ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview Research Articles

Assisted self‐assessment to optimize the OPIc test experience

The ChallengeA principal adaptive feature of the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview—computer (OPIc) is a self‐assessment instrument through which test takers select a level‐appropriate test form. How accurately do test takers select level‐appropriate forms on the OPIc? Would assistance with the test form selection process optimize the testing experience?

A closer look at a marginalized test method: Self-assessment as a measure of speaking proficiency

AbstractSecond language (L2) teachers may shy away from self-assessments because of warnings that students are not accurate self-assessors. This information stems from meta-analyses in which self-assessment scores on average did not correlate highly with proficiency test results. However, researchers mostly used Pearson correlations, when polyserial could be used. Furthermore, self-assessments today can be computer adaptive. With them, nonlinear statistics are needed to investigate their relationship with other measurements. We wondered, if we explored the relationship between self-assessment and proficiency test scores using more robust measurements (polyserial correlation, continuation-ratio modeling), would we find different results? We had 807 L2-Spanish learners take a computer-adaptive, L2-speaking self-assessment and the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview – computer (OPIc). The scores correlated at .61 (polyserial). Using continuation-ratio modeling, we found each unit of increase on the OPIc scale was associated with a 131% increase in the odds of passing the self-assessment thresholds. In other words, a student was more likely to move on to higher self-assessment subsections if they had a higher OPIc rating. We found computer-adaptive self-assessments appropriate for low-stakes L2-proficiency measurements, especially because they are cost-effective, make intuitive sense to learners, and promote learner agency.

Morphosyntactic Knowledge in Late Second Language Learners and Heritage Speakers of Russian

The current study pursues two goals. First, it establishes developmental trajectories in the acquisition of 10 morphosyntactic features of Russian by American learners, using a grammaticality judgment task (GJT), an offline test of morphosyntactic knowledge that allows for direct comparison of native and nonnative performance through a highly controlled set of materials. Second, it compares the performance of late second language learners and heritage speakers (early learners) of Russian matched in global proficiency as established by the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI), and ranging from Intermediate to Superior proficiency. The study demonstrates that heritage speakers outperform late second language learners on most, but not all the morphosyntactic features tested in the GJT. These findings shed new light on the development of nonnative grammatical knowledge in early and late learners of Russian, and will inform Russian language curriculum development.

A Comparative Discourse Analysis of Spanish Past Narrations From the ACTFL OPI and OPIc

AbstractThe ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) and accompanying proficiency guidelines have become a mainstay in academic foreign language assessment. In 2006, an asynchronous electronic interface of the OPI was made available in which candidates are asked to record themselves responding to questions delivered aurally via computer, labeled the Oral Proficiency Interview‐computer (OPIc). Thompson, Cox, and Knapp () found that both instruments produced similar results but that many students in their sample who scored at the Advanced Low level on the traditional OPI scored one sublevel higher on the OPIc. The primary objective of the present study is to analyze lexical features, i.e., lexical diversity and lexical density, and discursive features, i.e., temporal and repair fluency, of students’ speech from a subset of OPI and OPIc exams to examine the relationship between the language elicited from each exam type, i.e., face‐to‐face and via computer. The research consists of two studies that focus on candidates who received (1) an Advanced Mid rating on both assessments, and (2) those who received Advanced Mid on the OPIc and Advanced Low on the OPI. While the two exams did not seem to elicit disparate levels of lexical density and diversity, significant differences surfaced in measures of fluency.

Variables Affecting L2 Gains During Study Abroad

AbstractSecond language (L2) gains during study abroad have been related to several variables including length of stay (Llanes, 2011), language use (Martinsen, Baker, Dewey, Bown, & Johnson, 2010), and social network development (Isabelli‐García, 2006), among others. However, most studies have investigated only a few predictors in single study abroad programs. While these findings are helpful, larger scale studies are needed to better understand the variables that contribute to L2 gains across several different cultures and learner groups. The current study examines predictors of L2 gain of more than 100 native English speakers who participated in study abroad in Mexico, Spain, France, Egypt, Russia, and China. Participants were asked to complete an ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview at the beginning and end of their study abroad program. Participants were then divided into “gainers” and “non‐gainers,” or those who did or did not make significant language gains from pre‐ to posttest. Their language gains from pre to posttest were compared to several predictors: personality (measured by the NEO Five‐Factor Inventory), social networks (size, dispersion, density, etc.), intercultural sensitivity (measured by the Intercultural Development Inventory), amount of second language use, gender, and age. Results suggest that many students were able to make gains in language, in each of the programs, and that the strongest predictors of L2 gains were cultural sensitivity and social network variables.

