The article reviews the usefulness of several models of proficiency that have influenced second language testing in the last two decades. The review indicates that several factors contribute to the lack of congruence between models and test construction, and makes a case for distinguishing between theoretical models, which attempt to represent the proficiency construct in various contexts and oper ational assessment frameworks, which depict the construct in particular contexts. Additionally, the article underscores the significance of an empirical, contex tualized and structured approach to the development of assessment frameworks.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alderson, J.C.1991: Language testing in the 1990s: how far have we come? How much further have we to go? In Anivan, S. , editor, Current developments in language testing, Singapore: Regional Language Center, 1-26.
2.
Allen, E.D., Bernhardt, E.B., Berry, M.T. and Demel, M.1988: Comprehension and text genre: analysis of secondary school foreign language readers. Modern Language Journal72, 163-72.
3.
Allen, P., Cummins, J., Mougeon, R. and Swain, M.1983: The development of bilingual proficiency: second year report and appendices. Toronto: Modem Language Centre OISE.
4.
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages1986: ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: ACTFL.
5.
Bachman, L.F.1988: Problems in examining the validity of the ACTFL oral proficiency interview. Studies in Second Language Acquisition10, 149-64.
6.
— 1990a: Fundamental considerations in language testingOxford: Oxford University Press.
7.
— 1990b: Constructing measures and measuring constructs. In Harley, B., Allen, P., Cummins, J. and Swain, M., editors, The development of second language proficiency, New York: Cambridge University Press, 26-38.
8.
Bachman, L.F. and Clark, J.L.D.1987: The measurement of foreign/second language proficiency . Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science490, 20-33.
9.
Bachman, L.F. and Palmer, A.S.1982: The construct validation of some components of communicative proficiency. TESOL Quarterly16, 49-65.
10.
Bachman, L.F. and Savignon, S.1986: The evaluation of communicative language proficiency: a critique of the ACTFL oral interview. Modern Language Journal70, 380-90.
11.
Barnwell, D.1988: Proficiency and the native speaker. ADFL Bulletin20, 42-46.
12.
— 1989: 'Naive' native speakers and judgements of oral proficiency in Spanish. Language Testing6, 152-63.
13.
Bernhardt, E.B.1986: Proficient texts or proficient readers?ADFL Bulletin18, 25-28.
14.
Brindley, G.1991: Defining language ability: the criteria for criteria. In Anivan, S., editor, Current developments in language testing, Singapore: Regional Language Center, 139-64.
15.
Brown, A.1995: The effect of rater variables in the development of an occupation-specific language performance test. Language Testing12, 1-15.
16.
Canale, M.1983: On some dimensions of language proficiency. In Oller, J.W. jr, editor, Issues in language testing research, Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 333-42.
17.
— 1984: Testing in a communicative approach. In Jarvis, G.A., editor, The challenge for excellence in foreign language education, Middle-bury, VT: Northeast Conference Organization, 79-92.
18.
Canale, M. and Swain, M.1980: Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics1, 1-47.
19.
Chalhoub-Deville, M.1995a: Deriving oral assessment scales across different tests and rater groups. Language Testing12, 16-33.
20.
— 1995b: A contextualized approach to describing oral language proficiency. Language Learning45, 251-81.
21.
Chastain, K.1988: The ACTFL proficiency guidelines: a selected sample of opinions. ADFL Bulletin20, 47-51.
22.
Cummins, J.1979: Cognitive academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question, and some other matters. Working Papers onBilingualism19, 197-205.
23.
— 1983: Language proficiency and academic achievement. In Oller, J.W. jr, editor, Issues in language testing research, Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 108-29.
24.
Cziko, G.A.1984: Some problems with empirically-based models of communicative competence. Applied Linguistics5, 23-38.
25.
Dandonoli, P. and Henning, G.1990: An investigation of the construct validity of the ACTFL proficiency guidelines and oral interview procedure. Foreign Language Annals23, 11-22.
