Interagency Language Roundtable Scale Research Articles

Exploring the lexical profile of advanced L2 writers: Longitudinal data from the Russian Overseas Flagship program

AbstractThis study explores the lexical profile of essays written by 48 advanced learners of second language (L2) Russian who participated in the Russian Overseas Flagship, an intensive year‐long study abroad program designed to help students reach Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) Level 3 proficiency in all skills. Using the lexical frequency profile and P–Lex as measures of vocabulary sophistication, the study found that over the 9 months of the program, students significantly increased their usage of words from the lowest frequency bands. This adds to previous findings that knowledge of lexical items at the 3,000–5,000 word frequency levels predicts reading proficiency at the ACTFL advanced high–superior level in Russian. However, the increase of vocabulary sophistication was not clearly correlated with improvements in the students’ writing proficiency scores, as measured on the ILR scale. A qualitative analysis of the students’ low‐frequency vocabulary usage reveals their control of native Russian vocabulary and derivational morphology. The analyses reveal the effects of writing tasks on student vocabulary usage.

Electronic Reference Tools in EFL Classes

Electronic reference tools viz. dictionaries, wikis, explorers, translators etc. tender a great support to the EFL learners in understanding different aspects of the lexical, syntactical, phonological and semantic complexities. In view of the usefulness of online reference tools, it is hypothesized that extensive use of the tools in classrooms expedites the acquisition of the language. In an effort to establish the correlation between the effective use of the tools and the acquisition of English as a foreign language, it is proposed to take up a study that aims at finding out the impact of using Electronic reference tools in EFL classrooms. The study was conducted with two groups of learners of English as a foreign language who completed their yearlong English language course that is mandatory for continuing their bachelors’ course. By using purposive sampling method the participants of the study were selected and were divided into group A and group B based on the levels of success in their acquisition of English required for continuing their bachelor’s courses. The levels of success were determined based on a diagnostic test conducted at the end of their one-year English language program, and graded in light of the Interagency Language Round Table Scale (ILRS). The students who obtained ILRS +3 level and above in the test were included in group A, and the students who obtained below ILRS 3 level are included in group B. The final sample of the students in both the groups were provided with a questionnaire of Likert scale that is followed by face-to-face interviews. By employing mixed method model of research, the correlation between their use of online reference tools and their level of success in learning the language were established. The results show a positive correlation that confirms the use of online and electronic reference tools is an essential learning strategy both within and out of the classroom learning as well as for expediting the learning process.

Developing Intercultural Communicative Competence in Foreign Language Learning

Successful foreign language learners need to have intercultural communicative competence that goes beyond linguistic knowledge. This paper focuses on designing activities that promote intercultural communicative competence in foreign language learning. Competence in intercultural communication requires an understanding of both the L1 and L2 cultures. Using the Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) [1] skill levels, this paper looks at the role of intercultural competence in developing effective cross-cultural communication. The paper presents lesson activities designed to build such intercultural competence from the elementary through professional working competency levels as defined by the ILR scale. The sample activities address specific cultural objectives, activate higher-order critical thinking skills, and have the added advantage of allowing teachers to recycle information to anchor and reinforce existing knowledge.

Relationship Between Self-assessed and Tested Non–English-language Proficiency Among Primary Care Providers

Individuals with limited English proficiency experience poor patient-clinician communication. Most studies of language concordance have not measured clinician non-English-language proficiency. To evaluate the accuracy of the self-assessment of non-English-language proficiency by clinicians compared with an oral proficiency interview. Primary care providers (PCPs) in California and Massachusetts. PCPs first completed a self-assessment of non-English-language proficiency using a version of the Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) Scale, followed by the Clinician Cultural and Linguistic Assessment (CCLA), a validated oral proficiency interview. We used nonparametric approaches to analyze CCLA scores at each ILR scale level and the correlation between CCLA and ILR scale scores. Sixteen PCPs in California and 51 in Massachusetts participated (n=67). Participants spoke Spanish (79%), followed by Cantonese, Mandarin, French, Portuguese, and Vietnamese. The respondents self-assessed as having "excellent" proficiency 9% of the time, "very good" proficiency 24% of the time, "good" proficiency 46% of the time, "fair" proficiency 18% of the time, and "poor" proficiency 3% of the time. The average CCLA score was 76/100. There was a positive correlation between self-reported ILR scale and CCLA score (σ=0.49, P<0.001). The variance in CCLA scores was wider in the middle categories than in the low or high ILR categories (P=0.003). Self-assessment of non-English-language proficiency using the ILR correlates to tested language proficiency, particularly on the low and high ends of the scale. Participants who self-assess in the middle of the scale may require additional testing. Further research needs to be conducted to identify the characteristics of PCP whose self-assessments are inaccurate and, thus, require proficiency testing.

