Temporal fluency and floor/ceiling scoring of intermediate and advanced speech on the ACTFL Spanish Oral Proficiency Interview–computer

IF 2.2 1区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Language Testing Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI:10.1177/02655322221114614
Troy L. Cox, Alan V. Brown, Gregory L. Thompson
{"title":"Temporal fluency and floor/ceiling scoring of intermediate and advanced speech on the ACTFL Spanish Oral Proficiency Interview–computer","authors":"Troy L. Cox, Alan V. Brown, Gregory L. Thompson","doi":"10.1177/02655322221114614","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The rating of proficiency tests that use the Inter-agency Roundtable (ILR) and American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) guidelines claims that each major level is based on hierarchal linguistic functions that require mastery of multidimensional traits in such a way that each level subsumes the levels beneath it. These characteristics are part of what is commonly referred to as floor and ceiling scoring. In this binary approach to scoring that differentiates between sustained performance and linguistic breakdown, raters evaluate many features including vocabulary use, grammatical accuracy, pronunciation, and pragmatics, yet there has been very little empirical validation on the practice of floor/ceiling scoring. This study examined the relationship between temporal oral fluency, prompt type, and proficiency level based on a data set comprised of 147 Oral Proficiency Interview - computer (OPIc) exam responses whose ratings ranged from Intermediate Low to Advanced High [AH]. As speakers progressed in proficiency, they were more fluent. In terms of floor and ceiling scoring, the prompts that elicited speech a level above the sustained level generally resulted in speech that was slower and had more breakdown than the floor-level prompts, though the differences were slight and not significantly different. Thus, temporal fluency features alone are insufficient in floor/ceiling scoring but are likely a contributing feature.","PeriodicalId":17928,"journal":{"name":"Language Testing","volume":"40 1","pages":"325 - 351"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Language Testing","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322221114614","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The rating of proficiency tests that use the Inter-agency Roundtable (ILR) and American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) guidelines claims that each major level is based on hierarchal linguistic functions that require mastery of multidimensional traits in such a way that each level subsumes the levels beneath it. These characteristics are part of what is commonly referred to as floor and ceiling scoring. In this binary approach to scoring that differentiates between sustained performance and linguistic breakdown, raters evaluate many features including vocabulary use, grammatical accuracy, pronunciation, and pragmatics, yet there has been very little empirical validation on the practice of floor/ceiling scoring. This study examined the relationship between temporal oral fluency, prompt type, and proficiency level based on a data set comprised of 147 Oral Proficiency Interview - computer (OPIc) exam responses whose ratings ranged from Intermediate Low to Advanced High [AH]. As speakers progressed in proficiency, they were more fluent. In terms of floor and ceiling scoring, the prompts that elicited speech a level above the sustained level generally resulted in speech that was slower and had more breakdown than the floor-level prompts, though the differences were slight and not significantly different. Thus, temporal fluency features alone are insufficient in floor/ceiling scoring but are likely a contributing feature.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
ACTFL西班牙语口语能力面试中中级和高级语言的时间流利性和最低/最高分数——计算机
使用机构间圆桌会议(ILR)和美国外语教学委员会(ACTFL)指导方针的能力测试评级声称,每个主要级别都是基于分层的语言功能,需要掌握多维特征,这样每个级别都包含了它下面的级别。这些特征是通常被称为地板和天花板评分的一部分。在这种区分持续表现和语言崩溃的二元评分方法中,评分者评估许多特征,包括词汇使用、语法准确性、发音和语用,但对最低/最高评分的实践很少有经验验证。本研究基于147份口语水平面试-计算机(OPIc)考试回答的数据集,调查了时间口语流利度、提示类型和熟练程度之间的关系,这些回答的评分范围从中低到高级高[AH]。随着说话者熟练程度的提高,他们的口语也越来越流利。在最低和最高评分方面,引发高于持续水平的语音提示通常会导致比最低水平提示更慢的语音和更多的崩溃,尽管差异很小,没有显著差异。因此,单独的时间流畅性特征在下限/上限评分中是不够的,但可能是一个有贡献的特征。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Language Testing
Language Testing Multiple-
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
9.80%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Language Testing is a fully peer reviewed international journal that publishes original research and review articles on language testing and assessment. It provides a forum for the exchange of ideas and information between people working in the fields of first and second language testing and assessment. This includes researchers and practitioners in EFL and ESL testing, and assessment in child language acquisition and language pathology. In addition, special attention is focused on issues of testing theory, experimental investigations, and the following up of practical implications.
期刊最新文献
Can language test providers do more to support open science? A response to Winke Considerations to promote and accelerate Open Science: A response to Winke Evaluating the impact of nonverbal behavior on language ability ratings Sharing, collaborating, and building trust: How Open Science advances language testing Open Science in language assessment research contexts: A reply to Winke
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1