3. Bias for best
"This means do everything possible to elicit the learners' best performance" (Swain,
1984, p.195). The framework of the interview (warm-up, level check, probes, role play,
wind down) satisfies this principle to some extent. The performance of the interviewee
could be optimally elicited given the relative skill and experience of the interviewer.
There is care taken at the beginning and end of the interview to make the testee feel
comfortable, but the fact remains, and this is the key argument, that the oral interaction
can only accurately measure interview proficiency (or 'performance in context' if you will)
and NOT general oral proficiency or conversation skills.
4. Work for washback (is a type of impact, which relates to the effects of high-stakes tests
on classroom practices – particularly teaching and learning.)
On the other hand, van Lier (1989) has suggested an academic form of positive washback:
"Apart from providing an alternative to traditional tests, the OPI has focused our attention on
the construct of proficiency and its relationship to another construct, communicative
competence" (p. 490). In a similar fashion, Yoffe confesses a possible pedagogic form of
positive washback: "...the washback effect on classroom teaching has been positive as the
practitioners place more emphasis on speaking, encouraging student oral production in class"
(Yoffe, 1997, p. 10).
OPI has widened the scope of testing beyond the straitjacket of standardized
norm-referenced multiple choice tests and has, at least, given institutions and test takers a
format in which to judge listening and speaking skills as a performance in context.
"This means do everything possible to elicit the learners' best performance" (Swain,
1984, p.195). The framework of the interview (warm-up, level check, probes, role play,
wind down) satisfies this principle to some extent. The performance of the interviewee
could be optimally elicited given the relative skill and experience of the interviewer.
There is care taken at the beginning and end of the interview to make the testee feel
comfortable, but the fact remains, and this is the key argument, that the oral interaction
can only accurately measure interview proficiency (or 'performance in context' if you will)
and NOT general oral proficiency or conversation skills.
4. Work for washback (is a type of impact, which relates to the effects of high-stakes tests
on classroom practices – particularly teaching and learning.)
On the other hand, van Lier (1989) has suggested an academic form of positive washback:
"Apart from providing an alternative to traditional tests, the OPI has focused our attention on
the construct of proficiency and its relationship to another construct, communicative
competence" (p. 490). In a similar fashion, Yoffe confesses a possible pedagogic form of
positive washback: "...the washback effect on classroom teaching has been positive as the
practitioners place more emphasis on speaking, encouraging student oral production in class"
(Yoffe, 1997, p. 10).
OPI has widened the scope of testing beyond the straitjacket of standardized
norm-referenced multiple choice tests and has, at least, given institutions and test takers a
format in which to judge listening and speaking skills as a performance in context.