----

##  Simulated Oral Proficiency Interviews: Recent Developments. ERIC                Digest.                                                                      

The simulated oral proficiency interview (SOPI) is a                            performance-based, tape-mediated speaking test. It follows the                  general structure of the oral proficiency interview (OPI) used by               government agencies and the American Council on the Teaching of                 Foreign Languages to measure speaking proficiency. Whereas the OPI              is a face-to-face interview, the SOPI relies on audio taped                     instructions and a test booklet to elicit language from the                     examinee. Unlike many semi-direct tests, the SOPI contextualizes all            tasks to ensure that they appear as authentic as possible. 
The                prototypical SOPI follows the same four phases as the OPI: warm-up,             level checks, probes, and wind-down. The warm-up phase, designed to             ease examinees into the test format, begins with simple personal                background questions posed on the tape in a simulated encounter with            a native speaker of the target language.    The examinee responds to            each warm-up question during a brief pause on the tape after each               question. The next phase of the test consists of tasks similar to               the level check and probe phases of the OPI. These tasks assess the             examinee's ability to perform different functions at the ACTFL                  Intermediate, Advanced, and Superior levels. (For more information              on the ACTFL Guidelines, see Stansfield, 1992.) The prototypical                SOPI includes picture-based tasks that allow examinees to perform               tasks such as asking questions, giving directions based on a simple             map, describing a place, or narrating a sequence of events based on             the illustrations provided. 
Other SOPI tasks require examinees to             speak about selected topics or perform in real-life situations.                 These tasks assess the examinee's ability to manage functions at the            Advanced and Superior levels, including apologizing, describing a               process, supporting an opinion, and speaking persuasively. Because              these tasks may include functions too complex for lower-level                   examinees, the test may be stopped midway. HOW IS THE SOPI                    ADMINISTERED?SOPI administration materials include a master test            tape, which includes the audio tape of all test instructions and                tasks; an examinee response tape on which the examinee records his              or her responses; and the test booklet, which includes all test                 tasks except the warm-up. Directions to all tasks are presented in              English in the test booklet and on the test tape. The directions                provide the context of each speaking task, including whom the                   examinee is addressing, what the situation is, why the speaking task            is being performed, and any other relevant information. After                   listening to and reading the directions, the examinee hears a native            speaker of the target language make a statement or ask a question               relevant to the task described. Then the examinee performs the task             by responding to the native speaker prompt. 
The prototypical SOPI             ends with a brief wind-down consisting of simple questions in the               target language. After the SOPI is completed, the examinee response             tape is scored by trained raters who apply the ACTFL Guidelines.                Scores range from Novice-Mid to Superior. RESEARCH ON THE                     SOPIIn several studies involving different test development                 teams and different languages, the SOPI proved to be a valid and                reliable surrogate to the OPI. Clark and Li (1986) developed four               forms of the SOPI in Chinese. Once developed, the four forms of the             test were administered, along with an OPI, to 32 students of Chinese            at two universities. Each test was scored by two raters, and the                scores on the two tests were correlated. The results showed a                   correlation of .93 between the SOPI and the OPI. 
Stansfield et                al. (1990) reported on the development of three forms of a SOPI in              Portuguese. This test and an OPI were administered to 30 adults at              four institutions. Two raters scored each test. In this study, a                correlation of .93 was found between the SOPI and the OPI. In                   addition, the SOPI proved to be slightly more reliable and easier to            rate than the OPI. 
Shohamy, Gordon, Kenyon, and Stansfield (1989)             reported on a Center for Applied Linguistics/University of Tel Aviv             project that developed and validated the Hebrew Speaking Test. Two              forms of this SOPI were developed for use at Hebrew language schools            for immigrants to Israel, and two forms were developed for use in               North America. The first two forms, along with an OPI, were                     administered to 20 foreign students at the University of Tel Aviv,              and the two North American forms were administered to 20 students of            Hebrew at U.S. universities. The correlation between the OPI and the            Israeli version of the SOPI was .89, while the correlation for the              U.S. version was 94. 
Subsequently, Stansfield and Kenyon (1992,               1993) described the development and validation of SOPIs in                      Indonesian and Hausa. In the Indonesian study, the correlation with             the OPI for 16 adult learners was 95. Because no ACTFL-certified                tester was available to conduct OPIs, two Hausa speakers were                   trained in applying the ACTFL scale and subsequently used this                  training to score the tests. Raters showed high inter-rater                     reliability (.91) in scoring the test. In more recent                           research (Kenyon & Tschirner, 2000), 90% of the students studied                received the same ACTFL rating on an OPI in German and a German                 SOPI. 
