Meaning-based Scoring: A Systemic Functional Linguistics Model for Automated Test Tasks

Abstract

Communicative approaches to language teaching that emphasize the importance of speaking (e.g., task-based language teaching) require innovative and evidence-based means of assessing oral language. Nonetheless, research has yet to produce an adequate assessment model for oral language (Chun 2006; Downey et al. 2008). Limited by automatic speech recognition (ASR) technology, which compares non-native speaker discourse to native-like discourse, most tests exclusively focus on accuracy while ignoring how examinees use language to make meaning. In order to offer stakeholders more trustworthy evidence of how examinees might use language in target language domains, a model anchored in systemic functional linguistics (SFL) is put forth. Specific examples are given of how SFL might be used to evaluate test task types, such as the story retell. Three examinees’ responses are contrasted using genre analysis (Derewianka 1990) and transitivity analysis (Ravelli 2000) in order to demonstrate elements in their linguistic profiles that ASR-based assessment would overlook. In so doing, implications are drawn regarding the potential of SFL models for enhancing automated scoring procedures by focusing on the meaning-form relations in the linguistic construction of narrative.

Understanding the impact of teaching systemic functional grammar in initial English language teacher education

“…Learners whose teachers have been educated in an SFG tradition may receive more appropriate scaffolding that will allow them to focus on meaning through language forms beyond word and phrase levels without overlooking accuracy. As Gleason (2014, p. 478) rightly reasons, emphasising form within a meaning‐oriented language pedagogy extends users’ “resources for making meaning in context.” Such an orientation creates awareness at the levels of genre, text and functions, identity, and the power of grammar as a semiotic tool to convey and negotiate meanings.…”

A Systemic Functional Linguistics Approach to Instructional Design for L2 German: Connecting Language and Content

“…The aspiration for language teacher education that considers literacy approaches is addressed by Kern (2000), who connects the goal of training highly‐qualified language educators with the idea of preparing them “not just as language experts but also as literacy experts” (p. 316). Their own understanding of language as a resource for meaning making rather than as a set of rules for content‐ and language‐integrated instruction requires consideration of teacher language awareness and shaping of subject‐matter cognitions as well as beliefs (Andrews, 2007; Gleason, 2014; Ryshina‐Pankova, 2011). The SFL‐informed textual analysis provides educators with precisely such an opportunity to expand their own knowledge structures and available designs.…”

“…Yet in order to unpack ways in which language recreates the context the text refers to as well as its central conflict, both language educators and learners need specific strategies and guidelines. In connection to this need, the enormous potential of an SFL‐inspired genre approach for WL teaching has been noted in existing research (Abdel‐Malek, 2019; Byrnes et al, 2006; Christie, 1999, 2000; Cope & Kalantzis, 1993, 2009; Crane, 2016; Gleason, 2014; Liamkina & Ryshina‐Pankova, 2012; Schleppegrell, 2019; Troyan 2014, 2016; Troyan et al, 2019). Focusing specifically on the advanced language classroom, Byrnes (2006a) and Ryshina‐Pankova (2006, 2016) offer particularly relevant contributions to the discussion.…”

La evaluación de la destreza oral: Una comparación entre cursos "híbridos a distancia" y "presenciales ALAO"

“…Estos tipos de ejercicios de respuestas limitadas semejantes al tipo de preguntas de selección múltiple o respuestas para seleccionar cierto o falso no reflejan la realidad de una conversación. Gleason (2014) nos informa que Versant no evalúa un tipo de discurso interactivo y al ser corregido automáticamente ignora una comunicación real, es decir los componentes del examen evalúan el vocabulario, morfología y sintaxis. En el Apéndice A se aprecia un ejemplo tal y como lo reciben los participantes.…”