge of Chinese EFL learners in relation to the speech act of apology. The development involved several stages. First, students in China were asked to identify situations in which apologies might be required and to report how likely the situations were to occur in their daily lives. Next, metapragmatic assessment involving both Chinese and North American students was used to ascertain the social variables which applied in each scenario. This was followed by studies to validate the scenarios and to develop multiple-choice options for each scenario. Finally, a pilot test was conducted with 105 Chinese university students. The results provided evidence for the reliability and validity of the test, and suggest that after further investigation it may be feasible to assess the pragmatic competence of Chinese learners by means of a MDCT in the future.

Impoliteness in the Realization of Complaint Speech Acts: A Comparative Study of Iranian EFL Learners and Native English Speakers

“…The potential of MDCTs in language assessment has been explored in a variety of settings and with examinees of more than one ethnicity, language, and proficiency level (Setoguchi, 2008). MDCT item format differs across the context and purpose of the intended assessment in which they are being used, evolving and adapting to specific needs of various contexts of use (Jianda, 2007;Roever, 2006).…”

Development of Interlanguage Pragmatic Competence: Input- and Output-based Instruction in the Zone of Proximal Development

“…For MDCT, 16 situations validated by Birjandi and Rezaei (2010) were modified and used. The 10 items developed for WDCT was done through examplar generation, likelihood investigation, metapragmatic assessment and piloting (see Jianda, 2007). For each speech act there were 5 and 8 scenarios in WDCT and MDCT respectively, which the participants completed in about two hours prior and subsequent to the experimental treatment in each of the five groups.…”

Mixed methods research: Toward new research designs in applied linguistics

“…Sequential exploratory designs were utilized for the purpose of expanding the scope of the qualitative phase and further investigating the problem quantitatively by using a larger sample. Such designs would be used in evaluating and/or developing measurement instruments like questionnaires, tests, rating scales, inventories (e.g., data sources [116], [165], [181]) and/or validating measurement instruments (data sources [88], [131]). The use of mixed methods research in developing quantitative instruments has been treated in Onwuegbuzie, Bustamante, & Nelson (2010) and Durham, Tan, & White (2011).…”