Oral testing in the class


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Oral testing in the class

  1. 1. Project on oral testingSubmitted to: Maim Mehrunisa Zaid6/2/2011Submitted From: Muhammad AsifRegd. No. met011030081|Page
  2. 2. ABSTRACT:The ability to speak English is a valued skill in English-medium universitiesoverseas and is a major aim of their English for academic purposes (EAP)programmes. But it is rarely tested in these institutions because the task isconsidered too difficult with such large numbers of students. Failing to testthe speaking skill results in inaccurate assessment of students andnegative wash back effects on the teaching of oral skills. Here the purposeof this study is to highlight the problems that are hinder in introducing theoral skills in the class. The participants in this study were students andteachers. The instruments used were interviews and questionnaires tocollect the opinion of the respondents. Two types of questionnaires wereprepared. Teachers and students were selected randomly. The resultsindicates that the number of English language learning students has beensteadily growing for years, but the resources to help them mastering it havenot been growing at a comparable rate which results into their failure. Andspeaking and listening is more important in language learning and isalways neglected.MUHAMMAD ASIF 2
  3. 3. INTRODUCTION:The language teaching task does not last only to the end of the class hour,but teachers also need to handle the whole teaching and learning processStarting with planning, then implementing the plan, assessing or evaluatingit, reflecting on all data received, and finally revising the plan. The cyclerequires teachers to extend their tasks to considerable work outside of theclass. Especially, when it comes to the assessment, most languageteachers may find it to be the most difficult task. Probably, because itinvolves a great deal working with numbers and calculations-to make areliable and valid measurement. The term assessment usually refers togathering and synthesizing the information about students and classroom.Information can be gathered by teachers through both formal and informalmeans such as homework, tests, written reports, observation, or verbalexchange. The assessment task is not only crucial for teachers, but also forstudents. How well students perform on tests, the grade they receive, andthe judgments their teachers make have important consequences for boththe students and teachers. Without proper assessments tailored to theneeds of the students and language learning objectives, teachers areunable to plan instruction effectively. One of the assessments is oraltesting.Oral testing is defined as evaluation of a students speech productionexclusively. It does not concern listening skill, which is some-timesconfused with oral testing when the evaluator uses the second language totest listening comprehension.The issue of oral testing highlights a major problem for educators in Korea,where an official policy to promote English oral skills at all levels ofeducation has to be placed in the context of the traditional methods oftesting which still prevail. Thus while secondary level teachers of Englishmight be keen to employ contemporary communicative teachingmethodology in their classrooms, they also have to ensure that theirstudents acquire the necessary linguistic facts to be able to answer thegrammar-based multiple choice examinations which are universallyprescribed, but which tend to be unrelated to the development of spokenEnglish abilities. The result is that students in general arrive at University ortheir new place of work with undeveloped oral skills and with a debilitatingawareness of this fact, which impedes motivation or further improvement.MUHAMMAD ASIF 3
  4. 4. Years of traditional translation-based teaching also encourage learningpreferences in the students which, though acknowledged by them to beinefficient, are all that they know, and determine their perceptions regardingacceptable teaching and learning styles.In order to break this self-confirming circle, and to motivate students todevelop their oral skills, the situation needs to be addressed in its entirety.Teachers can find more and more interesting methods of teaching thespoken language; they can try to apply these in the classroom, advocatingauthenticity of materials, relevance of situation, cultural sensitivity, andother factors; they can make the learning environment as conducive toexpression and language acquisition as possible. But the fact remains thatKorean students are motivated mainly by the National exams they have topass, and their entire educational experience confirms that this attitude isthe correct one.MUHAMMAD ASIF 4
  5. 5. THE VIEW OF LITERATURE:This literature review is intended to review the following, a) Levels of oral proficiency b) Difficulties in testing the speaking skills c) Types of oral tests d) Oral testing methodologiesLevels of the oral proficiency:There are four main levels and three sublevels within the first three mainlevels:Levels: i) Novice (0 ~ 1) ii) Intermediate (1 ~ 2) iii) Advanced (2 ~ 3) iv) Superior (3 ~ 4)Sub-levels:Low – just hanging onMid – length and strength; some features of the next levelHigh – functions most of the time at the next higher levelThe scoring system works out such that there are actually 11 categories:the superior level has no sub-levels while the other three levels each utilizethe 3 sublevels (low, mid, high) and the 11th category is a hypothetical 0or Zero Proficiency.There are five aspects to each of the four main levels as well: function,content, context, accuracy and text type distils these components in thefollowing manner:Function refers to what the learner can do with the language. Content andcontext refer to the range of topics (personal, professional, and abstract)the learner can handle with confidence and in what setting (formal orinformal). Accuracy describes the extent of phonological and syntacticalMUHAMMAD ASIF 5
  6. 6. precision. Finally, text type refers to the discourse complexity of the tested,i.e. whether the subject speaks in discrete words, unconnected sentencesor extended, planned paragraphs.Difficulties in testing the speaking skills:Since the reform and opening up, international exchanges become morefrequent, the community of English proficiency, especially oralcommunication ability to the needs of increasingly urgent, English Teachinggoals are also made adjustments, therefore, asked to reverse to read-based teaching model, clear that the current pay special attention tostrengthening the cultivation of listening and speaking skills. As students ofthe main course of oral communicative competence, how to carry outeffective oral teaching is the majority of English teachers worthy ofexploration and practice of a proposition. In this paper, adjust the teachingcontent, teaching methods and evaluation system for several aspects oforal teaching on how to improve vocational discussed.Vocational problems: The traditional oral teaching is mainly teacher-centered teachingmodel, teachers explain and account for most of the presentation ofclassroom time, and students at a state of passive acceptance, it is difficultto mobilize their enthusiasm and initiative to learn. Teaching methodsmonotonous, stiff, usually follows to read, imitate, repeat, recite and othermechanical training (mechanical practice) mainly, the lack of meaningful,communicative practice (meaningful and communicative practice), thestudents just to practice and practice, is not out of desire or need tocommunicate. On the other hand, teachers focus too much oncommunication in the form of, for example, the syntax is correct, but ignorethe content of student exchanges, resulting in distortion of languagecommunication. No student a positive input, the lack of meaningfulcommunication, teaching results difficult to be guaranteed. In addition, the vocational English language base is relatively weak,and almost never before in the school system received oral training,widespread fear of the psychological fear mistakes, a fool of me, unwillingto take the initiative to conduct oral communication, the lack of in front ofthe courage to express ideas in English. Some of the students too heavylocal accent, English pronunciation obscure, hindering the smooth progressMUHAMMAD ASIF 6
  7. 7. of oral communication. Due to lack of language environment, the studentsafter school is basically oral exercises carried out independently byindividuals, which are greatly limited the Development of communicativecompetence of students and oral levels.Administrator:Ideally, tests should endeavor to help not only teachers or administrators,but also aid students in assessing their performance. Tests should serveboth evaluative and educational functions. Unfortunately, many tests aredesigned primarily to dispense grades. Typically, students take a test at theend of one semester and receive a grade with no comments a few weekslater. Such feedback is of marginal value. Prompt feedback is crucial, sincemost students tend to forget the details of their tests soon after completingthem. Unless feedback is specific and immediate, its pedagogical value islimited.The evaluation of students’ pronunciation is not given the place it deservesin many EFL and ESL classes in probably elsewhere. It is supported by thefact that the purpose of testing pronunciation is not only to evaluateknowledge and award grades, but also, and probably more importantly, tomotivate students to be sensitive to this aspect of English. Given that themotivation of many students for learning English is instrumental rather thanintegrative, pronunciation tends to be neglected by many learners as longas they know they will not be