Rethinking Description in the Russian Sopi
Shortcomings of the Simulated Oral Proficiency Interview
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 8938879 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Julia Mikhailova (University of Toronto, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2007 |
| Volume | 40 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 584-603 |
| Publication date | 2007-12-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Foreign Language Annals (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0015-718X • E-ISSN: 1944-9720 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2007.tb02882.x |
| OpenAlex | W2024115163 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
| References cited | 18 |
This article describes the shortcomings of one of the major testing tools in the foreign languages field, the Simulated Oral Proficiency Interview (SOPI), with regard to the elicitation of the function of description. In doing so, the article raises questions about the applicability of the SOPI as a surrogate for the Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) in general and, more specifically, about SOPI testing oral proficiency at the Intermediate‐High level and above. The SOPI and the OPI are not designed on the basis of the same conceptualization of description. Even though both tests base their assessment criteria on the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines‐Speaking (1999), in the SOPI both the definition of description and the description prompts themselves are problematic. Results of the research project described in this article‐a comparison of SOPI and OPI Russian tests‐suggest that the Russian version of the SOPI, for example, does not elicit description and therefore the SOPI test, in its current version, may be unreliable for ratings at the Advanced and Superior levels
Conceptualization · Field (mathematics · Foreign language · Language assessment · Language proficiency · Linguistics · Mathematics education · Test (biology · EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning · Psychology · Second Language Acquisition and Learning · Translation Studies and Practices
The validity of direct versus semi- direct oral tests
Revising the revised format of the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview
Interaction in the oral proficiency interview
Research on the comparability of the oral proficiency interview and the simulated oral proficiency interview
A Case Study of the Acquisition of Narration in Russian
An Investigation of the Construct Validity of the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and Oral Interview Procedure
Foreign Language Proficiency Levels Attained by Language Majors Near Graduation from College
Oral Proficiency Testing in the Real World
Oral Proficiency Learning Outcomes and Curricular Design
Video in the Proficiency‐Based Advanced Conversation Class
Language Testing Priorities
Research on the Oral Proficiency Interview
Interrater Reliability of the OPI
Assessing Speaking Proficiency in the Undergraduate Curriculum
A Study of Interrater Reliability of the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview in Five European Languages
| Unique citing works | 2 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,13 |
| Citation span | 2011 - 2015 (5) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 2 |