Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T12:50:18.292Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Proposed Framework for Testing the Oral Language of Second/Foreign Language Learners

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Elana Shohamy
Elana Shohamy
Affiliation:
Tel-Aviv University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Within the proposed framework, oral tests consist of several different speech interactions, each of which encompasses a variety of contextual variables that affect its output. These interactions are performed as simulations in order to tap unmonitored language, which approximates the most stable discourse style, namely, the vernacular. The sample of speech interactions included on an oral test is randomly selected from specifications of those interactions most relevant to the specific context and purpose of the assessment. The language samples are then assessed with rating scales, whose criteria vary according to the intended use of the test results. The accuracy of the scores, the quality of the test as a whole, and the assumptions made about oral language are examined through the relevant types of reliability and validity as well as through extensive research.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , June 1988 , pp. 165 - 179
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

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

REFERENCES

Bachman, L. (1987). Problems in examining the validity of the ACTFL oral proficiency interview. In Valdman, A. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Symposium on the Evaluation of Foreign Language Proficiency (pp. 29–44). Bloomington: Indiana University, CREDLI.Google Scholar
Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (1981). The construct validation of the FSI oral interview. Language Learning, 31, 67–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachman, L., & Savignon, S. (1986). The evaluation of communicative language proficiency: A critique of the ACTFL oral interview. Modern Language Journal, 70, 380–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolus, R., Hinofotis, F., & Bailey, K. (1982). An introduction to generalizability theory in second language research. Language Learning, 32, 245–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, J. L. D. (1975). Theoretical and technical considerations in oral proficiency testing. In Jones, R. L. & Spolsky, B. (Eds.), Testing language proficiency (pp. 10–28). Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Clifford, R. (1978). Reliability and validity of language aspects contributing to oral proficiency of prospective teachers of German. In Clark, J. L. D. (Ed.), Direct testing of speaking proficiency (pp. 191–210). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Corder, P. (1967). The significance of learners' errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corder, P. (1978). Language learner language. In Richards, J. (Ed.), Understanding second and foreign language learning (pp. 71–93). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Dickerson, L. (1975). Interlanguage as a system of variable rules. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 401–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grotjahn, R. (1986). Test validation and cognitive psychology: Some methodological considerations. Language Testing, 3, 159–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinofotis, F. (1976). An investigation of the concurrent validity of cloze testing as a measure of overall proficiency in English as a second language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1967). Models of the interaction of language and social setting. Journal of Social Issues, 23, 8–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D. (1971). On linguistic theory, communicative competence and the education of disadvantaged children. In Wax, M., Diamond, S., & Gearing, F. O. (Eds.), Anthropological perspectives on education (pp. 51–66). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In Pride, J. B. & Holmes, J. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Jones, R. (1977). Testing: A vital connection. In Phillips, J. (Ed.), The language connection: From the classroom to the world (pp. 237–265). Skokie, IL: National Textbook.Google Scholar
Jones, R. (1978). Interview techniques and scoring criteria at higher proficiency levels. In Clark, J. L. D. (Ed.), Direct testing of speaking proficiency: Theory and application (pp. 89–102). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J., & Frawley, W. (1985). Oral proficiency testing: A critical analysis. Modern Language Journal, 69, 337–343.Google Scholar
Lococo, V. (1976). A comparison of three methods for the collection of L2 data: Free composition, translation, and picture description. Working Papers in Bilingualism, 8, 59–86.Google Scholar
Moosbrugger, H., & Muller, H. (1982). A classical latent additive test model (CLA model). German Journal of Psychology, 6, 145–149.Google Scholar
Morrow, K. (1977). Technique of evaluation for national syllabus. Reading, England: Center for Applied Language Studies, University of Reading.Google Scholar
Nevo, D., & Shohamy, E. (1986). Evaluation standards for the assessment of alternative testing methods: An application. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 5, 149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ong, W. (1980). Literacy and orality in our times. Association of Departments of English Bulletin, 58, 1–7.Google Scholar
Ong, W. (1982). Orality and literacy. London: Methuen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pimsleur, P. (1965). Testing foreign language learning. In Valdman, A. (Ed.), Trends in language teaching (pp. 175–214). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Raatz, V. (1981). Are oral tests tests? In Braley, C. Klein & Stevenson, P. (Eds.), Practice and problems in language testing (pp. 197–211). Frankfurt: Lang.Google Scholar
Raatz, V. (1985). Better theory for better tests? Language Testing, 2, 60–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1977). Sociolinguistic variation and language transfer in phonology. Working Papers in Bilingualism, 12, 79–95.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1980). Coordinate structures and language universals in interlanguage. Language Learning, 26, 67–76.Google Scholar
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shohamy, E. (1983). The stability of the oral proficiency trait on the oral interview speaking test. Language Learning, 33, 527–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shohamy, E., & Reves, T. (1985). Authentic language tests: Where from and where to? Language Testing, 2, 48–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shohamy, E., Reves, T., & Bejerano, Y. (1986). Introducing a new comprehensive test of oral proficiency. English Language Teaching Journal, 40, 212–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarone, E. (1982). Systematicity and attention in interlanguage. Language Learning, 32, 69–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarone, E. (1983). On the variability of interlanguage systems. Applied Linguistics, 4, 143–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilds, C. (1975). The oral interview test. In Jones, R. L. & Spolsky, B. (Eds.), Testing language proficiency (pp. 29–44). Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar