Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton May 5, 2017

Transforming instruction to activity: Roleplay in language assessment

  • Gabriele Kasper EMAIL logo and Soo Jung Youn

Abstract

Roleplay is used as a method for education and training, assessment, and research across a wide range of academic and occupational domains, including applied linguistics. In the assessment of speaking and pragmatic competence, roleplay is used to examine how test takers produce and understand social action-in-interaction and in this way overcomes the problem of “construct under-representation”. Roleplay is also chosen for assessment purposes because it accommodates the opposing needs for authenticity and standardization in the design of assessment instruments. While the research literature is mainly concerned with the issue of how roleplay corresponds to real-life interaction, this study asks the more fundamental question of how participants manage to produce roleplays as intelligible unfolding social scenes in the first place. Specifically it explores how the roleplay setup becomes interactionally consequential in roleplays designed to assess the interactional competence of students in an English for academic purposes program. From the joint perspectives of conversation analysis and membership categorization analysis, the study demonstrates how the roleplay participants mobilize their generic and setting-specific interactional competences to accomplish the scenario as a shared practical activity. It shows how the participants jointly “talk the institution into being”, and what details from the setup they treat as necessary, optional, or dispensable. In this way the study reveals the local endogenous order of roleplay as a device for knowledge generation, training, and assessment and spawns further topics for research on roleplay design and interactional competence in a language assessment context.

References

Al-Gahtani, Saad & Carsten Roever. 2012. Proficiency and sequential organization of L2 requests. Applied Linguistics 33. 42–65.10.1093/applin/amr031Search in Google Scholar

Al-Gahtani, Saad & Carsten Roever. 2013. ‘Hi doctor, give me handouts’: Low-proficiency learners and requests. ELT Journal 67. 413–424.10.1093/elt/cct036Search in Google Scholar

Al-Gahtani, Saad & Carsten Roever. 2014. Preference structure in L2 Arabic requests. Intercultural Pragmatics 11. 619–643.10.1515/ip-2014-0027Search in Google Scholar

Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen & Beverly Hartford (eds.). 2005. Interlanguage pragmatics: Exploring institutional talk. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.10.4324/9781410613776Search in Google Scholar

Bilmes, Jack. 1993. Ethnomethodology, culture, and implicature - Toward an empirical pragmatics. Pragmatics 3. 387–409.10.1075/prag.3.4.02bilSearch in Google Scholar

Bushnell, Cade. 2014. On developing a systematic methodology for analyzing categories in talk-in-interaction: Sequential categorization analysis. Pragmatics 24. 735–756.10.1075/prag.24.4.03busSearch in Google Scholar

Felix-Brasdefer, César J. 2007. Pragmatic development in the Spanish as a FL classroom: A cross-sectional study of learner requests. Intercultural Pragmatics 4. 253–286.10.1515/IP.2007.013Search in Google Scholar

Clift, Rebecca. 2001. Meaning in interaction: The case of ‘actually’. Language 77. 245–291.10.1353/lan.2001.0074Search in Google Scholar

Crookall, David & Danny Saunders (eds.). 1989. Communication and simulation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Search in Google Scholar

Curl, Tracy & Paul Drew. 2008. Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41. 129–153.10.1080/08351810802028613Search in Google Scholar

D’hondt, Sigurd, Jan-Ola Östman & Jef Verschueren (eds.) 2009. The pragmatics of interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/hoph.4Search in Google Scholar

Davidson, Judy. 1984. Subsequent versions of invitations, offers, requests, and proposals dealing with potential or actual rejection. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action, 102–128. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511665868.009Search in Google Scholar

Edmondson, Willis, Juliane House, Gabriele Kasper & Brigitte Stemmer 1984. Learning the pragmatics of discourse: A project report. Applied Linguistics 5. 113–127.10.1093/applin/5.2.113Search in Google Scholar

Fitzgerald, Richard & William Housley (eds.) 2015. Advances in membership categorization analysis. Los Angeles: Sage.10.4135/9781473917873Search in Google Scholar

Francis, D. 1989. Game identities and activities: Some ethnomethodological observations. In David Crookall & Danny Saunders (eds.), Communication and simulation, 53–68. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Search in Google Scholar

Fulcher, Glenn & Rosina Marquez Reiter. 2003. Task difficulty in speaking tests. Language Testing 20. 321–344.10.1191/0265532203lt259oaSearch in Google Scholar

Garfinkel, Harold & Harvey Sacks. 1970. On formal structures of practical action. In John C. McKinney & Edward A. Tiryakian (eds.), Theoretical sociology: Perspectives and developments, 338–366. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Search in Google Scholar

Gass, Susan M. & Noel Houck. 1999. Interlanguage refusals: A cross-cultural study of Japanese-English. Berlin: Mouton.10.1515/9783110809879Search in Google Scholar

Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame analysis. New York: Harper & Row.Search in Google Scholar

Goodwin, Charles. 2007. Interactive footing. In Elizabeth Holt & Rebecca Clift (eds.), Reporting talk: Reported speech in interaction, 16–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486654.003Search in Google Scholar

Grabowski, Kirby. 2013. Investigating the construct validity of a role-play test designed to measure grammatical and pragmatic knowledge at multiple proficiency levels. In Steven J. Ross & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Assessing second language pragmatics, 149–171. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.10.1057/9781137003522_6Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John & Steven Clayman. 2010. Talk in action: Interactions, identities and institutions. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781444318135Search in Google Scholar

Hester, Stephen & Peter Eglin (eds.) 1997. Culture in action. Washington, DC: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis & University Press of America.Search in Google Scholar

Higgs, Theodore V. & Ray T. Clifford. 1982. The push toward communication. In Theodore V. Higgs (ed.), Curriculum, competence, and the foreign language teacher, 57–136. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Co.Search in Google Scholar

Hudson, Thom, Emily Detmer & James D. Brown. 1995. Developing prototypic measures of crosscultural pragmatics (Technical Report #7). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.Search in Google Scholar

Huth, Torsten. 2010. Can talk be inconsequential? Social and interactional aspects of elicited second-language interaction. The Modern Language Journal 94. 537–553.10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01092.xSearch in Google Scholar

Johnson, Marisa. 2001. The art of non-conversation. New Haven: Yale University.Search in Google Scholar

Kasper, Gabriele. 2006. Speech acts in interaction: Towards discursive pragmatics. In Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig, César Félix-Brasdefer & Alwiya S. Omar (eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 11, 281–314. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.Search in Google Scholar

Kasper, Gabriele & Steven Ross. 2007. Multiple questions in oral proficiency interviews. Journal of Pragmatics 39. 2045–2070.10.1016/j.pragma.2007.07.011Search in Google Scholar

Kern, Jefrey M. 1991. An evaluation of a novel role-play methodology: The standardized idiographic approach. Behavior Therapy 22. 13–29.10.1016/S0005-7894(05)80240-0Search in Google Scholar

Levenston, Eddie A. 1975. Aspects of testing the oral proficiency of adult immigrants to Canada. In Leslie Palmer & Bernhard Spolsky (eds.), Papers on language testing 1967-1974, 67–74. Washington, DC: TESOL.Search in Google Scholar

Limberg, Holger. 2010. The interactional organization of academic talk: Office hour consultations. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.198Search in Google Scholar

Linell, Per, Johan Hofvendahl & Camilla Lindholm. 2003. Multi-unit questions in institutional interactions: Sequential organization and communicative functions. Text 23. 539–571.10.1515/text.2003.021Search in Google Scholar

Liu, Jianda. 2006. Measuring interlanguage pragmatic knowledge of EFL learners. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar

McNamara, Tim F. & Carsten Roever. 2006. Language testing: The social dimension. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Messick, Samuel. 1989. Validity. In Robert L. Linn (ed.), Educational measurement, 3rd edn, 13–103. New York: American Council on Education/Macmillan.Search in Google Scholar

Okada, Yusuke. 2010. Role-play in oral proficiency interviews: Interactive footing and interactional competencies. Journal of Pragmatics 42. 1647–1668.10.1016/j.pragma.2009.11.002Search in Google Scholar

Okada, Yusuke & Tim Greer. 2013. Pursuing a relevant response in oral proficiency interview role plays. In Steven J. Ross & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Assessing second language pragmatics, 288–310. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9781137003522_11Search in Google Scholar

Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 57–101. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511665868.008Search in Google Scholar

Pomerantz, Anita & John Heritage. 2012. Preference. In Jack Sidnell & Tanja Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 210–228. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9781118325001.ch11Search in Google Scholar

Roever, Carsten. 2005. Testing ESL pragmatics. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.10.3726/978-3-653-04780-6Search in Google Scholar

Roever, Carsten. 2011. Tests of second language pragmatics: Past and future. Language Testing 28. 463–481.10.1177/0265532210394633Search in Google Scholar

Roever, Carsten. 2013. Testing implicature under operational conditions. In Steven J. Ross & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Assessing second language pragmatics, 43–64. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9781137003522_2Search in Google Scholar

Ross, Steven J. & Steven O’Connell. 2013. The situation with complication as a site for strategic competence. In Steven J. Ross & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Assessing second language pragmatics, 311–326. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9781137003522_12Search in Google Scholar