26.
Davies, A.1988: Operationalizing uncertainty in language testing: an argument in favour of content validity. Language Testing5, 32-48.
27.
Ellis, R.1985: Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
28.
— 1994: The study of second language acquisitionOxford: Oxford University Press.
29.
Farhady, H.1983: On the plausibility of the unitary language proficiency factor. In Oller, J.W. jr, editor, Issues in language testing research, Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 11-28.
30.
Freed, B.1988: Perspectives on the future of proficiency-based teaching and testing. ADFL Bulletin20, 52-57.
31.
Frink, H.H.1982: Oral testing for first-year language classes. Foreign Language Annals14, 281-86.
32.
Gaarder, J.1994: Sophie's world: a novel about the history of the world (translated by Paulette Moller). New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
33.
Galloway, V.B.1980: Perceptions of the communicative efforts of American students of Spanish. Modern Language Journal64, 428-33.
34.
Hadden, B.1991: Teacher and nonteacher perceptions of second-language communication. Language Learning41, 1-24.
35.
Harley, B., Allen, P., Cummins, J. and Swain, M. , editors, 1990: The development of second language proficiency. New York: Cambridge University Press.
36.
Harlow, L. and Caminero, M.1990: Oral testing of beginning language students at large universities: is it worth the trouble?Foreign Language Annals23, 489-501.
37.
Henning, G. and Cascallar, E.1992: A preliminary study of the nature of communicative competence . Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
38.
Hinofotis, F.B., Bailey, K.M. and Stern, S.L.1981: Section II. Empirical research. In Palmer, A., Groot, P. and Trosper, G., editors, The construct validation of tests of communicative competence, Washington, DC: 106-26.
39.
Hughes, A. and Woods, A.1983: Interpreting the performance on the Cambridge proficiency examination of students of different language backgrounds. In Hughes, A. and Porter, D. , editors, Current developments in language testing, New York: Academic Press, 54-62.
40.
Hymes, D.H.1972: On communicative competence. In Pride, J.B. and Holmes, J., editors, Sociolinguistics, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 269-93.
41.
— 1973: Toward linguistic competence. In Texas working papers in sociolinguistics, working paper no. 16, Austin, TX: Center for Intercultural Studies in Communication, and Department of Anthropology, University of Texas.
42.
Jarvis, G.A.1991: Research on teaching methodology: its evaluation and prospects . In Freed, B., editor, Foreign language acquisition research and the classroom, Lexington, MA: Heath, 295-306.
43.
Kenyon, D.M.1995: An investigation of the validity of the demands of tasks on performance-based tests of oral proficiency. Paper presented at the meeting of the Language Testing Research Colloquium , Long Beach, CA.
44.
Kenyon, D.M. and Stansfield, C.W.1992: Examining the validity of a scale used in a performance assessment from many angles using the many-facet Rasch model. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 343 442).
45.
Kramsch, C.1986a: From language proficiency to interactional competence . Modern Language Journal70, 366-71.
46.
— 1986b: Proficiency versus achievement: reflections on the proficiency movement. ADFL Bulletin18, 22-24.
47.
Lange, D.1987: Developing and implementing proficiency oriented tests for a new language requirement at the University of Minnesota: issues and problems for implementing the ACTFL/ETS/ILR proficiency guidelines. In Valdman, A., editor, Proceedings of the symposium on the evaluation of foreign language proficiency , Bloomington, IN: Committee for Research and Development in Language Instruction, 275-90.
48.
Lantolf, J.P. and Frawley, W.1985: Oral proficiency testing: a critical analysis. Modern Language Journal69, 337-45.
49.
— 1988: Proficiency: understanding the construct. Studies in Second Language Acquisition10, 181-95.
50.
— 1992: Rejecting the OPI - again: a response to Hagen. ADFL Bulletin23, 34-37.
51.
