(Luận văn thạc sĩ) an investigation into assessing speaking of students learning new english textbook in a high school in vietnam

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FALCUTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

TRẦN THỊ HIỀN

AN INVESTIGATION INTO ASSESSING SPEAKING OF
STUDENTS LEARNING NEW ENGLISH TEXTBOOK
IN A HIGH SCHOOL IN VIETNAM
(Nghiên cứu việc đánh giá kỹ năng nói của học sinh đang học
chương trình sách giáo khoa mới, tại một trường THPT ở Việt Nam)

Major

: English Teaching Methodology

Code

: 8140231.01

HANOI – 2019


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FALCUTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

TRẦN THỊ HIỀN

AN INVESTIGATION INTO ASSESSING SPEAKING OF
STUDENTS LEARNING NEW ENGLISH TEXTBOOK

IN A HIGH SCHOOL IN VIETNAM
(Nghiên cứu việc đánh giá kỹ năng nói của học sinh đang học
chương trình sách giáo khoa mới, tại một trường THPT ở Việt Nam)

Major:

: English Teaching Methodology

Code

: 8140231.01

Supervisor

: Dr. Nguyễn Thị Ngọc Quỳnh

Nguyễn Thị Ngọc Quỳnh

HANOI – 2019


DECLARATION
The thesis entitled “An investigation into assessing speaking of students
learning new English textbook in a high school in Vietnam” has been submitted for
the Master of English teaching methodology.
I, the undersigned, hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. I
have fully acknowledged and referenced the ideas and work of others, whether
published or unpublished, in my thesis.
My thesis does not contain work extracted from a thesis, dissertation or
research paper previously presented for another degree or diploma at this or any

other universities.
Signed ..................................
Date ........./............/.............

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am deeply indebted to the individuals that provided support for the completion of
this study.
Dr. Nguyen Thi Ngoc Quynh supervised the entire study and, most importantly,
read and discussed every aspect and section of this dissertation with assiduity. Her
recommendations also helped to shape the form and contents of the final version. I
am equally indebted for the exceptional friendliness, kindness, and patience that she
demonstrated during my study at ULIS-VNU and my research.
My sincere thanks also go to the Dean - Dr. Huỳnh Anh Tuấn as well as the staff
members at the Faculty of Postgraduate Studies, University of Languages and
International Studies (ULIS), Vietnam National University (VNU), who are always
so kind and supportive during my study time.
In addition, I would like to express my thankfulness to all the participating students
and teachers at the high school who helped me in my research, especially the
teachers who accompanied me during a long time of my data collection time. The
results I have achieved today partially belong to them.
Last but not least, I would like to thank my family for their motivation for me to
overcome all the difficulties and to become a better me now.
Thanking you all

ii

ABSTRACT
Language assessment in general and oracy assessment in particular has posed
language teachers high schools in Vietnam many troubles. One of the outstanding
issues relate to the design of speaking activities that saw poorly, boring tasks that do
not motivate learners while learning the skill. The other issue refers to the assessing
criteria that are not familiarized by language teachers at schools. This research aims
at finding popular task types that teachers used when assessing speaking. Also, the
study provides a framework for speaking assessment criteria that can be
applicable for teachers as well as problems encountered by teachers when
doing speaking assessment. The study was carried out with 5 teachers of
English at a school in Hai Duong. The results reveal a fact that most teachers
are not familiar with task types neither assessment criteria. Last but not least,
the researcher would like to suggest some changes in teaching English at
schools so that students can balance among language skills and aspects.

iii


TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ....................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................. iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ iv
ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................. vi
PART I. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................1
PART II – DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................5
CHAPTER I. LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................5
1. The nature of speaking ............................................................................................5
2. The nature of speaking assessments ........................................................................7
2.1. Assessment, testing and evaluation ......................................................................7