Exploring Oral Proficiency Profiles of Heritage Speakers of Russian and Spanish

AbstractThis article explores the linguistic profiles of heritage speakers of Russian and Spanish. Data from the 2009–2013 ACTFL‐UCLA NHLRC Heritage Language Project included biographical information as well as speech samples that were elicited using the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview–computer and were rated according to the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines 2012–Speaking by certified testers. The goal of the study was to better understand the multiple linguistic, educational, and experiential factors that contributed to the speaking proficiency of these heritage speakers as well as how those features affected the tasks and contexts in which the speakers could more appropriately communicate in the language. The data illuminate the linguistic strengths and weaknesses of speakers within certain ranges and highlight those language features that prevented the participants from being rated at the next higher level. The authors discuss implications for teaching and learning and make recommendations for both heritage speakers and their instructors.

Oral Proficiency Standards and Foreign Language Teacher Candidates: Current Findings and Future Research Directions

AbstractThe renewed national focus on teacher quality and effectiveness has resulted in more rigorous standards that describe the knowledge and skills required of teacher candidates across all disciplines. In the area of foreign languages, three sets of professional standards address the oral proficiency of teachers in the target languages they teach across the career continuum. For teacher candidates, the ACTFL/NCATE Program Standards for the Preparation of Foreign Language Teachers (2002) establish minimum oral proficiency levels based on the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines—Speaking (2012). Utilizing ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) data, this study examines to what extent candidates are attaining the ACTFL/NCATE Oral Proficiency Standard of Advanced Low in most languages or Intermediate High in Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean. Findings indicate that 54.8% of candidates attained the required standard between 2006 and 2012 and that significant differences emerged for language, year tested, and university program results. Further research that takes into account additional contextual information about candidates and programs will inform continuing professional dialogue about the oral proficiency of teacher candidates entering the profession.

The Development of Speaking and Writing Proficiencies in the Spanish Language Classroom: A Case Study

AbstractAn important task for foreign language (FL) instructors and researchers is to understand how the development of each language skill affects other aspects of language acquisition. This case study seeks to determine if speaking and writing proficiencies develop at similar rates among FL learners. Seventeen students enrolled in beginning, intermediate, and advanced Spanish courses at a mid‐sized U.S. university were administered the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview and Writing Proficiency Test. Speaking and writing proficiency scores were then correlated. Results showed a fairly strong correlation between speaking and writing scores among experimental group participants, but much weaker correlations between proficiencies when each of the three groups was examined individually. Some students were more proficient writers than speakers, others better writers than speakers, and others equally proficient.

Of frameworks and the goals of collegiate foreign language education: critical reflections

AbstractThe paper suggests that among reasons for the difficulties collegiate foreign language (FL) programs in the United States (and most likely elsewhere) encounter in assuring that their students attain the kind of upper-level multiple literacies necessary for engaging in sophisticated work with FL oral and written texts may be the fact that prevailing frameworks for capturing FL performance, development, and assessment are insufficient for envisioning such textually oriented learning goals. The result of this mismatch between dominant frameworks, typically associated with communicative language teaching, and the goals of literary cultural studies programs as humanities programs is that collegiate FL departments and their faculty members face serious obstacles in their efforts to create the kind of coherent, comprehensive, and principled curricula that would be necessary for overcoming what are already extraordinary challenges in an educational environment that provides little support for long-term, sustained efforts at language development toward advanced multiple literacies. The paper traces these links by examining three such frameworks in the United States: the Proficiency framework of the 1980s, based on the ACTFL oral proficiency interview, the Standards framework of the 1990s, part of a more general standards movement in U.S. education, and the most recent document, by the Modern Language Association (MLA), which focuses on the need for new curricular structures in collegiate FL education. Specifically, it provides an overview of the U.S. educational landscape with an eye toward the considerable influence such frameworks can have in the absence of a comprehensive language education policy; lays out key characteristics that would be necessary for a viable approach to collegiate FL education; probes the complex effects the three frameworks have had in collegiate FL programs; and explores how one department sought to counter-act their detrimental influence in order to affirm and realize a humanistically oriented approach to FL education. The paper concludes with overall observations about the increasing power of frameworks to set educational goals and ways to counteract their potentially unwelcome consequences.

