To use tests responsibly in implementing a national foreign language policy, it is important to understand the limitations inherent in measuring language proficiency. The underlying paradox is that while traditional examinations and functional guidelines are useful in specifying goals of instruction—and even in controlling the process—but severely limited in their ability to provide accurate individual measurements, the psychometric techniques that produce the most reliable individual scores do so by narrowing their focus to instructionally questionable abilities. The conclusion is that no policy should rely on a single measurement technique.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. H. Latham, On the Action of Examinations Considered as a Means of Selection (Cambridge, MA: Deighton, Bell, 1877).
2.
2. George F. Madaus and Thomas Kellaghan, “Curriculum Evaluation and Assessment,” in Handbook on Research on Curriculum, ed. P.W. Jackson (New York: Macmillan, 1992).
3.
3. Paul H. Buck, “Examinations: A Retrospective View at Harvard,” in Examining at Harvard College, ed. Leon Bramson (Boston: Harvard University, Committee on Educational Policy, 1964), p. 4.
4.
4. I. L. Kandel, Examinations and Their Substitutes in the United States (New York: Carnegie Foundation, 1936).
5.
5. Charles McClelland, State, Society and University in Germany, 1700-1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980).
6.
6. Great Britain, Hansard's Parliamentary Debates (London: Cornelius Buck, 1853).
7.
7. College Entrance Examination Board, Twenty-Ninth Annual Report of the Secretary (New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1929), p. 6.
8.
8. College Entrance Examination Board, Thirty-Third Annual Report of the Secretary (New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1933).
9.
9. F. Y. Edgeworth, “The Statistics of Examinations,”Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, vol. 51 (1888).
10.
10. Ibid., p. 601.
11.
11. Ibid., p. 602.
12.
12. Francis Galton, Inquiries into Human Faculty and Development (New York: Macmillan, 1883).
13.
13. Edgeworth, “Statistics of Examinations,” p. 626.
14.
P. Sandiford , Educational Psychology (New York: Longmans, Green 1928).
15.
15. Philip Hartog and E. C. Rhodes, An Examination of Examinations, Being a Summary of Investigations on Comparison of Marks Allotted to Examination Scripts by Independent Examiners and Boards of Examiners, Together with a Section on Viva Voce Examinations (London: Macmillan, 1935).
16.
16. Bernard Spolsky, “Language Testing: Art or Science,” in Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Applied Linguistics, ed. Gerhardt Nickel (Stuttgart: Hochschulverlag, 1977), 3:7-28.
17.
Stephen Jay Gould , The Mismeasure of Man (New York: Norton, 1981).
18.
18. College Entrance Examination Board, “The Reading of the Comprehensive Examination in English: An Analysis of the Procedures Followed during the Five Reading Periods from 1929 through 1933” (Report, 1934).
19.
19. Edward L. Thorndike, An Introduction to the Theory of Mental and Social Measurements (New York: Science Press, 1904).
20.
20. Edward L. Thorndike, “Handwriting,”Teachers College Record, 11(2) (1910).
21.
21. Paula Thibault, “Implications of Experience with College Board Language Tests,” in Report of the Fourth Annual Roundtable Meeting on Languages and Linguistics, ed. Archibald A. Hill (Washington, DC: Georgetown University, Institute of Languages and Linguistics, 1953), 4:21-29.
22.
22. Grant Henning, “Dimensionality and Construct Validity of Language Tests,”Language Testing, 9(1):1-11 (1992).
23.
23. See, for instance, Arthur Hughes and Donald Porter, eds., Current Developments in Language Testing (London: Academic Press, 1983).
24.
24. Paul Monroe, ed., Conference on Examinations, Dinard, France, 1938 (New York: Columbia University, Teachers College, 1939), p. 250.
25.
25. Ibid., p. 252.
26.
idem, ed., Conference on Examinations, Dinard.
27.
Howard E. Sollenberger , “Development and Current Use of the FSI Oral Interview Test,” in Direct Testing of Speaking Proficiency: Theory and Application, ed. John L. D. Clark (Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, 1978), pp. 3-12.
28.
28. John B. Carroll, “Notes on the Measurement of Achievement in Foreign Languages” (Manuscript, Harvard University, 1954).
29.
Luigi Sandri and Walter Vincent Kaulfers, “An Oral-Fluency Rating Scale in Italian,”Italica, 22:133-144 (1945).
30.
30. Rice, “Foreign Service Institute Tests Language Proficiency,” p. 2.
31.
31. Wilds, “Oral Interview Test,” p. 32.
32.
32. Ibid., p. 33.
33.
idem, “The Unassimilated History,” in Second Language Proficiency Assessment: Current Issues, ed. Pardee Lowe, Jr. and Charles W. Stansfield (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Regents, 1988).
34.
34. John L. D. Clark and Spencer S. Swinton, “An Exploration of Speaking Proficiency Measures in the TOEFL Context” (Research report, Educational Testing Service, 1979).
35.
idem, ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines (New York: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, 1986).
36.
James P. Lantolf and W. Frawley, “Oral Proficiency Testing: A Critical Analysis,” ibid., 69(4):337-45 (1985).
37.
Grant Henning , “The ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview: Validity Evidence,”System, 20(3):365-372 (1992).
38.
38. Brian North, Options for Scales of Proficiency for a European Language Framework, NFLC Occasional Papers (Washington, DC: National Foreign Language Center, 1992).
39.
39. Bernard Spolsky, “A Multiple Choice for Language Testers,”Language Testing, 3:148-158 (1986).
40.
40. Elana Shohamy, “The Power of Tests: A Study of the Impact of Language Tests on Teaching and Learning” (Paper, Language Teaching Research Colloquium, 1992).
41.
41. Clark and Swinton, “Exploration of Speaking Proficiency Measures.”
42.
42. Monroe, ed., Conference on Examinations, Dinard, pp. 242 ff.
43.
43. At a seminar on national standards and tests, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, 1992.
