Native Speakers' Perception of the Nature of the OPI Communicative Speech Event.

A study investigated the Educational Testing Service's claim about the conversational nature of the Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) from the perspective of native speakers of the target second language. Eight subjects listened to 16 randomly-selected OPI communicative speech events, and their perceptions were measured using a semantic differential instrument. Analysis of the data indicate that with few exceptions, native speakers did not differ in their judgments of the nature of the OPI communicative speech event; they found that the OPI does not test speaking ability in the real-life context of a conversation as it claims to. The OPI tests speaking ability in the context of two interview types: a very formal interview that has many features of a survey research interview, based on the behaviorist theory of stimulus and response, and a more conversational type of interview that has many features of a sociologic interview. It is concluded that the findings raise questions about the validity of the OPI testing instrument. (Author/MSE) ******************************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. ******************************************************************************** Native speakers' perception of the nature of the OPI communicative speech event Marysia Johnson Assistant Professor Department of English Arizona State University This study was conducted to investigate the Educational Testing Service's claim about conversational nature of the Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) from an "outside" perspective. That is, this study investigated native speakers' perception of the OPI communicative speech event. Eight participants listened to 16 randomly selected OPIs, and their perceptions of the OPI were measured using the semantic differential instrument. A two-way analysis of variance was used to analyze the data. The results of the study show that, with a few exceptions, native speakers do not differ in their judgments of the nature of the OPI communicative speech event. In the native speaker's judgment, the OPI does not test speaking ability in the real-life context of a conversation as it claims to measure (ETS, 1989). The OPI tests speaking ability in the context of two types of interviews: a very formal type of interview that exhibits many features of a survey research interview, which is based on the behaviorist theory of stimulus and responses, and a more conversational type of interview that exhibits many features of a sociolinguistic interview (Mishler, 1986). These fmdings raise a question about the validity of the OPI testing instniment. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) O This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it. O Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. BEST COPY AVAILABLE 2 PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY 1 TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) Native speakers' perception of the nature of the OPI communicative speech event This study was conducted to investigate the Educational Testing Service's claim about conversational nature of the Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) from an "outside" perspective. That is, this study investigated native speakers' perception of the OPI communicative speech event. Eight participants listened to 16 randomly selected OPIs, and their perceptions of the OPI were measured using the semantic differential instrument. A two-way analysis of variance was used to analyze the data. Where the ANOVA F ratio was significant, a Student Newman Keuls post hoc statistical procedure was performed. The results of the study show that, with a few exceptions, native speakers do not differ in their judgments of the nature of the OPI communicative speech event. In native speakers' judgment, the OPI does not test speaking ability in the real-life context of a conversation as it claims to measure (ETS, 1989). The OPI tests speaking ability in the context of two types of interviews: a very formal type of interview that exhibits many features of a survey research interview, which is based on the behaviorist theory of stimulus and responses, and a more conversational type of interview that exhibits many features of a sociolinguistic interview (Mishler, 1986). These fmdings raise a question about the validity of the OPI testing instrument. INTRODUCTION Advocates of the Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) claim that "a well-structured oral proficiency interview tests speaking ability in a real-life contexta conversation. It is almost by definition a valid measure of speaking ability" (ETS, 1989). However, much of how everyday conversation works is deceptively obvious so that people studying and testing language often overlook fundamental characteristics of conversation and in the process violate them. It is precisely on these grounds that van Lier (1989) has challenged the ETS's claim that it measures speaking ability in the context of a conversation. Van Lier was the first to pose the question: "Is it really a conversation? " (Van Lier, 1989, p. 494). Since van Lier's original question, many researchers have tried to investigate the nature of the OPI speech event utilizing various discourse analysis methods (Johnson, 1997; Johnson and Tyler, 1998; Young, 1995; Lazarton, 1992). Not much research, however, has been done in the area of native speakers' perception of the OPI communicative speech event. This paper reports on the fmdings of the research whose purpose was to provide some answers to the following question: