The Washback Effect of Task-based Assessment on the Iranian EFL Learners' Development of Pragmatic Competence
محورهای موضوعی : Research PaperMaryam Nazari 1 , Abbas Bayati 2 , Payman Rajabi 3
1 - Department of English, Malayer Branch, Islamic Azad University, Malayer, Iran
2 - Department of English, Malayer Branch, Islamic Azad University, Malayer, Iran
3 - Department of English, Malayer Branch, Islamic Azad University, Malayer, Iran
کلید واژه: pragmatic competence, speech acts, Task-based language assessment, washback effect,
چکیده مقاله :
The present study was an attempt to explore the ‘washback effect’ of task-based assessment (TBLA) on EFL Iranian learners’ pragmatic development. To this end, through conducting KET (Key English Test), 60 out of 120 EFL Iranian learners studying in an English language school, were randomly selected. They were assigned to treatment group (N=30), and control group (N=30). The treatment group was assessed through TBLA and the control group was assessed via non-task based assessment for 20 ninety-minute sessions. The class sessions were held twice a week. The obtained data was examined through independent sample t-test. The findings implied that TBLA as a pedagogical measurement tool can well replace the classic assessment procedures, since all educational efforts including testing and assessment procedures are planned to maximize the educational gains and developments.
Alderson, J. C., & Wall, D. (1993). Does washback exist? Applied Linguistics, 14, 115-129.
Backman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bachman, LF, & Palmer, AS (2010). Language assessment in practice: developing language tests and justifying their use in the real world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bagherkazemi, M. (2014). Interlanguage pragmatic Development: Impacts of Individual Output, Collaborative Output, Input Enhancement, Metapragmatic Awareness Raising, and Pragmatic Learning Strategies. Ph.D dissertation. Allameh Tabatabaei University. Tehran, Iran.
Boyle, J. & Falvey, P. (1994). English language testing in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Chinese University Press.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to language pedagogy, in J. Richards and R. Schmidt (eds.).
Canale, M. (1988). The measurement of communicative competence. Annual review of applied linguistics, 8, 67-84.
Canale, M. and M. Swain. (1980). Theoretical bases of Communicative approaches to second language testing. Applied Linguistics 1: 1-47.
Chastain, K. (1988). Developing second language skills Theory and practice (3rd ed.). Florida Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. New York: Columbia University Press.
Crystal, D. (1997). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-442159-7
Ellis, R. (2004). The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54(2), 227-275. Ellis, R. (2008). The Study of Second Language Acquisition (2nd Ed.). Oxford Oxford University Press.
Fischer, J. & et. al. (2011). Guidelines for task-based university language testing http://book.coe.int Council of Europe Publishing Fullilove, J. (1994). Assessing spoken English in public examinations — why and how? J. Boyle, P. Falvey (Eds.)
Gates, S. (1995). Exploiting washback from standardized tests. In J. D. Brown & S. O. Yamashita (Eds.), Language testing in Japan (pp. 101–106). Tokyo: Japanese Asso-ciation for Language Teaching.
Hibbard, K. (1996). Performance-Based Learning and Assessment. A Teacher's Guide. Hughes, A. (1989). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press ix + 172 pp. ISBN 0-521-27260-2
Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? NetWork, 6, 105e119.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Leech, G (2014). The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McNamara, T. (2001). Language assessment as social practice: Challenges for research. Language Testing, 18(4), 333–350.
Messick, S. (1996). Validity and washback in language testing. Language Testing, 13, 241–256.
Motallebi Nia (2013). The Washback of English Tests to EFL Teacher and Learner Beliefs and Practices Concerning Pragmatics. M.A. thesis. Allameh Tabataba'I University. Tehran, Iran.
Pan, Y.-C. (2009). A review of washback and its pedagogical implications. VNU Journal of Science, Foreign Languages, 25, 257–263.
Purpura, J (2004). Assessing grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rajabi, Sh., Azizifar, A., & Gowhary, H. (2015). The effect of explicit instruction on pragmatic competence development; teaching requests to EFL learners of English. Social and Behavioral sciences 199: 231-239.
Roever, C, Fraser, C, Elder, C (2014). Testing ESL sociopragmatics: development and validation of a web-based test battery. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Şenel, E. & Tütüniş, B. (2013). The Washback Effect of Testing on Students’ Learning In EFL Writing Classes. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237061539.
Taguchi, N, & Roever, C (2017). Second language pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tavakoli, H. (2012). A dictionary of research methodology and statistics in applied linguistics. Rahnama press.
Tavakoli, P., & Skehan, P. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure and performance testing. In Ellis (Ed.), planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamines. Terrell, T. D. (1977). A Natural Approach to Second Language Acquisition and Learning.
Timpe, V (2013). Assessing intercultural language learning. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Timpe-Laughlin, V., Wain, J., & Schmidgall, J. (2015). Defining and operationalizing the construct of pragmatic competence: review and recommendations. ETS Research Report Series 2015 (1), 1–43. Princeton, NJ: ETS. Wesche, M. B. (1983). Communicative Testing in a Second Language. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1983.tb02499.x.
Youn, S. (2015). Validity argument for assessing L2 pragmatics in interaction using mixed methods. Language Testing, 32(3), 199–225.