Taking Charge: Teacher Candidates' Preparation for the Oral Proficiency Interview

Abstract: Within second language education, concern over teachers' content knowledge has typically manifested itself as concern over the teacher's target language proficiency. In increasing numbers, teacher preparation programs are turning to ACTFL's Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) for measurement of this proficiency and using OPI ratings as high‐stakes tests of readiness for teaching. This study reports the results of a survey of 734 teacher candidates on how they prepare for this assessment, both individually and in their training programs. The results of the survey reveal significant differences in study strategies between candidates who score Advanced or above and those who score below that targeted range. The more successful candidates use more discourse‐ and culturally rich sources for language input and spend considerably more time using the target language outside of course requirements. Candidates provide useful guidance to teacher educators on what helps and what hurts their efforts to be successful.

Assessing Students’ Language Proficiency

This article describes a model that integrates an at-home preparation intensive summer program with a short-term, study abroad summer program to increase students’ Chinese-language proficiency, cultural awareness, and personal career development. The results indicate that the at-home preparation program can build students’ self-esteem and confidence and subsequently allows them to benefit from interacting with native speakers during their study in China. This model program also assesses students’ multiskills language proficiency, including listening, oral, reading, writing, cultural competences as well as their personal development by combining measurement instruments of the SAT Chinese scores, the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI), and portfolio writing. The results demonstrate a positive relationship between the scores of the SAT Chinese and the level of the OPI test. The cutoff scores for participants’ selection for designing study abroad programs are also suggested.

A Study of Foreign Language Learning Outcomes Assessment in U.S. Undergraduate Education

Abstract: This article reports on findings obtained from an online survey answered by 97 foreign language department chairs. The Web survey was pilot tested for validity and reliability and obtained a Cronbach's reliability coefficient of .80. The results suggest that student learning outcomes assessment in American undergraduate foreign language education combines performance‐based and traditional assessments. The use of translation as an assessment method supersedes the application of the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) and exit exams to gauge language proficiency. The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and the National Standards are common in the assessment of oral proficiency, but infrequent in the development of assessment procedures of other skills. The article also reports on obstacles that institutions face in the implementation of standards‐based assessments (e.g., OPI and portfolios).

Social Interaction and Linguistic Gain During Study Abroad

Abstract: This study investigates the role of social interaction in language gain among study abroad students in France. Using the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI), the Can‐Do self‐assessment scale (Clark, 1981), a revised version of the Language Contact Profile (LCP; Freed, Dewey, Segalowitz, & Halter, 2001), and preand postdeparture questionnaires, we examine gains in oral proficiency as related to language contact in the study abroad environment. This research shows that language gain is possible during a semester‐long study abroad program. It does not uphold the common belief that living situation and contact with authentic media differentiate students who improve from those who do not. Looking at the background of students (age, gender, grade point average, etc.), it reveals that only prior coursework in French correlates strongly with gains in proficiency once abroad. In its most surprising finding, this study suggests that speaking French with Americans may impede proficiency development.

Research on the Oral Proficiency Interview: Analysis, Synthesis, and Future Directions

Abstract: Since their initial publication in 1982, the ACTFL Guidelines and oral proficiency interview (OPI) have enjoyed widespread use by foreign language educators. They have also been the target of much criticism by researchers of second language acquisition and testing. Much of this criticism has focused on validity claims for the OPI. Other research (e.g., Thompson, 1995) has investigated the interrater reliability of the test. This article provides an overview of research (both critical analyses and empirical studies) conducted on the ACTFL OPI and Guidelines from 1990 to present. The author identifies trends in this research, discusses lessons learned from research in other proficiency test areas, and provides recommendations for areas of future study.

Reliability and the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview: Reporting Indices of Interrater Consistency and Agreement for 19 Languages

Abstract: The reliability of the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) has not been reported since ACTFL revised its speaking proficiency guidelines in 1999. Reliability data for assessments should be reported periodically to provide users with enough information to evaluate the psychometric characteristics of the assessment. This study provided the most comprehensive analysis of ACTFL OPI reliability to date, reporting interrater consistency and agreement data for 19 different languages. Overall, the interrater reliability of the ACTFL OPI was found to be very high. These results demonstrate the importance of using an OPI assessment program that has a well‐designed interview process, a well‐articulated set of criteria for proficiency determination, a solid rater training program, and an experienced cadre of testers. Based on the data reported, educators and employers who use the ACTFL OPI can expect reliable results and use the scores generated from the testing process with increased confidence. Recommendations for future research are discussed.

