Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:39:50.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Constructing an Acquisition-Based Procedure for Second Language Assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Manfred Pienemann ,
Malcolm Johnston  and
Geoff Brindley
Manfred Pienemann
Affiliation:
University of Sydney
Malcolm Johnston
Affiliation:
New South Wales Adult Migrant Education Service
Geoff Brindley
Affiliation:
New South Wales Adult Migrant Education Service
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article reports on a first attempt to develop and test run an observation procedure for assessing the syntactic and morphological development of adult learners of English as a second language (ESL) as evidenced in spontaneous speech production. The procedure is based on the profile analysis approach, which was first developed by Crystal, Fletcher, and Gorman (1976) for the assessment of impaired speech (English) and later adapted to the assessment of second language development (German) by Clahsen (1985). The theoretical basis of the procedure is the multidimensional model of second language acquisition (SLA) developed by Meisel, Clahsen, and Pienemann (1981) and extended to ESL acquisition by Pienemann and Johnston (1987a). According to the model, invariant developmental stages in the acquisition of certain syntactic and morphological elements in German and English can be predicted and explained in terms of hierarchically ordered speech processing constraints.

In order to assess the developmental stage of ESL learners, an observation form was drawn up, incorporating a selection of morphosyntactic features whose presence or absence in a taped sample of natural speech was monitored by assessors. The ratings made by the assessors were then compared to those assigned through a detailed linguistic analysis to test the feasibility of using a “shorthand” version of a profile analysis.

Analysis of the outcomes of the test run revealed significant correlations between the assessments and the linguistic analysis. But some variation was found in the assessors' ability to apply the assessment criteria, and the extent of agreement between the assessors' observations and the linguistic analysis was less than would be acceptable in the given theoretical framework. However, the source of these problems was identified through the first test run and suggestions were made for further refining the procedure to improve its accuracy.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , June 1988 , pp. 217 - 243
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

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

REFERENCES

Bachman, L. F., & Clark, J. L. D. (1987). The measurement of foreign/second language proficiency. Annals of the American Association of Political and Social Sciences, 490, 20–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, C. J. (1973). Variation and linguistic theory. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Barnwell, D. (1987). Oral proficiency testing in the United States. British Journal of Language Teaching, 25, 35–42.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. (1971). Inherent variability and variable rules. Foundations of Language, 7, 457–492.Google Scholar
Brindley, G. (1986). The assessment of second language proficiency: Issues and approaches. Adelaide: National Curriculum Resource Centre, Research Series.Google Scholar
Brindley, G. P., & Singh, K. (1982). The use of second language research in ESL proficiency assessment. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 87–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., (1980). Psycholinguistic: aspects of L2 acquisition: Word order phenomena in foreign workers' interlanguage. In Felix, S. (Ed.), Second language development: Trends and issues (pp. 57–80). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. (1982). Spracherwerb in der Kindheit. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. (1984). The acquisition of German word order: A test case for cognitive approaches to L2 development. In Andersen, R. (Ed.), Second languages, (pp. 219–242). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. (1985). Profiling second language acquisition. In Hyltenstam, K. & Pienemann, M. (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language development. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. (1986). Connecting theories of language processing and (second) language acquisition. In Pfaff, C. W. (Ed.), First and second language acquisition processes (pp. 103–116). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., Meisel, J., & Pienemann, M. (1983). Deutsch als Zweitsprache. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (1982). Profiling linguistic disability. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Crystal, D., Fletcher, P., & Garman, M. (1976). The grammatical analysis of language disability. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1987). Individual learning styles in classroom second language development. Paper presented at the A.I.L.A. conference (International Applied Linguistics Association), Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
Higgs, T. V. (Ed.). (1984). Teaching for proficiency: The organizing principle. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook.Google Scholar
Huebner, T. (1985). Systematised variability in interlanguage syntax. Language Learning, 35, 141–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyltenstam, K., & Pienemann, M. (Eds.). (1985). Modelling and assessing second language development. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Ingram, D. (1982). Developing a language programme. Regional English Language Centre Journal, 13, 64–86.Google Scholar
Ingram, D. (1984). Australian second language proficiency ratings. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.Google Scholar
Jansen, L. M. (1987). The development of word order in formal German second language acquisition. Paper presented at the international workshop “Explaining interlanguage development,” Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
Johnston, M. (1985a). Syntactic and morphological progressions in learner English. Canberra: Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.Google Scholar
Johnston, M. (1985b). Second language acquisition research in the Adult Migrant Education Program. Prospect, 1, 19–46.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P., & Frawley, W. (1985). Oral proficiency testing: A critical analysis. Modern Language Journal, 69, 337–345.Google Scholar
Liskin-Gasparro, J. (1984). The ACTFL guidelines: A historical perspective. In Higgs, T.V. (Ed.), Teaching for proficiency: The organizing principle (pp. 11–42). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of research. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 358–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (1980). Linguistic simplification. In Felix, S. W. (Ed.), Second language development:Trends and issues (pp. 13–40). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (1983a). Strategies of second language acquisition: More than one kind of simplification. In Andersen, R. (Ed.), Pidginization and creolization as language acquisition (pp. 120–157). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (1983b). Transfer as a second-language strategy. Language & Communication, 3, 11–46.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (1986a). Reference to past events and actions in the development of second language acquisition. In Pfaff, C. W. (Ed.), First and second language acquisition processes (pp. 103–116). Rowley, MA.: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (1986b). Word order and case marking in early child language: Evidence from simultaneous acquisition of two languages. Linguistics, 24, 123–183.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M., Clahsen, H., & Pienemann, M. (1981). On determining developmental stages in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3, 109–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullen, K. A. (1980). Rater reliability and oral proficiency evaluations. In Oller, J. W. & Perkins, K. (Eds.), Research in language testing (pp. 91–101). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Nicholas, H. R. (1987). A comparative study of the acquisition of German as a first and a second language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1982). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition of the English definite article. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1980). The second language acquisition of immigrant children. In Felix, S. (Ed), Second language development: Trends and issues (pp. 41–56). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1981). Der Zweitspracherwerb ausländischer Arbeiterkinder. Bonn: Bouvier.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1985). Learnability and syllabus construction. In Hyltenstam, K. & Pienemann, M. (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language development. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1986a). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. In Pfaff, C. W. (Ed.), First and second language acquisition processes (pp. 103–116). Rowley, MA.: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1986b). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Australian Working Papers in Language Development, 1, 1–41.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1987). Determining the influence of instruction on L2 speech processing. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 83–113.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M., & Johnston, M. (1986). An acquisition-based procedure for second language assessment. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 9, 92–122.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M., & Johnston, M. (1987a). A predictive framework of second language acquisition. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M., & Johnston, M. (1987b). Factors affecting the development of language proficiency. In Nunan, D. (Ed.), Applying second language acquisition research (pp. 45–141). Adelaide: National Curriculum Resource Centre.Google Scholar
Westmoreland, R. (1985). L2 German acquisition by instructed adults. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Woods, A., Fletcher, P., & Hughes, A. (1986). Statistics in language studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar