251 Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching Department of English Studies, Faculty of Pedagogy and Fine Arts, Adam Mickiewicz University, Kalisz SSLLT 7 (2). 2017. 251-273 doi: 10.14746/ssllt.2017.7.2.5 http://www.ssllt.amu.edu.pl Unscrambling jumbled sentences: An authentic task for English language assessment? Betty Lanteigne American University of Sharjah, Dubai blanteigne@aus.edu Abstract Jumbled sentence items in language assessment have been criticized by some authors as inauthentic. However, unscrambling jumbled sentences is a common occurrence in real-world communication in English as a lingua franca. Natural- istic inquiry identified 54 instances of jumbled sentence use in daily life in Du- bai/Sharjah, where English is widely used as a lingua franca. Thus it is seen that jumbled sentence test items can reflect real-world language use. To evaluate scrambled sentence test items, eight test item types developed from one jum- bled sentence instance (“Want taxi Dubai you?”) were analyzed in terms of in- teractivity and authenticity. Items ranged from being completely decontextual- ized, non-interactive, and inauthentic to being fully contextualized, interactive, and authentic. To determine appropriate assessment standards for English tests in schools in this region, the English language standards for schools and English language requirements for university admission in the UAE were analyzed. Schools in Dubai/Sharjah use Inner Circle English varieties of English (e.g., British or American English) as the standard for evaluation, as well as non-native-Eng- lish-speaker varieties (e.g., Indian English(es)). Also, students applying to Eng- lish-medium universities in the UAE must meet the required scores on stand- ardized English tests including the IELTS and TOEFL. Standards for evaluation of communication in English involving tasks of jumbled sentences in classroom tests must reflect the language learning goals of the school and community. Thus standards for classroom assessment of English in Dubai/Sharjah are deter- mined by local schools’ and universities’ policies. Keywords: English as a lingua franca; language assessment; authentic; interac- tive; jumbled sentences Betty Lanteigne 252 1. Introduction Ockey (2009, p. 844) suggests that “in the real world, test takers may never en- counter a situation in which they would be expected to rearrange groups of words into an appropriate sentence.” When I read this statement, I thought, “He’s never been in a lingua franca situation.” I then walked from my office to the street where taxis were waiting, an area where people of multiple national- ities interact in English. An Indian/Pakistani taxi driver came up to me and asked, “Want taxi Dubai you?” I replied, “No, thank you.” As he walked away, I thought, “That was a jum-bled sentence.” Language by its very nature involves variation and change as people seek to communicate, often inventing new uses of language to express ideas, concepts, feelings, events, and information. This creative communication by means of lan- guage(s) involves what Bachman and Palmer (1996) refer to as real-world target language use (TLU). On the other hand, educational measurement seeks to doc- ument systematically the achievement of student learning outcomes, attempting at achieving consistency in evaluation through standardization. Combining both, language assessment endeavors to measure what people do in use of a target language. This tension between creativity in language use and standardization in language assessment is keenly manifested in the issue of authenticity in language assessment. Davidson, Turner, and Huhta (1997, p. 309) point out that “[t]here is a constant tension between a desire to coordinate and control testing on the one hand and a need to recognize contextualized diversity on the other.” A case in point is the use of jumbled sentences in language assessment, for example, in the Versant test (VersantTM English Test, 2011), which has created controversy as some authors have criticized them as inauthentic tasks consid- ered dissimilar to language use tasks in real-world communication. Chun (2006) criticizes Versant tasks as inauthentic. Indeed, implausible jumbled sentences such as “smokers like heavy looks jam think traffic” (Smokers think heavy traffic is like jam) truly are inauthentic (Bilbrough, as cited in ELT Laura, 2013). Ockey (2009) points out a second problem specifically with the task of re- ordering sentences: negative washback. He states, “Students may spend time putting groups of words into appropriate order rather than using time to prac- tice speaking and listening in real-world contexts, such as having a conversation with other students” (p. 845). Such concern is warranted in particular for lan- guage tests which seek to assess test takers’ communicative language profi- ciency as opposed to knowledge about aspects of language. However, what these views do not appear to recognize is that unscrambling jumbled sentences is a common occurrence in real-world communication in regions which have large, linguistically diverse expatriate populations, where English is used by native- and Unscrambling jumbled sentences: An authentic task for English language assessment? 253 non-native speakers of English at all skill levels, as a lingua franca (LF), a second language (SL), and/or a first language (L1). Thus this investigation sought to doc- ument instances of real-world use of jumbled sentences in lingua franca com- munication in Sharjah/Dubai in the United Arab Emirates (UAE): Research Ques- tion 1) What are instances of English-as-a-lingua-franca communication in Du- bai/Sharjah, UAE involving jumbled sentences? Of interest in language assess- ment is the authenticity of jumbled sentences as test tasks in terms of interac- tiveness and correspondence to real-world English language use in general. In this research, the focus is appropriateness for classroom evaluation of student proficiency in English in the UAE: Research Question 2) To what extent do jum- bled sentence test items developed from an observed real-world interaction re- flect authentic, interactive English language use? and Research Question 3) What standard(s) are appropriate for assessment of jumbled sentences in Eng- lish language tests in schools/universities in Dubai/Sharjah? 2. Review of literature Three issues are pertinent to this research: jumbled sentences, authenticity in language assessment, and English as a lingua franca. 2.1. Jumbled sentences in language assessment Although referred to in different terms by various authors, unscrambling jumbled sentences is a familiar language teaching/testing task in English. Some authors use terms that refer to the characteristic test item input format, such as jumbled sentences, jumbled lines, scrambled sentences, or shuffled sentences (see Bil- brough, 2007; Butler, 2009; Mukundan, 2011; and Yeh & Yang, 2011), while others refer to the test item response format, labeled as sentence shuffling, sentence un- scrambling, reordering jumbled words, text manipulation, and sentence builds (see Chapelle et al., 2010; Hewer, 1997; Johns & Lixun, 1999; Killgallon, 1997; and VersantTM English Test, 2011). The task of unscrambling jumbled sentences can be accomplished with pencil and paper, in person, or via computer. Programs such as Hot PotatoesTM (see Hot PotatoesTM, n.d.) and Blackboard (see Blackboard, 1997- 2015) can be used by classroom teachers to develop computer-based jumbled sentence tasks, allowing test takers to see their work as they reorder the words, with Hot PotatoesTM also providing the option of giving hints and clues. 