Lee, J.F. and Musumeci, D.1988: On the use of the recall task to measure L2 reading comprehension . Modern Language Journal72, 173-87.
52.
Liskin-Gasparro, A.1984: The ACTFL proficiency guidelines: a historical perspective . In Higgs, T.V., editor, Teaching for proficiency, Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company, 11-42.
53.
Lumley, T. and McNamara, T.1995: Rater characteristics and rater bias: implications for training. Language Testing12, 55-71.
54.
McNamara, T.F.1990: Item response theory and the validation of an ESP test for health professionals. Language Testing7, 52-76.
55.
Messick, S.1989: Validity. In Linn, R.L. , editor, Educational measurement (3rd edn), New York: American Council on Education/Macmillan, 13-103.
56.
Moss, P.A.1995: Themes and variations in validity theory. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice14, 5-13.
57.
Munby, J.1978: Communicative syllabus design. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
58.
North, B.1993: The development of descriptors on scales of language proficiency . Washington, DC: National Foreign Language Center.
59.
Oller, J.W., jr 1976: Evidence of a general language proficiency factor: an expectancy grammar. Die Neuen Sprachen76, 165-74.
60.
— 1983: Evidence for a general language proficiency factor: an expectancy grammar. In Oller, J.W. jr, editor, Issues in language testing research, Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 3-10.
61.
Oller, J.W. jr and Jonz, J.1994: Cloze and coherence. Cranbury, NJ: Bucknell University Press.
62.
Omaggio, A.C.1986: Teaching language in context: proficiency-oriented instruction . Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle .
63.
Pino, B.G.1989: Prochievement testing of speaking. Foreign Language Annals22, 487-96.
64.
Raffaldini, T.1988: The use of situation tests as measures of communicative ability. Studies in Second Language Acquisition10, 197-216.
65.
Savignon, S.J.1983: Communicative competence: theory and classroom practice . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
66.
— 1985: Evaluation of communicative competence: the ACTFL provisional proficiency guidelines. Modern Language Journal69, 129-34.
67.
Schairer, K.E.1992: Native speaker reaction to non-native speech. Modern Language Journal76, 309-19.
68.
Shohamy, E.1988: A proposed framework for testing the oral language of second/foreign language learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition10, 165-79.
69.
Skehan, P.1991: Progress in language testing: the 1990s. In Alderson, J.C. and North, B., editors, Language testing in the 1990s: the communicative legacy, London: Macmillan, 3-21.
70.
Stansfield, C.W. and Kenyon, D.M.1991: Development of the Texas oral proficiency tests (TOPT): final report. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 332 522).
71.
Stern, H.H.1983: Fundamental concepts of language teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.
72.
Swain, M.1993: Second language testing and second language acquisition: is there a conflict with traditional psychometrics?Language Testing10, 193-207.
73.
Upshur, J. and Homburg, T.J.1983: Some relations among language tests at successive ability levels. In Oller, J.W. jr, editor, Issues in language testing research, Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 188-202.
74.
van Lier, L.1989: Reeling, writhing, drawling, stretching, and fainting in coils: oral proficiency interviews as conversation. TESOL Quarterly23, 489-508.
75.
Vollmer, H.J.1983: The structure of language proficiency. In Hughes, A. and Porter, D. , editors, Current developments in language testing, New York: Academic Press, 3-29.
76.
Vollmer, H.J. and Sang, F.1983: Competing hypotheses about second language ability: a plea for caution. In Oller, J.W. jr, editor, Issues in language testing research, Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 29-79.
77.
Wickens, T.1989: Multiway contingency tables analysis for the social sciences . Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.
78.
Wipf, J.A.1985: Evaluating listening comprehension and speaking proficiency of prospective student teachers in German. ADFL Bulletin16, 25-28.
79.
Woods, A.1983: Principal components and factor analysis in the investigation of the structure of language proficiency. In Hughes, A. and Porter, D., editors, Current developments in language testing, New York: Academic Press, 43-52.