SOPIs are currently available in Arabic, Chinese, French,               German, Hausa, Hebrew, Indonesian, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian,               and Spanish. RATER TRAININGAs these tests have been                       operationalized, the need for trained raters to score them has been             addressed through live rater training workshops as well as through              the development of self-instructional rater training kits and a                 CD-ROM-based training program. Rater trainer kits are available in              Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Japanese, and Russian for language             instructors who would like to administer and rate the SOPI                      themselves. For each language, the Rater Training Kit consists of a             manual, a workbook, and a reference guide for scoring; three                    cassette tapes; and the SOPI testing materials. Research on the                 self-instructional rater training kits suggests that they are an                effective way to acquire rating skills without participating in live            rater training (Kenyon, 1997). Further research has been conducted              into the usefulness of the German Rater Training Kit in learning to             apply the ACTFL Guidelines (Norris, 1997). In addition, the Center              for Applied Linguistics (CAL) is currently developing multi-media               rater training programs (MMRTP) that include a CD-ROM with                      interactive self-instructional materials from the Rater Training                Kits, practice exercises and quizzes, speech samples for practice               rating; SOPI testing materials; and a reference guide. The MMRTP                will be available in early 2001 in Spanish, French, and German. All             rater training kits and the MMRTP have been updated to incorporate              the revised 1999 ACTFL Speaking Proficiency                                     Guidelines. APPLICATIONSBecause the SOPI format is flexible,              it can be and often is tailored to the desired level of examinee                proficiency and for specific examinee age groups, backgrounds, and              professions. For several of the SOPIs developed by CAL, a                       lower-level version of the test can be created by administering only            the first part. Such a version is available for rating proficiency              from the Novice-Mid to Advanced levels. 
The SOPI format has been              used by various institutions in the development of tests to meet                their specific needs. For example, the University of Minnesota and              the Minnesota Department of Education developed a SOPI in which                 seven tasks are combined to follow one integrated story line or                 theme (Chaloub-Deville, 1997). Because this test focuses on                     examinees at the Novice-High to Intermediate-Low levels, it includes            only Intermediate-level tasks. 
Another SOPI with a specific focus             is the Texas Oral Proficiency Test (TOPT) developed by CAL. A score             of Advanced on the TOPT is required by all who seek teaching                    certification in Texas in French, Spanish, or bilingual education.              This full-length test consists of 15 tasks and is taken by examinees            at the Intermediate-Mid level or higher. Practice tests are                     available for the French and Spanish TOPT. 
Many universities and              school systems have incorporated a SOPI focus into their testing                program. A handbook on designing SOPIs was developed to assist such             programs in developing their own SOPIs (Stansfield, 1996).                      Currently, Stanford University uses a SOPI for diagnosis and                    placement of students into foreign language classes. In addition,               the SOPI is administered to all students at the end of the third                quarter to ensure that they meet the oral proficiency standard in               their language. 
The SOPI format has many practical benefits. Any              teacher, language lab technician or aide can administer the SOPI.               This has proved to be an advantage in locations where a trained                 interviewer is not available or in languages that lack                          ACTFL-certified testers. In addition, the SOPI can be administered              simultaneously to a group of examinees by one administrator, whereas            a live interview can only be administered individually. Thus, the               SOPI may be preferable when many examinees need to be tested in a               short time frame. 