tested on it.Obviously, pronunciation is tested globally in different types ofconversational exchange, interview, reading aloud, etc., that go on in theclassroom. What seems to be insufficient is the testing of accuracy-that is,testing to assess the learner’s management of specific features, segmentalor suprasegmental. This insufficiency is due to two main causes.First, many teachers do not consider it useful to test specific features. Thisattitude is based on the belief that the mastery of specific features, takenindividually, does not matter much in real-life situations where the contextalways (?)It is possible for people to produce practically all the correct sounds but stillbe unable to communicate their ideas appropriately and effectively. On theMUHAMMAD ASIF 7
  8. 8. other hand, people can make numerous errors in both phonology andsyntax and yet succeed in expressing themselves fairly clearly.The second, and surely more important, cause is the particular difficultiesinvolved in testing oral skills. One of the greatest problems in oral testing isadministration. It is often impossible to manage the large number ofstudents to be tested. Testing equipment, like laboratories or taperecorders, is scarce in many Third World countries where English is taught.Even when such material is available, testing may be rendered impossibleby the lack of even more basic facilities like electricity.A further difficulty in oral testing arises when English is part of a school-leaving or promotion examination for an entire country. In most countriesoffering such examinations candidates over a large area have to respond,often in writing, to the same paper. This exacerbates the problem oflogistics.Taking segmental phonemes and word stress as illustrations, this articleexplores some ways of testing specific features of English pronunciation,both as a teaching activity and as part of an examination. The ideal way oftesting pronunciation is to actually listen to the learner. But since this is notalways possible or suitable, the alternatives discussed below can be usedfor testing segments and word stress. Throughout the discussion, theillustrations are based on pronunciation problems.What is to be tested?Following should be tested in oral class, i) Pronunciation ii) Grammar iii) Vocabulary iv) Fluency i) Fluency of Speech: This point of evaluation should be based upon the smoothness of speech, not speed, and take into account the normal use of hesitancy in conversation. If students cease their conversation to giggle, or if they have memorized their conversation and can not continue by relying upon their inherent communication skills then this should reflect in a lower rating. Students, who speakMUHAMMAD ASIF 8
  9. 9. efficiently, and without awkwardness, should in turn be granted a higher rating. ii) Grammar Use: It is unrealistic to expect that any Korean EFL student will come to an exam and speak without any grammar problems; emphasis should therefore be placed on being able to understand the student’s communicative intent even if grammar errors are present in sentence structures. However, continual use of the same grammar errors by a student, such as the use of simple past for all past tense terms, should reflect in a lower rating. Alternatively, those students who are able to recognize that they had made a grammar error, and correct it during conversation, should be provided a higher rating. iii) Listening Comprehension: This phase of evaluation is initially tested during the prepared conversation section of the exam. As some students will not understand what their partners are saying. In some cases, Korean students will remain silent and wait for their partner to repeat their statement, and this should reflect in a lower rating. At other times a student may ask for clarification, or ask their partner to repeat what they had said, and this should reflect in a higher rating. Further more, this section of evaluation should be applied in the question/answer tasks of the exam. Some students may not understand the instructors question, even after rewording, whereas other students will understand the same question immediately. iv) Pronunciation: As native English speakers possess a high degree of tolerance to ambiguity accent is not considered a viable point of exam evaluation, except where it hinders communicative understanding in the case of radically influencing pronunciation. In situations where continual mispronunciation occurs, or understanding is lost due to incorrect pronunciation of terminology, students should be given a lower rating. Alternatively, if students correct their mispronunciation, or recognize their mispronunciation and attemptMUHAMMAD ASIF 9
