Cover not available

In:Advancedness in Second Language Spanish: Definitions, challenges, and possibilities
Edited by Mandy R. Menke and Paul A. Malovrh
[Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 31] 2021
► pp. 41–64

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 3
ACTFL OPIc question prompt and advanced Spanish fluency

 | University of Kentucky
ORCiD logo with link | Brigham Young University
ORCiD logo with link | Brigham Young University
Published online: 8 February 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ihll.31.03bro
Abstract
Fluency is a key feature used to gauge task complexity in L2 research. In this chapter we explore the relationship between the temporal fluency of Spanish candidates’ (N = 154) speech and their official American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) rating on the OPIc – a computer-based version of the Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI). We investigated the temporal fluency of speakers at the Intermediate-High, Advanced-Low, and Advanced-Mid (N = 109) levels. The results indicated that, in general, the OPIc question prompts discriminated between the Intermediate and Advanced major levels and the Advanced sub-levels appropriately since the fluency of higher-rated speakers surpassed that of lower-rated speakers on nearly every fluency measure, regardless of prompt.
Article outline
  • Literature review
    • ACTFL oral proficiency guidelines and oral assessment instruments
    • Task conditions
    • Fluency
    • Proficiency and fluency
  • The present study
    • Research questions
    • Method
    • Participants
    • Procedures
    • Data analysis
  • Results
    • RQ1.Temporal fluency between sublevels
    • RQ2.Temporal fluency of advanced question types by ACTFL sublevels
  • Discussion
  • Conclusion
  • References
References (42)
References
ACTFL. (2012). ACTFL proficiency guidelines 2012 [Electronic version]. Retrieved from <[URL]> (6 July, 2020).
Ahmadian, M. J., & Tavakoli, M. (2011). The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, fluency, and complexity of EFL learners’ oral production. Language Teaching Research, 15, 35–59. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beattie, G. W., & Butterworth, B. L. (1979). Contextual probability and word frequency as determinants of pauses and errors in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech, 22, 201–211. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bortfeld, H., Leon, S. D., Bloom, J. E., Schober, M. F., & Brennan, S. E. (2001). Disfluency rates in conversation: Effects of age, relationship, topic, role, and gender. Language and Speech, 44, 123–147. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Branigan, H., Lickley, R., & McKelvie, D. (1999). Non-linguistic influences on rates of disfluency in spontaneous speech. In J. J. Ohala, Y. Hasegawa, Y. M. Ohala, D. Granville, & A. C. Bailey (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th International Conference of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 387–390). Berkeley, CA: University of California-Berkeley Linguistics Department.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, A. V., Cox, T. L., & Thompson, G. L. (2017). A comparative discourse analysis of Spanish past narrations from the ACTFL OPI and OPIc. Foreign Language Annals, 50, 793–807. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bui, G., & Skehan, P. (2018). Complexity, fluency, and accuracy. In J. Liontas (Ed.), TESOL encyclopedia of English language learning (pp. 1–7). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bui, G., Skehan, P., & Wang, Z. (2018). Task condition effects on advanced-level foreign language performance. In P. A. Malovrh & A. G. Benati (Eds.), The handbook of advanced proficiency in second language acquisition (pp. 219–237). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Byrnes, H. (2012). Advanced language proficiency. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 506–520). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cox, T. (2017). Understanding intermediate-level speakers’ strengths and weaknesses: An examination of OPIc tests from Korean learners of English. Foreign Language Annals, 50, 84–113. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davies, A. (2003). The native speaker: Myth and reality. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Jong, N. H. (2016). Fluency in second language assessment. In D. Tsagari & J. Banerjee (Eds.), Handbook of second language assessment (pp. 203–218). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Jong, N. H., & Bosker, H. R. (2013). Choosing a threshold for silent pauses to measure second language fluency. In R. Eklund (Ed.), Proceedings of Disfluency in Spontaneous Speech, DiSS 2013 (pp. 17–20). Stockholm, Sweden: Royal Institute of Technology.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Jong, N. H., Groenhout, R., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2015). Second language fluency: Speaking style or proficiency? Correcting measures of second language fluency for first language behavior. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 223–243. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Jong, N. H., & Wempe, T. (2009). Praat script to detect syllable nuclei and measure speech rate automatically. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 385–390. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dewaele, J. M., & Furnham, A. (1999). Extraversion: The unloved variable in applied linguistic research. Language Learning, 49, 509–544. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Foster, P. (2001). Rules and routines: A consideration of their role in the task-based language production of native and non-native speakers. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Language tasks: Teaching, learning, and testing (pp. 75–93). Harlow, UK: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gilabert, R. (2007). The simultaneous manipulation of task complexity along planning time and [+/–Here-and-Now]: Effects on L2 oral production. In M. P. D. Garcia Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 44–68). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iwashita, N., Brown, A., McNamara, T., & O’Hagan, S. (2008). Assessed levels of second language speaking proficiency: How distinct? Applied Linguistics, 29, 24–49. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, M. D. (2017). Cognitive task complexity and L2 written syntactic complexity, accuracy, lexical complexity, and fluency: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Journal of Second Language Writing, 37, 13–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, M. D., Mercado, L., & Acevedo, A. (2012). The effect of planning sub-processes on L2 writing fluency, grammatical complexity, and lexical complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(3), 264–282. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kircher, T. T. J., Brammer, M. J., Levelt, W. J. M., Bartels, M., & McGuire, P. K. (2004). Pausing for thought: Engagement of left temporal cortex during pauses in speech. NeuroImage, 21(1), 84–90. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lambert, C., Kormos, J., & Minn, D. (2016). Task repetition and second language speech processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 1–30.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lowe, P. (1984). ILR handbook on oral interview testing. Washington, DC: In-house publication for Defense Language Institute and Central Intelligence Agency Language Schools.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Luecht, R. M. (2003). Multistage complexity in language proficiency assessment: A framework for aligning theoretical perspectives, test development, and psychometrics. Foreign Language Annals, 36, 527–535. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maclay, H., & Osgood, C. E. (1959). Hesitation phenomena in spontaneous English speech. Word, 15, 19–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Malovrh, P. A., & Benati, A. G. (2018a). Introduction. In P. A. Malovrh & A. G. Benati (Eds.), The handbook of advanced proficiency in second language acquisition (pp. 1–5). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(Eds.). (2018b). The handbook of advanced proficiency in second language acquisition. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 83–108. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Merlo, S., & Mansur, L. (2004). Descriptive discourse: Topic familiarity and disfluencies. Journal of Communication Disorders, 37(6), 489–503. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Michel, M. C., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). The influence of complexity in monologic versus dialogic tasks in Dutch L2. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(3), 241–259. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2011). Task complexity, cognitive resources and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287–318). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2014). Limited attentional capacity, second language performance, and task-based pedagogy. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 211–260). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Surface, E., Poncheri, R., & Bhavsar, K. (2008). Two studies investigating the reliability and validity of the English ACTFL OPIc with Korean test takers: The ACTFL OPIc validation project technical report. Retrieved from <[URL]> (6 July, 2020).
SWA Consulting Inc. (2009). Brief reliability report 5: Test-retest reliability and absolute agreement rates of English ACTFL OPIc proficiency ratings for double and single rated tests within a sample of Korean test takers. Raleigh, NC: Author.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swerts, M. (1998). Filled pauses as markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 485–496. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, G. L., Cox, T. L., & Knapp, N. (2016). Comparing the OPI and the OPIc: The effect of test method on oral proficiency scores and student preference. Foreign Language Annals, 49, 75–92. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. Applied Linguistics, 17, 84–119. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24, 1–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue