Introduction to the Oral Proficiency Interview(OPI)

Links open in new windows.

The Basics

While oral proficiency tests go back at least to the Bible ("shibboleth"), the Modern Beginning, at least in the US, is:

WWII: Lack of reliable, effective assessment tools (hassan_ger_swed) - documentation according to seat-time, grades, majoring, travel, etc.etc. was found to be invalid and unreliable (and sometimes fatal for the speaker!).

Conversational-interview method and standards emerged within US government agencies ("ILR" - Interagency Language Roundtable): The "Oral Proficiency Interview" (OPI) rated according to performance profiles with numerical labels (0/No discernible proficiency - 5 (W)ENS [Well-Educated Native Speaker])

(Some obvious issues here with ESL!)

Actually, 11 levels: 0, 0+, 1+, etc. The "+" rating describes a performance that must be ALMOST (not halfway) to the next level.

A supplementary influence: New (?) emphasis on speaking (car-talk) and real-world communication (coast guard).

Some related issues and problems: intra-rater reliability (more of a concern than intra-rater reliability); discrete levels vs. continuous spectrum?

"ILR" was often replaced by "FSI" (Foreign Service Institute, where OPI was/ is very prominent). As the post-secondary world got into the act, "ETS" (Educational Testing Service) joined the acronyn-soup.

And then, when whoever started the academic ball rolling, ACTFL came on the stage and developed the "(Provisional) Proficiency Guidelines" (early 1980s): NOT a replacement of the ILR ones, not an alternative, not a redefinition, but rather an expansion and change of emphasis to suit the (intially, post-secondary) world of less-than-wonderfully-proficient language learners and users.

Schematic overview of levels of proficiency, along with an important feature, "text type":

Why the change?

Let's look at the Guidelines for speaking and writing

… and use some movie clips and (not ready yet) informal recordings to estimate proficiency levels and text types:

Trick sample: Two criminals attempt to learn Spanish for bank-robbing - what is the target proficiency level, and what level do they actually attain?

Sleazy movie "Assault of the Killer Bimbos" - speaking Spanish at the Mexican border (caution: content may offend some)

Warning! Don't be deceived by wonderful accents!

Function: What the speaker does (ask questions, give directions, conduct a transaction, etc.)

Context/Content: The circumstances (about entertainment, for urban transit, shelter)

Accuracy: How well/ efficiently the task is carried out, defined primarily in terms of how comprehensible the language is to what kind of listener. (Major point of conflict here for FL people, because of our traditionalistic history: grammar and its place in proficiency).

ACTFL "Functional Tri-Section" (0038) - NOT an alternate to the Guidelines, but rather a way of organizing them under important sub-categories

What?

A realistic (?), real-time conversation…

…that conceals a carefully-conducted exploration of the subject's oral proficiency

Warmup

Level-checks & probes (recursive)

Role-play (situation [with complication/]) (panther_zimmer)

Short collection (0040) of specifications and helps for conducting OPIs

The ACTFL Manual (1994; 0036) used in their training sessions; detailed specification and helps for conducting OPIs, and also for rating them

Let's try one with each other!

Breakdown

Wind-down

Let's hear one for French (Chris) - (interviewer's rating and commentary, 0269) Can you use the concepts of function, context, accuracy, text type to gauge the level of proficiency that is being elicited, why the interviewer is doing what she does, and what the strengths and weaknesses of the interview are?

And now one for German (Bambi) - not all interviews are easy!!

Great Moments in Oral Testing (long version) - with lessons about: 1) interview techniques (PAUSES! ENGLISH!); 2) text type and language creation; 3) the power of circumlocution, and what it indicates about the likely level of proficiency.

If time: more about OPI techniques - but FLL does have an assessment course, and there are frequent workshops in many places (check with ACTFL and your local/ regional language societies).

our theories (and our self-image as teachers!):

1) good thought question - which methods & techniques (Grammar-Translation [Marty], choral repetition [poets], Audio-Lingual Method [pussycat], etc.) promote or discourage development of oral proficiency

2) the "official" line: oral proficiency does not dictate ONE SPECIFIC pedagogical method

3) a fallacy: oral proficiency means "you don't teach grammar"

4) it could change our careers (WBF [proj_pub]. OPI training in DC, Feb. 1983; especially "Goethe, Schiller & Me" - home page and article PDF)

our testing

the devoted, burdened teacher: All those students! All those (how many?) tests!

in large programs: see below

our classrooms

handout: wbf 72 (Govoni, FLA, "Effects")

our programs

big issues:

preK-20 articulation (handouts; WBF PASS documents; 158 "Telephone Date"; German OT setup with benchmarks (PASS mtg. 27 Jan. 2007)

articulation within the college/university program

MLA report recommending major changes in undergrad and grad programs

Through it all, remember your language learners as human beings who need to communicate and can be encouraged to try so very hard to do it…

and (rlf_jmp) they can be soooo CUTE when they do it!

And now the assignment: conduct and rate your own "POPI" (Pseudo/Practice OPI), and critique your technique