Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-p6fvt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-04T01:12:08.985Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing Speaking

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 May 2010

Jean Turner
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The publication of the ACTFL (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages) Guidelines (1986) and the creation and popularization of the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview (ACTFL-OPI) have had a profound effect on foreign and second language instruction and assessment, drawing attention to language students' abilities to use language in performing particular functions and tasks rather than to what they have learned about language. The growing interest in communicative language teaching, with its emphasis on meaningful interaction in the language as opposed to knowledge of linguistic rules, has complemented interest in the ACTFL Guidelines' descriptions of functional language ability and the interview-format oral proficiency interview.

Information

Type
Assessing Language Abilities
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 18 , March 1998 , pp. 192 - 207
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

UNANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. 1986. ACTFL proficiency guidelines. New York: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. 1988. Problems in examining the validity of the ACTFL oral proficiency interview. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 10.149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachman, L. 1990. Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, A. 1995. The effect of rater variables in the development of an occupation-specific language performance test. Language Testing. 12.1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, F. A. and Stevens, R.. In press. Oral language assessment in the classroom. In New directions in student assessment. 214–219. [Special issue of Theory into Practice. 36.4.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, K., Fujii, N., and Kataoka, H.. 1995. An oral interview procedure for assessing second language abilities in children. Language Testing. 12.157–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalhoub-Deville, M. 1995a. A contextualized approach to describing oral language proficiency. Language Learning. 45.251–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalhoub-Deville, M. 1995b. Deriving oral assessment scales across different tests and rater groups. Language Testing. 12.16–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, J. L. D. and Clifford, R. T.. 1988. The FSI/ILR/ACTFL proficiency scales and testing techniques: Development, current status, and needed research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 10.121–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, J. L. D.and Hooshmand, D.. 1992. “Screen-to-screen” testing: An exploratory study of oral proficiency interviewing using video teleconferencing. System. 20.293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coniam, D. 1995. Towards a common ability scale for Hong Kong English secondary-school forms. Language Testing. 12.182–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Courtney, M. 1996. Talking to learn: Selecting and using peer group oral tasks. ELT Journal. 50.318–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dandonoli, P. and Henning, G.. 1990. An investigation of the construct validity of the ACTFL oral proficiency guidelines and oral interview procedure. Foreign Language Annals. 23.11–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, E. M. and Shapson, S.. 1987. Assessment of oral communicative skills in early French immersion programmes. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 8.237–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, D. 1994. Quantity and quality in speaking test performance. Language Testing. 11.125–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, D. and Selinker, L.. 1992. Analyzing oral proficiency test performance in general and specific purpose contexts. System. 20.317–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, A. L. 1996. Reading proficiency assessment and the ILR/ACTFL text typology: A reevaluation. Modern Language Journal. 80.350–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulcher, G. 1987. Tests of oral performance: The need for data-based criteria. ELT Journal. 41.287–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulcher, G. 1995. Variable competence in second language acquisition: A problem for research methodology? System. 23.25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulcher, G. 1996a. Does thick description lead to smart tests? A data-based approach to rating scale construction. Language Testing. 13.208–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulcher, G. 1996b. Testing tasks: Issues in task design and the group oral. Language Testing. 13.23–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hadden, B. 1991. Teacher and nonteacher perceptions of second-language communication. Language Learning. 41.1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haggstrom, M. 1994. Using a videocamera and task-based activities to make classroom oral testing a more realistic communicative experience. Foreign Language Annals. 27.161–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halleck, G. B. 1992. The oral proficiency interview: Discrete point test or measure of communicative language ability? Foreign Language Annals. 25.227–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harlow, L. L. and Caminero, R.. 1990. Oral testing of beginning language students at large universities: Is it worth the trouble? Foreign Language Annals. 23.489–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henning, G. 1992. The ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview: Validity evidence. System. 20.365–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, R. 1996. CALL and the speaking skill. System. 24.15–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. 1997. What kind of a speech event is the oral proficiency interview? Problems of construct validity. Washington, DC: Georgetown University. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. and Tyler, A.. Forthcoming. Re-analyzing the OPI: How much does it look like natural conversation? In R. Young and W. Y. Hae (eds.) Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P. and Frawley, W.. 1988. Proficiency: Understanding the construct. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 10.181–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazaraton, A. 1992. The structural organization of a language interview: A conversation analytic approach. System. 20.373–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazaraton, A. 1996. Interlocutor support in oral proficiency interviews: The case of CASE. Language Testing. 13.151–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindblad, T. 1992. Oral tests in Swedish schools: A five-year experiment. System. 20.279–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lumley, T. and McNamara, T. F.. 1995. Rater characteristics and rater bias: Implications for training. Language Testing. 12.54–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manley, J. H. 1995. Assessing oral language: One school district's response. Foreign Language Annals. 28.93–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, M. 1990. The measurement of productive skills: Doubts concerning the assessment criteria of certain public examinations. ELT Journal. 44.117–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, P. A. 1994. Can there be validity without reliability? Educational Researcher. 23.4–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nibungco, J. T. and Williams, M. D.. 1996. Designing oral assessment for nontraditional ESL students in a community college. College ESL. 6.85–94.Google Scholar
O'Loughlin, K. 1995. Lexical density in candidate output on direct and semi-direct versions of an oral proficiency test. Language Testing. 12.217–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Malley, J. M. and Pierce, L. V.. 1996. Authentic assessment for English language learners: Practical approaches for teachers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Prodromou, L. 1995. The backwash effect: From testing to teaching. ELT Journal. 49.13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raffaldini, T. 1988. The use of situation tests as measures of communicative ability. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 10.197–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, D. J. 1992. The relationship between criterion-based levels of oral proficiency and norm-referenced scores of general proficiency in English as a second language. System. 20.329–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, S. 1992. Accommodative questions in oral proficiency interviews. Language Testing. 9.173–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, S. and Berwick, R.. 1992. The discourse of accommodation in oral proficiency interviews. Studies in Second Language Acquistion. 14.159–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shohamy, E. 1983. The stability of oral proficiency assessment on the oral interview testing procedures. Language Learning. 33.527–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shohamy, E. 1988. A proposed framework for testing the oral language of second/foreign language learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 10.165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shohamy, E. 1994. The validity of direct versus semi-direct oral tests. Language Testing. 11.99–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, C. M. and Kramer, R.. 1992. The effect of raters' background and training on the reliability of direct writing tests. Modern Language Journal. 76.27–33.Google Scholar
Stansfield, C. W. and Kenyon, D. M.. 1992. Research on the comparability of the oral proficiency interview and the simulated oral proficiency interview. System. 20.347–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stansfield, C. W. and Kenyon, D. M.. 1996. Comparing the scaling of speaking tasks by language teachers and by the ACTFL Guidelines. In Cumming, A. and Berwick, R. (eds.) Validation in language testing. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. 124–153.Google Scholar
St. John, J. 1992. The Ontario Test of ESL Oral Interaction. System. 20.305–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, R. E. 1995. Assessing oral communication skills—reflections of an oral examiner. World Englishes. 15.131–136.Google Scholar
Thompson, I. 1995. A study of interrater reliability of the ACTFL oral proficiency interview in five European languages: Data from ESL, French, German, Russian, and Spanish. Foreign Language Annals. 28.407–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Upshur, J. A. and Turner, C. E.. 1995. Constructing rating scales for second language tests. ELT Journal. 49.3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Lier, L. 1989. Reeling, writhing, drawling, stretching, and fainting in coils: Oral proficiency interviews as conversation. TESOL Quarterly. 23.469–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wigglesworth, G. 1997. An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse. Language Testing. 14.85–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, R. 1995. Conversational styles in language proficiency interviews. Language Learning. 45.3–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, R. and Milanovic, M.. 1992. Discourse variation in oral proficiency interviews. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 14.403–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar