Revising the revised format of the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview

Abstract

Since the early 1980s proponents of proficiency examinations such as ACTFL (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages) have been criticized for the low validity and reliability of tests such as the OPI (Oral Proficiency Interview). Despite these strong concerns, the most recent edition of the ACTFL Tester Training Manual does not reveal substantial changes from the previous manual published in . While a complete elimination of proficiency tests such as the ACTFL-OPI may be neither feasible nor necessary, some practical changes may be appropriate. In this article I describe minor structural changes of the ACTFL-OPI framework that would not eliminate the practical benefits of a proficiency test, but which address substantial concerns related to the validity and reliability of the instrument.

Prioritization of K–12 World Language Education in the United States: State Requirements for High School Graduation

“…On a more positive note, the Seal of Biliteracy initiative has resulted in official, state-level recognition of students' proficiency in languages other than English in 22 states, and another 15 are working toward establishing the policy. This academic credential, which is awarded to qualified students based on demonstrated proficiency in a language, is therefore consistent with trend that began in the 1980s toward proficiency-based approaches in language assessment and away from requirements based on seat-time or credits earned (Liskin-Gasparro, 2003;Salaberry, 2000;Schulz, 1989). In this respect, it differs from most of the state-based graduation requirements, which are mostly defined in terms of seat-time and which are not likely to result in high levels of proficiency.…”

The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and the Oral Proficiency Interview: A Brief History and Analysis of Their Survival

“…This hypothetical native speaker appears in various guises in the Guidelines-speakers can qualify for the IntermediateHigh level if, among other things, they "can generally be understood by native speakers unaccustomed to dealing with nonnatives" (Breiner-Sanders et al, 1999, p. 16); and the errors of speakers at the Superior level "do not distract the native interlocutor" (Breiner-Sanders et al, 1999, p. 14). In the view of the critics, the absence of data to operationalize key phrases in the descriptions like "native speakers unaccustomed to dealing with nonnatives" and "distract the native interlocutor" renders these criteria imprecise and indefensible (Barnwell, 1988;Lantolf & Frawley, 1985;Salaberry, 2000).…”

Oral Proficiency Assessment: Current Approaches and Applications for Post‐Secondary Foreign Language Programs

“…Critics of the OPI often point out its usefulness for language assessment and highlight the lack of alternatives. Salaberry (2000) points out that, ''research in L2 [second language] acquisition has not yet provided language testers with a practical alternative to the ACTFL OPI'' (297). Therefore, while the OPI's validity and practicality are often debated, it has not yet been replaced with a less disputed tool.…”

“…Similarly, Chalhoub-Deville and Fulcher (2003), Liskin-Gasparro (2003), Salaberry (2000), Bachman and Savignon (1986) and others critique the OPI's validity in terms of both the language produced by the interview and the lack of relationship between the OPI and any solid theory of language acquisition. Because it is based on neither a needs assessment of language use nor current theories of second language acquisition, many researchers believe that the OPI lacks validity for measuring general oral proficiency.…”