2.2. Principles of language assessment .......................................................................8
2.3. Speaking assessment ..........................................................................................10
2.4. A taxonomy of oral proficiency .........................................................................11
2.5. Designing speaking task type assessment ..........................................................13
2.6. Speaking scales ..................................................................................................19
2.7. Criteria for speaking assessment ........................................................................21
2.8. Types of speaking assessment ............................................................................25
2.9. Validity and reliability .......................................................................................29
3. Studies in the field of speaking assessment ..........................................................30
3.1. Speaking assessment in the world ......................................................................30
3.2. Speaking assessment practice in Vietnam .........................................................33
3.3. Speaking in the new textbooks in Vietnam ........................................................34
CHAPTER II. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................37
1. The research design ...............................................................................................37
2. Participants ............................................................................................................39
3. Data collection instruments ...................................................................................39

iv


4. Procedures .............................................................................................................39
4.1. Conducting the interviews..................................................................................40
CHAPTER III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ................................................42
1. Results from interviews.........................................................................................42
PART III. CONCLUSION .....................................................................................46
1. Summary of the findings .......................................................................................46
2. Limitations of the study ........................................................................................47
3. Suggestions for further research............................................................................48
4. Recommendation...................................................................................................48
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................49

APPENDICES ........................................................................................................... I
APPENDIX A: Questionnaires for teachers of English.............................................. I

v


ABBREVIATIONS
ACTFL: The American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages
CEFR: The Common European Framework of Reference
EFL: English as a foreign language
SLA: Second Language Acquisition
VSTEP: Vietnamese Standardized Testing English Proficiency

vi


PART I. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Rationale
Speaking has an important role in human beings life because speaking is a
productive skill in which the speaker produces to communicate among people in a
society in order to keep the relationship going well. Speaking is the thing that we
use to express ideas at the same time he/she tries to get the ideas from others. Rivers
(1987:162) says that through speaking, someone can express his ideas, emotions,
attentions, reactions to other person and situation and influence other person. So,
through speaking, everyone can communicate well or express what he/she wants
from other and responds to the speaker. The teaching of speaking has been
neglected for many years in foreign language teaching, including English as a
foreign language (EFL), for various reasons (e.g., the strong influence of the
grammar translation method, lack of English native speaker teachers and EFL
teachers with near-native English proficiency, large class size) (Nation, 2011).

Increasing use of communicative language teaching methods in classroom settings
for the past several decades have probably helped English teaching professionals to
rediscover the value and importance of speaking in foreign language teaching and
learning. These issues have long been concerned the heart of communicative
teaching approach. Our personality, our self-image, our knowledge of the world and
our ability to reason and express our thought are all reflected through speaking
performance.
In the English language teaching context, speaking ability takes a long time
to develop and requires masteries of many sub-competence such as sound system,
appropriate vocabulary, clear thinking and most importantly the understanding of
cultural settings of the target language. Besides, the interlocutor needs to understand
what is being said to them and be able to respond appropriately in order to maintain
amicable relations or to achieve their communication goals. Alongside with the
focus on teaching and learning of speaking skill, the assessment of this skill raises
1


great issues in English language teaching context. It is a fact that the assessment of
speaking must weigh as much as important as the teaching and learning in order to
avoid the negative washback from learners. In other words, the assessment of
speaking therefore requires complicated and thoroughly designed rubrics. A
person's speaking ability is usually judged during a face-to-face interaction, in real
time between interlocutor and candidates.
1.2. The statement of problem
The move from teacher-centred to learner-centred teaching styles brings along
many changes in assessment format. That is from discrete points testing to
communicative testing. However, it is seemingly that in Vietnam there are
incongruities between the teaching practice and testing activities. Inbar-Lourie
(2008: 289) notes that:
The move from an atomized view of language knowledge to what is known as

communicative competence, and to communicative and task-based approaches to
language teaching has accentuated the incongruity of existing assessment measures.
Calls for matching language learning and evaluation have been repeatedly made
since Morrow (1979) urged language testers over three decades ago, to bridge the
gap between communicatively focused teaching goals and the testing procedures
used to gauge them.

