In:Task-Based Approaches to Teaching and Assessing Pragmatics
Edited by Naoko Taguchi and YouJin Kim
[Task-Based Language Teaching 10] 2018
► pp. 217–246
Chapter 9Task design and validity evidence for assessment of L2 pragmatics in interaction
Published online: 15 August 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.10.09you
https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.10.09you
Abstract
This study examines how clear communicative goals and authentic interaction are ensured in task-based pragmatic assessment practices, particularly in designing role-play assessment tasks and developing task-appropriate rating criteria. Employing a concurrent mixed methods design, conversation analysis (CA) and multi-faceted Rasch measurement were used to investigate whether task-independent interactional features are elicited from role-play interactions and how interaction-specific rating categories function quantitatively. The CA findings indicated that various interactional organizations emerged from role-play task interactions as examinees oriented to the different degree of imposition and contextual variables embedded in the role-plays. Further, the interactional features included in the rating criteria created a substantial amount of variance in distinguishing varying degrees of pragmatic performance. The findings are discussed in terms of designing valid pragmatic assessment tasks and what features need to be included in developing rating criteria to ensure the validity evidence of task-based pragmatic assessment.
Article outline
- Introduction
- Background
- Assessing pragmatic competence in interaction and validity challenges
- Role-plays as assessment tasks and eliciting validity evidence
- The present study
- Methods
- Participants
- Examinees
- Interlocutors
- Raters
- Test instruments
- Role-plays
- Rating criteria
- Procedures
- Test administration
- Rater training
- Rating
- Data analysis
- Conversation analysis
- Multi-faceted Rasch measurement
- Participants
- Results
- Conversation Analysis (CA) findings
- Recommendation letter request role-play
- Additional advising time request role-play
- Refusing a professor’s request role-play
- Deciding a meeting time
- Deciding a meeting mode
- Multi-faceted Rasch Measurement analysis
- Conversation Analysis (CA) findings
- Discussion
- Conclusion
References Appendix
References (46)
Al-Gahtani, S., & Roever, C. (2012). Proficiency and sequential organization of L2 requests. Applied Linguistics, 33, 42–65.
Atkinson, J., & Heritage, J. (Eds.) (1984). Structures of social action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. S. (Eds.) (2005). Interlanguage pragmatics: Exploring institutional talk. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Celce-Murcia, M. (2007). Rethinking the role of communicative competence in language teaching. In E. Alcón Soler & M. P. Safont Jordà (Eds.), Intercultural language use and language learning (pp. 41–57). Dordrecht: Springer.
Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1995). Communicative competence: A pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6, 5–35.
Chapelle, C. A. (2012). Validity argument for language assessment: The framework is simple… Language Testing, 29, 19–27.
Chapelle, C., Enright, M., & Jamieson, J. (Eds.) (2008). Building a validity argument for the Test of English as a Foreign Language. New York, NY: Routledge.
Grabowski, K. (2013). Investigating the construct validity of a role-play test designed to measure grammatical and pragmatic knowledge at multiple proficiency levels. In S. Ross & G. Kasper (Eds.), Assessing second language pragmatics (pp. 149–171). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In M. J. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 299–345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hudson, T. D., Detmer, E., & Brown, J. D. (1992). A framework for testing cross-cultural pragmatics (Technical Report #2). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
(1995). Developing prototype measures of cross-cultural pragmatics (Technical Report #7). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Huth, T. (2010). Can talk be inconsequential? Social and interactional aspects of elicited second-language interaction. Modern Language Journal, 94, 537–553.
(2006). Validation. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 17–64). Westport, CT: American Council on Education.
Kasper, G. (2006). Speech acts in interaction: Towards discursive pragmatics. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, C. Félix-Brasdefer & A. S. Omar (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (pp. 281–314). Honolulu, HI: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawai‘i.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Kasper, G. (2009). L2 pragmatic development. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), New handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 259–295). Leeds: Emerald.
Kasper, G., & Ross, S. (2013). Assessing second language pragmatics: An overview and introductions. In S. J. Ross & G. Kasper (Eds.), Assessing second language pragmatics (pp. 1–40). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kasper, G., & Youn, S. J. (2017). Transforming instruction to activity: Roleplay in language assessment. Applied Linguistics Review. Advance online publication.
Linacre, J. M. (2014). Facets Rasch measurement computer program, version 3.71.4. Chicago, IL: Winsteps.com.
Liu, J. (2007). Developing a pragmatic test for Chinese EFL learners. Language Testing, 24, 391–415.
Lunz, M. E., Wright, B. D., & Linacre, J. M. (1990). Measuring the impact of judge severity on examination scores. Applied Measurement in Education, 3, 331–345.
McNamara, T., & Knoch, U. (2012). The Rasch wars: The emergence of Rasch measurement in language testing. Language Testing, 29, 555–576.
Norris, J. M. (2009). Task-based teaching and testing. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), Handbook of language teaching (pp. 578–594). Oxford: Blackwell.
(2016). Current uses for task-based language assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 230–244.
Okada, Y. (2010). Role-play in oral proficiency interviews: Interactive footing and interactional competencies. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1647–1668.
Okada, Y., & Greer, T. (2013). Pursuing a relevant response in oral proficiency interview role plays. In S. Ross & G. Kasper (Eds.), Assessing second language pragmatics (pp. 288–310). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pomerantz, A., & Heritage, J. (2013). Preference. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 210–228). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Purpura, J. E., Brown, J. D., & Schoonen, R. (2015). Improving the validity of quantitative measures in applied linguistics research. Language Learning, 65, 37–75.
Roever, C. (2006). Validation of a web-based test of ESL pragmalinguistics. Language Testing, 23, 229–256.
Ross, S. J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.) (2013). Assessing second language pragmatics. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schumacker, R. E. (1999). Many-facet Rasch analysis with crossed, nested, and mixed designs. Journal of Outcome Measurement, 3, 323–338.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2006). A general typology of research designs featuring mixed methods. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 12–28.
Walters, F. S. (2007). A conversation-analytic hermeneutic rating protocol to assess L2 oral pragmatic competence. Language Testing, 24, 155–183.
Cited by (5)
Cited by five other publications
Asseldonk, Anne G. H. van, Christine C. F. Troussart Van Bulck, Lies Strobbe & Goedele Vandommele
2025. The development and reception of a digital task-based exam for young learners of Dutch as a Foreign
Language. TASK. Journal on Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning 5:1 ► pp. 25 ff.
Róg, Tomasz
Róg, Tomasz
Su, Yunwen & Sun-Young Shin
González-Lloret, Marta
2022. The present and future of functional adequacy. TASK. Journal on Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning 2:1 ► pp. 146 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
