1887
Volume 2, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2666-1748
  • E-ISSN: 2666-1756
Preview this article:

This work was made publicly available by the publisher.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/task.21009.kui
2022-06-20
2022-08-12
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/task.21009.kui.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/task.21009.kui&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Council of Europe
    Council of Europe (2001) Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. De Jong, N. H., Steinel, M. P., Florijn, A. F., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. H.
    (2012) The effect of task complexity on functional adequacy, fluency and lexical diversity in speaking performances of native and non-native speakers. InA. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency. Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 121–142). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.32.06jon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.06jon [Google Scholar]
  3. Grice, H. P.
    (1975) Logic and conversation. InP. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts (pp. 41–58). Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Hulstijn, J. H., Schoonen, R., de Jong, N. H., Steinel, M. P., & Florijn, A.
    (2012) Linguistic competences of learners of Dutch as a second language at the B1 and B2 levels of speaking proficiency of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). Language Testing, 29(2), 203–221. 10.1177/0265532211419826
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532211419826 [Google Scholar]
  5. Knoch, U.
    (2009) Diagnostic assessment of writing: A comparison of two rating scales. Language Testing, 26(2), 275–304. 10.1177/0265532208101008
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532208101008 [Google Scholar]
  6. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I.
    (2014) Rating written performance: What do raters do and why?Language Testing, 31(3), 329–348. 10.1177/0265532214526174
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532214526174 [Google Scholar]
  7. (2017) Functional adequacy in L2 writing. Towards a new rating scale. Language Testing, 34(3), 321–336. 10.1177/0265532216663991
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532216663991 [Google Scholar]
  8. (2018) Assessing functional adequacy of L2 performance in a task-based approach. InN. Taguchi & Y-J. Kim (Eds.), Task-based approaches to assessing pragmatics (pp. 265–286). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.10.11kui
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.10.11kui [Google Scholar]
  9. McNamara, T., & Roever, C.
    (2007) Testing: The social dimension. Blackwell. 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.2006.00117.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2006.00117.x [Google Scholar]
  10. Ortega, L.
    (2003) Syntactic complexity measures and their relationships to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 492–518. 10.1093/applin/24.4.492
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.4.492 [Google Scholar]
  11. Pallotti, G.
    (2009) CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 590–601. 10.1093/applin/amp045
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp045 [Google Scholar]
  12. Révész, A., Ekiert, M., & Torgersen, E.
    (2016) The effects of complexity, accuracy and fluency on communicative adequacy in oral task performance. Applied Linguistics, 37(6), 828–848. 10.1093/applin/amu069
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu069 [Google Scholar]
  13. Upshur, J. A., & Turner, C. E.
    (1995) Constructing rating scales for second language tests. ELT Journal, 49(1), 3–12. 10.1093/elt/49.1.3
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/49.1.3 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/task.21009.kui
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error