2.2. Authenticity in language assessment Views of authenticity in language assessment vary. Summarizing discussions of au- thenticity, Gilmore (2007, p. 98) identifies eight possible meanings and concludes Betty Lanteigne 254 that “the concept of authenticity can be situated in either the text itself, in the participants, in the social or cultural situation and purposes of the communica- tive act, or some combination of these.” He points out that even focusing only on real language actually used by people to communicate meaning to others, still involves considerable language variety, and thus he suggests that, at the classroom level, teachers focus on desired instructional goals instead of debat- ing authenticity vs. contrivance. Interactiveness is an attribute closely associated with authenticity. Balanc- ing communicativeness and construct validity in language tests, Bachman (1990) explains the interactional/ability and real-life views of authenticity. The interac- tional/ability view is that authenticity in language assessment is a function of the “interaction between the test taker, the test task, and the testing context” (p. 322), and the real-life view “essentially considers the extent to which test performance replicates some specified non-test language performance” (p. 301). Bachman and Palmer (2010, p. 79) explain that external interactiveness involves “interaction among and between participants and equipment and ma- terials in the language use task or an assessment task.” They point out that such interactiveness can be reciprocal (involving interaction between interlocutors), non-reciprocal (without interlocutor interaction or feedback), or adaptive (with subsequent test items dependent on test taker response to previous items). Re- ciprocal interactiveness is the type of interactiveness most closely resembling real-world communication between interlocutors, although non-reciprocal in- teractiveness can also be found in real-world tasks such as reading signs or lis- tening to announcements. Connecting test tasks with real-world TLU tasks, Bachman and Palmer (1996, p. 23) define authenticity as “the degree of correspondence of the charac- teristics of a given language test task to the features of a TLU task.” They identify three activities for test development using their framework of task characteristics. For classroom teachers/school test developers these activities would involve iden- tifying instances of real-world target language use in their communities that will benefit their students, developing test tasks based on the TLU tasks, and checking to see how well those test tasks reflect characteristics of the TLU tasks. Of import is that effective ELF communication involves the ability to interact with speakers at diverse levels of language ability (Elder & Davies, 2006), and a very real component of such interaction is the task of figuring out the intended meaning of speakers whose sentence order is considerably different (Sifakis, 2004) from that of any standard language varieties, or even of non-standard varieties. Unscrambling jumbled sentences: An authentic task for English language assessment? 255 2.3. English as a lingua franca Today, English is being used as a lingua franca “between non-native speakers of different nationalities, in situations where no native English speakers are pre- sent” (Watterson, 2008, p. 378). English as a lingua franca (ELF) is defined by Firth (1996, p. 240) as use of English as “a ‘contact language’ between persons who share neither a common native tongue nor a common (national) culture, and for whom English is the chosen foreign language of communication.” However, English is also being used as an international lingua franca (EILF) for communication between native-English speakers (NES) and non-native-Eng- lish speakers (NNES) (Smith & Bisaza, 1982), which McKay (2011, p. 127) describes as “the use of English between any two L2 speakers of English, whether sharing the same culture or not, as well as between L2 and L1 speakers of English.” McKay points to research about essential characteristics of EILF interaction resulting in consensus about goals for EILF curricula. One goal in particular is that “[e]xplicit attention should be given to introducing and practicing repair strategies, such as asking for clarification and repetition, rephrasing and allowing wait time” (p. 133). In lingua franca communication, flexibility is of particular importance with em- phasis on negotiation of meaning (see Canagarajah, 2006; Sifakis, 2004). In ELF contexts speakers may have a wide range of levels of English ability (see Jenkins, 2006; Friedrich & Matsuda, 2010, regarding ELF users). Firth and Wag- ner (1997, p. 292) describe some language users as “people who are demonstrably not engaged in the formal learning of a L2, but who nevertheless voluntarily use a L2 in their everyday affairs (e.g., at work or play).” ELF communication is not limited to expert users in high level business or academic interactions, and its users may or may not have formally studied the language. Realistically, school students who are language learners in such ELF settings are likely to encounter real-world use of English that is neither standard nor established non-standard varieties of English. Ellis (1997) points out that syntactic irregularities are common in the speech of people acquiring a language, and Wen (2012, p. 374), discussing ELF pedagogy, says that “the students are expected to understand what non-native speakers say in English.” In particular, in some ELF regions such as areas in the United Arab Emir- ates, many of the non-native English speakers that language students interact with will not be expert users of standard or non-standard varieties of English. 3. Methodology There were two phases to this research: identification of jumbled sentences in real-world ELF communication and analysis of test items developed based on the utterance “Want taxi Dubai you? Betty Lanteigne 256 3.1. The Dubai/Sharjah context In the UAE, the language of education policy and the language of government policy intersect with policies about the language(s) of the workplace, part of what Shohamy (2006, p. 110) refers to as “language in the public space” including “ac- tual language items that are found in streets, shopping centres, schools, markets, offices, hospitals and any other public space.” While the official language of the UAE is Arabic (CIA World Factbook, n.d.; EIU Country Profiles and Reports, 2012), which means that government laws, regulations, and documents are in Arabic, actual language practice in the public space reflects the plurality of languages spo- ken by the citizens and expatriates in these countries. Both of these sources indi- cate that there is a large expatriate population in the UAE consisting of people whose first languages are extremely diverse. Large expatriate populations are pri- marily located in major cities of the region including Dubai and Abu Dhabi. In par- ticular, language use data indicates English is widely used in the UAE. Due to the importance of flexibility in negotiation of meaning in ELF com- munication in the UAE between English users of a variety of skill levels and lan- guage backgrounds, real-world English language use in areas in/close to Dubai, such as Sharjah, necessitates the unscrambling of jumbled sentences by hearers. Randall and Samimi (2010) describe the linguistic context of Dubai: English is required for a much greater range of social interactions, from shopping to receiving medical attention. [. . .] For example, there can be few societies in the world where a second language is necessary to carry out basic shopping tasks, from buying food in supermarkets to clothes in shopping malls. (pp. 43-44) These observations point to the frequent use of English as a lingua franca for daily life interactions in this city. Such interactions in Dubai/Sharjah can range from high-level international business negotiations and workplace communica- tions to low-level, minimal communication of basic functions such as simple re- quests or commands, for egzample, instructions for gardeners or cleaners. 3.2. Data collection The field observations of ELF communication in the public domain involving jum- bled sentences were naturally occurring (Firth, 2009, p. 130), in that they were “interactions recorded for research purposes occurred without regard for, and without being arranged and/or organized by, the researcher(s) concerned.” All of the identified utterances were spontaneous, spoken by users of English in daily life tasks. Such interactions, by their very nature, are spontaneous and Unscrambling jumbled sentences: An authentic task for English language assessment? 257 transitory, and these ELF incidents consisted of brief exchanges (less than one minute) between clerks and customers, security guards, students, janitors and teachers, presenters and their audience, and a taxi driver and a pedestrian of various nationalities, observed in the Dubai/Sharjah area. In all of the observed interactions, the speakers/hearers were of different nationalities and language backgrounds. In some of the observed instances, the language learning status of the language users was known by the researcher. The German presenter was known to be not enrolled in formal English language study, but it is unknown whether or not the remaining language users were formally studying English. It is also unknown to what extent they were seeking to improve their English lan- guage informally. The sentences containing jumbled sentences were written down when they occurred, and fuller descriptions of the interactions were sub- sequently documented at the earliest opportunity. 3.3. Data analysis The observed interactions were described, combining Bachman and Palmer’s (1996) characteristics of TLU tasks and Fishman’s (1972) description of interac- tion in sociolinguistic context, which include the domain/physical setting, the participants/their relationships, and the time involved. The purposes of commu- nication and standard English equivalents were also identified. The first identified jumbled sentence interaction (“Want taxi Dubai you?”) was the basis for develop- ment of eight test items (hard copy and computer-based), ranging from simple jum- bled test item formats often used in classroom tests to item formats used in the internet-based TOEFL (TOEFL iBT® Test Questions, 2015). In evaluating the authen- ticity of the test items proposed here using jumbled sentences based on real- world ELF communication, both real-world TLU correspondence and interactive- ness are considered. 4. Findings Field observation identified 54 jumbled sentences in real-world ELF oral com- munication. All of these real-world ELF interactions involved utterances contain- ing jumbled sentences, or syntactical errors (Ellis, 1997), while some also in- cluded non-standard word form and/or missing words. While the 54 naturalistic observations are not extensive, they do point to language use by speakers com- municating in language contact situations via English because it was the most readily available common language, if not the only common language. Appendix A presents the 54 jumbled sentences. All of the sentences contain scrambled word order, to a greater or lesser extent. Missing words are seen in sentences Betty Lanteigne 258 #1-3, 11, 14-15, 17, 19, 22, 27, 29, 31-32, 35-37, 39, 42, 44-45, 47-50, and 53; and non-standard word form is seen in sentences #23-24, 45, and 51. One common characteristic of these ELF language users was that they uti- lized whatever words were available to them to communicate their desired meaning. Communication of meaning was more important than grammatical accuracy. The irregular grammatical structure of their utterances may have been the result of first language influence, fossilization, interaction with other lan- guage users, or simply language decisions made at the moment of interaction. 4.1. Evaluating interactiveness and authenticity in test items based on a real-world language use task To evaluate possible interactiveness and authenticity in language assessment tasks of unscrambling jumbled sentences, the first of these jumbled sentence TLU tasks is examined more closely as a case in question: A NNES, Indian/Paki- stani-looking taxi driver’s question described above, “Want taxi Dubai you?” Such interactions are common between interlocutors of diverse levels of English ability. In this case the intended meaning was obvious even though the syntax was jumbled: The taxi driver wanted to know if she would like a taxi to Dubai. In other words, was she a potential customer? The NES woman needed to be able to unscramble the taxi driver’s utterance to be able to respond appropriately. The fact that the NES was a Western-looking woman was very likely also a pertinent factor in the taxi driver’s choice of language. If the woman had looked Indian or Pakistani, he might have used Hindi/Urdu instead of English. Also, if he knew some Arabic and the pedestrian had been an Arab-looking woman, Arabic might have been used as the lingua franca. However, with a Western-looking woman, English was the obvious choice of lingua franca for this Indian/Pakistani taxi driver, even if she was not a NES, since it would have been logical for him to assume that she would be more likely to be able to speak Eng- lish than Hindi/Urdu or Arabic, the other widely spoken languages in the region. The skills used by the second interlocutor (the NES woman) in this taxi driver-pedestrian ELF communication task involved knowledge of English syn- tax, as well as the ability to understand the intended illocutionary force of the taxi driver’s utterance and to respond appropriately. She had to reorder the words in the question and add the missing words to come up with the intended meaning: “Do you want a taxi to Dubai?” This real-world English language use task points to the importance of English users (NNES and NES) in this GCC context be- ing able to understand utterances by speakers with low English levels. One aspect of this ability would include being able to unscramble jumbled sentences and fill Unscrambling jumbled sentences: An authentic task for English language assessment? 259 in any necessary words that are omitted, in order to determine the intended meaning and an appropriate response. 