The SOPI may also offer psychometric advantages             in terms of reliability and validity, particularly in standardized              testing situations. The SOPI offers the same quality of interview to            all examinees, and all examinees respond to the same questions. By              recording the test for later scoring, it is possible to ensure that             examinees will be rated by the most reliable raters and can be rated            under controlled conditions. Raters who have scored both a live                 interview and a SOPI report that it is often easier to score a SOPI.            This may be due in part to the SOPI's ability to produce a longer               speech sample and to allow each examinee to respond to the same                 questions. Therefore, distinctions in proficiency may appear more               obvious to the rater. NEW DIRECTIONSJust as advances in                   technology have led to the development of the MMRTP to help train               raters, new and better technologies have lead to research on new                approaches to semi-direct testing. CAL conducted a 2-year study on              the development of the Computerized Oral Proficiency Interview, or              COPI. Like the SOPI, the COPI relies on taped and written directions            to elicit language from the examinee. Unlike the SOPI, however, the             COPI is adapted to the examinee's proficiency level. On the COPI,               the examinee and the computer cooperate to produce a speech sample              ratable according to the ACTFL Guidelines (Malabonga & Kenyon,                  1999). The COPI allows examinees some choice in the difficulty level            of the tasks presented to them. To ensure adequate probing and level            checking, however, examinees have control over only a portion of the            tasks on the test. This means that the examinees select some tasks              they believe are appropriate to their own level of speaking ability,            and the computer program includes tasks at other levels to ensure               that adequate level checking and probing occurs. Because the COPI               was developed principally as a research study, CAL has not yet                  operationalized this approach to testing speaking                               proficiency. CONCLUSIONSThis discussion suggests that the SOPI            is a reliable, easily administered test of speaking performance. The            development of the COPI and MMRTP suggest that applying advances in             technology to both test administration and rater training have the              potential to further improve semi-direct approaches to performance              testing. REFERENCESChaloub-Deville, M. (1997). The Minnesota              Articulation Project and its proficiency-based assessments. "Foreign            Language Annals, 30," 492-502. 
Clark, J.L.D., & Li,                           Y.C. (1986). "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." Washington, DC: Center for Applied                                  Linguistics. 
Kenyon, D. (1997). Further research on the efficacy              of rater self-training. In A. Huhta, V. Kohonen, L. Kurki-Suonio, &             S. Luoma (Eds.), "Current developments and alternatives in language             assessment: Proceedings of LTRC 96" (pp. 257-273). Jyvaskyla,                   Finland: University of Jyvaskyla. 
Kenyon, D.M., & Tschirner,                  E. (2000). The rating of direct and semi-direct oral proficiency                interviews: Comparing performance at lower proficiency                          levels. "Modern Language Journal, 84," 85-101. 
Malabonga, V.A., &             Kenyon, D.M. (1999). Multimedia computer technology and                         performance-based language testing: A demonstration of the                      Computerized Oral Proficiency Instrument (COPI). In M.B.                        Olsen (Ed.), Association for Computational Linguistics/International            Association of Language Learning Technologies Symposium                         proceedings.  Computer mediated language assessment and evaluation              in natural language processing (pp. 16-23). New Brunswick NJ:                   Association for Computational Linguistics. 
Norris, J.M. (1997).               The German Speaking Test: Utility and caveats. Die                              Unaterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 30, 148-158. 
Shohamy, E.,                 Gordon, C., Kenyon, D.M., & Stanfield, C.W. (1989). The development             and validation of a semi-direct test for assessing oral proficiency             in Hebrew. Bulletin of Hebrew Higher Education, 4,                              4-9. 
Stansfield, C.W. (1996). Text development handbook: Simulated            Oral Proficiency Interview. Washington, DC: Center for Applied                  Linguistics. 
Stansfield, C.W. (1992). ACTFL Speaking Proficiency              Guidelines. ERIC Digest. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on                  Languages and Linguistics. 
Stansfield, C.W., & Kenyon,                        D.M. (1992). The development and validation of a simulated oral                 proficiency interview. Modern Language Journal, 76,                             129-141. 
Stansfield, C.W., & Kenyon, D.M. (1993). Development and             validation of the Hausa Speaking Test with the ACTFL Proficiency                Guidelines. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 4, 5-31. Stansfield,                 C.S., Kenyon, D.M., Paiva, D., Doyle, F., Ulsh, I., & Cowles,                   M.A. (1990). Development and validation of the Portuguese Speaking              Test. Hisspania, 73, 641-651. 
----- 
This digest was prepared                with funding from the U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Educational            Research and Improvement, National Library of Education, under                  contract no. ED-99-CO-0008. The opinions expressed do not                       necessarily reflect the positions or policies of ED, OERI, or NLE.           **Title:** Simulated Oral Proficiency Interviews: Recent Developments. ERIC                Digest.                                                                      **Document Type:** Information Analyses---ERIC Information Analysis Products (IAPs) (071); Information Analyses---ERIC Digests (Selected) in Full Text (073); **Available From:** ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics, 4646 40th Street               NW, Washington, DC 20016. For full text:                                        http://www.cal.org/ericcll/DIGEST.                                           **Descriptors:**  Interviews,  Language Proficiency,  Language Tests,  Oral Language,            Second Language Learning, Testing                                            **Identifiers:** ERIC Digests,  Oral Proficiency Testing,  Simulated Oral Proficiency            Interview                                                                    
###
[Return to ERIC Digest Search Page]