Sacks, Harvey. 1972. An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology. In David Sudnow (ed.), Studies in social interaction, 31–74. New York: Free Press.Search in Google Scholar

Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Sasaki, Miyuki. 1998. Investigating EFL students’ production of speech acts: A comparison of production questionnaires and role plays. Journal of Pragmatics 30. 457–484.10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00013-7Search in Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1991. Reflections on talk and social structure. In Deirdre Boden & Don H. Zimmerman (eds.), Talk and social structure, 44–70. Cambridge: Polity Press.Search in Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2000. When ‘others’ initiate repair. Applied Linguistics 21. 205–243.10.1093/applin/21.2.205Search in Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511791208Search in Google Scholar

Sharrock, W. W. & D. D. Watson. 1985. ‘Reality construction’ in L2 simulations. System 13. 195–206.10.1016/0346-251X(85)90033-8Search in Google Scholar

Stokoe, Elizabeth. 2013. The (in)authenticity of simulated talk: Comparing role-played and actual conversation and the implications for communication training. Research on Language and Social Interaction 46. 1–21.10.1080/08351813.2013.780341Search in Google Scholar

Stokoe, Elizabeth. 2014. The conversation analytic role-play method (CARM): A method for training communication skills as an alternative to simulated role- play. Research on Language and Social Interaction 47. 255–265.10.1080/08351813.2014.925663Search in Google Scholar

Taleghani-Nikazm, Carmen. 2006. Request sequences: The intersection of grammar, interaction and social context. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/sidag.19Search in Google Scholar

Taleghani-Nikazm, Carmen & Thorsten Huth. 2010. L2 requests: Preference structure in talk-in-interaction. Multilingua 29. 185–202.10.1515/mult.2010.008Search in Google Scholar

Thornton, George C. & Jeanette N. Cleveland. 1990. Developing managerial talent through simulation. American Psychologist 45. 190–199.10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.190Search in Google Scholar

Trosborg, Anna. 1995. Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints and apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110885286Search in Google Scholar

Van Compernolle, Remi A. & Janice McGregor (eds.) 2016. Authenticity, language, and interaction in second language contexts. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781783095315Search in Google Scholar

Walters, Scott F. 2007. A conversation-analytic hermeneutic rating protocol to assess L2 oral pragmatic competence. Language Testing 27(2). 155–183.10.1177/0265532207076362Search in Google Scholar

Walters, Scott F. 2013. Interfaces between a discourse completion test and a conversation analysis-informed test of L2 pragmatic competence. In Steven J. Ross & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Assessing second language pragmatics, 172–195. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9781137003522_7Search in Google Scholar

Watson, D. R. & W. W. Sharrock (1990). Realities in simulation/gaming. In David Crookall & Rebecca Oxford (eds.), Simulation, gaming and language learning, 231–238. Basingstoke: Newbury House.Search in Google Scholar

Watson, Rod. 1997. Some general reflections of ‘categorization’ and ‘sequence’ in the analysis of conversation. In Stephen Hester & Peter Eglin (eds.), Culture in action, 49–75. Washington, DC: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis & University Press of America.Search in Google Scholar

Wildner-Bassett, Mary. 1984. Improving pragmatic aspects of learners’ interlanguage. Tübingen: Narr.Search in Google Scholar

Wright-Maley, Corey. 2015. Beyond the “Babel problem”: Defining simulations for the social studies. The Journal of Social Studies Research 39. 63–77.10.1016/j.jssr.2014.10.001Search in Google Scholar

Yamashita, Sayoko O. 1996. Six measures of JSL pragmatics (Technical Report #14). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.Search in Google Scholar

Youn, Soo Jung 2013. Validating task-based assessment of L2 pragmatics in interaction using mixed methods. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.Search in Google Scholar

Youn, Soo Jung 2015. Validity argument for assessing L2 pragmatics in interaction using mixed methods. Language Testing 32. 199–225.10.1177/0265532214557113Search in Google Scholar

Youn, Soo Jung & James Dean Brown. 2013. Item difficulty and heritage language learner status in pragmatic tests for Korean as a foreign language. In Steven J. Ross & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Assessing second language pragmatics, 98–123. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9781137003522_4Search in Google Scholar

Zimmerman, Don H. & Deirdre Boden. 1991. Structure-in-action: An introduction. In Deirdre Boden & Don H. Zimmerman (eds.), Talk and social structure, 3–21. Cambridge: Polity Press.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2017-05-05
Published in Print: 2018-10-25

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 28.3.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/applirev-2017-0020/html
Scroll to top button