That also means that the most active productive skill and the most common
focus of communicative-oriented language teaching and the hallmark par excellence
of communicative language teaching, is not tested at all. While most teachers
confess to make their teaching draw on the principles developed in the literature of
communicative language teaching, however, in practice they tend to be much more
traditional and structural to the extent that they measure their progression in the
programme in purely grammatical terms instead of notional-functional categories,
an easy way to spot their way on the teaching/testing continuum. This reflects that
there is somewhere some form of resistance to change that is deliberately expressed
and manifested by teachers, not least long experienced teachers, let alone many
novice teachers whose pre-service training leaves a lot to be desired.
2


Textbooks include of speaking sections, but the types of assessment as well
as criteria for assessment of speaking is not mentioned in any teaching materials at
this level. In addition, the final exam is paper-based not oral-based so the
assessment of oral English has not received sufficient considerations.
There have been many attempts to bridge the gap between teaching and
testing, especially with the approval of the National Project 2020 and the
development of VSTEP. However, the assessment of speaking skill at high schools
is still a limitation for many teachers of English at this level in Vietnam.
With these backdrops, the main purpose of the paper is to give a brief

overview of theories and practice of EFL speaking assessment, with a particular
emphasis on the assessment criteria, task design, and rating scales, validity,
reliability, practicality and related issues. More specifically, the paper will: (a) first
discuss criteria to be assessed during speaking performance, (b) then describe the
major components of the assessment development process (including test/task
design, rating scale development/validation, rater training), (c) and finally identify
some problems that teachers encounter when they conduct speaking assessment as
well as some suggested solutions for the problems.
1.3. The scope of the study
The study will focus on the application of speaking assessment at high school
level whose learners are studying the new national textbooks namely; English 10,
English 11, and English 12 written by Prof. Hoang Van Van and co-authors in 2015.
1.4 Research questions
With this expectation in mind, we may allow ourselves to formulate the
following questions:
1. What task types do teachers use when assessing speaking skill of students
who are learning the new textbook?
2. What criteria do teachers use when assessing speaking performance?
3. What problems do teachers encounter when assessing students’ speaking
performance?
3


1.5. The significance of the study
The study on completion provide teachers at high schools guidelines for
speaking assessment including marking criteria, and validity of a speaking test/task.
More importantly, the study raises an issue of language assessment in the high
school final exam format. By which we mean that the exam formats will motivate or
demotivate learners from studying English language. It is a matter of fact that
syllabi consist of four macro skills, namely writing, reading, listening and speaking

but the final exam is paper-based. The pseudo-communicative approaches in testing
do not stimulate speaking ability.
1.6. The design of the thesis
The thesis was designed in three parts. Part I is the Introduction. It provides
a brief overview of the study with more details of the rationale, the aims, the scope,
the research methodology as well as the design of the study.
Part II, the Development, consists of three chapters.
Chapter 1 reviews the literature in the field of assessment. This chapter
presents the theoretical background of the thesis which contains three main points:
language assessment in general, speaking assessment in particular and some of the
previous researches on assessments of English speaking skill.
Chapter 2 focuses on the method of the study, the contextual factors of the
case school and the data collection instruments and procedure.
The next chapter, Chapter 3, represents not only a detail description of data
analysis but also the discussion of the findings. Chapter 3 is divided into three parts
dealing with the data collected through three instruments: interview and discussion.
Part III, the Conclusion, is devoted to the conclusions of the studies. It
summarizes the problems associated with English speaking assessment and
provides some recommendations to cope with the identified problems. In this part,
the researcher also mentions the limitations of the study and some recommendations
for further study as well.

