Cover not available
Review 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. 1–7
Introduction

The assessment of functional adequacy in language performance

ORCID logo | University of Amsterdam
ORCID logo | University of Amsterdam
Article outline
  • Assessment of functional adequacy: Rationale and objectives
  • Overview of the volume
  • References


This article is available free of charge.

Published online: 20 June 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/task.21009.kui
References (13)
References
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. (2012). 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
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts (pp. 41–58). Academic Press.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knoch, U. (2009). Diagnostic assessment of writing: A comparison of two rating scales. Language Testing, 26 (2), 275–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (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
McNamara, T., & Roever, C. (2007). Testing: The social dimension. Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30 (4), 590–601. 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
Upshur, J. A., & Turner, C. E. (1995). Constructing rating scales for second language tests. ELT Journal, 49 (1), 3–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Koizumi, Rie & Yo In'nami
2024. Predicting functional adequacy from complexity, accuracy, and fluency of second-language picture-prompted speaking. System 120 ► pp. 103208 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.