Testing ESL Pragmatics

Röver, Carsten

doi:10.3726/978-3-653-04780-6

Cited by 130 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Attempts to devise tests to assess interlanguage pragmatic proficiency of language learners have resulted in at least six measures (Hudson, Detmer, & Brown, 1995;Roever, 2005;Yamashita, 1996), namely written discourse completion tasks, multiple-choice discourse completion tasks, oral discourse completion tasks, role play, role play discourse tasks, and role play selfassessments. One of the most prevalent pragmatic assessment measures is the written discourse completion task (WDCT) in which a situation is described to the learners and they are asked to fill out the discourse with appropriate speech acts based on the situation, social status of the interlocutors, background knowledge, etc.…”

Section: Pragmatic Assessment and Pragmatic Test Tasksmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Pragmatic testing seems to have proved its status among other types of language test types in the language testing literature due to the recent increase of studies in interlanguage pragmatic testing (e.g., Brown & Ahn, 2011;Roever, 2005;Yamashita, 2005). Despite a large number of washback studies in language testing (e.g., Alderson & Hamp-Lyons, 1996;Green, 2006;Hawkey, 2006;Xiao, Sharpling, & Liu, 2011), pragmatic tests items have received little attention in washback studies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Interlanguage Pragmatic Test Tasks: Does a Low-Stakes Test Have Washback to L2 Teachers and Learners?

Tajeddin¹,

Dabbagh²

2015

The Journal of AsiaTEFL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the international surge of interest in the measurement of L2 pragmatic competence, the washback of pragmatic test tasks has remained a noticeably under-researched issue. To bridge this gap, this study sought to investigate the washback of a written discourse completion task (WDCT), as a pragmatic measure, to L2 teachers and learners in two different testing contexts, i.e., one with the addition of WDCT as part of summative assessment (pragmatic testing context) and the other with no such addition to the tests (non-pragmatic testing context). Data from teacher and learner interviews and classroom observations were subjected to content analysis. The results revealed various aspects of pragmatic assessment washback. First, the added pragmatic test tasks in the pragmatic testing context enhanced learners' noticing of pragmatic aspects of listening materials and teacher talk, whereas learners in the non-pragmatic testing context expressed more concern for lexical and grammatical features. Second, pragmatic context learners specified the production of pragmatically appropriate discourse as the ultimate objective of language learning. Finally, most teachers in the pragmatic testing context emphasized the utility of pragmatic-based teaching activities. The findings indicate that lowstakes pragmatic assessment has a positive washback to learning and teaching activities.

show abstract

Section: Pragmatic Assessment and Pragmatic Test Tasksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interlanguage Pragmatic Test Tasks: Does a Low-Stakes Test Have Washback to L2 Teachers and Learners?

Tajeddin¹,

Dabbagh²

2015

The Journal of AsiaTEFL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…You say: _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ Figure 1 DCT item assessment of pragmatics 3 A small number of studies have combined assessment of different aspects of pragmatic competence. In the largest study to date that covers multiple features, Roever (2005Roever ( , 2006 developed a Web-based test of implicature, routine formulae, and speech acts, and validated it using Messick's (1989) validation approach. Unlike Hudson et al's (1995) test, Roever's (2006) instrument focused on pragmalinguistic rather than sociopragmatic knowledge.…”

Section: The Constructmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Roever adapted Bouton's implicature test and a multiple-choice test of routine formulae from Roever (1996). Figure 2 shows an implicature item from Roever's (2005) test. Figure 3 shows a routines item from Roever (2005).…”

Section: The Constructmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Pragmatics

Roever¹

2012

The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Speech acts, however, are not the only pragmatic features that have been tested. Roever's (2005Roever's ( , 2006 test instrument (i.e. MDCTs), for example, included items that elicited knowledge of implicature and routine formulae.…”

Section: Assessing Pragmatic Competencementioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2018

BJELLC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Testing ESL Pragmatics

Cited by 130 publications

References 0 publications

Interlanguage Pragmatic Test Tasks: Does a Low-Stakes Test Have Washback to L2 Teachers and Learners?

Interlanguage Pragmatic Test Tasks: Does a Low-Stakes Test Have Washback to L2 Teachers and Learners?

Assessment of Pragmatics

Untitled

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About