4


PART II – DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER I. LITERATURE REVIEW
1. The nature of speaking
Speaking is an activity of delivering massage, it occurs between speaker and
listener orally. In other words, the main point of speaking activity is that speakers

communicate their massage to the listeners. In this case, the speaker and listener
should be able to understand each other. The speaker can produce the sounds that
involved the massages and the listener can receive, process, and response the
massages. Byrne (1984: 8) in Temungingsih (1997: 6) further says that speaking is
an activity involving two or more participants as hearers and speakers who react to
what they hear and their contributions. Each participant has an attention or a set of
intentions goal that he wants to achieve in the interaction.
In speaking, there is a goal or a purpose to be achieved by the speaker.
Speaking involves two participants at least. It means that we cannot do it
individually we need partner to communicate in the same language, so speaking is a
process of transferring information, ideas and expressions that used the good form
of sentence in order to make the listener understand of what we are saying. In
addition, speaking is described by Fulcher as much more than just a skill, it is
actually “the ability that makes us human” (Fulcher, 2003).
Speech is also referred to as a „real time‟ phenomenon (Bygate, 1987),
because one has to plan what to say, formulate the words and articulate with
substantial speed as one speaks. Bygate (1987) distinguishes between language
knowledge and language skills; knowledge is what enables people to talk and skills
is knowledge actively carried out in interaction, something that can be imitated and
practiced. He further states that language knowledge is basically a set of grammar
and pronunciation rules, vocabulary and knowledge about how they are normally
used; skills are considered to be the ability to use this knowledge.
Brown (2001: 250) states that speaking is an interactive process of
constructing meaning that involves producing, receiving, and processing
5


information. Based on that idea, there are three important points that have to be
occurred to the participants of communication (speakers and listeners) to construct
the meaning during the interaction among them. In speaking process, one tries to

communicate with and send out his/her message to the others. In this case, the
communication needs a speaker and a listener. Therefore, in speaking process,
especially in dialogue, needs at least two people because we cannot do it
individually. Referring to this, transactional dialogue is suitable to measure students'
speaking achievements since transactional dialogue refers to situation where the
focus is on what is said or done. The message and making oneself understood
clearly and accurately is the central focus, rather than the participants and how they
interact socially with each other. Itkonen (2010) mentions other relevant features as
proficiency and coherence. Equally, Louma (2003) includes components of
speaking as pronunciation, and spoken grammar.
According to Rivers (1987) the teaching of speaking skill is more demanding
on the teacher than the teaching of any language skills. There are five aspects must
be fulfilled in a speaking classroom, they are: (1) Fluency which is defined as the
ability to speak fluently and accurately. Signs of fluency include a reasonable fast
speed of speaking and only a small numbers of pauses. Fluency refers to the ease
and speed of the flow of the speech (Harris, 1974). Fluency is the smoothness or
flow with which sounds, syllables, words and phrases are join to other when
speaking. It means that when a person makes a dialogue with another person, the
other person can give respond well without difficulty. (2) Grammar as defined by
Heaton (1991) that grammar as the students' ability to manipulate structure and to
distinguish appropriate grammatical form in appropriate ones. Meanwhile, Syakur
(1978) defines grammar as a correct arrangement sentence in conversation. (3)
Vocabulary, the speaker cannot communicate well if he/she does not have sufficient
vocabulary. Therefore, vocabulary means the appropriate diction which is used in
communication as what stated by Syakur (1987). (4) Pronunciation, which is the
ability to produce easily comprehensible articulation (Syakur, 1987). Meanwhile
6


Harris (1974) defines pronunciation as the intonation patterns. (5) Comprehension,

comprehensibility denotes the ability of understanding the speaker's intention and
general meaning (Heaton, 1991). Defines comprehension for oral communication
that requires a subject to respond to speech as well as to initiate it (Syakur, 1987).
This idea means that if a person can answer or express the sentence well and
correctly, it shows that he/ she comprehends or understands well. In terms of
language teaching and learning, teachers and learners must do well on all of these
five aspects. Moreover, in a speaking class, a teacher should give stimulus,
guidance, direction and support the students in learning process. It means that the
role of the teacher in learning process is as director and facilitator. Teacher also
should motivate the students to do what the teacher asks them to do. Speaking skills
are an important part of the curriculum in language teaching, and this makes them
an important object of assessment as well.
2. The nature of speaking assessments
2.1. Assessment, testing and evaluation
The term assessment and test are sometimes used interchangeably in many
popular educational situations. However, they are not exactly the same. While tests
are prepared administrative procedures that occur at identifiable times in a
curriculum when learners muster all their faculties to offer peak performance,
knowing that their responses are being measured and evaluated, assessment, on the
other hand, is an ongoing process that encompasses a much wider domain.
Whenever a student responds to a question, offers a comment, or tries out a new
word or structure, the teacher subconsciously makes an assessment of the student's
performance (Brown, 2004).
Tests, then, are a subset of assessment; they are certainly not the only form
of assessment that a teacher can make. Tests can be useful devices, but they are only
one among many procedures and tasks that teachers can ultimately use to assess
students. Evaluation is a collection and interpretation of information about aspects
of the curriculum, including learners, teachers and materials for decisions making
7

purposes (Brindley, 2001). Kendle (2000) refers to two different types of
evaluation; internal and external evaluation. Internal evaluations are conducted to
get information about programs so that managers can make sound decisions about
the implementation of these programs. This collaboration helps ensure that the
evaluation is fully participatory and builds commitments on the part of all involved
to use the results to make critical program improvements. External evaluation are
required for funding purposes or to answer questions about the program's long-term
impact by looking at changes in demographic indicators such as graduation rates or
poverty level. Evaluation and assessment can often be terms which are used
interchangeably, but for these purposes their meanings are quite different.
Assessment here refers to tasks which students undertake so that teachers can assess
their level of competence in a course; on the other hand, evaluation means the
process used by teachers to evaluate how effective these assessment tasks have been
in meeting their aims.
2.2. Principles of language assessment
To assess is not only to give a grade to students, it requires some principles
that a test should follow to do a good test. According to Brown (2004), there are
five principles which are practicality, reliability, validity, authenticity and
washback.
Practicality
Brown (2004) says an effective test is practical when, it is not expensive, it
stays within appropriate time constraints, it is easy to administer and it has a
scoring/evaluation procedure that is specific and time-efficient.
Reliability
According to Brown reliability means when the teacher presents a test and
after, she/he gives the same test to the same student, the test should yield similar
results; it is what reliability consists on. However, there are some characteristics
that can do that student‟s grade change; for example, fatigue, illness, anxiety and
some others physical or psychological factors; additionally, conditions of classroom

8


which could make that a student does not pay enough attention to the test,
conditions such as: noise outside, light in different parts of the room, temperature or
conditions of desks and chairs.
Validity
Validity is when the results of the test are appropriate, meaningful, and
useful in terms of the purpose of the assessment. In other words, a test or task
measures what teachers want to measure. When a test has validity, learners
encounter a well- constructed format with familiar tasks, items and directions are
clear, tasks are related to course work and it presents a reasonable challenge for
students.
Authenticity
A test that shows a natural language as is possible, contextualized items,
meaningful topics and real-world tasks is what shows that a test is authentic.
Washback
It refers to the effect of assessment on teaching and learning. Washback
gives the opportunity to teachers and students to give feedback to realize problems
language learning and improve them.
Taking into account these principles, it is necessary to mention Gross (1999)
who establishes at least four functions of a test. She states that a test helps teachers
evaluate students and assess whether they are learning what you are expecting them
to learn. Second, well-designed tests serve to motivate and help students structure
their academic efforts. Third, tests can help teachers understand how successfully
you are presenting the material. Finally, tests can reinforce learning by providing
students with indicators of what topics or skills they have not yet mastered and
should concentrate on. Despite these benefits, testing is also emotionally charged
and anxiety producing.
According to these characteristics, it can be said that a test that follows these

parameters, is beneficial for teachers and students, because the former can know
what is happening with the students‟ learning and then latter, find in a test a good
opportunity to demonstrate what they have been taught.
9


