2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.langcom.2016.12.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Interrogating the construct of communicative competence in language assessment contexts: What the non-language specialist can tell us

Abstract: Highlights  We consider the scope of current conceptualizations of communicative competence in tests of spoken language.  We present studies illustrating aspects of performance underrepresented in traditional criteria for speaking tests.  We propose the greater use of non-language specialists' views to determine assessment criteria.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
36
0
6

Year Published

2018
2018
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
6
3
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(43 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
1
36
0
6
Order By: Relevance
“…Faced with a lack of a strong theory for language proficiency, specifying the inference for the domain analysis in a validation model may help test designers and validation researchers focus more on defining theoretical constructs and evaluating the definitions to more accurately explain and predict the test taker's performance in the language use contexts based on test scores (Fulcher, 2015). However, Elder, McNamara, Kim, Pill, and Sato (2017) point out that test constructs in language testing have been defined by language specialists, and Elder and McNamara (2016), Jacoby and McNamara (1999), and H. Kim and Elder (2009) commonly call for listening to actual language users who have insights into the language use situations for defining language proficiency in specific-purpose language testing. The justification for this perspective is that language users' perspectives reflect actual language proficiency valued in the real-world.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Faced with a lack of a strong theory for language proficiency, specifying the inference for the domain analysis in a validation model may help test designers and validation researchers focus more on defining theoretical constructs and evaluating the definitions to more accurately explain and predict the test taker's performance in the language use contexts based on test scores (Fulcher, 2015). However, Elder, McNamara, Kim, Pill, and Sato (2017) point out that test constructs in language testing have been defined by language specialists, and Elder and McNamara (2016), Jacoby and McNamara (1999), and H. Kim and Elder (2009) commonly call for listening to actual language users who have insights into the language use situations for defining language proficiency in specific-purpose language testing. The justification for this perspective is that language users' perspectives reflect actual language proficiency valued in the real-world.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This essentially includes two competence units; orthographic and lexical semantic. The first alludes to written language, whilst the second is as much oral as it is written (Elder et al, 2017). d.1.…”
Section: Status Of the Issuementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Esta falta de definición del fenómeno a estudiar, o su definición confusa, pone en entredicho la validez de los instrumentos utilizados en estos estudios. Esto, porque sin una adecuada definición de competencia es difícil determinar qué tipo de evidencia recolectar, cómo recolectarla, y cómo interpretar los resultados obtenidos (Canale 1988, Elder, McNamara, Kim, Pill y Sato 2017.…”
Section: Ideologías Lingüísticas En El Estudio De La Competencia En Lunclassified