“Does This Doctor Speak My Language?” Improving the Characterization of Physician Non‐English Language Skills

To describe the initial impact of an organizational policy change on measurement of physician non-English language proficiency. Multispecialty health care organization in the San Francisco Bay Area. In response to preliminary findings suggesting that the organization's nonvalidated and undefined three-category tool for physician self-report of non-English language proficiency levels was likely inadequate, the organization asked physicians to rate their non-English language proficiency levels using an adapted Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) scale, a validated measure with five rating levels and descriptors. We then compared the self-reported language proficiency on the original scale and the ILR for those physicians who completed both and used regression analysis to investigate physician characteristics potentially associated with a change in score on the old versus ILR scales. Six months after the ILR scale was implemented throughout the organization, 75 percent (258/342) of physicians had updated their language proficiency ratings. Among clinicians who had previously rated themselves in the "Medical/Conversational" category, there were substantial variations in scores using the ILR scale. Physicians who spoke two or more non-English languages were significantly more likely to lower their self-reported proficiency when updating from the old scale to the ILR scale. The organization was willing to adopt a relatively straightforward change in how data were collected and presented to patients based on the face validity of initial findings. This organizational policy change appeared to improve how self-reported physician language proficiency was characterized.

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.

Oral Testing in the High School Classroom: Some Suggestions

For many years it has seemed that foreign teaching profession has been engaged in a series of revolutions most of which have had their origins in an attempt to reach a consensus as to best way, i.e., the one true way to teach foreign language. Yet despite a few short-lived rallies around a common flag, history of teaching has been marked more by controversy than by consensus (Diller 1-2). The latest attempt at reaching consensus is based on concept of proficiency. Instead of searching for one definitive approach to teaching, a search that Omaggio says has consistently ended in frustration and a sense of failure, we should be identifying an organizing principle, by which our various methods, approaches, materials and curricula might begin to make collective sense (Methodology 330). During decade of eighties term proficiency has become ubiquitous in foreign circles and it is likely that it will remain so. Patricia Cummins, in a recent issue of Foreign Language Annals, writes that during 1990s it is likely that proficiency will play an even greater role in preparation of foreign teachers and other professionals who need a given level of proficiency to perform their jobs. Uniform standards have long been needed, she adds (477). This recent focus on proficiency and uniformity has surfaced in response to a report issued in 1979 by President's Commission on Foreign Languages and International Studies in which one of recommendations specifically stated that language proficiency achievement goals for end of each year of at all levels of study should be established (38). Since February of 1982, when first workshop on oral proficiency testing was held in Houston, a number of teachers have been trained to assess level of oral proficiency in speakers of foreign languages using ACTFL/ETS Oral Proficiency Interview (henceforth OPI). It is likely that as more and more of our colleagues become trained in procedures involved in administering OPI, more workshops will be held, and consequently more foreign teachers who want this training will have opportunity to receive it. But, in meantime, what can those teachers who do not have this training, but want it, do? The following suggestions illustrate how basic principles of oral proficiency testing can be used to begin assessing speaking skills of students in a high school setting. Many teachers are already familiar with Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) Definitions, standard used to measure proficiency for employees in government agencies. In order to better define ranges of ILR scale to reflect level of proficiency at which most learners in an academic setting perform, ACTFL and ETS recognized need to modify ILR. The juxtaposition of ILR scale and ACTFL/ETS scale in Figure 1 below

TOEFL FROM A COMMUNICATIVE VIEWPOINT ON LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY: A WORKING PAPER

ABSTRACTThis report examines the content characteristics of the Test of English as Foreign Language (TOEFL) from a communicative viewpoint based on current theory in applied linguistics and language proficiency assessment. After a review of relevant literature, the authors developed and applied a four‐part operational framework for analyzing the communicative characteristics of a language proficiency test. The first component of this framework consists of the grammatical, sociolinguistic, and discourse competencies required by test tasks. The second component consists of eight factors that could influence test performance. The third component consists of judgements of the relevance of the content of test items to academic and social language use. The final component relates the langauge and language tasks appearing in TOEFL items and sections to a criterion‐referenced scale of language proficiency. In this case, the Interagency Language Roundtable scale was used. Finally, the report discusses test design features that might improve the quality of language proficiency tests.