Encyclopedia of Educational Innovation

Living Edition
| Editors: Michael A. Peters, Richard Heraud

Affordances of Digital Simulations to Measure Communicative Success

  • Julie M. SykesEmail author
  • Margaret M. Malone
  • Linda Forrest
  • Ayşenur Sağdıç
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2262-4_90-1

Introduction

Technological innovation and human communication have a complex and entangled past that will, undoubtedly, continue into the future as new tools emerge and people continue to adapt their communication with, around, and through digital tools. Communicative needs influence technological development. Take, for example, the increasing discursive capabilities of text message applications (e.g., added turn-taking features to show real time interaction and create-your-own emojis to express emotion) or the ever-increasing presence of memes, videos, and images in social media applications like Instagram or YouTube. Furthermore, the affordances of digital innovation often provide capabilities that propel theoretical thinking and the ability to work with complex data and delivery systems (Taguchi and Sykes 2013). One such example is the way language is used, analyzed, and taught; using tools to facilitate complex teaching, learning, and assessment experiences that are practical and...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Carroll, B. A. (2017). A learning-oriented assessment perspective on scenario-based assessment. Working Papers in Applied Linguistics & TESOL, 17(2), 28–35.Google Scholar
  2. Félix-Brasdefer, C. J. (2007). Pragmatic development in the Spanish as a FL classroom: A cross sectional study of learner requests. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(2), 253–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ishihara, N., & Tarone, E. (2009). Emulating and resisting pragmatic norms: Learner subjectivity and pragmatic choice in L2 Japanese. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), Pragmatic competence (pp. 101–128). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  4. Malone, M. E., & Montee, M. J. (2010). Oral proficiency assessment: Current approaches and applications for post secondary foreign language programs. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4, 972–986.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00246.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Reinhardt, J. (2019). Gameful second and foreign language teaching and learning: Theory, research and practice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Roever, C. (2013). Assessing pragmatics. The Companion to Language Assessment, 1, 125–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Roever, C., Fraser, C., & Elder, C. (2014). Testing ESL sociopragmatics: Development and validation of a web-based test battery. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Sykes, J. (2016). Technologies for teaching and learning intercultural competence and interlanguage pragmatics. In S. Sauro & C. Chapelle (Eds.), Handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning (pp. 119–133). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Taguchi, N. (2012). Context, individual differences, and pragmatic competence. New York/Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. State-of-the-art article. Language Teaching, 48, 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Taguchi, N., & Sykes, J. (2013). Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julie M. Sykes
    • 1
    Email author
  • Margaret M. Malone
    • 2
  • Linda Forrest
    • 1
  • Ayşenur Sağdıç
    • 2
  1. 1.University of OregonEugeneUSA
  2. 2.Georgetown UniversityWashingtonUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Okim Kang
  • Alyssa Kermad
    • 1
  1. 1.Languages, Literatures, and CulturesAppalachian State UniversityBooneUSA