Impact of the Proficiency Scale and the Oral Proficiency Interview on the Foreign Language Program at the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center

Abstract: The ACTFL oral proficiency interview (OPI) and the Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) scale provide both a testing method and a set of rating factors for evaluating proficiency. Both are closely related to actual language tasks identified as critical for government employees. Over time, the scale has been expanded to include four skills, a system of levels, and the testing needs of numerous organizations. At the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC), analyses of the proficiency levels into afunctional trisection consisting of task, content, and accuracy have fostered use of the OPI and ILR scale in teaching as well as testing. The article begins with a backgound discussion of the OPI and the ILR scale, then focuses on the trisection and its implications for instruction.

Using the OPI to Place Heritage Speakers of Russian

Abstract: This study explored the possibility of using an ACTFL oral proficiency interview (OPI) to assess the spoken proficiency of heritage language speakers of Russian for the purpose of placing them in Russian language classes. The authors also considered whether the norm of an educated native speaker could be used as a valid reference point for Russian heritage speakers. The OPI was administered to a group of college‐age Russian heritage speakers with little or no formal instruction in the language. The results indicated that the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines could be used to assess oral proficiency of Russian heritage speakers and that the standard of an educated native speaker of Russian could be used as a norm.

Oral Proficiency Testing in the Real World: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions

Abstract: The ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) is used to assess the ability of individuals to use language for real‐world purposes. Today, OPIs are used by academic institutions, government agencies, and private corporations for many purposes: academic placement, student assessment, program evaluation, professional certification, hiring, and promotional qualification. Through Language Testing International (LTI), the exclusive ACTFL testing office, ACTFL conducts, rates, and archives 8,000 to 10,000 oral proficiency interviews each year. This article addresses questions that are frequently asked by educators, test takers, employers, certification boards, and others who require information about an individual's level of oral proficiency.The frequently asked questions (FAQs) addressed in this article are (1) Does taking an OPI over the phone produce a different rating than a face‐to‐face interview? (2) Are there differences in testing performance from one testing occasion to another when there is no significant opportunity for learning or forgetting between the two tests? (3) How proficient are today's foreign language undergraduate majors? (4) What minimum levels of proficiency are required in the workplace?The answers to questions 1 and 2 are based on the results of an ACTFL‐sponsored testing project that compared face‐to‐face with telephonic interviews. The findings indicated that there is no significant difference in the ratings assigned using face‐to‐face versus telephone test administration. The data from the same study indicated that comparable results are obtained in test/retest situations. Questions 3 and 4 are answered using data from the ACTFL Test Archives. The majority of undergraduate language majors have achieved proficiency levels that cluster around the Intermediate‐High/Advanced‐Low border. Different jobs require different levels of proficiency. Charts are provided to summarize the findings.

The Rating of Direct and Semi‐Direct Oral Proficiency Interviews: Comparing Performance at Lower Proficiency Levels

As states and universities institute oral proficiency requirements with vast numbers of students to be tested, there is a need to investigate effective alternatives to the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) that allow group testing. This article reports on a study comparing student performances and test reliabilities for the German Speaking Test (GST) developed by the Center for Applied Linguistics, a semi‐direct tape‐mediated oral proficiency test, and the ACTFL OPI. Both the GST and a German OPI were administered as final oral exams to a randomly selected group of 20 students (out of a total of 59 students) enrolled in a fourth‐semester German course at a large Midwestern university. The OPI levels of the students tested ranged from Novice High (n= 5) and Intermediate Low (n= 9) to Intermediate Mid (n= 6). At these 3 levels, final ratings on the GST and the OPI agreed with each other perfectly in 90% of the cases. There were only 2 one‐step disagreements, both involving students who were rated Novice High on the ACTFL OPI, but who received other ratings on the GST. Although the results indicated a high score equivalency between ACTFL proficiency ratings obtained on both tests, this study underscores the pressing need for double ratings and arbitration procedures in high stakes testing situations.

Concurrent Validity and Application of the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview in a Japanese Language Program

Concurrent Validity and Application of the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview in a Japanese Language Program