  10. 10. to correct it throughout the exam, then this should reflect in a higher rating. v) Vocabulary Appropriateness and Complexity: Depending on the student choice of topic, certain terms or vocabulary items can be selected from the course materials and incorporated within student conversational presentations. If students use higher level vocabulary, and select terms taught from the textbook then they should receive a higher rating. If students employ very simple vocabulary terms for a complex topic, such as health, then this should reflect in a lower rating.Types of oral tests:Following types can be used in oral testing, a) Monologue speaking b) Dialogue speaking c) Multilogue speakingMonologue speaking:A monologue (or monolog) is when the character may be speaking his orher thoughts aloud, directly addressing another character, or speaking tothe audience, especially the former. Monologues are common across therange of dramatic media (plays, films, animation, etc.). It is distinct from asoliloquy, which is where a character relates his or her thoughts andfeelings to him/herself and to the audience without addressing any of theother characters. It is also distinct from an apostrophe, wherein the speakeror writer addresses an imaginary person, or inanimate object, or idea.Dialogue speaking:The most popular type of oral test was that which tested the students pro-duction of dialog material. Hearing recitation of memorized dialogs was themost-often used procedureDialogue means how each character speaks. This not only helps topromote the speak and further the action, but exemplifies characterizationas well. Instructions here apply to multi-genre speaking. That is, it appliesMUHAMMAD ASIF 10
  11. 11. to fiction, nonfiction, and all types of characters speak. These instructionshave been industry standard speaking.It irritates me that after learning a lot of obvious dos and don’ts of speaking,someone invariably comes along and tries to change the status quo. Theywish to make inroads into the process, make their mark or reputation byputting a new spin on accepted norms.While it is true that new input can improve certain things, with this aspect ofwriting, I say leave it alone. Dialogue in speaking has a certain duty toperform. The words spoken, and not the narration, do a much better job atbuilding characterization. Beats and speaker attributions, which you willlearn in the samples below, have their place in speaking, but must be usedcautiously.Multilogue speaking:In this type there should be picture description, pictures differences ordiscussion on any topic in multi language. And then difference in fluency,vocabulary, grammar etc can be noted.Oral testing methodologies:Setting the scene Language is culture in motion. It is people interacting with people. ... themost effective programs will be those that involve the whole learner in theexperience of language as a network of relations between people, things,and events (Savignon 1983:187)The success of this test would be judged primarily by its effectiveness infavorably affecting the students perception of his/her spoken abilities, sincea self-perceived improvement would result in increased confidence whenusing the language and would positively affect motivation to continuelearning.MUHAMMAD ASIF 11
  12. 12. 2. The TestOf the many possibilities open to testers in terms of elicitation techniquesfor oral testing, the methods adopted in this case were the oral report andinter-learner joint discussion, the latter reflecting the interactive aspect oflanguage mentioned by Savignon (1985).Two examiners were present for each test - the normal class teacher, andanother visiting examiner (who was also an instructor at the Center andknown to the students by sight if not by acquaintance), providing both asubjective and an objective assessment of the students. Students wererequired to complete two stages. In the first stage each student had oneminute in which to speak about him/herself, his/her family, hobbies, room,or lifestyle. These topics had been practiced and performed in the lessonsduring the first semester. In the second stage the group had three minutesto have a conversation about anything they wished. This was intended topromote interactive skills as well as speaking per se, and the groups wereassessed as a whole for this task.The tests were recorded on cassette tapes and the examiners madecomments on a pre-prepared mark sheet which noted the conversationalabilities of the students as they performed the two stages. Given that thestudents would be able to access these mark sheets in order to help in theirown assessment of their performance, it was decided (by all the examiners)to use a simplified version of Lees criteria, employing the categories ofListening comprehension, grammatical Appropriacy, Ease of Speech andFluency, Content and Conversation Skills. Marking criteria were drawnup based on established principles.3. SELF-ASSESSMENTSelf-assessment provides us with an interesting perspective on this issue,If the learners themselves determine what is to be learnt in the classroom,regardless of what the teacher brings into it and if their attitudes to learningare so formative, then it seems that we should be giving more attention tothese matters, and focusing on ways of improving them.Self-assessment is a way of attending to such attitudes, since itencourages the student to become part of the whole process of languagelearning, and to be aware of individual progress,MUHAMMAD ASIF 12
