Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T06:32:13.835Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Use of Situation Tests as Measures of Communicative Ability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Tina Raffaldini
Tina Raffaldini
Affiliation:
DePaul University
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In recent years, universities and secondary schools have increasingly used the ACTFL/ETS Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) to measure the ability of learners to communicate in a foreign language. This article discusses the OPI in relation to current models of communicative skills and argues that the OPI fails to measure important aspects of communicative ability. Two Situation Tests, one written and one oral, are proposed as alternative measures of communicative ability and are described in detail. The two tests as well as the OPI were administered to American university students who had spent a year abroad studying French. This article reports on the changes in the communicative skills of the students during the year after their return to the United States. Statistical comparisons between the OPI and the Situation Tests are presented showing that the OPI is primarily a measure of grammatical competence. The article concludes with the claim that Situation Tests can provide a more complete assessment of communicative ability than the OPI.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , June 1988, pp. 197 - 216
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

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (1986). ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Hastingon-Hudson, NY: Author.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F., & Savignon, S. J. (1986). The evaluation of communicative language proficiency: A critique of the ACTFL oral interview. The Modern Language Journal, 70, 380–390.Google Scholar
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R. W. (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2–27). London: Longman.Google 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. (1982). Some sociolinguistic and discourse analysis considerations in oral proficiency interviewing. Paper presented at the Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics, Washington, DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 243 317).Google Scholar
Clark, J. L. D. (1983). Language testing: Past and current status—Directions for the future. The Modern Language Journal 67, 431–443.Google Scholar
Clark, J. L. D., & 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, 129–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In Pride, J. B. & Holmes, J. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Kramsch, C. (1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence. The Modern Language Journal, 70, 366–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liskin-Gasparro, J. E. (1982). ETS oral proficiency testing manual. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Savignon, S. J. (1983). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Savignon, S. J. (1985). Evaluation of communicative competence: The ACTFL provisional proficiency guidelines. The Modern Language Journal, 69, 129–134.Google Scholar
van Ek, J. A. (1975). The threshold level in a European unit/credit system for modern language learning by adults. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Wesche, M. (1981). Communicative testing in a second language. Canadian Modern Language Review, 37, 551–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar