Article published in:
The Assessment of Functional Adequacy in Language Performance: Special issue of the Journal on Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning 2:1 (2022)
Edited by Folkert Kuiken and Ineke Vedder
[TASK 2:1] 2022
► pp. 8–32

Measurement of functional adequacy in different learning contexts

Rationale, key issues, and future perspectives

| University of Amsterdam
| University of Amsterdam

Linguistic performance elicited by language tasks has generally been operationalized in terms of complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF). However, this study argues that assessment of L2 proficiency is impossible without taking into account the adequacy and efficacy of L2 performance. To that end, we developed a rating scale for measuring functional adequacy (FA). In order to investigate the validity, reliability, and applicability of the rating scale, a number of studies are reviewed in which FA was assessed by both expert and non-expert raters, in different learning contexts, for L2 and L1, involving various source and target languages, proficiency levels, task types and modalities. We discuss perspectives and challenges for the use of the FA rating scale, particularly with regard to task-based language assessment (TBLA).

Keywords: functional adequacy (FA), rating scale, reliability, validity, applicability, task-based language assessment (TBLA)
Article outline
  • Complexity, accuracy and fluency vs. functional adequacy
  • Task-based language assessment
  • Assessment of functional adequacy
    • Task requirements
    • Content
    • Comprehensibility
    • Coherence & Cohesion
  • Testing the FA rating scale
  • Studies in which the FA rating scale has been used
  • Outcomes
    • Use of the FA rating scale
    • Relationship with CAF, task type, and language proficiency
  • Discussion
  • Note
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 20 June 2022
https://doi.org/10.1075/task.00013.kui
References
Bachman, L. F.
(2002) Some reflections on task-based language performance assessment. Language Testing, 19 (4), 453–476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Becker, A.
(2018) Not to scale? An argument-based inquiry into the validity of an L2 writing scale. Assessing Writing, 37 1, 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bridgeman, B., Powers, D., Stone, E., & Mollaun, P.
(2012) TOEFL iBT speaking test scores as indicators of oral communicative language proficiency. Language Testing 29 (1), 91–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bulté, B., & Housen, A.
(2012) Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency. Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 21–46). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe
(2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
De Jong, N. H., Steinel, M. P., Florijn, A. F., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. H.
(2012a) The effect of task complexity on functional adequacy, fluency and lexical diversity in speaking performances of native and non-native speakers. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency. Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 121–142). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012b) Facets of speaking proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34 (1), 5–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Del Bono, F.
(2019) Aspetti pragmatici nella valutazione di testi scritti: Uno studio sull’adeguatezza funzionale in italiano L2. In: E. Nuzzo, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Lingua in contesto. La prospettiva pragmatica. Studi AItLA 9 1 (pp. 231–244). Associazione Italiana di Linguistica Applicata (AitLA).Google Scholar
(2020) L’utilizzo delle scale dell’adeguatezza funzionale su testi narrativi in L2: Uno studio esplorativo sugli effetti del task design. In: E. Nuzzo, E. Santoro, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Valutazione e misurazione delle produzioni orali e scritte in italiano lingua seconda (pp. 71–82). Franco Cesati Editore.Google Scholar
De Meo, A., Maffia, M., & Vitale, G.
(2019) La competenze scritta in italiano L2 di apprendenti vulnerabili. Due scale di valutazione a confronto. EL.LE, 8 (3), 637–654. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ekiert, M., Lampropoulou, S., Révész, A., & Torgersen, E.
(2018) The effects of task type and L2 proficiency on discourse appropriacy in oral task performance. In N. Taguchi, & Y-J. Kim (Eds.), Task-based approaches to assessing pragmatics (pp. 247–264). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faone, S., & Pagliara, F.
(2017) How to assess L2 information-gap tasks through FA rating scales. Paper presented at TBLT 2017.
González-Lloret, M.
(2016) A practical guide to integrating technology into task-based language teaching. Georgetown University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P.
(1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts (pp. 41–58). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & IATBLT
n.d.). The TBLT Language Learning Task Bank. https://​tblt​.indiana​.edu
Herraiz Martínez, A.
(2018)  Functional adequacy: The influence of English-medium instruction, English proficiency, and previous language learning experiences . Doctoral dissertation, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón de la Plana.
Herraiz Martínez, A., & Alcón Soler, E.
(2019) Pragmatic outcomes in the English-medium instruction context. Applied Pragmatics, 1 (1), 68–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I.
(Eds.) (2012) Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency. Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knoch, U.
(2007) ‘Little coherence, considerable strain for reader’: A comparison between two rating scales for the assessment of coherence. Assessing Writing, 12 (2), 108-128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Diagnostic assessment of writing: A comparison of two rating scales. Language Testing, 26 (2), 275–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Rating scales for diagnostic assessment of writing: What should they look like and where should the criteria come from? Assessing Writing, 16 (2), 81–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I.
(2012) Speaking and writing tasks and their effects on second language performance. In S. M. Gass, & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 364–377). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014) Rating written performance: What do raters do and why? Language Testing, 31 (3), 329–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) Functional adequacy in L2 writing. Towards a new rating scale. Language Testing, 34(3), 321–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018) Assessing functional adequacy of L2 performance in a task-based approach. In N. Taguchi, & Y-J. Kim (Eds.), Task-based approaches to assessing pragmatics (pp. 265–286). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021) Scoring approaches: Scales/rubrics. In P. Winke, & T. Brunfaut (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and language testing (pp. 125–134). Routledge.Google Scholar
Kuiken, F., Vedder, I., & Gilabert, R.
(2010) Communicative adequacy and linguistic complexity in L2 writing. In I. Bartning, M. Martin, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Communicative proficiency and linguistic development: Intersections between SLA and language testing research (pp. 81–100). European Second Language Association.Google Scholar
Long, M. H.
(2015) Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2016) In defense of tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and real issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36 1, 5–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luoma, S.
(2004) Assessing speaking. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martín Laguna, S.
forthcoming). Testing functional adequacy in L2 writing across languages, levels and tasks. Universitat Jaume I, Castellón de la Plana.
McNamara, T., & Roever, C.
(2007) Testing: The social dimension. Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M.
(2016) Current uses for task-based language assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36 1, 23–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L.
(2003) Defining and measuring SLA. In C. J. Doughty, & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of seond language acquisition (pp. 717–761). Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555–578. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuzzo, E., & Bove, G.
(2020) Assessing functional adequacy across tasks: A comparison of learners’ and speakers’ written texts. E-JournALL, 7 (2), 9–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Orrù, P.
(2019) Misurare l’adeguatezza funzionale in testi scritti di apprendenti di italiano L2. Italiano LinguaDue, 1 1, 45–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Orrù, P., & Foti, E.
(2020) Coerenza e coesione nella valutazioni dell’adeguatezza funzionale: Un confronto tra i giudizi dei valuatori. In: E. Nuzzo, E. Santoro, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Valutazione e misurazione delle produzioni orali e scritte in italiano lingua seconda (pp. 83–92). Franco Cesati Editore.Google Scholar
Ortega, L.
(2003) Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24 (4), 492–518. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pallotti, G.
(2009) CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30 (4), 590–601. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017a) Applying the interlanguage approach to language teaching. IRAL, 55 (4), 393–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017b) Osservare l’interlingua. Percorsi di educazione linguistica efficace per ridurre le diseguaglianze. In M. Vedonelli (Ed.), L’italiano dei nuovi italiani. Atti del XIX Convegno Nazionale GISCEL (pp. 505–520). Aracne.Google Scholar
(2017c) Une application des recherches sur l’interlangue aux contextes d’enseignement. Le Français dans le monde, 61 1, 109–120.Google Scholar
(2019) Assessing tasks: The case of interactional difficulty. Applied Linguistics, 40 (1), 176–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pallotti, G., & Brezina, V.
(2019) Morphological complexity in written L2 texts. Second Language Research, 35 (1), 99–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paquot, M.
(2018) Phraseological competence: A missing component in university entrance language tests? Insights from a study of EFL learners’ use of statistical collocations. Language Assessment Quarterly, 15 (1), 29–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019) The phraseological dimension in interlanguage complexity research. Second Language Research, 35 (1), 121–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Phakiti, A.
(2020) Likert-type scale construction. In P. Winke, & T. Brunfaut (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and language testing (pp. 102–114). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pill, J., & Smart, C.
(2020) Rating: Behavior and training. In P. Winke, & T. Brunfaut (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and language testing (pp. 135–144). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Révész, A., & Brunfaut, T.
(2021) Validating assessments for research purposes. In P. Winke, & T. Brunfaut (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and language testing (pp. 21–32). Routledge.Google Scholar
Rezaei, A. R., & Lovorn, M.
(2010) Reliability and validity of rubrics for assessment through writing. Assessing Writing, 15(1), 18–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schoonen, R.
(2005) Generalizability of writing scores. An application of structural equation modeling. Language Testing, 22 (1) 1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Timpe, V.
(2013) Assessing intercultural communicative competence. The dependence of receptive sociopragmatic competence and discourse competence on learning opportunities and input. Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Timpe-Laughlin, V.
(2018) Pragmatics in task-based language assessment. Opportunities and challenges. In N. Taguchi, & Y-J. Kim (Eds.), Task-based approaches to assessing pragmatics (pp. 288–304). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Upshur, J. A., & Turner, C. E.
(1995) Constructing rating scales for second language tests. ELT Journal, 49 (1), 3–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vasylets, O., Gilabert, R., & Manchón, R. M.
(2019) Differential contribution of oral and written modes to lexical, syntactic and propositional complexity in L2 performance in instructed contexts. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 3 (2), 206–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weigle, S.
(2002) Assessing writing. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.-Y.
(1998) Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
Measurement of functional adequacy in different learning contexts