2.3. Speaking assessment
Assessment is a huge field on which much research has been carried out and a
huge amount of literature and theory has been published. Nevertheless, research has
tended to focus on assessment in general, rather than on speaking English in
particular. According to Fulcher (2003), testing second language speaking is
considered to be more difficult than testing other language skills. Therefore
relatively few books about testing second language speaking have been published.
Speaking and listening, by nature are almost always closely interrelated. It is
very difficult to isolate oral production tasks that do not directly involve the
interaction of aural comprehension. Only in limited contexts of speaking people can
assess oral language without the aural participation of an interlocutor. As a
productive skill, speaking can be directly and empirically observed. The interaction
of speaking and listening challenges the designer of an oral production test to tease
apart, as much as possible, the factors accounted for by aural intake (Brown 2004).
Assessment of speaking skills often lags far behind the teaching those skills
in the curriculum. We recognize the importance of relevant and reliable assessment
for providing vital information to the students and teachers about the progress made
and the work to be done. We also recognize the importance of backwash. Most
teachers would accept that if you want to encourage oral ability, then test oral
ability (Hughes, 1989:44). But the problems of testing oral ability make teachers
either reluctant to take it on or lacking in any confidence in the validity of their
assessments. Such problems include: the practical problem of finding the time, the
facilities and the personnel for testing oral ability; the problem of designing
productive and relevant speaking tasks; and the problem of being consistent (on

different occasions, with different testees and between different assessors).
The approaches to language testing and assessment dated from early 1970s to
early 1980s. These approaches still prevail today in spite of some changes of the socalled discrete point test and integrative test. The former was constructed on the
assumption that language can be broken down into its component parts and that
10


these parts can be tested successfully. These components consist of language skills
and language units. The later consisted of cloze tests and dictation (Brown, 2004:
8). By the mid 1980s, the language testing shifted to communicative language
testing approach. The very central tenet of communicative language testing is that
the tasks are designed to represent authentic activities which test learners are to be
expected to encounter in the real world outside the classroom. Brown (2005)
identifies five requirements that make up what is to be called a communicative test.
The requirements in question are (1) meaningful communication i.e. the test needs
to be based on communication that is meaningful to students, that is, it should meet
their personal needs. It should promote and activate language which is useful for
them. Making use of authentic situations can increase the likelihood that meaningful
communication will be achieved. (2) Authentic situation i.e. communicative test
offer students the opportunity to encounter and use the target language receptively
and productively in authentic situations to show how strong their language ability
is. (3) Unpredictable language input i.e. the fact that in reality it is usually
impossible to predict what speakers will say; this natural way of communication
should be replicated in a communicative test. (4) Creative language output i.e. the
fact that in reality language input is largely dependent on language input to prepare
for one‟s reply. And (5) integrated language skills i.e. a communicative test will
elicit the learners‟ use of language skills integratively, as is the case in real life
communication.
2.4. A taxonomy of oral proficiency
Brown and Abbeywickrama (2010: 184) have divided oral skills into five

different categories. Firstly, Imitative category which students can only do the
repeating of what someone else has already said. Here focus lies on intonation and
pronunciation of words or sometimes very short sentences as well. Pronunciation is
the highest priority when assessing from this perspective and creating unique
sentences or original meanings is completely put aside in this aspect of oral
production. The secondly category is called Intensive. This aspect of language
11


assessment is focused on larger linguistic segments than the previous imitative
aspect. Here focus lies on elements such as intonation, stress, juncture etc. What is
assessed is, in other words, how well the student masters the production of
sentences, rather than just words. Focus is still not on meaning, though, but rather
how the sentences “sound”. Alas, the difference between imitative and intensive
speaking is merely the complexity of the sentences. Thirdly, the Responsive
category, this is the first category that actually includes interaction between two
people, even if the situation is very artificial and each question and response is very
much thought out beforehand. Standard phrases such as “Hi, how are you; fine, and
you?” are typical when assessing this category of speech. The forth category is
called Interactive. It is not very different from the Responsive save for the length
and complexity of the interaction. Interactive oral proficiency can then be broken
down further into two subcategories, Transactional which is the purpose of
exchanging information, and the Interpersonal which maintains personal
relationships.
According to Brown & Abbeywickrama the Interpersonal category is more
complex and much more spontaneous than the Transactional and is also more
dependent on slang, colloquial language, intonation etc. The last category is called
Extensive. This category is based on monologues, such as speeches, storytelling etc.
and contains no interaction at all. This could be used in social situations as well as
where someone might retell a trip they have made or tell a humorous story, which

involves none or very little interaction. The difference between this category and the
intensive one is the language complexity and sentence length.
Furthermore, Brown & Abbeywickrama (2010:185) also divide spoken
language into two other different categories, called micro skills and macro skills. In
this perspective micro skills cover the ability to control phonemes, stress patterns
and intonation contours. Macro skills on the other hand focus on the communicative
functions, styles, body language and other language strategies. Even if this
taxonomy is relatively extensive and complex the categories listed are by no means
12


absolute. No test can only be isolated into one single category but usually covers all
of them with some being more focused than others.
2.5. Designing speaking task type assessment
2.5.1. Imitative speaking assessment
At the imitative level, it is probably already clear what the student is trying to
do. At this level, the student is simply trying to repeat what was said to them in a
way that is understandable and with some adherence to pronunciation as defined by
the teacher. It doesn‟t matter if the student comprehends what they are saying or
carrying on a conversation. The goal is only to reproduce what was said to them.
One common example of this is a “repeat after me” experience in the classroom. An
example of imitative speaking test is the Versant. It elicits computer-assisted oral
production over a telephone. Test-takers read aloud, repeat sentences, say words,
and answer questions.
Part A: read aloud selected sentences.
Examples: Traffic is a huge problem in Southern California.
Part B: repeat sentences dictated over the phone.
Example: Leave town on the next train.
Part C: Answer questions with a single word or a short phrase.
Example: Would you get water from a bottle or a newspaper?

Part D: hear three word groups in random order and link them in a correctly ordered
sentence.
Example: was reading/my mother/a magazine
Part E: have 30 seconds to talk about their opinion about some topic that is dictated
over the phone. Topics center on family, preferences, and choices
Scores are calculated by a computerized scoring template and reported back to the
test-taker within minutes.
2.5.2. Intensive speaking assessment
Intensive speaking involves producing a limit amount of language in a highly
control context. An example of this would be to read aloud a passage or give a
direct response to a simple question.
13


Competency at this level is shown through achieving certain grammatical or
lexical mastery. This depends on the teacher‟s expectations. Task types
Directed Response Tasks
Directed response elicits a particular grammatical form/transformation of a
sentences
Tell me he went home.
Tell me that you like rock music.
Tell me that you aren’t interested in tennis.
Tell him to come to my office at noon.
Remind him what time it is.
Read-Aloud task
This technique is easily administered by selecting a passage that incorporates
test specs and by recording the test-takers‟ output. The scoring scales are:
Pronunciation Points
0.0-0.4 frequent errors and unintelligible.
0.5-1.4 occasionally unintelligible.

1.5-2.4 some errors but intelligible.
2.5-3.0 occasional errors but always intelligible
Fluency
0.0-0.4 slow, hesitant, and unintelligible.
0.5-1.4 non-native pauses and flow that interferes with intelligibility.
1.5-2.4 non-native pauses but the flow is intelligible.
2.5-3.0 smooth and effortless.
Sentence/Dialogue Completion Task and Oral Questionnaires
First, test-takers are given time to read through the dialogue to get its gist (main
point), then the tape/teacher produces one part orally and the test-taker responds.
Example:
Salesperson: May I help you
Customer: ____________________ (test takers respond with appropriate lines)
14


Advantage: more time to anticipate an answer, no potential ambiguity created by
aural misunderstanding (oral interview).
Disadvantage: It is inauthentic, except in situations such as parent reading to a child,
sharing a story with someone, giving a scripted oral presentation. It is not
communicative in real contexts.
Picture-cued task
A picture-cued stimulus requires a description from the test-taker. It may elicit a
word, a phrase, a story, or incident.
The types are:
 Picture-cued elicitation of minimal pairs
 Picture-cued elicitation of comparatives
 Picture-cued elicitation of future tense
 Picture-cued elicitation of nouns, negative responses, numbers, location
 Picture-cued elicitation of responses and description

 Picture-cued elicitation of giving directions
 Picture-cued elicitation of multiple choice description for two tests takers
Translation
Translation is a communicative device in contexts where English is not a
native language. English can be called on to be interpreted as a second language.
Conditions may vary from an instant translation of a native word, phrase, or
sentence to a translation of longer texts.
2.5.3. Responsive speaking assessment
Responsive is slightly more complex than intensive but the difference is
blurry, to say the least. At this level, the dialog includes a simple question with
a follow-up question or two. Conversations take place by this point but are
simple in content.
Question and answer
Question and answer tasks can consist of one or two questions from an
interviewer, or they can make up a portion of a whole battery of questions and
15


prompts in an oral interview. They can vary from simple questions to complex
questions. For example, "What is this called in English?‟" simple question
“What are the steps governments should take, if any, to stem the rate of
deforestation in tropical countries?” complex question.
The first question is intensive in its purpose. It is a display question intended to
elicit a predetermined correct response.
Questions at the responsive level tend to be genuine referential questions in
which the test-taker is given more opportunity to produce meaningful language in
response.
Responsive questions may take the following forms:
 Questions eliciting open-ended responses
 Elicitation of questions from the test-taker

 Test-takers respond with questions
Giving Instructions and Directions
The technique is simple: the administrator poses the problem, and the testtaker responds. Scoring is based primarily on comprehensibility and secondarily on
other specified grammatical or discourse categories.
Paraphrasing
The test-takers read or hear a limited number of sentences (perhaps two or
five) and produce a paraphrase of the sentence. The forms are:
Paraphrasing a story
Test-takers hear: Paraphrase the following little story in your own words.
My weekend in the mountains was fabulous. The first day we backpacked
into the mountains and climbed about 2.000 feet. The hike was strenuous but
exhilarating. By sunset we found these beautiful alpine lakes and made camp
there. The sunset was amazingly beautiful. The next two days we just kicked
back and did little day hikes, some rock climbing, bird watching, swimming,
and fishing. The hike out on the next day was really easy – all downhill – and
the scenery was incredible.
16


Paraphrasing a phone message
Test-taker hear:
Please tell Jeff that I’m tied up in traffic so I’m going to be about a half late
for the nine o’clock meeting. And ask him to bring up our question about the
employee benefits plan. If he wants to check in with me on my cell phone,
have him call 415-338- 3095. Thanks.
2.5.4. Interactive Speaking Assessment
The unique feature of intensive speaking is that it is usually more
interpersonal than transactional. By interpersonal it is meant speaking for
maintaining relationships. Transactional speaking is for sharing information as is
common at the responsive level.

The challenge of interpersonal speaking is the context or pragmatics The
speaker has to keep in mind the use of slang, humor, ellipsis, etc. when attempting to
communicate. This is much more complex than saying yes or no or giving directions
to the bathroom in a second language. Examples of interactive task types are:
Interview
Oral production assessment is words. This effective interview contains a
number of mandatory stages (Michael, C., 1984). The steps are:
Warm – up
a. The interviewer direct mutual introductions, helps the test-taker become
comfortable with the situation, appraises the test – taker of the format and allays
anxieties.
b. No scoring takes place.
Level check
a. The interviewer stimulates the test taker to respond using expected or predicted
forms and functions.
b. Questions are design to elicit grammatical categories, discourse structure,
vocabulary usage and/or sociolinguistic factors.
c. This stage gives the interviewer a picture of the test-taker‟s extroversion,
readiness to speak and confidence.
d. Linguistic target criteria are scored in this phase.
17