Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 360
appendix
D
A Brief History of
Foreign Language Assessment
in the United States
T
his appendix presents a brief history of the development of foreign
language proficiency assessments in this country over the past half-
century to provide context for the current status of foreign language
assessment.
The dominant approach to language proficiency assessment in the
United States is based on the Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) (see
http://www.utm.edu/staff/globeg/ilrhome.shtml) and the American Council
on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) oral proficiency interview
(OPI) (see http://www.sil.org/lingualinks/languagelearning/otherresources/
actflproficiencyguidelines/ACTFLGuidelinesReadingIntermed.htm). This
approach, which involves a face-to-face oral interview, was originally de-
veloped at the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) in the mid-1950s. The notion
of a scale of language ability from zero to total mastery was the brainchild
of the linguist Henry Lee Smith, who was dean of the FSI Language School
at the time. The idea was translated into a scale based on mastery of specific
criteria in consultation with John B. Carroll, a psychometrician at Harvard
University. From these two ideas—the linguistic idea of a range of lan-
guage proficiency and a psychometric formulation of a criterion-referenced
scale—came the now-familiar five levels of the ILR scale (0-5) which were
developed for speaking (S) and listening (L) (Sollenberger, 1978). By 1968,
the Defense Language Institute and Central Intelligence Agency were using
the approach (Wilds, 1975); in 1969, the Educational Testing Service began
administering oral interview assessments for the Peace Corps (Clark, 1978);
and in 1973 ILR, comprising representatives from government agencies
concerned with language teaching and testing, assumed primary respon-
0
OCR for page 361
APPENDIX D
sibility for the Oral Proficiency Rating Scale (Lowe and Stansfield, 1988).
In the mid-1980s, several developments led to the adaptation of the rating
scale for use with audiences outside the government. This involved a refine-
ment of the distinctions at the lower end of the scale in recognition of a
need to test individuals with lower levels of proficiency (Clark and Clifford,
1988, p. 132).
Table D-1 is a comparison of the two rating scales. The table presents
only the labels for the different scale levels. In addition to labels, each scale
level has associated with it a much more fully specified description of the
kinds of language use situations in which individuals at a given level can be
expected to participate. Table D-2 is a comparison of the intermediate-mid
ACTFL guideline and level 1 on the ILR scale for speaking and reading.
The differences between the ACTFL and ILR scales are apparent in the
specific wording of these scale descriptors, which reflect the adaptations
made to the ILR scale to make it more appropriate to academic settings.
Another, perhaps more significant difference between the ACTFL and ILR
approaches is that, whereas government agencies use the same scale descrip-
tors across all languages, ACTFL has developed different scale descriptors
for different languages.
The ACTFL scale and the OPI testing procedure were adopted by
ACTFL in the 1980s and have been widely disseminated to the foreign
language teaching profession since that time. In addition to the scales for
listening and speaking that are obtained from an oral interview, ACTFL
has also developed rating scales for assessing reading and writing; the latter
is the ACTFL Writing Proficiency Test (see http://www.actfl.org/i4a/pages/
index.cfm?pageid=3642). These scales have also been adapted to specific
languages so that there are now ACTFL scale descriptors for speaking in
48 different languages (see http://www.languagetesting.com/index.html).
Furthermore, these scales are the basis for most current development of
proficiency assessments, including those using computer and web technolo-
gies. This includes the range of foreign language assessments that have been
developed and that are currently under development at the Center for Ap-
plied Linguistics (see http://www.cal.org/topics/ta/flassess.html) and various
Title VI-funded efforts.
REFERENCES
Clark, J.L.D. (1978). Interview testing research at educational testing service. In J.L.D. Clark
(Ed.), Direct testing of speaking proficiency: Theory and application (pp. 211-228).
Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
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 Lan-
guage Acquisition, 0(2), 129-147.
OCR for page 362
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES
Lowe, P., Jr., and Stansfield, C.W. (1988). Introduction. In P. Lowe, Jr., and C.W. Stansfield
(Eds.), Second language proficiency assessment: Current issues. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall Regents.
Malone, M.E. (2006). The oral proficiency approaches to foreign language assessment. Un-
published manuscript, Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, DC.
Sollenberger, H.E. (1978). Development and current use of the FSI oral interview test. In J.L.D.
Clark (Ed.), Direct testing of speaking proficiency: Theory and application. Princeton,
NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Wilds, C.P. (1975). The oral interview test. In R.L. Jones and B. Spolsky (Eds.), Testing lan-
guage proficiency. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
TABLE D-1 Comparisons Between the ACTFL Guidelines and ILR Scale
ACTFL ILR
Superior 5 Native or bilingual proficiency
4+
4 Distinguished proficiency
3+
3 Professional working proficiency
Advanced high 2+
Advanced mid
2 Limited working proficiency
Advanced low
Intermediate high 1+
Intermediate mid 1 Survival proficiency
Intermediate low
Novice high 0+
Novice mid 0 No practical proficiency
Novice low
SOURCE: Malone (2006).
OCR for page 363
APPENDIX D
TABLE D-2 Comparison Between the ACTFL and ILR Descriptors
ACTFL: Intermediate-Mid ILR 1: Elementary Proficiency
Speaking Able to handle successfully a Able to satisfy minimum courtesy
variety of uncomplicated, basic, requirements and maintain very
and communicative tasks and social simple face-to-face conversations on
situations. Can talk simply about familiar topics. A native speaker must
self and family members. Can ask often use slowed speech, repetition,
and answer questions and participate paraphrase, or a combination of these
in simple conversations on topics to be understood by this individual.
beyond the most immediate needs, Similarly, the native speaker must strain
e.g., personal history and leisure and employ real-world knowledge to
time activities. Utterance length understand even simple statements/
increases slightly, but speech may questions from this individual. This
continue to be characterized by speaker has a functional but limited
frequent long pauses, since the proficiency. Misunderstandings
smooth incorporation of even basic are frequent, but the individual is
conversational strategies is often able to ask for help and to verify
hindered as the speaker struggles to comprehension of native speech in face-
create appropriate language forms. to-face interaction. The individual is
Pronunciation may continue to be unable to produce continuous discourse
strongly influenced by first language except with rehearsed material.
and fluency may still be strained.
Although misunderstandings still
arise, the intermediate-mid speaker
can generally be understood by
sympathetic interlocutors.
continued
OCR for page 364
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES
TABLE D-2 Continued
ACTFL: Intermediate-Mid ILR 1: Elementary Proficiency
Reading Able to read consistently with Sufficient comprehension to read very
increased understanding simple, simple connected written material in
connected texts dealing with a variety a form equivalent to usual printing
of basic and social needs. Such texts or typescript. Can read either
are still linguistically noncomplex representations of familiar formulaic
and have a clear underlying internal verbal exchanges or simple language
structure. They impart basic containing only the highest frequency
information about which the reader structural patterns and vocabulary,
has to make minimal suppositions and including shared international
to which the reader brings personal vocabulary items and cognates
interest and/or knowledge. Examples (when appropriate). Able to read and
may include short, straightforward understand known language elements
descriptions of persons, places, and that have been recombined in new
things written for a wide audience. ways to achieve different meanings
at a similar level of simplicity. Texts
may include simple narratives of
routine behavior; highly predictable
descriptions of persons, places, or
things; and explanations of geography
and government such as those simplified
for tourists. Some misunderstandings
possible on simple texts. Can get some
main ideas and locate prominent items
of professional significance in more
complex texts. Can identify general
subject matter in some authentic texts.
SOURCES: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, available: http://www.sil.
org/lingualinks/languagelearning/OtherResources/ACTFLProficiencyGuidelines/ACTFLGuide-
linesReadingIntermed.htm. [accessed April 2007] and Interagency Language Roundtable,
available: http://www.utm.edu/staff/globeg/ilrhome.shtml [accessed April 2007].