5. Analysis 5.1. Examples of jumbled sentence test items Using this real-world ELF use task, it is possible to develop test tasks to evaluate test takers’ ability to unscramble the sentence “Want taxi Dubai you?” and add the missing words. Presented here are eight test items (hard copy and com- puter-based) developed from this TLU task, which are possible in classroom as- sessment. The last two test tasks discussed would require delivery systems not readily available in many language classrooms of the GCC but which are possible in some locations. While these test items use the name of the city the taxi driver mentioned (Dubai), it would be possible to change the city name to that of a city familiar to test takers in other regions. Example 1 is a decontextualized jumbled sentence in pencil-and-paper format, a test item frequently utilized in language instruction. (For example, see “Jumbled Sentence Worksheets,” n.d.; “Rearranging Jumbled Words to Make Sentences,” 2015; “Connect Series,” 1995-2015.) Assessment with this item would consist of identifying how many words the test takers put in correct order and whether or not they capitalized the first word and included a question mark. Example 1 Decontextualized Jumbled Sentence (Hard Copy) 1. Put the following words in correct order to form a sentence, adding appropriate capita- lization and punctuation. a want Dubai to do you taxi _____________________________________________________________ In terms of authenticity in assessment, this test item has little to recommend it. True, it is based on a real-world TLU task, but no description of the setting is provided, and there is no attempt to elicit meaningful communication. While test takers would be required to interact with the text by manipulating the order of the words, the interaction is only for the purpose of displaying their knowledge of standard question format. Example 2 is similar to Example 1, also a decontextualized jumbled sen- tence item but this time using Hot PotatoesTM (see Figure 1). The test takers may click on “Hint” for information about the next correct word, but they lose points for doing so. They can also start over again easily by clicking “Restart.” In addition, they receive immediate feedback about how well they did on the test item. The Betty Lanteigne 260 advantage of this format is that the test takers can see the sentence as they re- construct it and are informed immediately if they answered correctly or not. Figure 1 Decontextualized jumbled sentence using Hot PotatoesTM Admittedly, this computer-based task is more fun than just rewriting the sentence in correct word order. However, in terms of authenticity, the same criti- cisms would apply to this test item as for Example 1. There is no meaningful inter- action with any real-world connection, and the item only elicits display of correct question formation. However, there is increased interaction with the test item it- self through the computerized word order manipulation and the option of asking for hints. Nonetheless, these computer interaction elements are unrelated to any real-world TLU task and thus increase the element of artificiality in the task. Example 3, also developed using Hot PotatoesTM, provides some contextualiza- tion and asks the test takers to rewrite the sentence, similar to the hard copy format of Example 1 (see Figure 2). They are asked to provide the missing words, which means they must produce them instead of just copying, and correct spelling is re- quired. As with the previous computer-based exercise, the test takers can see their sentences and redo them easily, as well as have the option to get clues about how to answer or hints about what letter comes next (with an associated loss of points). Figure 2 Briefly contextualized jumbled sentence using Hot PotatoesTM Unscrambling jumbled sentences: An authentic task for English language assessment? 261 In terms of authenticity, this test item is an improvement on the items in Examples 1 and 2. Assessing an aspect of pragmatic competence, specifically appropriate language use in social context (Eslami & Mirzaei, 2012), this item provides a brief scenario and then asks the test takers to develop an appropriate response. Characteristics of the setting for the task are provided, briefly indicat- ing the people involved, who said and did what, and implying the physical loca- tion (a place where taxi drivers would be looking for customers). Also, test takers are asked to fill in the words that the taxi driver left out, a task which is a char- acteristic of lingua franca communication. However, the computer-interactive component of the task, although more engaging for the test takers than just rewriting the question, still does not reflect the real-world interaction of the TLU task of communication between two people. Example 4 illustrates a fill-in-the-blank test item format using Blackboard, which is another program which teachers/school test developers can use to de- velop test items (see Figure 3). Similar to Example 3, this item provides brief con- textualization and allows evaluation of test takers’ ability to reorder the taxi driver’s jumbled sentence. This test item can be automatically graded by Black- board (thus saving teacher/rater time), but there is an option of grading manually, if so desired. The fill-in-the-blank item format can require exact spelling or allow previously identified spelling variants if spelling is not to be evaluated. It requires test takers to rewrite the sentence and allows up to 20 possible correct answers which would be provided by the teacher/rater. In this item, only four correct an- swers are provided with this test item because they are the most common and also most widely accepted standard English rewordings of this jumbled question. Figure 3 Briefly contextualized jumbled sentence item using Blackboard Overall, the test item in Example 4 is basically a variation on the typical jum- bled sentence item format, with added computer-based features. The contextual- ization provided in Example 4 could also be included in Examples 1 and 2, making them somewhat more in line with the real-world TLU task characteristics, although there still is only limited interaction in terms of actual communication of meaning. Betty Lanteigne 262 However, it is possible to make the jumbled sentence test task even more interactive, by having test takers recognize the taxi driver’s intended meaning and identify appropriate response(s) – measuring pragmatic comprehension and production (Eslami & Mirzaei, 2012). Examples 5 and 6 show two contextu- alized, sequential test items developed with Blackboard, using multiple-choice and multiple-answer formats. (See Figure 4.) These two items ask test takers to choose the answer most closely representing the taxi driver’s intended meaning and then select the appropriate responses to his question. In the second ques- tion of the pair, the multiple-answer question, the test takers are instructed to check all answers that apply, indicating that more than one response is possible. As with the other computer-based test items, these are selected-response items which are scored automatically, although it is possible to score them manually. Figure 4 Two-part jumbled sentence and response item using Blackboard In terms of authenticity, this pair of test items taps into skills involved in real- world TLU such as determining the speaker’s meaning, which may include mentally reordering the jumbled sentence, and determining an appropriate response. Thus they go beyond simple reordering of words in a sentence presented in isolation. How- ever, the selected-response format limits the possible responses to the second ques- tion, making it easier to grade because the accepted responses are predetermined, but also making the item less interactive than a short-answer format would be. Unscrambling jumbled sentences: An authentic task for English language assessment? 