1971
DOI: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.1971.tb02055.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Are We Really Measuring Proficiency with Our Foreign Language Tests?*

Abstract: Operational definitions of the differences between “achievement” and “proficiency” in foreign language performances are given. The development of different methods of teaching foreign languages and the subsequent tests related to each method are reviewed and discussed, current attempts to measure “proficiency” in foreign languages are seriously questioned as being inadequate. To eliminate some of the most glaring inadequacies in language testing, new, experimental approaches are being conducted by investigator… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

1981
1981
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Mackey (1967), in support of Lado, asserts that a student may avoid sentence structure and vocabulary of which he is unsure when given a spontaneous language test. On the other hand, Spolsky (1969), Upshur (1969), and Briere (1971) reject discrete-point proficiency tests because they believe that these tests do not give an overall assessment of proficiency, that is, how well the candidate communicates. Perren (1967: 28) claims that at present 'there seems to be considerable justification for deliberately using tests of gross skills of communication rather than concentrating exclusively on tests of their assumed constituents.…”
Section: Instrumentationmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Mackey (1967), in support of Lado, asserts that a student may avoid sentence structure and vocabulary of which he is unsure when given a spontaneous language test. On the other hand, Spolsky (1969), Upshur (1969), and Briere (1971) reject discrete-point proficiency tests because they believe that these tests do not give an overall assessment of proficiency, that is, how well the candidate communicates. Perren (1967: 28) claims that at present 'there seems to be considerable justification for deliberately using tests of gross skills of communication rather than concentrating exclusively on tests of their assumed constituents.…”
Section: Instrumentationmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…While less than a decade ago communicative compe tence testing was still a relatively new field (Savignon, 1972;Briere, 1971) it is now a much discussed area of research (e.g., see Davies, 1978;Marrow, 1977;Briere, 1979). The measurement of communi cative competence faces many problems, some of them related to the already mentioned vagueness of the concept or trait to be measured.…”
Section: Linguistic Vs Communicative Competencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Educational officials worry about the right test to determine which is a bilingual Hispanic child's primary language, since only Spanish dominant children participate in bilingual programmes. Whereas Lado (1961) favours discreet point testing, Briere (1972) and Oiler (1979) prefer general communication tests. Recently, more ethnographic approaches to testing language dominance have become popular (Bennett & Slaughter, 1983;Philips, 1983;Saville-Troike, 1983).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%