  13. 13. 1. raised level of awareness; 2. improved goal orientation; 3. expansion of range of assessment; 4. shared assessment burden;Students should also allow to access to their mark sheets and to thecassette tapes of the testing sessions.Problems with speaking activities:1. Inhibition:Learners are often inhibited about trying to say things in a foreign languagein the class room. They are worried about making mistakes, fearful ofcriticism or losing face.2. Nothing to say:Even if they are not inhibited, we often hear learners complain that theycannot think of anything to say.3. Low or uneven participation: Only one participant talks at a time or he or she dominates the group whileothers speak very little or not at all. In a large group each member getsvery little talking time.4. Mother-tongue use:In classes where all or a number of the learners share the same mothertongue, they are likely to use it. It is easier and it feels unnatural to speak toone another in a foreign language.Project Question:a) Oral testing is time consuming and difficult to administer and difficult tomaintain its accurate assessment.MUHAMMAD ASIF 13
  14. 14. Determine those causes which hinder introducing oral testing in yourlanguage classroom.b) write down view points of different teachers about the oral testingwhether it is successful or not in language teaching.Objectives of the study:The aim of the study is to analyze the problems and learning needs of oraltesting in the class. The purpose is to find out the difficulties or barriers thathinder students’ progress in oral learning. It is intended to come up withpossible solutions through recommendations.Significance of the study:This study will help in knowing the factors and difficulties face in oral skills.The material will provide an opportunity for the teachers in recognizing thefactors and problems faced in oral testing in the class. Lastly, this studymight raise questions for future inquiry.Methodology and procedure:This was an action research. Two types of questionnaire were prepared.One for the students and second for the teachers. The instructor himselfwent to different areas and got questionnaires filled by the students and theteachers.MUHAMMAD ASIF 14
  15. 15. Data Analysis:Student’s Questionnaire’s Result 100 90 Agree strong agree 80 disagree 70 strong disagree 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10MUHAMMAD ASIF 15
  16. 16. Graph showing the responses of all respondents (students) 45 40 35 30 25 20 Series 1 15 10 5 0 Agree Strong agree disagree Strong disagree 1. Only 10% agreed and 25% strong agreed that listening and speaking should not be neglected in the exams. While 40% disagreed and 25% strong disagreed from this statement.MUHAMMAD ASIF 16
  17. 17. 100 90 80 70 60 50 Series 1 40 30 20 10 0 Agree Strong agree disagree Strong disagree 2. 05% agreed and 90% strong agreed that oral production is an essential component of learning a foreign language and only 05% disagreed. 45 40 35 30 25 20 Series 1 15 10 5 0 Agree Strong agree Disagree strong disagreeMUHAMMAD ASIF 17
  18. 18. 3. 40% agreed and 30% strong agreed that classrooms should devote extended time to the development of speaking skills and 15% disagreed and 15% also disagreed. 45 40 35 30 25 20 Series 1 15 10 5 0 Agree Strong agree Disagree strong disagree 4. 35% agreed and 40% strong agreed from the statement accuracy is more important in oral testing than fluency. Only 5% disagreed and 20% strong disagreed.MUHAMMAD ASIF 18
  19. 19. 45 40 35 30 25 20 Series 1 15 10 5 0 Agree Strong agree Disagree Strong disagree 5. 25% agreed and the same strong agreed that oral testing should be task based. 40% disagreed and 10% strong agreed from this statement. 45 40 35 30 25 20 Series 1 15 10 5 0 Agree Stron agree disagree Stron disagree 6. 35% agreed and 40% strong agreed that oral testing is easier in group activities. Only 10% disagreed and 15% strong disagreed.MUHAMMAD ASIF 19
  20. 20. 70 60 50 40 30 Series 1 20 10 0 Agree Strong agree Disagree Strong disagree 7. 25% agreed and 65% strong agreed that confidence and grammar should always be focused. And only 10% disagreed. 60 50 40 30 Series 1 20 10 0 Agree Strong agree Disagree Strong disagree 8. Only 15% agreed that our exams should be based on four skills. (listening, speaking, reading, writing). 50% disagreed and 35% strong disagreed from this statement.MUHAMMAD ASIF 20
  21. 21. 40 35 30 25 20 Series 1 15 10 5 0 Agree Strong agree Disagree Strong disagree 9. 25% agreed and same strong agreed that pronunciation is more important than vocabulary, 35% disagreed and 15% strong disagreed. 70 60 50 40 30 Series 1 20 10 0 Agree Strong agree Disagree Strong disagree 10. 30% agreed 60% strong agreed that the size of the class should not be more than 20. Only 10% disagreed.MUHAMMAD ASIF 21
  22. 22. Findings:Most of the students were not competent enough to express them properly.They were asked to speak few lines on a given topic. Some of theimportant findings are, i) Insufficient vocabulary ii) Wrong use of articles iii) Inability of the students to grasp the ideas clearly. iv) Lack of confidence on the part of the students. v) Poor sentence structure. vi) Poor tenses vii) Poor pronunciationTeachers used to explain complex areas and words from different anglesso that it could be more clearly understood. The concepts of the studentswere clear but their majority lacked the ability to explain in Englishlanguage. The strategies and methods used for teaching purpose werecommon and traditional. For example, grammar translation method waswidely used.MUHAMMAD ASIF 22
  23. 23. Teacher’s Questionnaire’s Result: 120 Yes No 100 80 60 40 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10MUHAMMAD ASIF 23
  24. 24. Graph showing the responses of all respondents (teachers) 70 60 50 40 30 Series 1 20 10 0 Yes No 1. 60% of the respondents told that English should be taught as a language, not as a subject. While rest of the teachers were not satisfied. 100 90 80 70 60 50 Series 1 40 30 20 10 0 Yes NoMUHAMMAD ASIF 24
  25. 25. 2. Only 10% teachers agreed that listening and speaking should be a part of syllabus. 80 70 60 50 40 Series 1 30 20 10 0 Yes No 3. Only 25% teachers were satisfied that our exams should be based on four skills. 120 100 80 60 Series 1 40 20 0 Yes NOMUHAMMAD ASIF 25
  26. 26. 4. All the teachers were agreed that English should be declared as an official language in the class. 80 70 60 50 40 Series 1 30 20 10 0 Yes No 5. 70% of the teachers were agreed that teachers should focus on the nature of the language, not on the structure of the language. 100 90 80 70 60 50 Series 1 40 30 20 10 0 Yes NoMUHAMMAD ASIF 26
  27. 27. 6. 90% teachers accepted that teacher should provide the students with marking criteria. 80 70 60 50 40 Series 1 30 20 10 0 Yes No 7. 75% teachers said yes that the teacher must not focus on the grammar translation method. 70 60 50 40 30 Series 1 20 10 0 Yes NoMUHAMMAD ASIF 27
  28. 28. 8. 60% of the teachers agreed that listening and speaking are more important than reading and writing. 90 80 70 60 50 40 Series 1 30 20 10 0 Yes No 9. 85% of the teachers disagreed that there should be zero periods for oral testing. 120 100 80 60 Series 1 40 20 0 Yes NoMUHAMMAD ASIF 28
  29. 29. 10. All of the teachers were agreed that oral testing can reduce the hesitation of the students.Findings:The classes are not overcrowded in some schools while the case was quiteopposite with the other schools. Teachers can handle large classroomseven. Some teachers do not find any difficulty in selecting teaching materialstill they limit themselves to textbooks only. They are not provided with theteaching aids most of the time but they do not seem to need any thingbesides a chalk and a duster. They are not satisfied with the feedback theyget. Most of the teachers dictated their students or wrote on the board.According to them it is not possible to pay attention to the individual weakstudents because of lack of the time. Most of the teachers do not feel theneed of oral skills in the class.MUHAMMAD ASIF 29
  30. 30. b) The oral test: The level of the students: Mixed students of intermediate and graduation. The objective for introducing oral testing in the class: Learning to speak a second language is recognized as an important goal of the foreign language curriculum. So here my objective is to introduce the oral testing in the class, so that the students will be able to speak accurately in their society in their target language. For this purpose I introduced basic speaking skills. After that I checked them for their pronunciation, stress pattern and intonation etc. for this I located their status as English language speaker. The procedure: The procedure was made in two stages. In the 1st stage I asked them to speak for one minute about their personal situation. After that they were asked to make conservation for three minutes. In the 2nd stage they were asked to speak at the stage on a particular situation. They were given following situations, Problems of terrorism Family planning and Islam Role of movies in our societyMUHAMMAD ASIF 30
  31. 31. Pro-forma used for assessment:Sr. # Confidence Eye contact Introduction Fluency & Answers to (10) (10) (10) accuracy inquiries (10) (10)MUHAMMAD ASIF 31
