Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T10:53:28.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Measurement of Communicative Competence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2008

Michael Canale
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1978 Merrill Swain and I had the opportunity to review theory and practice in the emerging communicative orientaitons to second language teaching and testing. The immediate outcomes of that review were published by the Ontario Ministry of Education in the form of a theoretical position paper (Canale and Swain 1979; see also Canale and Swain 1980) and a bank of sample items and techniques for measuring communication skills in French as a second language (Ontario Ministry of Education 1980). Although the limitations and problems in various communicative approaches have become increasingly evident since 1978, communicative competence has nonetheless become one of the most productive, influential, and complex paradigms in applied linguistics. Nowhere is this more true than in the relatively isolated area of measurement of communicative competence. It is thus appropriate to review activity in this area over the past decade.

Type
Communicative Language Teaching
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 8 , March 1987 , pp. 67 - 84
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

UNANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, J. P. B., Fröhlich, M., and Spada, N.. 1984. The communicative orientation of language teaching: An observation scheme. In Handscombe, J., Orem, R. A., and Taylor, B. P. (eds.) On TESOL '83: The question of control. Washington, DC: Teachers of English to Speakers of other Languages. 231–252.Google Scholar
Allen, M. J. and Yen, W. M.. 1979. Introduction to measurement theory. Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole Publishing.Google Scholar
Alderson, C. and Hughes, A. (eds.) 1981. Issues in language testing. London: The British Council. [ELT Documents, 111.]Google Scholar
American Psychological Association. 1947. Standards for educaitonal and psychological tests and manuals. Washington, DC. American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. and Clark, J. L. D.. 1987. The measurement of foreign/second language proficiency. Annals of the American academy of political and social science. 490. 20–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachman, L. and Palmer, A. S.. 1982. The Construct validity of some components of communicative proficiency. TESOL quarterly. 16. 4. 449–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachman, L. and Savignon, S. J.. 1986. The evaluation of communicative language proficiency: A critique of the ACTFL Oral Interview. Modern Language journal. 70. 4. 380–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, G. et al. 1986. Problem-solving materials for language enrichment in Anglais and Francais. Toronto: Centre for Franco-Ontarian Studies, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. and Ryan, E. B.. 1985. A metacognitive framework for the development of first and second language skills. In Forrest-Presley, D. L., MacKinnon, G. E., and Waller, T. G. (eds.) Metacognition, cognition and human performance: Theoretical perspectives. Vol. 1. New York: Academic Press. 207–252.Google Scholar
Breen, M. and Candlin, C.. 1980. The essentials of a communicative curriculum in language teaching. Applied linguistics. 1. 2. 89–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breen, M. and Candlin, C.. and Waters, A.. 1979. Communicative materials design: Some basic principles. RELC journal. 10. 2. 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brindley, G. 1986. The assessment of second language proficiency: Issues and approaches. Adelaide: National Curriculum Resource Centre.Google Scholar
Byrnes, H. and Canale, M. (eds.) 1987. Defining and developing proficiency: Guidelines, implementaitons, and concepts. Skokie, IL: National Textbook Company.Google Scholar
Canale, M. 1983a. On some dimesions of language proficiency. In Oller, J. W. Jr, (ed.) Issues in language testing research. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 333–342.Google Scholar
Canale, M. 1983b. From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy In Richards, J. and Schmidt, R. (eds.) Language and communication. London: Longman. 2–27.Google Scholar
Canale, M. 1984. Considerations in the testing of reading and listening proficiency. Foreign language annals. 17. 4 349–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canale, M. 1985. A theory of strategy-oriented language development. In Jaeger, S. (ed.) Issues in English language development. Washington, DC: National Clearighouse on Bilingual Education.Google Scholar
Canale, M. 1987. Language ssessment: The method is the message. In Tannen, D. and Alatis, J. E (eds.) The interdependence of theory, data, and application. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 249–262. [Georgetown Universtiy Round Table.]Google Scholar
Canale, M. and Mougeon, R.. 1978. Problè de la mesure du rendement en français des élèves franco-ontariens. [Problems in the measurement of the French Language achievement of Franco-Ontarian Students.] In Cazabon, B. (ed.) Langue maternelle, langue de communication? [Is the native language the language of communication?] Sudbury, Ontario: Laurentian University. 39–58.Google Scholar
Canale, M. and Swain, M.. 1979. Approaches to communicative teaching and testing. Toronto: Ministry of Education. [Review and Evaluation Bulletin 1.5.]Google Scholar
Canale, M. and Swain, M.. 1980. Theoretical bases of communivative approches to second language teaching and testing. Applied linguistics. 1. 1. 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, J. 1981. The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In The California State Department of Education (ed.) Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework. Los Angeles: California State University. 3–49.Google Scholar
Cummins, J. 1983. Language proficiency and academic achievement. In Oller, J. W. Jr, (ed.) Issues in language testing research. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 108–129.Google Scholar
Cziko, G. 1981. Psychometric and edumetric approaches to language testing: Implications and applications. Applied linguistics. 2. 1. 28–44.Google Scholar
Cziko, G. 1984. Some problems with empirically-based models of communicative competence. Applied linguistics. 5. 1. 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deyhle, D. 1983. Between games and failure: A micro-ethnographic study of Navajo students and testing. Curriculum inquiry. 13. 4. 347–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deyhle, D. 1986. Sucess and failure: A micro-ethnographic study of Navajo and Anglo students' perceptions of testing. Curriculum inquiry. 16.4.365–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelsky, C. et al. , 1983. Semilingualism and language deficit. Applied lingusitics. 4.1.1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisner, E. W.. 1979. The educational imagination. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Erickson, F. 1986. Speaking and listening. In Tannen, D. and Alatis, J. E. (eds.) The interdependence of theory, data and application. Washington, DC: George University Press. 249–262. [Georgetown University Round Table.]Google Scholar
