Chapter published in:
Widening Contexts for Processability Theory: Theories and issues
Edited by Anke Lenzing, Howard Nicholas and Jana Roos
[Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching 7] 2019
► pp. 371–390

Chapter 16
The role of grammatical development in oral assessment

Tests today are usually based on a communicative view of language, with less focus on grammar. In this chapter, a study is presented that investigates whether there is a difference in terms of grammatical development between a group of test-takers who passed and a group who failed an oral language test. The study addresses theories of SLA and language testing, i.e., Processability Theory and the model of Communicative Language Ability, the construct of the test. Data from learners’ test performances were analysed using PT in order to see whether there was a consistent relationship between the PT stage analysis and the results derived from the test. The comparison shows a clear difference between the test-takers who passed and those who failed in terms of grammatical development. This implies a correlation between grammatical development and communicative competence in general which may indicate that PT constitutes a useful basis for oral assessment.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
    • 2.1Processability hierarchy of Swedish
    • 2.2Communicative Language Ability
    • 2.3Aim of the study and research questions
  • 3.Design of the study
    • 3.1The oral test
    • 3.2The test-takers
    • 3.3Methodology
  • 4.Results
  • 5.Discussion of the results
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 28 November 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.7.16hei
References
Alderson, J. C.
(1990) Language testing in the 1990s: How far have we gone? How much further have we to go? In S. Anvian (Ed.), Current developments in language testing (pp. 1–26). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.Google Scholar
Alderson J. C.
(2007) The challenge of (diagnostic) testing: Do we know what we are measuring? In J. Fox, M. Wesche, D. Bayliss, L. Cheng, C. E. Turner & C. Doe (Eds.), What are we measuring? Language testing reconsidered (pp. 21–39). Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bachman, L. F.
(1990) Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S.
(1996) Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F., & Cohen, A. D.
(1998) Language testing – SLA interfaces: An update. In L. F. Bachman & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research (pp. 1–31). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bolander, M
(1988) Is there any order? On word order in Swedish learner language. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 9(1-2), 97–113. Crossref CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Butler, C.
(1985) Statistics in linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Canale, M., & Swain, M.
(1980) Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1(1), 1–47. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C. A., Chung, Y.-R., Hegelheimer, V., Pendar, N. & Xu, J.
(2010) Towards a computer-delivered test of productive grammatical ability. Language Testing 27(4), 443–469. Crossref CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe
(2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davies L., Brown, A., Elder, C., Hill, K., Lumley, T., & McNamara T.
(1999) Dictionary of language testing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press and UCLES.Google Scholar
Eklund Heinonen, M.
(2005) Godkänd eller underkänd? Hur processbarhetsteorin kan tillämpas vid muntliga språktester av andraspråksinlärare [Pass or fail? Processability theory applied in oral tests of second language learners] (FUMS Report 215). Uppsala: Uppsala University.
(2009) Processbarhet på prov. Bedömning av muntlig språkfärdighet hos vuxna andraspråksinlärare [Processability in tests. Assessment of oral proficiency in adult second language learners]. Uppsala: Department of Scandinavian Languages, Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Ellis, R
(2008) Investigating grammatical difficulty in second language learning: Implications for second language acquisition research and language testing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 18(1), 4–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glahn, E., Håkansson, G., Hammarberg, B., Holmen, A., Hvenekilde, A., & Lund, K.
(2001) Processability in Scandinavian second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 23(3), 389–416. Crossref CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Granfeldt, J., & Ågren, M.
(2014) SLA developmental stages and teachers’ assessment of written French: Exploring Direkt Profil as a diagnostic assessment tool. Language Testing 31(3), 285–305. Crossref CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hatch, E., & Lazaraton, A.
(1991) The research manual: Design and statistics for applied linguistics. New York, NY: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H.
(2015) Discussion: How different can perspectives on L2 development be? Language Learning 65(1), 210–232. Crossref CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D. H.
(1972) On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Håkansson, G., & Norrby, C.
(2005) Grammar and pragmatics. In S. Foster-Cohen, M. García-Mayo & J. Cenoz (Eds.), Eurosla Yearbook 5 (pp. 137–161). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Keßler, J.-U.
(2007) Assessing EFL-development online: A feasibility study of Rapid profile. In F. Mansouri (Ed.), Second language acquisition research. Theory-construction and testing (pp. 119–143). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Keßler, J.-U., & Liebner, M.
(2011) Diagnostic L2 development. Rapid Profile. In M. Pienemann & J.-U. Keβler (Eds.), Studying Processability Theory (pp. 132–148). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M.
(1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
McNamara, T
(1990) Item response theory and the validation of an ESP test for health professionals. Language Testing 7(1), 52–75. Crossref CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1996) Measuring second language performance. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M
(1984) Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 6(2), 186–214. Crossref CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M.
(1998) Language processing and second language development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., & Håkansson, G.
(1999) A unified approach towards the development of Swedish as L2: A processability account. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21(3), 383–420. Crossref CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M.
(2005) Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Purpura, J. E.
(2004) Assessing grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rahkonen, M., & Håkansson, G.
(2008) Production of written L2-Swedish – Processability or input frequencies? In J.-U. Keßler (Ed.), Processability approaches to second language development (pp. 135–161). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Rimmer, W.
(2006) Measuring grammatical complexity: The Gordian knot. Language Testing 23(4), 497–519. CrossrefGoogle Scholar