263 Two even more authentic possibilities for interactive test items would be listening/writing and listening/speaking tasks, similar to tasks in the internet- based TOEFL (iBT) listening and speaking sections (TOEFL, 2012). One interactive listening/writing test item could be to present the taxi driver’s question audio recorded. The recording could be spoken by someone with typically accented English, complete with background noise, or videotaped in an appropriate set- ting, which would address phonological flexibility as well as knowledge of sen- tence structure and recognition of intended meaning. This test task could be selected response, or it could be short answer, thus requiring setting evaluation criteria for acceptable responses (see Example 7). Example 7 Listening/writing Task 1. [audiotaped or spoken by narrator: You are waiting for someone, and a taxi driver comes to you and asks: (audiotaped of someone representing taxi driver: “Want taxi Dubai you?”) (Gulf News) What does he mean?] _____________________________________________________________ In terms of both interactiveness and correspondence to real-world TLU, this test item is a considerable improvement over the previous decontextualized tasks. The test takers would actually listen to a description of the scenario and determine the taxi driver’s meaning, interacting with the spoken question. Betty Lanteigne 264 The second interactive task, Example 8, can be a listening/ writing test task or a listening/speaking task. Although a speaking item would very likely be challenging in many classroom settings due to time and equipment limitations as well as logistical considerations, an interactive listening/speaking test task could include contextualized presentation (videotaped) of the taxi driver’s ques- tion (as in Example 7) followed by a spoken response by the test taker. Example 8 Listening/writing Task (or possibly listening/speaking) [videotaped, or audiotaped/spoken by narrator with picture of taxi: “You are waiting for someone, and a taxi driver comes to you and asks”: (audio spoken by someone representing taxi driver): “Want taxi Dubai you?”] a. What does he mean? b. How would you respond? ________________________________________________(written or spoken) The listening/speaking task could be administered in a computer lab with the spoken response audio recorded, or it could be administered as part of a one- on-one oral evaluation with the spoken response evaluated by the teacher/rater on the spot. In terms of correspondence to the real-world TLU task and interac- tiveness, such an interactive listening/speaking test task would be much more au- thentic than test items that simply require test takers to reorder scrambled words, with or without contextualization. The test taker would hear a real question, de- termine the intended meaning, and then respond appropriately. 5.2. Standards for assessment of English in the UAE From the above-mentioned examples of test tasks using jumbled sentences, it is evident that it is possible to construct jumbled sentence test items with vary- ing degrees of authenticity, ranging from decontextualized, written sentence- reordering tasks to contextualized, integrated tasks of listening/reading/writing or listening/reading/speaking. Such test tasks could be used to measure knowledge of specific aspects of sentence structure, with the possibility of measuring recognition of intended meaning and/or ability to respond appropri- ately, using spoken or written form for both task input and test taker response. However, such measurement requires identification of evaluation criteria, and in ELF settings the issue of standards for assessment is controversial, partic- ularly concerning grammar. McKay (2011) discusses this issue, pointing out ar- guments for and against Inner Circle English grammar being held as the standard. One view is that grammatical elements which do not impede mutual intelligibility should not be the basis for evaluation, while another view is that students and Unscrambling jumbled sentences: An authentic task for English language assessment? 265 teachers of ELF desire to achieve Standard English grammatical accuracy (of the Standard English variety appropriate for their purposes) and Standard English (British or American) grammar should be the basis for evaluation. McKay (2011, p. 134) says that “[t]hose who argue for a monolithic model contend that native- speaker models should be promoted because they have been codified and have a degree of historical authority,” but those advocating a “pluricentric model of English [. . .] argue that the development of new varieties of English is a natural result of the spread of English.” In addition, Jenkins (2006, p. 42) points to “the emergence of a range of educated L2 English varieties which differ legitimately from standard NS English” and says that “supporters of this [pluricentric] view are able and willing to distinguish between NNS language variety and interlanguage, that is, between acceptable NNS variation from NS English norms and NNS error caused by imperfect or incomplete language learning” (pp. 42-43). This distinction between established language varieties and interlanguage is crucial for language assessment at all levels, from low-stakes classroom quizzes to high-stakes re- gional, national, and international tests. In a sense, for the pluricentric view to work, the NNES varieties would have to develop their own standardization, as sug- gested by Elder and Davies (2006), and distinguish between syntactical error di- verging from standard NS English grammar and acceptable L2 English variation. In the UAE context, reflecting the reality of language policy in this region, both views of language assessment are present: Inner Circle Englishes as the standard and NNES varieties as the standard. English can be one subject taught in the curriculum, one of multiple languages of instruction, or the primary language of instruction. There are schools in which the language of instruction is Arabic with English being taught as a subject (usually based on a form of British English), bilingual schools with some sub- jects (such as mathematics and science) taught in English and the remaining subjects taught in Arabic or other language(s), and English-medium international schools where the entire curriculum is taught in English except for other language classes, with many using British English, American English, or Indian English(es) (see “The UAE Has the Highest Number of International Schools Globally,” 2015). Since many of the students attending these schools will very likely return to their home countries and enter the educational systems there, it is necessary that they be able to meet the educational requirements of their national school systems. Thus, English assessment in these schools would need to follow the standards determined by the home country school system, which may be an Inner Circle Standard English or other variety based on expert users (Elders & Davies, 2006) of the specified variety. In addition, a complicating factor in standards for English in the UAE is the lan- guage of instruction for universities. Expatriate students often choose to attend uni- versities which are internationally accredited in order to obtain a degree recognized outside of their resident country. Such universities often use English as the language Betty Lanteigne 266 of instruction with the linguistically diverse student and faculty population, requir- ing students to pass international English tests such as IELTS or TOEFL, or the CEPA- English. The CEPA is the