Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-wjfd9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T22:05:43.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The FSI/ILR/ACTFL Proficiency Scales and Testing Techniques

Development, Current Status, and Needed Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

John L. D. Clark  and
Ray T. Clifford
John L. D. Clark
Affiliation:
Defense Language Institute
Ray T. Clifford
Affiliation:
Defense Language Institute
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The major purposes of this article are to briefly describe the rationale and history of development of the “proficiency-based” testing movement in the United States, its current status, and areas in which additional research and development work are recommended to enhance both the psychometric validity and practical value of this approach.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , June 1988 , pp. 129 - 147
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (1986). ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Hastingson-Hudson, NY: Author.Google Scholar
Bachman, L., & Clark, J. L. D. (1987). The measurement of foreign/second language proficiency. Annals of the American Society of Political and Social Sciences, 490, 20–33.Google Scholar
Byrnes, H., & Canale, M. (Eds.). (1987). Defining and developing proficiency: Guidelines, implementations, and concepts. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B. (1967). The foreign language attainments of language majors in the senior year: A survey conducted in U.S. colleges and universities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Graduate School of Education.Google Scholar
Clark, J. L. D. (1972). Foreign Language Testing: Theory and practice. Philadelphia: Chilton/Center for Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
Clark, J. L. D. (1975). Testing the foreign language skills for mastery. In McConnell, R. & Papalia, A. (Eds.), Papers presented at the fourth international conference of the Ontario Modern Language Teachers' Association and the New York State Association of Foreign Language Teachers (pp. 50–57). Buffalo, N. Y.Google Scholar
Clark, J. L. D. (1979). Direct vs. semi-direct tests of speaking ability. In Brière, E. J. & Hinofotis, F. B. (Eds.), Concepts in language testing: Some recent studies (pp. 35–49). Washington, DC: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.Google Scholar
Clark, J. L. D. (1980). Toward a common measure of speaking proficiency. In Frith, J. R. (Ed.), Measuring spoken language proficiency (pp. 15–26). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, J. L. D. (1986a). Development, Validation, and dissemination of a proficiency-based test of speaking ability in Chinese and an associated assessment model for other less commonly taught languages (Final project report for Grant No. G008402258, U.S. Department of Education). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Clark, J. L. D. (1986b). A study of the comparability of speaking proficiency interview ratings across three government language training agencies. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Educational Testing Service. (1961). MLA-Cooperative Foreign Language Proficiency Tests. Princeton, NJ: Author.Google Scholar
Galloway, V. (1987). From defining to developing proficiency: A look at the decisions. In Byrnes, H. & Canale, M. (Eds.), Defining and developing proficiency: Guidelines, implementations, concepts (pp. 25–73). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook.Google Scholar
Higgs, T. V., & Clifford, R. T. (1982). The push toward communication. In Higgs, T. V. (Ed.), Curriculum, competence, and the foreign language teacher (pp. 57–79). Skokie, IL: National Textbook.Google Scholar
Liskin-Gasparro, J. E. (1984). The ACTFL proficiency guidelines: A historical perspective. In Higgs, T. V. (Ed.), Teaching for proficiency, the organizing principle (pp. 11–42). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook.Google Scholar
Lowe, P. Jr., (1982). Manual for LS oral interview workshop. Washington, DC: DLI/LS Joint Oral Interview Transfer Project.Google Scholar
Lowe, P. Jr., & Clifford, R. T. (1980). Developing an indirect measure of overall oral proficiency. In Frith, J. R. (Ed.), Measuring spoken language proficiency (pp. 31–39). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Omaggio, A. C. (1984). The proficiency-oriented classroom. In Higgs, T. V. (Ed.), Teaching for proficiency, the organizing principle (pp. 43–84). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook.Google Scholar
Sollenberger, H. E. (1978). Development and current use of the FSI oral interview test. In Clark, J. L. D. (Ed.), Direct testing of speaking proficiency: Theory and application (pp. 1–12). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Valdman, A. (Ed.). (1987). Proceedings of the Symposium on the Evaluation of Foreign Language Proficiency.BloomingtonIndiana University, CREDLI.Google Scholar
Wilds, C. P. (1975). The oral interview test. In Jones, R. L. & Spolsky, B. (Eds.), Testing language proficiency (pp. 29–44). Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar