Professionally oriented role-based simulation tasks combine design decisions that draw on both language pedagogy and domain knowledge. A communicative task-design decision may be pedagogically appropriate, while a related domain element may be professionally plausible; however, two separate positive judgments do not necessarily guarantee that the two elements are functionally compatible when combined within the same task. This conceptual and methodological study operationalizes a relational cross-check intended to identify incompatibilities that arise specifically at the point of combination between separately acceptable elements. The study draws on research in languages for specific purposes, specific-purpose language assessment, and simulation design. Three distinct objects of analysis are differentiated: the language-pedagogical acceptability of a communicative task-design decision, A(x); the domain appropriateness of a related domain element, B(y); and the functional compatibility of the relationship between the two, C(x,y). Because C is evaluated only after positive A and B judgments, the sequential procedure yields five basic analytic outcomes under determinate binary decisions. Particular attention is given to A+ / B+ / C–, defined as a relational incompatibility: both elements remain independently acceptable, while their specific combination creates a functional contradiction. The procedure is illustrated through three contrasting analytically constructed cases. It helps determine whether a mismatch lies within an individual element or in the relationship between otherwise acceptable elements, thereby allowing revision to be targeted more precisely before classroom implementation.
From Element-Level Review to Relational Cross-Checking: Functional Compatibility in Professionally Oriented Role-Based Simulation Tasks
DOI:
Keywords:
Abstract
Downloads
References
Douglas, D. (2000). Assessing languages for specific purposes. Cambridge University Press.
Douglas, D. (2025). ESP and assessment. In S. Starfield & C. A. Hafner (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes (2nd ed., pp. 185–204). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119985068.ch10
Dudley-Evans, T., & St John, M. J. (1998). Developments in English for specific purposes: A multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge University Press.
Dursun, A., Morris, J. K., & Ünaldı, A. (2020). Designing proficiency-oriented performance tasks for the 21st-century workplace written communication: An evidence-centered design approach. Assessing Writing, 46, 100487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100487
Flowerdew, L. (2025). Needs analysis and curriculum development in ESP. In S. Starfield & C. A. Hafner (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes (2nd ed., pp. 129–148). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119985068.ch7
Harwood, N. (2025). Materials development and English for specific purposes. In S. Starfield & C. A. Hafner (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes (2nd ed., pp. 205–223). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119985068.ch11
Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for specific purposes: A learning-centred approach. Cambridge University Press.
INACSL Standards Committee, Watts, P. I., McDermott, D. S., Alinier, G., Charnetski, M., & Nawathe, P. A. (2021). Healthcare Simulation Standards of Best Practice™: Simulation Design. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 58, 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2021.08.009
Knoch, U., Elder, C., Woodward-Kron, R., Manias, E., Flynn, E., McNamara, T., Huisman, A., & Zhang, B. Y. (2020a). Capturing domain expert perspectives in devising a rating scale for a health-specific writing test: How close can we get? Assessing Writing, 46, 100489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100489
Knoch, U., Zhang, B. Y., Elder, C., Flynn, E., Huisman, A., Woodward-Kron, R., Manias, E., & McNamara, T. (2020b). ‘I will go to my grave fighting for grammar’: Exploring the ability of language-trained raters to implement a professionally relevant rating scale for writing. Assessing Writing, 46, 100488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100488
Knoch, U., Fan, J., Davey, M., O’Hagan, S., Chen, I., Huisman, A., Treadway, M., & Chandran, R. (2026). Examining the relevance of three TOEFL Essentials writing tasks to the accounting profession: The role of domain experts. Assessing Writing, 69, 101072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2026.101072
McNamara, T., Elder, C., Flynn, E., Knoch, U., Manias, E., Woodward-Kron, R., & Yahalom, S. (2016). Cross-disciplinary collaboration in research on a specific-purpose language test in the healthcare setting. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 13(1–3), 189–210. https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.31857
Mujjli, G., Al-Ghosen, A., Alrabah, R., Munshi, F., & Ozdemir, B. (2023). Development and validation of Simulation Scenario Quality Instrument (SSQI). BMC Medical Education, 23, 972. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04935-5
O’Hagan, S., Pill, J., & Zhang, Y. (2016). Extending the scope of speaking assessment criteria in a specific-purpose language test: Operationalizing a health professional perspective. Language Testing, 33(2), 195–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532215607920
Pill, J., & McNamara, T. (2016). How much is enough? Involving occupational experts in setting standards on a specific-purpose language test for health professionals. Language Testing, 33(2), 217–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532215607402