Some thoughts about ODA testing

[Le Baron]

In the past I used ODA to test Russian reading. Most recently I've used it to test Spanish - around the start of 2021 to set a base level and then again in October 2022. Yes, I have apparently improved satisfactorily. However I wanted to see just what it looked like from the point of view of languages I know well; to see if there are things that would confuse me in English or French; with which I would simply disagree as being flawed or wrong.

So over the weekend I did reading tests for both English and French and prior to those I did a listening test for French. Since they're so long I didn't have the will to go through another listening test for English. I started it, but had to go to bed.

This is what I found. I think the English and some French in some of the modules is poorly-constructed. Some of it is even plain wrong! Now I know there are 'differences' between UK/US English usages, but this does not extend to the legitimate misapplication of words in the wrong context or meaning. I found several of these, quite a lot in fact. Since the system there doesn't allow text copying I had to make a screenshot. I made some others, but I don't want the post to be long.



Paragraph one (which isn't stellar English, but never mind) has at the end: 'and in some cases reverted to violence'. Reverted? This indicated that they'd been doing this, then stopped, then went back to violence. It's just wrong. The word revert always means turn back/return to (a previous state). The word should be resorted (to). If anyone has been using revert in the above sense, stop it, it's wrong!

Then paragraph two. 'Enacting' is a poor choice. Perhaps not 'wrong', but as is evident in the word it refers to 'acting out' rather than to merely 'expressing'. What is 'bounded speech'? Is it 'restricted speech'? The word bounded exists, but it's not a phrase I've heard before, so why would a person presumably testing English from a foreign language perspective be expected to know this? It's jargon-babble. The worst in that paragraph is "...however detesting or disturbing." Detesting is not a real adjective. It has the structural air of that other wrongly-employed and made-up adjective addicting. The word they sought was detestable or loathsome.

Now, my nitpicking aside and knowing that there is certainly no perfection in testing and especially online tests, what can be concluded? After all many of the questions are open questions you write into a box, so there are many ways of expressing the answer. Considering I found some parts of the passages and some of the questions to be sub-par in terms of correct vocabulary use, structure, clarity etc, this will have an effect on one's test and scores.

On both English and French reading tests it put me at 3+ to 4 on... is it the ILR scale? Thanks ODA, my mind is at peace. So not even native proficiency for English; from a system that doesn't know the difference between revert and resort amongst other things. I'm sure everyone here using it takes it with some measure of caution, but I wonder if it is really adequate?

[luke]

Now I know there are 'differences' between UK/US English usages, but this does not extend to the legitimate misapplication of words in the wrong context or meaning. I found several of these, quite a lot in fact. Since the system there doesn't allow text copying I had to make a screenshot. I made some others, but I don't want the post to be long.

If you have some more examples, I hope you will post them. It's all very interesting and got me searching for quotes. This is the most applicable one I could find:

quote-those-who-can-t-teach-administrate-those-who-can-t-administrate-go-into-politics-h-l-mencken.jpg

And "administrate" could be extended to those who create these quizes.

Which seems to have grown from:

gbs.jpg

I've been trying to find the post where you linked to a very funny but non-sensical interview/dialogue between two players from Monty Python. I've wanted to share that with a friend, but my google-fu hasn't uncovered the gem. Do you have that at your fingertips?

[Le Baron]

Was it Monty Python or Fry & Laurie? Or perhaps The Two Ronnies?

I could also be considered the 'administrator' who can't do. I have no talents, but for needling. I should probably go into politics, but it's bad enough already.

[tungemål]

Good points.
I searched for "bounded speech" and found a usage in linguistics, but I didn't find it used in your sense. I only found this article, which seems to be the one the test has used:
https://www.e-ir.info/2017/05/05/tolera ... on-campus/

But the word "enacting" doesn't seem too wrong, since it refers to actions of the students: protested, hindered and blocked. But can you really say "protested speakers", shouldn't it be "protested against speakers".

[Le Baron]

You can say 'protested speakers'. 'Protest the new building project'. Also against, which I would probably use. Again I would have to consider context because as a verb in the US it refers to 'challenging' rather than merely expressing disapproval.

[tungemål]

Not to denounce the author, but I see that he's not a native english user. I guess the ODA language test should be more careful when they choose texts and not trust blindly an internet magazine.

[Spaceman]

I have a thing I do where anytime I see something that is an obvious mistake or typo, I think through exactly what the sentence would mean if I take it at face value.

Anyway, I've decided I like (the obvious error) "reverted to violence" here. Resorted is awkward, implying that the protesters are using violence intentionally to stop these speakers. Reverted, as in "we reverted to our baser instincts and things got out of hand", is probably a more accurate description.

[Le Baron]

I have a thing I do where anytime I see something that is an obvious mistake or typo, I think through exactly what the sentence would mean if I take it at face value.

Anyway, I've decided I like (the obvious error) "reverted to violence" here. Resorted is awkward, implying that the protesters are using violence intentionally to stop these speakers. Reverted, as in "we reverted to our baser instincts and things got out of hand", is probably a more accurate description.

That's a good take on it, though it does imply the standard basic instinct of students (or anyone) in response to this is violence. In any case the employment of it in the actual sentence is wrong. Moreover tests for foreign speakers shouldn't be doing this sort of thing. Resorted is not 'awkward', it is the correct and common word.

[Spaceman]

That's a good take on it, though it does imply the standard basic instinct of students (or anyone) in response to this is violence. In any case the employment of it in the actual sentence is wrong. Moreover tests for foreign speakers shouldn't be doing this sort of thing. Resorted is not 'awkward', it is the correct and common word.

Certainly seems to be the popular conception that our base instincts as humans is to zonk someone over their head and steal their gazelle meat. Not one I ascribe to, but it's the common belief.

And resort is awkward here not as a word, but rather only because it makes the statement even more absurd than it already is. And I would say pushes it into full-blown propaganda, but obviously the second paragraph does a very thorough job of dropping all pretense of not being propaganda.

[Le Baron]

Certainly seems to be the popular conception that our base instincts as humans is to zonk someone over their head and steal their gazelle meat. Not one I ascribe to, but it's the common belief.

I agreed that it could be seen that way, though they would need to formulate it that way. They used the wrong word. Let's back up though, you introduced the 'baser instincts' as an additional inference. It's not evident in the passage. And I don't believe that 'reverting' to violence for gazelle meat among prehistoric people cannot be neatly transferred to people in universities disputing over speeches. It didn't happen at the universities I attended.

And resort is awkward here not as a word, but rather only because it makes the statement even more absurd than it already is. And I would say pushes it into full-blown propaganda, but obviously the second paragraph does a very thorough job of dropping all pretense of not being propaganda.

It doesn't make it absurd. It is in fact the obvious choice of word. In the same way people 'resort' to theft or telling lies, not because they are merely returning to base instincts (which removes culpability), but committing these acts because they have nothing else to offer as a solution. It is actually recourse, not revert. There's no real debate about this, the words mean what they mean.

I don't know what you mean with regard to 'pushing it into propaganda'. It's getting a bit silly.