Comprehensive Educational Proficiency Assessment, an ed- ucational proficiency test administered in year 12 in K-12 schools in the UAE, with one of the components being an English test (CEPA – English, 2011-2012). (See Ad- mission Tests, n.d.; American University of Sharjah Undergraduate Catalogue, 2015- 2016; Undergraduate Admissions, 2016; English Language Requirements, 2016, for undergraduate admission requirements for English competency). Students seeking admission to these universities would need to be able to meet the admission requirements of their desired universities, which would entail adhering to the grammatical standards of the specified Standard English varieties, by passing “an externally-created [sic] and validated international test of general language proficiency in order to enter the university” (Lloyd & Da- vidson, 2005, p. 323). The reality for language assessment standards for stu- dents wishing to attend internationally accredited universities in the UAE is that even though they do not live or work in an Inner Circle country, they may be required to pass tests which are based on established Standard English norms. In terms of rating of test tasks involving use of jumbled sentences in EILF com- munication, teachers and/or test developers for schools would thus need to follow the agreed-upon standards in their school/community setting for grammar, spelling, vocabulary, and punctuation. For example, in addition to the four rebuilt versions of the taxi driver’s question provided as answers to the sample test items above, two other versions in some Indian English varieties are “You want a taxi to Dubai, isn’t it?” and “You want a Dubai taxi, isn’t it?” (see Sailaja, 2009.) If such Englishes were the standard for rating these test items, expert users of each variety would have to evaluate whether these tag question versions were correct or not. While the choice of language variety assessed at the school level may be a non-standard variety local in scope, limited to a specific domain, that choice may have wider implications as students go on to study in universities or work in workplaces which use Standard English varieties. In this light Elders and Davies (2006) caution that although the various features of ELF use in particular contexts can conceivably be cap- tured in domain-specific ESP tests, there are important practicality considerations to bear in mind. Special purpose testing is, by its very nature, restricted in scope and as such likely to have limited generalizability and less sway with score users, and possibly test takers themselves (see research by Bolton, 2004; Timmis, 2002), than is the case with current tests of SE [Standard Englishes] which have greater prestige and wider currency. (p. 295) This observation is particularly pertinent in the UAE where varieties of English abound in public spaces, with American and British English varieties considered valued currency by internationally accredited universities. Unscrambling jumbled sentences: An authentic task for English language assessment? 267 6. Conclusion While it is true that decontextualized jumbled sentence test items are uncommon in real-world English language communication, unscrambling contextualized jum- bled utterances of an interlocutor with low language proficiency definitely is a task common in real-world communication in regions where English is used as an in- ternational lingua franca by NES and NNES at all proficiency levels. In the UAE, NES and NNES users of English are apt to encounter and communicate with speakers of diverse levels of language proficiency in different varieties of English in this re- gion, as well as ELF, and they need to develop the skills needed to be able to com- prehend meaning in jumbled utterances. Thus, such real-world TLU tasks can be the basis for interactive and authentic assessment tasks. While the primary focus of this discussion has been use of contextualized jumbled sentences in classroom assessment, such test tasks could also be ap- propriate for high-stakes international language tests. Classroom teach- ers/school test developers and large-scale test developers alike can make use of contextualized jumbled-sentence tasks to evaluate test takers’ language profi- ciency. Further, such tasks can enhance authentic assessment of skills necessary to ELF communication, such as identifying intended illocutionary force and pro- ducing an appropriate response. Reflecting the tension between creativity in language use and standardi- zation in language assessment, standards for evaluation of communication in English involving tasks of jumbled sentences in classroom tests must reflect the language learning goals of the school and community. Thus, if it is important to the local community that students learn a specific variety of Standard English, then the standards of that standard variety should be adhered to in determining the accuracy of student responses in classroom assessments. A potential area of research combining sociolinguistics and language assess- ment would be to identify characteristics of real-world language use tasks involving jumbled sentences. What patterns of jumbling are typical of authentic jumbled sen- tences as opposed to idiosyncratic scrambling? At the regional/school/classroom level it would be helpful to identify patterns of jumbling typical of international lin- gua franca communication in particular areas. Interactive test items based on such real-world ELF interaction could not only be authentic and interactive, but could result in positive washback as students interact with test items reflecting non- standard communication patterns they are likely to encounter in their environ- ment. It could also increase their awareness of which forms of English are ap- propriate in which contexts, for example, ELF vs. ESL (for academic purposes or in international business communication). Betty Lanteigne 268 References Admission tests. (n.d.). University of Sharjah. Retrieved from http://www.sharjah. ac.ae/English/Admissions/Pages/ AdmissionRequirements.aspx American University of Sharjah undergraduate catalogue. (2015-2016). American University of Sharjah. Retrieved from http://www.aus.edu/ info/200144/ information_and_support/343/university_catalogs#.TyLeIYGD_ct Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Ox- ford University Press. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language assessment in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Blackboard. (1997-2015). Blackboard Inc. Retrieved from http://www.blackboard.com/ Bolton, K. (2004). World Englishes. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 367-396). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Butler, G. (2009). The design of a postgraduate test of academic literacy: Accom- modating student and supervisor perceptions. Southern African Linguis- tics and Applied Language Studies, 27(3), 291-300. Canagarajah, S. (2006). An interview with Suresh Canagarajah. In R. Rubdy & M. Saraceni (Eds.), English in the world (pp. 200-212). London: Continuum. CEPA – English. (2011-2012). National Admissions and Placement Office. Retrieved from http://ws1.mohesr.ae/cepa/CEPA_DET_EN.aspx?str=EN Chapelle, C. A., Chung, Y-R, Hegelheimer, V., Pendar, N., & Xu, J. (2010). Towards a computer-delivered test of productive grammatical ability. Language Test- ing, 27(4), 443-469. Chun, C. W. (2006). Commentary: An analysis of a language test for employment: The authenticity of the PhonePass test. Language Assessment Quarterly, 3(3), 295-306. CIA world factbook. (n.d.). Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved from https:// www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/the-world-factbook/ Connect series. (1995-2015). Esl.net. Retrieved from http://www.esl.net/connect.html Davidson, F., Turner, C. E., & Huhta, A. (1997). Language testing standards. In C. Clapham, & D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, Volume 7: Language testing and assessment (pp. 303-311). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. EIU country reports and profiles. (2012). Economist intelligence unit. Retrieved from www.eiu.com Elder, C., & Davies, A. (2006). Assessing English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 282-301. Unscrambling jumbled sentences: An authentic task for English language assessment? 269 Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ELT Laura. (2013, May 12). Lexical Teaching Conference [Blog message]. Retrieved from https://eltlaura.wordpress.com/tag/michael-lewis/ English language requirements. (2016). University of Wollongong-Dubai. Retrieved from http://www.uowdubai.ac.ae/undergraduate-programs/admission-require ments#English%20Language%20Requirements Eslami, Z. R., & Mirzaei, A. (2012). Assessment of second language pragmatics. In C. Coombe, P. Davidson, B. O’Sullivan, & S. Stoynoff (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language assessment (pp. 198-208). New York: Cambridge University Press. Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality. On “lingua franca” English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 237-259. Firth, A. (2009). Doing not being a foreign language learner: English as a lingua franca in the workplace and (some) implications for SLA. IRAL, 47(1), 127-156. Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication and (some) funda- mental concepts in SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 81, 285-300. Fishman, J. A. (1972). Domains and the relationship between micro- and macro- sociolinguistics. In J. Gumperz, & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolin- guistics (pp. 435-453). Oxford: Blackwell. Friedrich, P., & Matsuda, A. (2010). When five words are not enough. Journal of Multilingual Research, 4(1), 20-30. Gilmore, A. (2007). Authentic materials and authenticity in foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 40(2), 97-118. Gulf news picture. (n.d.). Gulfnews.com Hot PotatoesTM. (n.d.). Hot Potatoes home page. Retrieved from http://hotpot.u vic.ca/index.php Jenkins, J. (2006). The spread of EIL: A testing time for testers. ELT Journal, 60(1), 42-50. Jumbled sentence worksheets. (n.d.). Eslprintables.com. Retrieved from http:// www.eslprintables.com/grammar_worksheets/sentence_construction/jubl ed_sentences/ Killgallon, D. (1997). Sentence composing for middle school: A worktext on sen- tence variety and maturity. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. Lexical Teaching Conference. (2013). Wordpress.com. Retrieved from https://eltlaura. wordpress.com/tag/ michael-lewis Lloyd, D., & Davidson, P. (2005). Optimizing students’ success on high-stakes ex- aminations. In P. Davidson, C. Coombe, & W. Jones (Eds.), Assessment in the Arab world (pp. 323-336). Dubai: TESOL Arabia. McKay, S. L. (2011). English as an international lingua franca pedagogy. In E. Hin- kel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 122-139). New York: Routledge. Betty Lanteigne 270 Mukundan, J. (2011). Modal auxiliary verbs in prescribed Malaysian English text- books. English Language Teaching, 4(1), 79-89. Ockey, G. (2009). Developments and challenges in the use of computer-based testing for assessing second language ability. Modern Language Journal, 93, 836-847. Randall, M., & Samimi, M. A. (2010). The status of English in Dubai: Transition from Arabic to English as a lingua franca. English Today 101, 26(1), 43-50. doi:10.1017/S0266078409990617 Rearranging jumbled words to make sentences. (2015). Bbc.co.uk. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/skillswise/worksheet/en30stru-l1-w-jumbled-sentences/a nswers Sailaja, P. (2009). Indian English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. New York: Routledge. Sifakis, N. C. (2004). Teaching EIL – International or Intercultural English? What teachers should know. System, 32, 237-250. Smith, L. E., & Bisazza, J. A. (1982).The comprehensibility of three varieties of Eng- lish for college students in seven countries. Language Learning, 32, 259-70. The UAE has the highest number of international schools globally. (2015, August 17). UAE Interact. Retrieved from http://www.uaeinteract.com/docs/The_UAE_ has_the_highest_number_of_international_schools_globally/70409.htm Timmis, I. (2002). Native-speaker norms and international English: A classroom view. ELT Journal, 56(3), 241-249. TOEFL. (2012). Educational Testing Service. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/toefl TOEFL iBT® test questions. (2015). Educational Testing Service. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/ toefl/ibt/prepare/test_questions Undergraduate admissions. (2016). American University in Dubai. Retrieved from http://www.aud.edu/admission/en/menu/1886/before-applying#/admission/ en/page/716/undergraduate-admissions-requirements VersantTM English Test: Test description and validation summary. (2011). Pearson Education. Retrieved from http://www.versanttest.com/ technology/Versant EnglishTestValidation.pdf Watterson, M. (2008). Repair of non-understanding in English in international communication. World Englishes, 27(3/4), 378-406. Wen, Q. (2012). English as a lingua franca: A pedagogical perspective. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 2, 371-378. Yeh, H-C., & Yang, Y-F. (2011). Metacognitive process in online text construction. Educational Technology & Society, 14(3), 82-101 Unscrambling jumbled sentences: An authentic task for English language assessment? 271 Appendix A – 54 Jumbled Sentences Setting Purpose Participants Utterance Standard equivalent 1. Work/taxi driver talking to potential cus- tomer asking if she wants a taxi Pakistani/Indian male driver and American female pedestrian “Want taxi Dubai you?” Do you want a taxi to Dubai? 2. Store/saleswoman talking to customer asking if the cus- tomer had a re- wards card Philippina sales- woman and Arab cus- tomer “Shukran card you have?” Do you have a Shukran card? 3. Store/salesman talk- ing to customer asking if the cus- tomer had a re- wards card Indian salesman and Arab customer “Shukran card do you have?” Do you have a Shukran card? 4. School/two friends talking talk about how she looks Two Arab females “Cute I am.” I am cute. 5. School/two students talking asking about a com- petition Arab female and Arab male students “Competition what?” What competition? 6. School/two students talking commenting about a dinner Two Arab females “So professional it seems.” It seems so pro- fessional. 7. School/student talk- ing to friends saying he would talk to the professor Afghani male student to friends of different nationalities “Professor I will tell him.” I will tell the pro- fessor. 8. Store/saleswoman talking to customer asking if she has three coins Philippina sales- woman and Arab fe- male customer “Three dirhams you have?” Do you have three dirhams? 9. Store/salesman talk- ing to customer asking about custo- mer order Philipino salesman and Arab customer “Kiwi blueberry without?” Without kiwi and blueberry? 