Faerch, C. and Kasper, G. (eds.) 1983. Strategies in interlanguage communication. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. 1982. Ideal readers and real readers. In Tannen, D. (ed.) Analyzing discourse: Text and talk. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 248–270. [Gerogetown University Round Table.]Google Scholar
Gaies, S. 1983. The investigation of language classroom processes. TESOL quarterly. 17.2.205–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1981. The mismeasure of man. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Green, B. 1983. The promise of tailored tests. In Wainer, H. and Messick, S. (eds.) Principles of modern psychological measurement: A Festschrift for Frederick M. Lord. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 69–80.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1978. Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Harley, B. et al. , 1987. The development of bilingual proficiency: Final report. The nature of language proficiency. Vol. 1. Toronto: Modern Language Centre, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.Google Scholar
Hatch, E. R. 1978. Discourse analysis and second language acquistition. In Hatch, E. R. (ed.) Second language acquisition: A book of readings. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 401–435.Google Scholar
Heap, J. 1983. Frames and knowledge in a science lesson: A dialouge with Professor Heyman. Curriculum inquiry. 13.4.397–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, S. B. 1983. Ways with words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henning, G. 1987. A guide to language testing.. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Higgs, T. and Clifford, R.. 1982. The push toward communication. In Higgs, T. V. (ed.) Curriculum, competence and the foreign language teacher. Skokie, IL: National Textbook Company. 57–79. [The ACTFL Foreign Language Education Series.]Google Scholar
Holec, H. 1985. On autonomy: Some elementry concepts. In Riley, P. (ed.) Discourse and learning. London: Longman. 173–190.Google Scholar
Hymes, D.. 1972. On communicative competence. In Pride, J. B. and Holmes, J. (eds.) Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 269–293.Google Scholar
Jacobs, H. L. et al. 1981. Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Jones, R. 1977. Testing: vital connection. In Phillips, J. K. (ed.) The language connection: From the classroom to the world. Skokie, IL: National Textbook Company. 237–265.Google Scholar
Kamin, L. J. 1977. The science and politics of I.Q. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Kramsch, C. In press. Foreign languages in the cross-fire: Are government and academic goals compatible? Peabody journal of education.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. and Terrell, T.. 1983. The natural approach. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P. and Frawley, W.. 1985. Oral proficiency testing: A critical analysis. Modern language journal. 69.4.337–345.Google Scholar
Long, M. 1983. Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of research. TESOL quarterly. 17.3.359–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin-Jones, M. and Romaine, S.. 1986. Semilingualism: A half-baked theory of communicative competence. Applied linguistics. 7.1.26–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messick, S. 1981. Evidence and ethics in the evalution of tests. Educational researcher. 10.9.9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ontario Ministry of Education. 1980. The Ontario Assessment Instrument Pool: French as a second language. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
Ramphal, K. 1983. An analysis of reading instruction of West Indian Creole-speaking students. Toronto: University of Toronto (Ontario Institute for studies in Education). Ph.D. diss.Google Scholar
Rosansky, E. 1979. A review of the Billingual Syntax Measure. In Spolsky, B. (ed.) Advances in language testing research: Some major tests. Vol. 1. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. 116–139.Google Scholar
Savigton, S. 1983. Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Saville-Troike, M.What really matters in second language learning for academic achievement. TESOL quarterly. 18.2.199–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scardamalia, M. and Bereiter, C.. 1983. Child as coinvestigator: Helping childern gain insight into their own mental processes. In Paris, S. G., Olson, G., and Stevenson, H. (eds.) Learning and motivation in the classroom. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 61–82.Google Scholar
Scovel, T. 1983. Olympian dreams and Olympic achievements for language teachers (How you can share your gold mettele). Plenary paper presented at the CATESOL 1983 meeting, Los Angeles, 04. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Shoemaker, D. M.. 1980. Improving achievement testing. Educational evalution and policy analysis. 2.6.37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shohamy, E. 1985. On the uses, misuses and abuses of classroom language tests. Plenary paper presented at te TEFL-TESOL Conference, Jerusalem, 07, Mimeo.Google Scholar
Spolsky, B. 1978. Introduction: Linguists and language testers. In Spolsky, B. (ed.) Advances in language testing research: Approaches to language testing. Vol. 2. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. v–x.Google Scholar
Stake, R. A. 1980. Program evaluation, particularly responsible evaluation. In Dockrell, W. B. and Hamilton, D. (eds.) Rethinking educational research. London: Hodden and Stoughton. 72–87.Google Scholar
Swain, M. 1985. Large-scale communicative language testing: A case study. In Lee, Y. P. et al. , (eds.) New directions in language testing. Oxford: Pergamon. 35–46.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. 1981. Implications of the oral/literate continum for cross cultural communication. In Alatis, J. E. (ed.) Current issues in bilingual education. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 326–347. [Gerogetown University Round Table.]Google Scholar
Troike, R. 1984. SCALP: Social and congnitive aspects of language proficiency. In Rivera, C. (ed.) Language proficiency and academic achievement. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. 44–54.Google Scholar
Wainer, H. 1983. On time responce theory and computerized adaptive tests. The journal of college admissions. 28.4.9–16.Google Scholar
Wells, G. 1981. Learning through interaction: Studies in language development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar