Article published In: Australian Review of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 32:3 (2009) ► pp.27.1–27.17
Implementing ICAO language proficiency requirements in the Versant Aviation English Test
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.
Published online: 1 January 2009
https://doi.org/10.2104/aral0927
https://doi.org/10.2104/aral0927
This paper discusses the development of an assessment to satisfy the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Language Proficiency Requirements. The Versant Aviation English Test utilizes speech recognition technology and a computerized testing platform, such that test administration and scoring are fully automated. Developed in collaboration with the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, this 25-minute test is delivered via a telephone or computer. Two issues of interest are discussed. The first concerns the practicalities of assessing candidates in each of six separate dimensions of spoken proficiency: Pronunciation, Structure, Vocabulary, Fluency, Comprehension, and Interactions. Although an automated scoring system can objectively segregate these skills, we question whether human raters have the capacity to do this in oral interviews. The second issue discussed is how an automated test can provide a valid assessment of spoken interactions. Tasks were designed to simulate the information exchange between pilots and controllers on which candidates’ proficiency in ‘Interactions’ could be measured, for example, by eliciting functions such as correcting miscommunications and providing clarification. It is argued that candidate ability can be probed and estimated in a fair and standardized way by presenting a series of independent items which are targeted in difficulty at the various ICAO levels.
References (26)
Alderson, J. Charles (2008). Final report on a survey of aviation English tests. Unpublished report.
Bachman, Lyle F; Palmer, Adrian S (1983). The construct validity of the FSI oral interview. Language Learning, 31(1), 67–86.
Bachman, Lyle F.; Palmer, Adrian S. (1996). Language Testing in Practice. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
Brown, Annie (2003). Interviewer variation and the co–construction of speaking proficiency. Language Testing, 20(1), 1–25.
Brown, Gillian; Anderson, Anne; Shillcock, Richard; Yule, George (1984). Teaching Talk: Strategies for Production and Assessment.,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fulcher, Glenn (1996). Testing tasks: Issues in task design and the group oral. Language Testing, 13(1), 23–51.
Hinofotis, Frances B. (1983). The structure of oral communication is an educational environment: a comparison of factor–analytic rotational procedures. In Oller, J.W., Jr (Ed.), Issues in Language Testing Research (pp. 170–187). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (2004). Manual on the Implementing of ICAO Language Proficiency Requirements. Montreal: ICAO.
Johnson, Marysia (2001). The Art of Non–conversation: A Reexamination of the Validity of the Oral Proficiency Interview. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Lantolf, James; Frawley, William (1985). Oral proficiency testing: A critical analysis. Modern Language Journal, 69(4), 337–345.
Linde, Charlotte (1988). The quantitative study of communicative success: Politeness and accidents in aviation discourse. Language in Society, 17(3), 375–399
Morrow, Daniel G; Rodvold, Michelle; Lee, Alfred (1994). Nonroutine transactions in controller–pilot communication. Discourse Processes, 17(2), 235–258.
Orr, Michael (2002). The FCE speaking test: Using rater reports to help interpret test scores. System, 30(2),143–54.
Pearson, 2008. Versant Aviation English Test: Test description and validation summary. Palo Alto, CA: Author.
Qian, David (2009). Comparing direct and semi-direct modes for speaking assessment: Affective effects on test-takers. Language Assessment Quarterly, 6(2), 113–125.
Ross, Steven (1992). Accommodative questions in oral proficiency interviews. Language Testing, 9(2), 173–186.
Sacks, Harvey; Schegloff, Emanuel; Jefferson, Gail (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.
Schegloff, Emanuel; Jefferson, Gail; Sacks, Harvey (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382.
Silverman, David (1976). Interview talk: Bringing off a research instrument. In Silverman, D. and Jones, J. (Eds.), Organisational Work: The language of grading, the grading of language (pp. 133–150). London: Collier Macmillan.
Swain, Merrill (2001). Examining dialogue: Another approach to content specification and to validating inferences drawn from test scores. Language Testing, 18(3), 275–302.
Cited by (9)
Cited by nine other publications
Dinçer, Nazmi & Gökhan Demirdöken
Treadaway, Maria & John Read
Yin, Yan, Guoxing Yu & Dayong Huang
Park, Moonyoung
Park, Moonyoung
Oliver, Rhonda, Honglin Chen & Stephen Moore
Farnsworth, Tim
Moder, Carol Lynn
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