  32. 32. Observations made during oral testing: I have made following observations in the class, Most of the students used grammar translation method. There were repetition, hesitations and incomplete utterances when they were speaking. There was lack of confidence on the part of the students. They used wrong articles and their vocabulary was insufficient. Their sentence structure, tenses and pronunciation were poor. Findings:Most of the students were not competent enough to express them properly.They were asked to speak few lines on a given topic. Some of theimportant findings are, i) Insufficient vocabulary ii) Wrong use of articles iii) Inability of the students to grasp the ideas clearly. iv) Lack of confidence on the part of the students. v) Poor sentence structure. vi) Poor tenses vii) Poor pronunciation Factors of neglecting oral skills: Due to following factors the teaching and learning of oral skills is neglected, 1. Oral skills are difficult to test because it is time consuming and teachers cannot focus on speaking same for every student. 2. Our examination system is only made on the basis of reading and writing skills. 3. In Pakistan mostly the teachers don’t know enough about language methodologies. 4. In our especially in government institutions the classes are of large size. So it becomes very difficult to test oral skills.MUHAMMAD ASIF 32
  33. 33. 5. As it is easier to ignore the spoken skills so it is neglected in th examinations. 6. The teacher may lack himself the necessary confidence in speaking. 7. It is very difficult to check the fluency and accuracy of speech.Conclusion:Due to big class sizes, tight schedule and the lack of the time it is verydifficult to assess the oral skills. But oral production is an essentialcomponent of learning a foreign language. As such, it should have a centralplace in the foreign language classroom in both areas of instruction andassessment. While many classrooms devote extended time to thedevelopment of the speaking skill, the assessment practices have notalways reflected how language was taught. When little time is devoted tothe assessment of oral language, the underlying message that orallanguage is not important becomes clear. Assessment of oral language canand should be an integral part of language learning and teaching.Suggestions: 1. There should be able teachers who can check all speaking skills. 2. In our examination system there should be focussed on oral testing. 3. In our all institutions there should be a period of oral skills. 4. To create interest among the students, interested material should be provided. 5. Students should be kept speaking in the target language. 6. Some instructions or training should be given to the teachers. 7. The teachers should be familiar with new methodologies of teaching. 8. Oral competitions can play a vital role for this purpose.MUHAMMAD ASIF 33
  34. 34. References:http://www.actfl.org/files/public/Guidelines.pdfwww3.telus.net/linguisticsissues/oraltesting.htmlhttp://eng.hi138.com/?i93334http://www.readinga-z.com/guided/fluency.htmlhttp://myenglishguru.com/teacher-forum/teaching-speaking.htmlBrown, H. Douglas. (1994). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching.3rd Ed. USA: Prentice Hall, Inc.Hubbard, P., Jones, H., Thornton, B., and Wheeler, R. (1996). A TrainingCourse for TEFL. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Alderson, C. & B. North (eds.). 1991. Language Testing in the 1990s. ModernEnglish Publications & the British Council.Allwright, D. 1984. ¡°Why dont learners learn what teachers teach? - theinteraction hypothesis, in Singleton, D.M. & D.G. Little.Blanche, P. 1988. Self-assessment of foreign language skills: implications forteachers and researchers, in RELC Journal Vol. 19. No. 1, pp.75-93.Brindley, G. 1984. Needs analysis and objective setting in Adult MigrationPrograms Sydney: NSW Adult Migrant Education Service.Carroll, B. 1981. Testing communicative performance. Oxford: Pergamon.Dickinson, L. 1987. Self-instruction in Language Learning. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.Finch, AE & Hyun Taeduck. 1997. Tell Me About It. Seoul: Karam Press.Harris, M. 1997. Self-assessment f language learning in formal settings in ELTJournal Vol. 51/1, pp. 12-20. Oxford: Oxford University Press.MUHAMMAD ASIF 34
  35. 35. Heaton, B. (ed) 1982. Language testing. Modern English Publications.Hofstede, G. 1986. Cultural Differences in teaching and learning in InternationalJournal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 10, pp. 301-20.Horwitz, E.K. 1985. Using student beliefs about language learning and teaching inthe foreign language methods course in Foreign Language Annals, 18, No.4. pp.333-40Horwitz, E.K. 1988. The beliefs about language learning of beginning universityforeign language students in The Modern Language Journal, 72,iii,pp 283-93Johnson, K. and K. Morrow, (eds) 1981. Communication in the classroomHarlow: Longman.MUHAMMAD ASIF 35