10. Store/salesman talking to customer asking about custo- mer order Philipino salesman and Arab customer “Yogurt you don’t want?” You don’t want yo- gurt? 11. Store/salesman talking to customer asking if customer had completed a form Philippino salesman and Arab customer “The rest you fill all?” You filled out all the rest? 12. Store/salesman talking to customer asking about custo- mer order Philipino salesman and Arab customer “Nutella you don’t want?” You don’t want Nu- tella? 13. Store/saleswoman talking to customer asking for change Philippina sales- woman and Arab cus- tomer “Do you have dir- ham two?” Do you have two dirhams? 14. Store/salesman talking to customer informing customer about available products Indian salesman and Arab customer “Chocolate only we don’t have.” It’s only chocolate that we don’t have. 15. Store/saleswoman talking to customer asking if customer has a rewards card Philippina sales- woman and Arab cus- tomer “My Club card you have?” Do you have a My Club card? 16. Store/store clerk talking to customer telling a customer where a product is Asian store clerk and American female cus- tomer “Cheese mozza- rella this one.” This is the mozza- rella cheese. 17. Store/saleswoman talking to customer complimenting a cu- stomer Philippina sales- woman and Arab fe- male customer “Proud you make.” You will make your father proud. 18. Store/stock clerk talking to customer informing customer that the tea is not good Indian male stock clerk and Arab fe- male customer “Not good karak.” The karak is not good. 19. Store/customer talking to salesperson asking the price Indian female cus- tomer to Chinese salesperson “This how much?” How much does this cost? Betty Lanteigne 272 20. Store/customer talking to salesperson asking if an item is available in blue Indian female cus- tomer to Chinese salesperson “Blue you have?” Do you have this item in blue? 21. Store/salesman talking to customer saying the price is good Indian salesman and Arab female cus- tomer “Price very good.” It’s a very good price. 22. Store/salesman talking to customer saying the customer should believe Indian salesman and Arab female cus- tomer “Believe make.” You should believe me. 23. Store/ salesman talking to customer telling a customer it’s a good deal Indian salesman and Arab female cus- tomer “Good deal I make.” I made a good deal. 24. Store/ salesman talking to customer telling a customer to trust him Indian salesman and Arab female cus- tomer “Trust you make.” Trust me. 25. Store/salesman talking to customer telling the customer the quality is good Indian salesman and Arab female cus- tomer “Quality very good.” The item is of very good quality. 26. Store/saleswoman talking to customer expressing confi- dence Saleswoman (uniden- tified race/national- ity) and Arab female customer “100% sure I am.” I am 100% sure. 27. Store/customer talking to salesperson saying the price is too high Arab female cus- tomer and Turkish saleswoman “Too high price.” The price is too high. 28. Store/customer talking to saleswoman requesting the price be lowered Arab female cus- tomer and Turkish saleswoman “Price lower.” Lower the price. 29. Store/customer talking to salesman asking about colors Arab male customer and Turkish salesman “Color you have?” What colors do you have this item in? 30. Store/customer talking to cashier asking for change Indian female cus- tomer to Turkish male cashier “Change you have?” Do you have change? 31. Store/salesperson talking to customer telling about pro- duct Salesman (unidenti- fied race/nationality) and Arab female cus- tomer “Italy made.” It is made in Italy. 32. Store/wife talking to husband giving opinion about color Arab wife to her Arab husband “Better color black.” Black is the better color. 33. Store/wife talking to husband telling about color Arab wife to her Arab husband “Black is this.” This is black. 34. Store/salesman talking to customer asking for change Indian salesman to Asian female cus- tomer “Change bring.” Do you have change? 35. Store/customer talking to salesperson denying responsibi- lity Asian female cus- tomer to Indian salesperson “Problem not mine.” This is not my problem. 36. Store/customer talking to salesperson asking for a disco- unt Arab female cus- tomer to Indian salesperson “Discount you make?” Can you make a discount? 37. Store/customer talking to salesperson requesting an item be wrapped Arab male customer to salesperson “Wrap you make?” Can you wrap the item? 38. Restaurant/worker talking to customer asking about order Turkish male worker to Arab female cus- tomer “Spicy you want?” Do you want the spicy flavor? Unscrambling jumbled sentences: An authentic task for English language assessment? 273 39. Restaurant/worker talking to customer asking about change Turkish male worker to Arab female cus- tomer “Change you get?” Can you get change? 40. Social/two acquain- tances talking asking about length of stay South African woman to American woman “For how long you are here?” How long have you been living here? 41. Social/woman talk- ing to friends asking if door is open German woman to American women friends “Is the door open of the car?” Is the car door open? 42. School/student talking to friends asking what some- one said Unidentified race/ nationality male to group of friends “What he said?” What did he say? 43. Social/woman talk- ing to friends asking about a mu- sic performance Arab female to group of friends “Why they are not playing _____?” (some name of music) Why didn’t they (performers) play __? (some piece of music) 44. Hospital/ receptio- nist to hospital patient asking about par- king ticket Philippina female re- ceptionist at hospital to American female patient “Parking ticket you need?” Do you need a parking ticket? 45. Work/two security guards talking requesting help Asian male security guard to African male security guard “Oh now water have inside. Come looking.” Now we have wa- ter inside. Come and see. 46. School/student requesting clarification asking for clarifica- tion Arab female student to American female teacher “How you can know?” How can you know? 47. Work/presenter speaking to audience rhetorical question German male presen- ter to multinational audience “How you would feel if this happen to you?” How would you feel if this were to happen to you? 48. Store/salesman talking to customer informing about product availability Asian male store clerk to Arab male customer “Plastic no have.” We don’t have it in plastic. 49. Store/salesman talking to customer asking about giving change Philippino salesman to Arab female cus- tomer “Ma’am, if I give you small bill, is it ok?” Ma’am, is it ok if I give you small bills? 50. Store/saleswoman talking to customer talking to another salesman Indian saleswoman to Philippino sales- man “I make no in- voice.” I didn’t make any invoice 51. Store/saleswoman talking to customer explaining about a product Arab saleswoman to American female cus- tomer “This one is not shampoo leave.” This is not leave-in conditioner. 52. Store/stock clerk talking to customer clarifying custo- mer’s question Arab male store clerk to American female customer “Kiwi this one cranberry?” Do you mean kiwi- cranberry juice? 53. Store/stock clerk talking to customer answering customer question Arab male store clerk to American female customer “Like this [ma fi] don’t have.” We don’t have any like this. 54. Bank/teller talking to customer asking if he can copy something Arab male teller to American female cus- tomer “This I can take with me?” Can I take this with me? (Can I copy this?)